Bon Voyage

Non sum dignus!

What’s your take on this news?

I don’t expect any permanent effect. I expect Mass attendance will drop over the years as the immigrants and their families take on the habits and attitudes of the local culture.

On the other hand, if the Church hierarchy decides to revise its approach of the last forty years, England may once again become a Catholic nation.

@Andrew:
May you have a wonderful trip!

@Dino:
Nice to meet you. Very nice architectural work on your site! From your comment above regarding the Church in England (i.e., “if the Church hierarchy decides to revise its approach over the last forty years…”), I gather that you’re of the traditionalist flavor. Well, in that case, very nice to make your acquaintance! I’d be interested in knowing what you (and others) thought of my own site, http://www.miserere.org.

Warmest regards.

Congratulations on your great good fortune, Andrew. A new job & already free to go abroad. Have a safe journey.

Oh God, let’s hope Britain doesn’t become Catholic. Do we really want to acquire Italy and France’s culture of corporatism and sloth?

Alessandro, it’s a pleasure to meet you. I’ll certainly have a look at your website. The title sounds promising (but it doesn’t seem to be Firefox-friendly at first glance).

CAWP, Britain will become Catholic again only if she wishes to save her soul. I don’t see that that necessarily entails corporatism and sloth. Was Britain that way pre-Henry VIII?

@Dino:

Sorry – there was a problem with the site today that went unnoticed since last update. It should work fine now. (And actually, it’s designed for Firefox ;-)

http://www.miserere.org

Warmest regards!

Britain’s soul isn’t Catholic; its language, values, law, traditions, cultural achievements – and those it has bestowed to the New World – have almost nothing to do with Catholicism, save for what it has in common with the Reformed Protestant faith, a faith which preserved them from further perversion, and set them securely in the original, sacred framework they had (by which I mean scripture).

Wherever Catholicism has “saved a nation’s soul” (e.g. Old, non-Anglo Saxon Europe, e.g. Latin America), we find a distinct inferiority to the Anglosphere’s achievements. We find indolence, hypocrisy, arrogance, duplicity, obnoxious institutions like ‘civil law’, and an uppity, meddling, disloyal clergy. Heck! Look at Cardinal O’Brien’s advocacy of the SNP and independence for Scotland: the Roman church is STILL trying to undo the British crown’s glory and authority.

The fact is, for all the laudable ways it has reformed in line with the victories of the Protestant Reformation, it remains a meddlesome, devious organisation. It has wonderfully refused to let go of many essential Truths in the face of secularist, debauched modernity; but it is annoying and corrupted still.

Er, that was a bit rude. I think the Catholic faith very great; very great, actually; and of course it is nothing like it was at the Reformation, having purged itself of so many of the corruptions it then possessed. But I think the Anglosphere’s achievements explicitly contrary to Catholicism, in many ways, and Britain would hardly do well to return to it.

I didn’t consider your comment rude. In fact, I appreciate your directness.

Now I will be direct. FWIW, I see very little in common between Protestantism and early Christianity. The Bible, for starters, didn’t even exist then as a consolidated entity, not having been put together until the 4th century (by the Catholic Church hierarchy).

The Church’s hierarchy (the human element of the Church) has always been, and always will be, riddled with corruption and venality. I would go so far as to say that, as a general rule, the priestly class is always the most corrupt in any society. The question is: are the Church’s official claims true. To my mind, Her Priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice are true.

Sadly, Anglicanism lost that priesthood IMHO. If you wish to put the crown and any other temporal benefits above that priesthood, I think you’re making a serious mistake that has consequences both for your own soul, as well as for the soul of the nation.

Out of curiosity, which of the Anglosphere’s achievements are explicitly contrary to Catholicism?

The Protestant Deformation has nothing to do with Scripture… and Britain does not either. If Lutherans claim that they go only by Scripture, then Anglicanism and AngloSaxons do not… since they claim the same thing. REMEMBER CAWP that the main reason why England joined the deformers was because the king was not allowed to divorce his wife! (Is that really a good reason to abandon all that was once considered sacred?) How come, if there was so much corruption in the Church, the king and his followers did not see it before? How come they only saw it when the king wanted to see it… and then get rid of it… as he did with his many “wives”?

The glory of the crown of England just like that of Spain DOES NOT EXIST anymore. These people are only figure-heads of a nation that does not listen to them anymore. Do you really think that Elisabeth is the head of the Anglican church? Then why is there such a scandal with what the “Archbishop” of Canterbury does or does not do? What he accepts and what he doesnt? I have never heard the “queen” say anything related to the ordination of women, the ordination of public sinners (homosexuals, adulterers, lesbians, female bishops, etc.)

Hypocrisy, indolence, etc. is found anywhere, even where there is no Catholic Church (if there is such a place). Remember that these things (indolence, arrogance, etc.) did not start after the Divine foundation of the Church of Christ. Henry VIII himself was an arrogance and proud man who did not want to obey what the Pope was telling him. Even if the Pope himself had not been a holy man, Henry still knew that there was no such thing as divorce, but HE DECIDED to overlook that (out of pride and LUST), and went his way.

CAWP, give me a few examples of how corrupted the Church still is… but first look at Britain and see if they are free from that… unless you cannot see that corruption because of all its glory and authority… if you can see such a thing…

Britain’s soul isn’t Catholic; its language, values, law, traditions, cultural achievements – and those it has bestowed to the New World – have almost nothing to do with Catholicism…

What bosh! Please do go and read a proper unbiased history of England, and you’ll see that its ancient soul is through and through Catholic, and is the reason for its past greatness. Why, up until the 17th century it remained profoundly Catholic, although its repression and persecution by the Queen drove it underground, while its numbers dwindled.

I think the Catholic faith very great; very great, actually

Thanks for the patronizing gesture, but for someone who claims Holy Mother Church “remains a meddlesome, devious organisation”, your compliment strikes a distinctly false note. It’s quite alright, though; I, too, was once fearfully ignorant of and prejudiced against the Catholic faith. By the grace of God, I’ve since come around.

Ouch. Do you really want to me to reply to all that? How can I take on three posts by three different people? I think many people of the years have covered all your arguments sufficiently.

I would like to. However, a point by point rebuttal would, I fear, be tedious.

There’s so much!

You see no similarities between the early church and Protestantism. But of course, Protestantism’s focus on and loyalty to scripture reflects not only the disciples and the early church’s constant concern with the scriptures – think of all the times they recall Christ’s ministry through OT texts – but defeats your argument in another way, too. For the NT is largely written to and about the early church. In focussing so much on scripture, then, the Protestant church not only imitates the early church, but places itself in their position (as audience, for instance, to Paul’s letters, just like the churches in Ephesus, Corinth, etc) too.

I don’t quite think your statement that the clergy will always be corrupt leads very smoothly into your belief that the Catholic one hasn’t been corrupted. I think the changes that have taken place in your church – slowly enacting much of the Reformation – is proof of this, and a distinct spanner in the works.

Anglosphere’s achievements VS Catholicism? Stress on importance of the individual as a unit in society, stress on English language, stress on church not being an arm of government (Establishment is different, as you know), etc, etc. Look at Catholic countries, compare them with Protestant countries. One sort gave us so much that is good in the modern world; the other, little better than the achievements of the Muslims on a good day. One promoted active faith, the other (largely) automatized it, reduced it to routines and complacency, with tricks (selling of blessings, pardons, etc) not engagement with our Saviour and his Word as the key to getting along. So Protestants abolished slavery, and Catholics didn’t. So Protestant revolutions (e.g. American) enshrined the citizen as a free, responsible, duty-bound, engaged member of a common interest and small state, thus extending the governmental and philosophical structure of Britain, itself suffused with these Protestant ethics (for they are exactly that in the religious realm). And so, on other hand, revolutions in Catholic countries (e.g. France) merely appropriated and extended the Catholic mentality of corporatism, physical coercion, and the controlling, authoritarian, centralising, forever-correct governing body (the State, totalitarian or welfare, sclerotic and corrupt always, being the natural successor, in so many ways, to the Catholic church).

LatinMass83 – you’re a bit mad, really. Too much to disentangle; too many boring old canards repeated; too emotional. Maybe another day. But I think even fellow Catholics will see through most of what you’ve said. E.g., everyone knows the Protestant reformation wasn’t simply about a return to scripture, but about the importance of the individual’s active relationship with scripture (within the guiding framework of tradition and the church as authorities, of course, but with difference of interpretation a fundamental right – partly as a means of avoiding the institutionalizing of perversion as in Catholicism… I realise this has caused problems, but only in recent years, with dishonest people themselves bringing in such perversions. The clergy have failed to assert their authority; a number are themselves corrupt.)

Etc, etc.

Now, the C of E isn’t perfect at all. It has done many silly things in the past 50 years; the Catholic church has been the saner of the two, in this time. But the C of E has, properly, a form more perfect, holy, apostolic and traditional than any other. It is the Primitive Church maintained, saved from Medieval-era Catholicism, always before the throne of the Father, in touch with him hourly, dependent on his Word, blessing his name, practicing the Faith given to the apostles as the apostles did. The Roman church has some of this, but fused with too many worldly accoutrements, decorations, appeals and demonstrable doctrinal falsehoods (prayers to saints! prayers to Mary!).

I wasn’t being patronising about Catholicism being a great faith. I really believe it is. I have felt, at times, drawn to parts of it (and remain astonished, and incredulous of others). But, whether we like it or not, much of its dogma is presently false; and the C of E by far truer to the Church we have read Christ creating. The Catholic church is today very different, and in a very different position politically, to the Catholic church historically – so perhaps in the future it might be a different force for different things. But I believe it very hard to argue it has been, or holds much definite chance of being, a force different to the one I have argued it to be in the past. I haven’t mentioned much of its brilliant achievements against the Muslims in the East, or its excellent missionary work, and I apologise for such omissions. But such positives do not negate its own very serious, and (thankfully, in this regard) separable faults.

There may be spelling mistakes in this; also grammatical ones; sorry; no time to thoroughly check.

EDIT: The Catholic church these days has SOME doctrinal falsehoods. Not loads. Sorry. A few. I am arguing largely against the Catholic church historically, not presently. It IS a great faith, and I do mean that, and I don’t care if it seems patronizing to say so.

I am not upset! I just said what I thought, which is true. Now, it seems that you have not been to a Catholic church in a long time because now they are less decorated than before. When you refer to the C of E, which one are you talking about? The High or Low section? One desires to look Roman, the other protestant…

The C of R is NOT the primitive Church! The Church NEVER had female bishops nor advocated the ordination of women! The C of E did! That is a mayor error and corruption of the Faith, the True Faith. They got rid of the Sacraments that the Church had from Its very beginnings… and again… its beginning counts… Henry VIII was the founder, you can judge the group by the founder. Henry was not a Saint, Luther was not a Saint, Mohammed was not a Saint, Calvin was not a Saint… but Christ is since He is God.

The Deformation did not bring people closer to Scripture. In fact, it led to a wide and false interpretation of Scriptures that led to contradictions and divisions… the C of E being only an indirect result of that. Also, the C of R has not had problems only in the last 50 yrs. This shows that you really lack knowledge of history! It is natural to have problems, but to change the essentials of a religion as a consequence of those problems does really show whether that church or religion is true or false. The C of E has fewer Sacraments, essential changes in rites and ceremonies, moral issues, which should ALWAYS be the same ones and NEVER change.

CAWP, the Church STILL holds the same articles of Faith that it had in the past. So when you say that today it has fewer falsehoods, you are wrong or blind… or you just look at the external stuff… and in that case I wonder what you have to say about the other thousands of protestant sects and denominations… I wonder…

Haha!

Look, you’re flatly wrong about the Reformation not bringing people closer to scripture. No serious person would dispute this; the Catholics today use Bibles translated into their own tongues only because of the Protestant’s first gaining such a right. The Catholics (especially post Vatican II) now consider a personal engagement with scripture as very important.

As for Henry VIII founding it, I’m afraid that repeating that reinforces an unfortunate stereotype of the ignorant, vicious Catholic taking on the Prods with a number of popular falsehoods. Trotting that argument out is a stupendous act of idiocy, as any honest Catholic will (again) tell you. The Reformation was not instituted by a single man; it was a movement spanning continents; Henry VIII, as the man in charge of England, may have legally brought the C of E into existence (and for his own selfish reasons), but it was forces (ie. the people) throughout Britain, Germany, the Low Countries, France and elsewhere that meant such an institution could be made to exist. Clerical and popular discontent with Catholic abuse – and the beginnings of the Reform – can be traced back to Wycliffe, in the Middle Ages. If anything, Henry VIII hijacked it; I suppose you could say the Reformers took advantage of his personal inadequacies; but in either case, you should always remember, further, that the C of E developed significantly over the next century. The church was built over a longer period of time than the seconds it took for Henry to sign it into law. The Book of Common Prayer wasn’t settled till 1662! And it was a REformation; a REturn to the institution as Christ founded it; not a new church, but the apostolic church cleansed from the sickly nonsense and corruption that the Catholic church today, itself, disowns. (Largely).

You say it is natural to have problems, but unnatural to change the essentials of a religion because of those problems? But what if those problems are obvious, demonstrable perversions or alterations that have been made to the essentials of a religion? What then?

As for women in the clergy, I would refer you to the bit where I said that in the last 50 years the C of R has been far saner than the C of E.

The C of E has not got rid of the Sacraments. Don’t be stupid. Confession was all that was really modified, to remove the Catholic corruptions then present (purchase of blessings, license to sin, etc). The other six are still widely and officially practiced, even if only two are counted Sacraments with a capital S (because provably gospel-based).

I shouldn’t wonder what I would say about the thousands of Protestant sects. I have already said that the C of E TODAY has a significant number of problems, largely because the balance between authority and the individual has been corrupted, with ‘a la carte Anglicans’ not being disciplined or guided correctly, but allowed to flourish and corrupt segments of the church. This is, however, a very recent phenomenon. Given church attendance is declining in the most liberal, falsity-filled C of E churches, and growing hugely in the Bible-loving, dedicated, doctrinally traditional ones, I have hope it will soon be corrected.

The Catholic church today is radically different (as well as similar) to the Medieval Catholic church. I like it a lot. I admire its commitment to tradition and not letting go of certain of its beliefs in the teeth of clearly ungodly secular opposition. But Catholic Britain wouldn’t have been – and won’t be – the Britain we know and love.

Well, Sacraments: Only two are officially practiced?? And why not the others? If they are not based in Scriptures, then they cannot be or should not be Sacraments at all. The main characteristic of a Sacrament is that it was instituted by Christ or the Apostles! You cannot just “modify” them to the point of making them disappear!! What are you thinking?? That the C of E is more than the Tradition of the Apostles??

Orders: Your ordinations, as you might already know (but still deny), are not valid! And a proof of that is the ordination of women, too. Of course, by the time you started to ordain women, your ordinations were invalid in the first place, but still, all of them are invalid.

The Deformation DID NOT bring people closer to Scripture. I say it again! IT brought them closer to what they thought were Scriptures… and their OWN translations and interpretation of them… that is something else. Also for your information, before the acutal “movement” that you mention, there were various portions of the Bible in English. The Douai Rheims version, for example, was in existence before the KJV… and in case you do not know, the Douai version was in English, not in Latin.

Now, it might be true that the people might not have been happy with people (leaders) in the Church, but that was not the Deformation. Luther began it, Henry followed suit because of his personal interests, and ENGLAND was forced to accept everything the king wanted. So, you are a member of the C of E because your ancestors were willing to remain alive and not be killed by the king of England!

Now, give me an example of thsoe problems or alterations that are clear perversions of the true religion because that will make it easier to understand what, according to you, makes the C of E really Apostolic… again, according to you.

Now, the book of common prayer… it was a return to the institution as Christ founded it? Are you sure? Didn’t they use Latin instead of the vernacular for that book? Didnt it include many rituals and ceremonies that Christ and the Apostles NEVER used? Didn’t it make the queen a cheap version of the Pope they wanted to stop obeying? Doesn’t it include ceremonies that in a way look Roman, but are a cheap copy of the Roman way of doing things.. so you know that they are not Roman Catholic ceremonies?

If anything, the only thing that is great would be the coronation of a king or queen… but that’s not enough.

Now, do you think that the Apostles wore vestments the way the anglicans do? Did they wear that cross and other stuff that anglicas religious leaders wear today?

One last thing: Anglicans have a theory in which there are sister churches. How can that be? If the Church was sooo corrupted and still is, as you make it sound, then why should it still be considered a sister church and not a complete creation of medieval men with not Divine foundation to support it? Why doesnt the C of E claim complete and absolute Truth, if according to you, it is the Apostolic church?

When you claim something, you should go all the way because Truth is not counted by halves, it is either complete or it is not at all.

My my, such division.

It amuses me greatly that followers of the Christian God bicker amongst themselves, slaves to pedantry and myth.

He does not exist. Get over it. Live life.

I was not raised a Catholic, & my exposure to the spirit of Catholicism has been mostly throught the arts. And it has been an overwhelmingly positive one. From reading Thomas Merton as a teenager, to an interest in St. Francis of Assisi, to admiring the paintings of Italy, to most recently watching the majestic films of Robert Bresson & Roberto Rossellini. It seems the spirit I’ve so deeply responded to in the works of these great artists have little to do with worldly bickering, pedantry, ritual, & power politics.

Overall, I much enjoy Mr. Cusack’s explorations of culture & history — even his politics have caused to be think, re-examine my own position, which is a good thing — but the somewhat militant (should I say it?) tone of some the comments here are disconcerting. They remind me, to some degree, of articles I’ve read in First Things, a publication whose political tone I find rather disturbing — in that (perhaps wrongly?) I read them as staunchly neo-conservative.

KD is quite right. It’s rather absurd for us to be bickering in this way, since Catholics and Anglicans have much more in common than otherwise.

It’s not bickering, it’s arguing over things that matter. And it’s been going on since the dispute over circumcision was settled at the Council of Jerusalem.

If you think that Apostolic Tradition and Truth is not something to focus on or absurd to discuss or talk about, then… there is in fact no point in making commets at all. Besides, everything has already been decided. Anglicans do not have valid Sacraments (except for Baptism).

KD, your intentions of not arguing at all sounds nice and appealing, but the thing is that Catholicism and Truth are not just a thing about art, beauty and movies… no matter how beautifully they portray the Church. There is much more to the Church and Her teachings. This is not about neo-conservatism, liberalism, or any of those things. Admiring the Church is not enough. If you just stop there because it is what makes you feel good (as opposed to reading or talking about the real and more important teachings and articles of Faith), then you have admired the artists of those works, NOT the Church. Italian artists, Bresson and Rosellini are not here anymore, but the Church is.

Also, this is not about politics, although it has to be involved since the king of the C of E linked them together when he created his own church (making himseld the head of that church).

Er, LatinMass, stop being such a fool.

You keep on doing the very sly, pathetic thing of responding to claims or statements I never made, and ignoring those I did.

I haven’t said that Apostolic Tradition and Truth aren’t things to discuss or focus on. I suggested that we stop framing this so oppositionally and aggressively; ¨bickering¨, and all that. I hope my lengthy posts are testament to the fact that I do value such a focus and discussion.

Of course, nothing has been decided in the manner you claim; I have countered all of your points, and you have failed to salvage them from these attacks. Merely proclaiming victory without continuing rational dispute is a childish and unworthy act. Where on earth have you made a point, made it soberly, and kept it convincingly in the face of reasoned disagreement? Not once in this discussion.

I’m more than happy to continue this little back and forth amongst us all, but it will take disputants who aren’t so staggeringly ignorant as yourself to make it a worthwhile endeavour for any of us. Are you really saying that religion and politics weren’t linked till Henry VIII? Do you know nothing of the pre-Reformation concept of Christendom? Have you never read about the Crusades? Do you even know how the King of England – the political head of state – came to be embroiled in a religious conflict, and yet, somehow, in his actions that followed, managed only THEN to bring the two into a relationship? What. The. Heck. Are. You. Talking. About? Or are you someone’s idea of a parody?

I am sure that I cannot be the only one thoroughly unamused by your consistent and malignant brand of stupidity. Deformation indeed!

I find it puzzling, CAWP, that you condescend while both Anglicanism and Great Britain are dying. Some among the Anglican leadership are apparently taking another tack.

http://snipurl.com/1an5z

CAWP… WHO is really upset now?

CAWP, in my last post, do you see your name anywhere near what I wrote? Don’t be so defensive. It’s not my fault that Anglicans do not have valid orders or the true interpretation of the Bible.

Again, let us go back to divorce. There is no such a thing! It came from the Divine mouth of Our Lord! Yet, divorce (in a sense) was the main (or direct) reason why Henry decided to become a protestant.

CAWP, you have not countered all of my points, especially the one about ceremonies, vestments, etc. used by the C of E today and the idea of “sister” chruches.

CAWP, before the “re”formation, politics and religion were mixed, but according to the “reformers” that was ONE of the corruptions in the Catholic Church. Indirectly, of course only indirectly, the “reformers” advocated separation of Church and State because politics made Church leaders corrupt… or something like that. Along those lines, if you really defend the “reformation,” you should not defend Henry and the fact that he became the head of the state and the church in England.

The Crusades: Do YOU know anything about the crusades? If so, enlighten us!

Protestants abolished slavery… but why did they have it in the first place?

Now, explain to me how the “reformation” brought people together to God? I really want to know this.

In my opinion, it brought them closer to themselves and their own desires. Why do you think Luther and Calvin could not really agree on the same interpretation of the Bible – besides the fact that one cannot infallibly interpret what one did not write?

Now, CAWP, you focus mainly on the Church and the C of E when you talk about the “reformation.” Where do the other sects or denominations stand? Remember that one of the almost immediate results of the “reformation” and their erroneous translations were divisions and separations because of differences of interpretation. In England this did not happen because the king was there to tell them what to believe, NOT the Bible. Regardless of what people read in their bibles, if they had them even after it was written in English, the people HAD to go with what the king/queen said because he/she was the head of the state as well as of the church.

Now, you are a monarchist. Where in the Bible, even the ones in English, did Our Lord say that His Church was going to be ruled by a king/queen? If it was a corruption to do that when the Pope used to be crowned and look like a monarch, why was it not after the “reformation” or even today since you still have a queen? So, when you say that the C of E has not been that sane only in the last 50 years, you have made ONE BIG miscalculation of years.

By the way, have you seen all the jewels of the English monarchs and how much money the English crown has? If it was corruption for the Popes to have crowns and money, it should also be for the heads of the C of E.

Yes, some people still believe the Crown is a glorious thing, and not just a temporal symbol for a godless public. Her Majesty is Defender of the Faith, and plays second fiddle to nobody who claims otherwise, not even the equally self-styled Vicar of Christ.

Dino – amusing that you posted that. I was about to, as well!

I’m unsure as to why you think I’m condescending, and you lot aren’t. You all have been throughout this exchange. And the official Catholic position towards the C of E – claiming it isn’t a proper church – and the individual attitudes of Catholics towards Anglicans is by far and away the most condescending of all! At least we respect your fundamental existence.

Besides, I thought you agreed these were serious matters a moment ago? Why introduce such a dismissive accusation, a link without comment, and leave it at that? Odd.

I won’t deal with LatinMass, as I think it clear that I’ve engaged with all of that before; and fruitlessly, since he still is not capable of either honestly discussing things or remaining sober in doing so.

I think you’re condescending because no one here but you has employed ad hominems such as “stupid,” “idiot,” and “fool”. And this is a website run by a Roman Catholic, after all.

I posted the link without comment as I thought it spoke for itself, and would bring this discussion to some kind of civilized close. You believe the Church founded by Christ was lost a few centuries after Pentecost (in what year and under which papacy?) and recovered a millenium and a half later. Catholics, on the other hand, believe the Church He founded enjoys divine protection until the end of time (protecting Her primarily from Her all-too-frail human element). The RC Church holds fast to the Scriptures, obviously, but Scripture is and must be protected by the institution. I believe the Council of Jerusalem, as narrated in the Acts of the Apostles, is evidence of that. It’s simple logic to my mind that Scripture depends upon an institutional vehicle for its faithful transmission.

If you believe the Church was essentially lost, or obscured, for a millenium or more, then there’s no reason to think it won’t be obscured again. Prince Charles has declared his wish to be “Defender of Faith” not “Defender of the Faith,” and he may get his wish. I’ll put my money on the organization that claims immutability.

For the record, I am a Canadian subject and a monarchist. I think it’s a marvelous thing that the English have maintained the monarchy in the face of the modern trend toward republicanism.

Latinmass,

Perhaps I should claify. The spirit I’ve found so appealing in the work of Merton, Bresson, et al, has more to do perhaps with the teachings of Christ (& the artist’s understanding) than with the Church. Since I was not raised as a Catholic, it has been Christ & His teachings that have made more impact on me than the Church & Her teachings — & this primarily through the Bible & through works of art created by persons connected with the Catholic faith. Thus, for me at least, your discussions are not more “real” or of “more importance” than the work of these great artists.

At any rate, I should probably have not entered the fray. My apologies.

Also, my apologies for poor typing. In the first sentence “claify” should of course be “clarify.”

But Catholic Britain wouldn’t have been – and won’t be – the Britain we know and love.

No; it would be a much greater and more glorious Britain.

KD, It’s clearer now. You are not used to these discussions about Faith and morals, and transmission of Tradition, etc., just to how things are depicted in artistic works.

Regarding art, I did not mean to put it down. In fact, it just proves what the Church has always said or supported: That art, true beauty, symmetry, etc. do have and express a sense of the sacred that points toward Him Who is True Beauty, God Himself (Christ).

The only thing is that by just looking at Catholicism through the lense of art, music, paitings, etc., will give you the wrong impression about what is of importance in the Church. Some works of art are so beautiful and so inspiring that sometimes they might just express the ideal situation, which might not be the point attained by most Catholics (leaders and members). Or, they will give you the impression that if things in the Church do not reflect what you see in those works of art, then the Church (or Her members) somehow are not being true Catholics.

Whichever way, at least in those works of art, you see the proof that the Church of Christ did not really disapper for about a thousand years… as some non-Catholics boast to claim!

CAWP, Mr. Marcantonio is right! You have used *ad hominem* attacks. I did not want to point it out because:
1) I don’t care. I don’t pay attention to personal attacks due to the fact that you cannot change something that has already been declared (invalid orders in the C of E). If in fact the theory of “sister churches” is true, the Anglicans would still have to accept the Catholic Church as the *oldest sister,* and the C of E would be the one to need Sacramental, theological, philosophical, and political correction!

2)You don’t have to deal with me at all. I simply posted my comments. I had the right to do it. If you felt uncomfortable by them, it was your choice. However, in reality it is not about dealing with me personally. Eventually, you will have to deal with all those points (or questions) I made because, considering the article introduced by Mr. Marcantonio, some of those issues will soon become hot topics again. The C of E will eventually have to deal with the whole question about the validity of their orders (instead of being in denial about them), the whole idea of who is really the head of the Church, the “ordination of women, and the idea of “sister churches.”

In the end, whether you like it or not, it is going to be the Church that will be the one to decide – have the last say. This is because a divine institution cannot succumb to the whims of an organization or institution founded by the human desire of certain people or leaders.

Now, I am a monarchist, too. I firmly believe that the best form of government is the monarchy, which is why the Church has never stopped being a hierarchy. However, my desire to have a monarchy does not blind me to just go after any monarch. The English crown appropriated for itself a role that does not belong to it (head of the church). Those are desires that go beyond the desire to have a monarchy, it touches on divine things that cannot just be taken – they have to be given! Christ did not make the king or queen of England the Head of His Church. He made St. Peter the head of the Church: a man, a Catholic, a Priest (Brishop). There were no women involved in this.

Accepting the idea that the king/queen is to be the head of the church, then the Catholic King and Queen could also claim the same thing, yet they do not do it. Spain, not even under its most glorious Kings and Queens, did not claim to be something that the Pope could not and should not touch.

Also, it would follow from all this that the end of a monarchy (France, Germany, Italy, etc.) would also mean the end of the Church in those countries,… unless you would defend the illogical idea that presidents should then become the head of the church in their nations.

See how illogical things go from what you have had in England… again, not just 50 years ago…

Well said, LatinMass. Though I’m not used to discussions of the Catholic faith & tradition, I have (as probably most thinking persons have) engaged in myriad discussions of faith & morals. You are right — in many instances these discussions have occured in the context of art. Perhaps because I am a poet with a background in the humanites. I have participated in discussions of faith &/or morals with persons of varied faiths & religions.

Your comments on art are beautiful. In fact, many, & not only Catholics, feel that art is most powerful when directed toward the Sacred.

It is true that the Catholic artists I mentioned are important to me, though not because of what they say about the Church, but what they say/express about the Sacred. I’ve even wondered if these particular artists are well regarded by the Church. Perhaps not.

Well, it’s certainly true that the Catholic Church has not disappeared!

Best regards.

CHRISTINE — I address you directly, on here at least.

Catholic Britain ‘much greater and more glorious’?

Utter delusion. What difference on earth could changing affiliation in worshipping a mythic non-entity make?

Dear oh dear.

James,

I was trying to ignore you because addressing your comments would cause a deviation from the main topic, but you keep insisting on being so atheist.

A change in worship (of religion) does and should bring a change in a person and in a nation.

With the change of religion, a new idea of conscience would have to be formed, especially if the change is to the Catholic Church. A new idea of what is sin or virtue will have to be adjusted to. A new way of worship and acts of veneration that will be visible and invisible, but that will affect the way people will think, act, and speak.

Now, if you are trying to imitate Nietzsche by saying that God does not exist, you are wasting your time and more than likly you risk losing your soul.

James, do you ever go to church at all?

This topic is very relevant considering I just finished writing a twenty page paper on the Reformation in England. After undertaking extensive research, it became very clear to me that Protestantism was imposed from above, and was not a movement from below. Catholicism was thriving in Britain until Henry broke with Rome. I don’t have time to regurgitate my thesis here, but the evidence is quite powerful. Parish records throughout England indicate that an overwhelming majority of individuals were including the church in their wills. These wills asked that the money be used for purchasing new icons and statues, chasubles, altar linens, charitable causes, and most importantly, prayers for souls in purgatory. England was Catholic through and through before the Reformation, and Henry’s “Inquisition” was met with the largest single popular uprising in English history, the Pilgrimage of Grace. The reason people aren’t being taught these facts in primary school/high school is that historians up until recently advocated the “Whig” model of History espoused by AG Dickens. If anyone wants to see an entire copy of the paper (I doubt) I’ll be glad to post it.

Please post it. Twenty pages might be too much for these comment boxes, however. Do you have a web address where you can upload it?

C Moreland,

Please, post it. I would very much like (and enjoy) reading your thesis!

I would not mind reading 20 pages! I love reading, especially interesting things and topics such as this one.

Thank you in advance!

Catholic Resistance to the Reformation in Northern England

The English Reformation was imposed on an unwilling populace and was met with widespread resistance, especially in the northern counties. The Catholic Church that Henry VIII suppressed was a thriving institution that held sway over the spiritual and social lives of the English people. The suppression of the church and the spoliation of the monasteries resulted in the largest uprising in English history, the Pilgrimage of Grace, which confronted Henry with his greatest domestic crisis. , Individuals from all ranks of society rose to the defense of the Church and resisted the imposition of the Reformation through both violent and non-violent means.
Henry’s Reformation was a radical departure from the traditional relationship between the Catholic Church and the English State. At the time of his reign, Catholicism had existed in England for almost a thousand years and was considered an intrinsic part of English identity. The country had been home to great theologians such as St. Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and Roger Grossette, and crusader kings such as Richard the Lionheart and Edward Longshanks. Additionally, England supplied the church with one Pope, Adrian IV and legions of saints and martyrs. At the beginning of his reign, Henry VIII followed in this orthodox trend by publishing A Defense of the Seven Sacraments which repudiated Lutheranism and upheld Papal Supremacy. The King’s work was widely distributed throughout Europe and was well received by Pope Leo X who in 1521, conferred upon Henry the title of “Defender of the Faith.” , Despite his initial orthodox sentiments, Henry would later instigate the destruction of the English Church.
The split with Rome was not a result of Henry’s religious preferences, but of his inability to receive a divorce from Pope Clement VII. The English King began contemplating divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon, around 1525. Henry was thirty-four at the time and deeply troubled by his lack of a male heir. Catherine had given birth to one daughter, Mary in 1516, but all of her sons had died in early infancy. Henry’s attempts to find a suitable husband for Mary were repeatedly met with failure. Originally she was promised to the son of the King of France, and then later to the future Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, but both marriage contracts were rescinded. By 1527, Henry sought recourse in his mistress, Anne Boleyn and began to openly press for a divorce from Catherine.
The legal proceedings of the divorce proved to be lengthy, complicated, and a subject of international discourse. The Pope’s unwillingness to grant the divorce stemmed not from religious prohibitions but from political realities in Rome. In the same year Henry argued for his divorce, Rome was sacked by the troops of Charles V. The Pope was completely under control of the Emperor, who as nephew to Catherine, had a vested interest in impeding the divorce. Henry grew increasingly frustrated and decided to take matters into his own hands. He had his newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cramer, declare the marriage with Catherine invalid and then proceeded to marry Anne in 1533.
A month later, the Vatican demanded that Henry renounce his marriage to Anne and return to Catherine under pain of excommunication. Henry, however, had no intention of obeying the Papacy and continued to further his break from Rome. By December of that year, it was declared that the Pope no longer held any authority in England. A year later, Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, which stated that Henry, not the Pope was the Supreme Head of the English Church. The King’s subjects were administered an oath acknowledging this act and those who refused were threatened with treason. Henry’s former Chancellor Sir Thomas More, and Bishop John Fisher, both of whom were later canonized, were executed for refusing to take the oath.
Even at this point, the majority of the English people were far from contemplating significant resistance in response to the King’s actions. The divorce, however was unpopular and Anne was commonly known as “Nan Boleyn the Whore.” , In contrast, Catherine was respected for her piety and was cheered in public. Although discontent with the divorce would help fuel resistance to the Reformation, it was not the primary cause. Rather, it was the dissolution of the monasteries that led to the northern uprisings.
The destruction of England’s monasteries was carried out by Thomas Cromwell, who was named Henry’s vicegerent in 1535. In this position, Cromwell was given the authority to implement reforms and ensure that the King’s supremacy in religious matters was upheld. Cromwell’s powers were vast, and he was given the right of visitation, or monastic oversight, that was formerly reserved to bishops and prelates. The visitations, carried out by Cromwell’s commissioners were not an honest inquest into monastic reform, but an excuse to dissolve the monasteries. Through the use of bribes and threats, Cromwell’s commissioners were able to produce evidence that the monasteries were full of “abominable living.” , This information gave Henry the pretext he needed to seize the wealth of the church and destroy the remnants of its influence in his realm.
The suppression of the monasteries entailed the destruction and looting of numerous religious houses. The very buildings themselves were torn down, or left unusable by dismantling the roofs. Church valuables such as Eucharistic vessels and vestments were dispatched to London. The roofs and bells were also melted down for other construction or for cannonballs. Lesser items of value, such as candles, furniture, and the very doors and windows themselves were put up for local auction. Some of the former monasteries and abbeys were not destroyed, but converted to secular use, but this was not a common occurrence.
While other regions met the dissolution of the monasteries with resistance, it was only in the north of England that this resistance became a threat to Henry’s reign. The northern counties had a tradition of religious orthodoxy and their geographic distance from London hampered royal authority. The economy of the region was primarily agrarian and thus more dependent on monastic landholdings. The number of monasteries in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire was particularly high, even for England. Furthermore, the north was less wealthy, developed, and urbanized than the south.
The beginning of the widespread resistance to the Reformation in the north took place in 1536. In Cheshire, Cromwell’s commissioners dissolved Norton Abbey and expelled the abbot. When they finished looting the Abbey of its valuables they were attacked by several hundred local peasants and monks. Led by the former abbot, the band barricaded the commissioners in the abbey tower. In celebration, they roasted an ox and built campfires, but this celebration was cut short by the arrival of the local sheriff.
A more successful resistance took place at Hexham Abbey. Upon approaching the town, the commissioners learned that the monks had armed themselves and the townspeople with halberds, bows, and cannon. The commissioners sent out a smaller party to discover the truth of the matter and found that the townspeople and the monks had fortified the abbey and taken up defensive positions. As the investigative party arrived at the abbey gates, they noticed a monk dressed in armor and carrying a bow. He called out to them, “We be twenty brethren in this house, and we shall die all or that shall ye have this house.” The monks refused to accept the royal authority of the commissioners and expelled them from the town. When Henry was given news of Hexham’s resistance, he ordered that the abbey should be taken by force and its monks hanged from the steeple.
Resistance spread to the town of Louth in Lincolnshire. On October 1st, Cromwell’s men arrived in the town and were both seized. One of the men was hanged while another was tied up in cowskins and fed to the dogs. The rebellion quickly spread to other towns such as Caistor, where the commissioners were met with similar fates. At Horncastle the chancellor of the Bishop of Lincoln, who was loyal to Henry, was unhorsed and beaten with staves. The various towns amalgamated their forces at Horncastle, and formed an army of forty-thousand including eight hundred clergymen. Resistance to the reformation had shifted from isolated incidents to a full-fledged rebellion. The members of the movement that would become known as the Lincolnshire Rising took an oath to God, the Catholic Church, the King, and to the common people of the realm.
The rebels marched on the county seat of Lincoln under banners displaying the five wounds of Christ, Eucharistic vessels, and a plough. , At Lincoln they drew up a series of articles to present to the King. In these articles, the rebels demanded a return to Catholic orthodoxy, the restoration of monasteries, and the removal of heretics such as Cromwell from power. Henry responded to the petition with a mixture of threats and self-praise. He stated that the monasteries were full of vice and abomination, and that it was presumptuous of the “rude commons” to pass judgment on his councilors such as Cromwell. Furthermore he noted his own generosity to the common people and then threatened the Lincoln rebels that if they would not disperse he would destroy their “wives, children, lands, goods and cattle…by force and violence of the sword.” The rebels were sufficiently cowed by the King’s threats and dispersed around October 12th.
While Henry had successfully quelled the Lincolnshire uprising, he was faced with a much greater threat. The rising that would become known as the Pilgrimage of Grace was led by a lawyer, Robert Aske. He assembled an army of forty-thousand men who took an oath similar to that of the Lincolnshire rebels. Unlike previous rebellions, such as the Peasants Revolt of 1381, the Pilgrimage of Grace was not compromised of one class. Peasants, townspeople, clergymen, and nobility alike flocked to the banner of the Pilgrimage. The revolt spread through several counties, including Howdenshire, Mashamshire, and the North, East, and West Ridings. , The whole north of England was in open revolt, and the army of the Pilgrimage outnumbered anything Henry could muster. Aske marched his army to the royal castle of Pontefract, held by Lord Darcy, who surrendered the castle and joined the Pilgrimage. On the 16th of October, Aske rode into York and the revolt began to spread even further to the counties of Lancastershire, Westmoreland, and Cumberland.
Henry was facing the greatest domestic crisis of his realm. The only army he had at his disposal was of seven-thousand men under the command of the Duke of Norfolk, who was actually sympathetic with the Pilgrims of Grace. Furthermore, the Scots, the French, and the Holy Roman Emperor were all seriously considering invading England to assist the rebels. , The English people, even in areas not under the control of the Pilgrims, expressed support for Aske. There were reports of people praying for the success of the revolt and other commoners stated that they were “of one mind” with the northerners. In another incident a shopkeeper in London gave a discount to a northern visitor, expressing his hope that a similar uprising would occur in the south. A butcher and a priest were also hanged for similar sentiments in Windsor. Despite its distance from the north, individuals in Cornwall displayed banners with the five wounds of Christ. It was clear that the English people were displeased with Henry and Cromwell’s reforms.
Ironically, Henry would be saved from certain disaster by Aske’s loyalty to the King. The goal of his pilgrimage was not to overthrow Henry, or present an alternative candidate for the throne. The pilgrims were sworn to take an oath to the King, who they believed had been misled by evil counselors such as Cromwell. Aske’s forces marched on Doncaster where they encountered the royal army under the control of the Duke of Norfolk. Norfolk’s army, was significantly smaller than that of Aske’s and some of the commanders wanted to join battle with Norfolk and march on London. Aske however, simply wanted to present the King with his petitions. Norfolk and the leaders of the Pilgrimage held a peace conference, that promised that the King would address the concerns of the North.
Henry reluctantly granted a pardon to the northerners on the advice of Norfolk. The King had wanted to execute Aske and the other rebels, but Norfolk insisted that this was impossible. Henry then decided to invite Aske to London for further talks. Aske agreed and spent that Christmas as Henry’s guest and was treated exceptionally well. Henry promised to Aske that he would hold a parliament in York to address the concerns of the Pilgrims in the summer. Henry had no intention of actually doing so, feeling that he was under no compulsion to honor promises made to a traitor.
Aske returned to the north to share the good news with his followers. His success, if he had won any at all, was quickly undone by another uprising. In 1537, Sir Francis Bigod instigated another rebellion in the town of Beverly in Yorkshire. The rebellion was uncharacteristic of the area, as Bigod was a Protestant. Bigod’s argued that the Archbishop of Canterbury, rather than the King, should be the head of the Church of England. Although Aske attempted to put down the rebellion on the King’s behalf, Henry felt that even this unconnected uprising was enough of an excuse to have him executed. Henry spared Aske the usual death for traitors, which would have entailed hanging, burning, and disemboweling. Aske was instead subjected to a somewhat less barbaric execution. He was dragged through York on a hurdle and then hung in chains to die of exposure and starvation. Aske’s loyalty to his King proved not to be his salvation, but his undoing.
With the death of Aske, The Pilgrimage of Grace came to an end. It was not the final revolt against the Reformation, but it was certainly the most significant. Henry’s quashing of the Pilgrimage did nothing to halt sympathy for the rebellion throughout the country. There were abortive attempts to form pilgrimages in Norfolk, Walsingham, and Cornwall, but they came to nothing. Priests urged their congregations to sell off church valuables so that the King could not seize them. In Kent and the Isle of Wright, Henry was criticized as a new Nero and called a despoiler of the Church. Two years after Henry’s death, another uprising took place in Cornwall. It was based on similar grievances as the Pilgrimage of Grace, but with the additional complaint that the new prayer book should be in Latin, not English. This rising came somewhat close to the Northern uprisings in scope as it spread to the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, and Oxford before it was crushed.
Both religious and economic factors led the north to resist the imposition of the Reformation. The dissolution of the monasteries especially outraged the northerners. Aske, in his testimony to the King, stated that the dissolution of the monasteries was the greatest cause of the Pilgrimage of Grace. In addition to their almsgiving, Aske mentioned the aesthetic qualities of the monasteries, describing them as “one of the great beauties of the realm.” He also testified that the monasteries were centers of learning and that they undertook repairs of bridges and seawalls. ,
Aske’s support of the monasteries was unsurprising as they were an integral part of the economy and provided employment and numerous social services. The various religious houses were unable to function without lay help. Although monks and nuns did undertake manual labor, they were unable to do everything unaided, especially when so much of the day was taken up by prayer and contemplation. Commoners worked in monastic fields, cooked meals and tended to the infirm. Others worked as cleaners or domestic servants to the abbots and abbesses. In an age where most commoners were still laboring in the fields, monastic employment was desirable.
The Monasteries were the only institution in England that consistently endeavored to help the poor and the sick. Almost all monasteries contained infirmaries, where the ill could be tended to free of charge. Almsgiving was mandated by monastic law, and the monks and nuns gave food and clothing to the indigent. The war song of the Pilgrimage of Grace acknowledged the benefits of monastic charity and ran in part, “For they had both ale and bread, at time of need and succor great in all distress.” Additionally, the monasteries provided a form of insurance to pensioners known as corrodians. Corrodies provided food, lodging, and sometimes money to the elderly. The purchase of a corrody ensured that individuals would never be abandoned or go hungry in their old age.
The monasteries obviously held spiritual value to the people of the north. It was not uncommon for entire generations of families to bury their ancestors on monastic grounds. Monasteries were often the beneficiaries of wills well into the 16th century. These wills not only conferred material benefits to the monasteries but requested that prayers and masses be said for departed souls. The members of the Pilgrimage of Grace feared that the dissolution of the monasteries would reduce the amount of prayers said for souls in purgatory. There were also concerns that relics would be profaned and that religious education would diminish.
The Pilgrims were also united by their hatred of Thomas Cromwell. The war song of the Pilgrims explicitly mentioned him along with Thomas Cramer, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was a useful scapegoat for the rebels, who could not conceive of Henry as a heretic. They despised Cromwell’s lowborn background and demanded his execution or banishment. , During the peace negotiations between Aske and Norfolk, the first question the army asked was if Cromwell had been expelled. On another occasion during the uprising a parish priest declared that he would use his club to “beat out” Cromwell’s intestines. Lord Darcy, who had joined the insurgents, accused Cromwell of being the “original and chief causer of all this rebellion and mischief” and then accurately prophesied that Cromwell would soon lose his own head. Aske reported to the King that the common people of the north held a “great grudge” against Cromwell and considered him the most evil man in the world. , On another occasion Aske remarked that the commoners were filled with horror and hatred towards Cromwell and would “eat” him. Even Francis Bigod, who was a Protestant, called for the death of Cromwell during his failed uprising. Clearly, hatred for the King’s vicegerent transcended class and religion.
Hearsay also fueled the Pilgrimage of Grace. It was widely reported that new taxes were planned on white bread, pigs, and cattle. The same rumor stated that baptisms, weddings, and funerals would also be subject to taxation. It was also said that golden and silver vessels from churches would be replaced with those made of tin. The Pilgrims had also heard of the prophecy of the Maid of Kent, a nun who foretold that Henry would die after marrying Anne Boleyn. There were also the so-called “Prophecies of Merlin” that supposedly predicted the rise of Robert Aske and the fall of Henry. Even Henry took such prophecies seriously and had one of his followers, Richard Morison create a counter-prophecy based on The Book of Esdras to disprove those of Merlin’s.
Although the religious motives for the Pilgrimage of Grace were the most powerful, there were economic grievances. Harvests in the North had been particularly poor in the years before the uprising. Wheat prices had increased by eighty-two percent in 1536, which drove the commoners to depend more on monastic charity. Increased taxation on the monasteries frightened the northerners, who feared that the monasteries would then have to cut down on lay staff. Increased taxation also affected the gentry and nobility through the implementation of the Statute of Uses. This dissatisfaction was noted in Aske’s testimony, where he stated that the Statute was harmful to the common wealth of the people. The nobility particularly disliked the provision of the Statute that forbid mortgages. The dissolution of the monasteries also led to unemployment, both for the ejected clergy and their former servants. ,
The various factors that led to the northern uprisings were testament to the reality that the Reformation in England was not widely accepted by the common people and had to be imposed from above. No other motivation, besides that of religion, could have led peasants, clergymen, and nobility alike to take up arms and rebel against their King. The Lincolnshire Rebels and Pilgrims of Grace marched under religious banners, sang religious songs, and swore religious oaths for the defense of their church from destruction and heresy. Although anti-reformation sentiments were common throughout England, it was only in the northern counties that these sentiments coalesced into a significant threat to Henry’s reign. Even after the end of the northern risings, resistance to the Reformation continued to linger on well into the reign of Elizabeth I.

I’m surprised the entire thing actually posted. The footnotes are missing though.

Mr. Moreland,
Thank you.

James: As to your comments,

Utter delusion. What difference on earth could changing affiliation in worshipping a mythic non-entity make?

Dear oh dear.

Oh dear, indeed. Arrogance is one thing, and ignorance another. But arrogance coupled with ignorance is a rather fearful spectacle. It’s clear you don’t believe in God because you are not open to believing in God. In short, you don’t want to believe, for whatever reason; I surmise your lack of belief is based on the desire to live as you wish, and to be master of your own destiny. Well, my dear James, talk about utter delusion.

James,

To question the reality of God is one thing, but to say that a change in religious affiliation makes no difference “on earth” is quite another. The fact is, religious doctrine has often had an effect on the social & cultural aspects of a society. Indeed, it can make a difference. Whether or not it is an altogether positive one — well, that’s yet another matter. But it is not something to be shrugged off simply because you believe it to be mythology.

KD, you are right!

Christine, you are right, too!

Moreland, thank you for the post! How long did it take you to write that thesis? We’ll see what CAWP has to say about your findings regarding the era of the Reformation in England and Henry’s decisions.

My, my, you folks have been chatting up a storm in my absence.

Job well done, Dino!

Can’t say I’ve done much, as you can see. Back to you, Andrew!

Andrew, they’re doing it again…

C Moreland – are you a Catholic? And what academic institution are you allied with? Where have you been educated?

CAWP, it does not really matter where Moreland went to school. What would matter would be the sources she used for that – WHICH, as we can see, were not written by Cranmer or Henry!

Also, has anyone seen the pictures of the image of St. Peter with a Tiara?
CAWP, that statue looks much better and more impressive than the ‘queen’ of England with hers!

CAWP, do you have any comments on the substance of C. Moreland’s paper?