Bon Voyage

Few.

I realised some time ago that there was little point arguing with people so thoroughly determined to ignore the enormous substance of traditional history, and recorded and verifiable historical facts, in pursuit of an ideologically, emotionally congenial narrative. This applies both to his paper and to your opinions re: Anglicanism.

I assume he hasn’t been to University. Not a good one, at least. It isn’t a serious historical paper: it completely lacks circumscription, analysis, authoritative positioning of his argument amongst the wider field of debate, and is prone to repetitive assertions rather than decent argument.

It reads like a rather apathetic polemic – all sloppy, tiresome sentences, marshalled with little vigour towards a nonetheless wholly partisan, political, preposterous conclusion. It’s wishful thinking; a fantasy; and it doesn’t even read like he’s captivated by it. Bad content, bad prose. Bad altogether.

What is there to say about it? It wasn’t even worth the copying and pasting.

So you don’t have any comments on the substance. Anyone else?

are you now working for the EU? as you to have missed wales off a map! doh. you are silly. it is a ‘real’ country you know, it has a flag! what more do you want? iw ould be very happy if you could add a welsh dragon onto the picture. Also the flag of ireland under the union jack is very offensive! have you not read anything about english and irish history. Ireland is now 2 countries -st patricks flag is not appropriate under the union jack.
so please either delete your pics, or change the st patrick’s flag for a st david’s flag and out it where wales is. thanks
its just americans will get confused – i think this happens most easily. so you have a big responsibility!

CAWP, you are being very negative and unnecessarily critical to such a point that by doing that you show that you have not really read Moreland’s paper carefully and in an unbiased manner. In fact, your comment shows pain and anger due to impotence: not being able to change history, and this leads you to denial of actual and factual history.

Now, since you talk about “preposterous, prose, content, etc., et.c,” then I challenge you to write a paper of your own where you refute what Moreland posted. Instead of negative comments, write a paper and show off your university degree, if you attended one!

You have got to stop those *ad hominem* attacks. As I said before, it does not really matter whether Moreland goes to school or not, or which one he attends or attended, what matters is the sources he used tp write that paper.

Now, write that paper to refute Moreland’s points, or apologize for your overly negative and unnecessarily critical post.

One point that I would like to bring up about Moreland’s paper:

Moreland, you say that the Pope had more than just the religious reason to deny Henry’s request for divorce. This might be true, but the way you mention it in the paper, it makes it sound that if the other(s) reasons had not been there, he would have granted Henry’s request. Is that your point?

Can you clarify that point for me? Thank you!

Snore, snore, snore.

Ad hominem? Not quite. That would be ignoring his paper and just attacking him for his own personal failings. Instead, I criticised his paper as ludicrous and criticised his failings as the writer of it. If that’s too close the ad hominem bone for you, I apologise; but I would suggest that you have some smelling salts near your PC in future, to palliate the shock.

You want me to respond to it in every detail? And if I don’t, that somehow proves him correct? I’m sorry, but the enormity of someone’s post by no means corresponds to the strength of its truth (though I realise Catholics have a fey, weak-kneed habit of conflating visible power with invisible truth). And I haven’t the time to issue a complex, precise refutation against such a lengthy piece. I have tried to be as brief and comprehensive as I have time. My points are precise and any idiot will recognise them as being accurate. What about them is false? Care to say? Even generally? Or are you being guilty of ad hominem attacks in simply dismissing me as being guilty of ad hominem attacks – etc…?

The paper reads like it was written by a 14 year old. It is assertive often without foundation; it offers insights into motive and emotion without explaining why they are justified; it assumes it can make a justified, revisionist reading against traditional history, without every convincingly engaging with that immense body of work.

And I can’t believe you think his academic qualifications and religious affiliation are not relevant to a putative academic paper on religious affiliations! Typical Catholic logic, one supposes.

What I am saying, is: it simply isn’t worth bothering with. It is transparently useless, and any serious, informed person would realise this. There is nothing of worth there to tackle.

Kenny, you’re mad. Good to see you on Saturday though. Everyone seems healthy and well.

Quite. Wales isn’t a country, it’s a principality. And the old Irish flag and the little Irish man is only attached, in the picture, to Northern Ireland – where it remains one of the country’s official flags. Surely you cannot prefer the Republic’s ghastly tricolore?!

I realise Catholics have a fey, weak-kneed habit of conflating visible power with invisible truth

Hmm. That may be because we’re only following the fey, weak-kneed habit of our Master and Lord, who said that on this rock, Petrus, I shall build My church. (But I understand the Anglicans to have a novel interpretation of that verse.)

CAWP, I say this most respectfully: you parrot the same tired Protestant canards that have been passed down since the Reformation. It’s clear you’ve only read Protestant versions of British history and thus naturally are biased in that direction. Have you ever looked at the work of some of your great British Catholic authors? Chesterton? Belloc? Newman? Knox? Or are you so completely sold on your version of history that you won’t bother?

I read Theology at Oxford, focusing on Patristics, although I did a fair bit of study of Reformation history. Luther and Calvin were my heroes. I thought the Reformation the best thing to happen since the inception of Christianity. I argued with Catholics in much the same way you do today. It was only some years later I realized my understanding of history was grossly one-sided, filled with misconceptions and outright falsehoods.

I’m not sure engaging you at this point makes much difference; there was a time in my life I was utterly closed to the truth of the Catholic faith. You seem to be at that point now. But who knows? Ten years from now, things may be very different.

CAWP, you play the role of the Anglo chauvinist brilliantly.

CAWP,

You seem to take a lot of pride in being and defending everything “anglo”? Don’t you know that at one point in history (before Christianity: before the Church converted those lands) to be “anglo” meant to be a barbarian?)

So much for your monarchs and their lands. The glory of England is not there anymore, and it will not come back while the Anglican church is the national church of England. Every monarchy that separates itself from the Church will eventually lose its glory. It is stupid to defend the Divine Right of Kings (or something somewhat similar), when the Church does not support it or defend it, at least indirectly.

Everything falls under its own weight. That is why monarchies, when they tried to stand on their own, fell. The ones that remain are just ghostly images of what they used to be, even if they keep the same titles and claims.

I wonder when will be the day when the “queen” of England will declare herself the supreme bishopess of England all its territories… That day will be the funniest one of all!

Ah, so these responses are your own attempts at substance? Congratulations! I stagger with the power of your blows! Oh! Ow! Stop! Please! How can I fight against such truth – I am incapable before you. Such arguments: one day I may change my mind, in fact I am a chauvinist, and sensational immature squeals about Her Majesty, the necessity of Catholicism for glory (yes, I would love Britain to be like Italy or Ireland, such glorious countries). Ludicrous! And I believe you will find that the Catholic chauvinist (“One true church! Infallible! Anglicanism not even a real faith!”) a far more common creature.

Far from being thoughtlessly closed to Catholicism, I am, in fact, about to go to Mass this evening with a very good friend of mine. I do this fairly regularly. I am not fishing for the truth, or considering conversion – I have weighed a number of denominations, and found Anglicanism the purest, least worldly and most truthful. Catholicism in its two British strains – conservative, traditional, ancient, and trendy, hard-left, liberal, Marxist, sex-mad is too full of untruths and heresy. You have lost enormous chunks of your church – the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the other Protestants – and still are immune to self-analysis. I would try it. It might help.

Quasi-conspiracy theories, attacks irrelevant to my arguments, and LatinMass’ special needs brand of hysteria, are rather lame ways to carry this on.

I can assure you there is self-analysis aplenty in the Catholic Church, and more with each passing day. And at the highest levels. As Providence would have it, however, reform comes slowly.

By the way, have you ever read Edmund Campion’s “Ten Reasons”?

CAWP,

you are really funny. You make me laugh!

Just remember: You are a monarchist, NOT the monarch. So, behave and speak accordingly. The reason why you are not fishing for the Truth is because you do not know where to look for it. I do not even believe that you think it is in the Anglican church. How do you find the C of E to be the purest form of Christianity, yet frequent other churches? Isn’t that heretical, dangerous, illogical?

Now, a church or denomination that has a “king” or “queen” as its head, CANNOT be the purest form of Christianity. NEVER! You are ignoring this fact, but it doesnt help your cause for making us believe that anglicanism is the way to go.

Now, there is self-analysis in the Chruch, but it won’t happen the way you want it or whenever you want it!

Another thing, if you think that this self-analysis will take us to anglicanism, you are wrong again! It cannot take us to it because it is wrong and a heresy. We would lose our Faith and our Sacraments. There would be an end to Apostolic Succession, and we would lose our souls.

Now, the fact that other groups separated from us does not in fact point to something wrong in our beliefs. It might be true that leaders int he Church did not and do not always do what they SHOULD do, but that is not an excuse for anybody to separate. In fact, those who did were heretics and instead of doing away with the corruption, they did away with Apostolic teachings and morals.

This is not a way to do a reform! Do you know anything about the Ten articles and the Six articles? Why was there a conflict between Henry VIII and Cramner on some these issues? In addition, why is Transubstantiation not a believe (in its purest sense) in the C of E, when Henry and Cranmer (at the beginning) considered the denial of such a belief a heresy (treason)?

Cranmer and Henry, as well as Luther, were heretics because of LUST. THEY WANTED TO GET MARRIED. They all had problems being chaste or faithful. Period! You follow a brand of Christianity that is not pure (as you claim). In fact, it is based on the opposite virtue.

Sensational immature? Hmmm… I was not making fun of the ‘queen.’ I was just pointing out a fact. Your queen does not look impressive at all, even when dressed like a queen. Plus, she is just a figurehead. That is not my fault… and you should accept that. The last time she looked like a real queen was when she was crowned in the 50’s. Although, that coronation did not look “purely” Christian at all because it is not in the Bible, right?

CAWP, you are very defensive and offensive! Try harder at expressing better when talking to other people or about them. Or just get another hobby!

Er, see? Does everyone see what i mean? LatinMass, you can’t be serious. No sensible person talks like that. You’re hysterical. Could you find it within yourself to stop screaming with every sentence you write – to tone down the unmistakeable and very unattractive element of hysteria throughout your posts?

I’m sorry, but once again there is nothing serious in what you have written to address. You either contradict or seriously undermine yourself in making a point (e.g. when you say there is nothing wrong in what you believe, but that the Church leaders were once wayward… that’s an interesting hair-split of an argument, since I thought infallibility was a key Catholic doctrine). Or you just talk nonsense (e.g. lust. Because of course Cranmer went to the stake because he couldn’t live without sex…).

You aren’t being credible. What’s all this crap about the Queen not looking very good? I mean, does anyone else here really want me to address such ludicrous points? And the Catholic church should be very wary about accusing other Churches of lust, in this day and age, since it doesn’t seem to have been much of a barrier for thousands of their priests to do what they wanted to innocent little children.

At least you provide an insight into the kind of maniacs that existed in Cranmer’s time – and which I had thought since extinct. It is fascinating to see the brains of a man who would happily, no doubt, set the faggots alight again, displayed before us. You should donate yourself to science. Some studies in your peculiarly Catholic brand of psychosis would provide a useful advance for humanity.

CAWP… ha ha ha… this is beyond funny.

When I talk about leaders in the Church not doing the righ thing, I do not mean to imply infallibility! You do know that infallibility does not apply to every single action of every day of every single minute. Only the Pope is infallible, but not in matters of every day affair!

You are mixing stuff because you do not really understand Catholic beliefs. THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE NOT FOUND THE TRUTH.

CAWP, I will scream whenever I want to. Although I have not. When I capitalize something it is to EMPHASIZE something. I can do that any time I want. Is that a problem?

Now, I never said that there are not lustful people and leaders in the Church. It would be stupid to pretend the opposite or even ignore it. However, WE, CATHOLICS, have not gone after any of those leaders the way YOU, PROTESTANTS, have!!!!!!!

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!!!!

Got it? Do I need to EXPLAIN it better????

CAWP, you really need help!

Oh dear. I rest my case.

(Infallibility should be addressed, though. I didn’t mean Papal Infallibility, which has to be invoked explicitly, but the Catholic argument that the Reformation was a Deformation, that the gates of hell have never prevailed against it, it has remained perfect, and always will be, uncorrupted, no matter what: i.e., infallible.)

I can hardly believe you even exist, really.

CAWP,

In general, we already knew that you have a problem with believing… it just shows!

Infallibility should be addressed, though.

Read Edmund Campion’s “Ten Reasons”
http://snipurl.com/1b6gd
(scroll half way down for the English)

I have. Despite being highly delicious prose, a very winning style, and ingenious and persuasive at times (though scarcely more so than Latimer or Cranmer), it has problems. Surely even you’ll admit it contains outdated and wonky scholarship? (E.g. the argument that men have simply removed books from the Bible, such as the Apocrypha, that they didn’t like. Don’t we all know that the Apocrypha is rather a special case? In that, there is serious historical and linguistic evidence for its non-canonical status? Greek rather than Hebrew, unknown to Jewish OT or tradition, never quoted or alluded by Christ, etc? Since his justification of key heretical Catholic teachings – such as prayer to saints – depends upon the Apocrypha being legitimate, what is there more to say?)

And just how is a 16th century work going to address the 19th century additions to your faith (e.g. Mary’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness)?

CAWP, you’re a tough nut to crack. It’s curious that you give more weight to skeptical Biblical scholarship than to, by then, over a thousand years of tradition.

As for additions to the Faith, they are no such thing. All that happened in the 19th century was a definition of an article of the Faith that already existed. Surely you don’t believe that Christ’s dual natures was an article of the Faith added in the fith century when it was defined by the Council of Chalcedon?

Curious? It’s not the skepticism I applaud in itself; the so-called gay Christians are skeptical of St Paul, these days, and they are clearly dangerous and wrong about that.

It’s that Wycliffe, Cranmer, Latimer, Luther and others (the last no doubt rather imperfect, I know), identified provable and significant abuses and falsehoods that had grown up in the church over time. Addressing prayers to anyone other than the Father (indeed as Christ teaches us); the ludicrous treatment of the Bible and liturgy, regarding something obviously originally written to be read and known and understood by many as unfit for such purposes; the dangerous, often idolatrous, attention paid to Mary; etc, etc, and so on and so forth. I won’t list all the complaints because I’m sure you know them. There are quite a few. And the argument was always that such corruptions were corruptions because they had no foundation in the early church (because they are not mentioned in scripture, the record and teachings of that body – sola scriptura is very precise, sound, and logical principle in that regard). Thus they were obviously additions, and a number rather terrible, corrupting ones; not merely additions-as-traditions consonant with Biblical principles and examples (as some of the sacraments, which were never condemned intrinsically, only in how they were defined and instituted), but ones antithetical to the church Christ founded.

So they were (after much martyrdom) deleted.

CAWP,

that is a typical PROTESTANT thing to say, which only goes to show complete and ABSOLUTE denial!

Mary’s perpetual virginity was not invented in the 19th Century. It has always been a believe of the Church. Before Blessed Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the Church had already had a Mass to celebrate that very day (Dec. 8th) for centuries!

Mr Marcantonio, all heresies are hard to crack, but more than the heresies, the followers because accepting the opposite would mean that they are WRONG. CAWP does not like or want to admit that she is wrong… plain and simple.

Now, if we give her books, works in which Fathers of the Church or Saints or Doctors of the Church talk about Mary’s Immaculate Conception, she wouls still not accept it.

I won’t do that, but I will tell you something CAWP:

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ABOUT OR SEEN Murillo’s painting of THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION???????

The Church never rejected that and never will.

Yeah, interesting, I’m not really going to bother with LatinMass any more, if that’s all right with everyone else? I hope all can see what I mean when I say there’s little point in discussing something with anyone so hysterical, weird and childish (he knows I’m not a woman, so what’s with all this ‘she’, ‘her’, etc? Very mature).

Anyway, I never said they invented it in the 19th century; they ADDED it. It may have been embryonic theology before then (beginning in 1476 – quite some time after the Church began!), but it clearly wasn’t absolutely certain or necessary theology (why bother with making it so if it already was?). So: it was added. It became dogma, not optional. It now requires, therefore, defense – for it is an essential part of your faith. Before its validity or not was as a matter of conscience; now it is a matter of Truth. Knock it down before, and there is small consequence; knock it down now, and the whole system of the Roman faith, by extension, shakes. I am a little worried you do not understand the importance of this. It is the same with a number of other so-called traditional, then dogmatic, Roman beliefs. You have to defend them with more than “tradition!” as your battle cry. For the whole point is that they may once have been tradition (often, as here, quite late tradition), but they aren’t any longer. What matters is, are they correct? Why were they once not considered dogmatic truth, but now are? What changed? Is longevity all that matters?

Come now, LatinMass; as a fellow traditionalist Catholic, I must say you are sounding a tad over the top.

CAWP, you misunderstand the communion of saints (just as I once did; I’ve raised precisely the same objections). Is there anything wrong with asking your fellow Christian to pray for you? Of course not. So why is it wrong to ask a saint in heaven to pray for you? Or do you think that, after having toiled on earth to help our fellow brothers and sisters, once we get to heaven we must no longer do anymore good for them?

When we speak of “praying” to the saints, we mean it only as a form of communication, not of worship. If I were to ask you to pray for me, e.g., all I need do is send you a note or ring you up. If I ask a saint in heaven to pray for me, naturally, I must ask interiorly–thus, prayer.

Your next question is no doubt this: why not ask God directly, instead of going to the saint? Of course we can ask God directly; but Scripture tells us that “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” James 5:16. James mentions the example of Elijah, a righteous man, who prayed for rain, and it was granted him. Elijah was, in a sense, an intercessor for the Israelites because of his close relationship with God. He was a man to whom God listened and answered prayers.

We also know from Scripture that sin impedes our relationship with God, and hinders our prayers.

The saints in heaven are cleansed of all sin and stand perfect before their Father in heaven; their prayers are powerful and efficacious, and nothing hinders their intercession on our behalf. This is why as Catholics we may choose to ask a particular saint to pray for us, because we know that our own prayers before God may not be as efficacious.

How refreshing to have a normal person to respond to!

I don’t misunderstand the communion of saints, though. And my objection to prayer to saints is not simply what your’s was. I know that both Catholics and Orthodox Christians ‘pray’ to saints not as worship but, so they say, in the same way as they would send an email to their Christian friends on earth for their prayers, or write a note, or simply ask them in conversation, or what have you. But it isn’t “natural”, as you say, to ask saints interiorly; it is – of couse, as you know – supernatural. So there is actually a very big difference.

This difference is smudged by the Roman understanding of the communion of saints. The idea that we can as legitimately ‘pray’ to the saints, as telephone our Christian friends, depends upon the Roman/Orthodox argument that since the Church is one, therefore every member, living or dead, is in equivalent practical relationship with every other. But if this were the case, we could pray in silence to our Christian friends or family on earth, and they would surely, given such logic, just as readily hear us as the saints do. But, of course, they don’t. In this way, I think it very simply proved that the analogy between the living and dead church is false, and the RC understanding of the communion of saints rather unsound. I don’t deny the unity of the Church; the eternal communion of true believers; but I think it clear, whether we like it or not, that it does not follow that ‘prayer’ (or what have you) to the saints is either possible or prescripted.

Prayer to saints, and prayer to Mary, are still risky, too, in the conventionally argued way – because hailing Mary, extolling her virtues at the same time as Christ’s, being on one’s knees as you do so (e.g. in stations of the Cross), lauding her as a special intercessor (a role Christ gives himself!), etc, etc, leads naturally into a grave misdirection of adoration and worship and love. She is indeed blessed; all generations will and do call her so; but that is not a basis for the place the Romans give her, as otherwise the many praises of other people in the Bible should have corresponding liturgical results. I’m afraid Mary’s place in your church is a corruption, and I doubt she’s particularly happy with it.

P.S. my use of ‘dead and living church’ was perhaps clumsy or open to opposition. I know God is the God of the living; and that we all have eternal life through Christ; I hope my use of such a phrase is taken as being merely biological not spiritual.

CAWP,

You keep missing the point. You do not have to deal with me at all or with the other contrinutors. You have to deal with the things pointed out by many commentators.

Jokes aside, it is even more childish for you to focus on whether I capitalize something or not, or whether I add exclamation points, etc. That is just an excuse for you not to talk at all about those things I (or other commentators) mention.

And you are right CAWP. You do not misunderstand the Communion of Saints. You just don’t accept it… which, regardless of whether one is a traditional Catholic or not, it is a heresy. Christine, there is nothing over the top in saying that. There are heresies and heretics even in these times. Politically correctness have made the words heresy and heretics sound offensive, but they still exist.

The main thing about heresies and followers of heresies is that if they accept to be wrong, they have to change many of their opinions and behaviors.

CAWP, I did not know you were a man and I do not really care about what anybody in here is. I had never seen you here before, so do not just expect me to *know* that you are not a woman.

Also, let’s say that I have been “childish, foolish, stupid, etc…,” I have not been the one you have not wanted to deal with. Mr Marcantonio has also mentioned things to you, and you have just dismissed everything he points out.

You have already set your mind to accept and follow history only the way it is portrayed by British historians – if they can be called that in this case. That is a very intentionally biased behavior, which shows inmaturity and childishness, and of course, blindness.

You are more a monarchist than a Christian because you think that the monarchy (not the Church, even if it were the C of R)is actually the glory of England. This is going way beyond what is in the Bible, especially since you prefer a “sola scriptura” way of doing things.

You have not told us how you can reconcile a monarchy with Christian purity. Stop focusing on how things are said, but why they are said and whether they really make sense. You just dismiss everything from the very beginning. You do not want to accept the authority of the Pope because it would put an end to the monarchy as you would want it (absolute).

How do you really reconcile all this with Christianity?

Re the Virgin Mary: Why would you want choice? Even before Marian dogmas were declared, devotion to Mary was required! From the very first centuries of the Church devotion to Mary has been a big part of Christian worship. Before dogmas were declared, they coudl not be thrown away as you claim. One thing is not to believe it, another thing is to attack it.

People (like yourself) who think that it is risky to pray to Mary, would have attacked people who would have chosen to venerate Mary – if it had been a choice (before it was declared a dogma). Or they would have gone the Lutheran way: venerate her, praise her first, then oppose devotion to her. Have you ever read what Luther had to say about Mary before his “reformation” and what he had to say after?

I’m glad this isn’t a private conversation, since your incoherency and idiocy is being displayed for all, and no one has to take my word for it.

Once again, you have not responded to my arguments. Arguments – you know, connected logical statements, to be responded to in kind by connected logical statements, or relented to in defeat? Thanks for getting all 16th century on me by refusing to address my points (again), and coming out (again), with this pointless and useless argument that you are right because you are right because you are right. I’m wrong because I’m a heretic. Wow. Right on. That really isn’t tautological nonsense!

You’re giving Roman Catholics quite a bad image, in all this: scared or incapable of reason, incoherent in articulating or defending their faith, hopeless zombies, arrogant, hysterical and itching to bring the matches out again whenever they’re confronted by someone who disagrees and dares to advance good reasons why. It’s a good job I know many real Catholics, and know this stereotype to be largely false. (Andrew C’s blog is also an excellent and affable counter to it).

LatinMass, I’m afraid you are the heretic (or something of one) as it stands.

And for the record, nowhere have I ever said what you claim I believe about the monarchy. If I was a true monarchist, I would surely love the pope; for he is the last absolute monarch in the world. No, I am a loyal British subject, and by birth, law and constitution am ruled by the British crown, to which I pledge both my allegiance and affection. This is wholly Biblical – it is honouring and obeying “the powers that be”, as St Paul wrote. The Queen is head of the Anglican Church because that was the one successful historical method of preventing Catholic tyrants such as James II from eagerly betraying their people (the majority Protestant) into beggary and persecution. Uniting government with religion was a necessary geopolitical prophylactic against the tyrannical, corrupt transnationalism of the Roman Catholic church, which would eagerly split the government from the people, insight bloody repression of non-Catholics (cf. Mary), and act appallingly and with naked corruption to advance their own geopolitical goals. But of course we know you are no fans of contraceptives.

Though this strategy had contradictions – the lesser legal rights of Catholics, for example – I believe a dispassionate survey of the system will find it quite the most humane and efficient of all the possibilities, given the times.

As you quite rightly pointed out earlier, the Queen has no day-to-day administrative role in the Church, so quite why you’re now so wound up by it I fail to understand. Her role is symbolic; she is a figurehead. You know, we don’t pray to her. As much as that may surprise you. It is possible to have a woman in the Church who doesn’t have to be worshipped or liturgically significant; perhaps that’s too alien a concept, but we are capable of such a trying feat. Anglicanism is True, most (no longer all) Brits are Anglican, all Brits are under the Queen: so the alliance makes perfect sense in that regard too.

So, er, is everyone finished here? Can we close this? Dino (I think) said we should continue it, even after it had begun to get too argumentative for my liking, because it was important; but surely now the matter is laid to rest. There is little more to do than agree to disagree, or convert ourselves to the other’s position, surely? And since no-one will give in on that, how about an almighty Amen, and have done with it?

CAWP,

If the “queen” is symbolic, then she is not the head of the C of E? It does not make sense. A symbol is not the actual thing.

Now, if she does not have an administrative role, as Henry VIII did (because he was very active in religious matters, then what really is she?

I am not saying that we should not give allegiance to the rulers of the nations in which we live. The thing is that in addition to that allegiance, you want us to accept that that leader is the head of the church. This is not how the Apostles did it at all. How many churches would there be? Do you imagine what the American church would be like? And, who would be the leader of the C of the US? We do not have any monarchs here, unless you defended the idea that the US should return to being a subject of the English crown or something like that.

Remember that the Roman Emperors were NEVER the head of the Church. There was always the Pope. When the Apostles were on earth, they guided the churches (separated by regions) under (in union with) the Pope (Bishop of Rome, well first the Bishop of Jerusalem when Peter was there and then Antioch).

Women: I am glad you don’t pray to her (the “queen”), and I never beleived that you did, especially because she is still alive.

Personal (or popular) devotions are not part of the liturgy (the Mass), so in that sense no woman is liturgically worshipped. The Mass is not offered to Mary or to the Saints. Some day, CAWP, you should check the original version of the book of common prayers, which was in Latin, and included a liturgy somwhat similar to the Catholic one.

I am sure you already know the difference between veneration and adoration. However, you are mixing their meaning. As Christine already pointed out, praying to someone is not worshipping that person. *Orare* (to pray) and Adorare, even though they look somewhat similar, do come from two different latin roots. The first one is to ask, or speak (depending on whether you use *to pray* or *orare* (latin). They in no way imply worship or adoration (unless addressed specifically to God). The second does mean to worship, which goes way back to the old way of worshipping (Adorare = Ad os admovere manus).

Now, if you cannot or do not want to accept that there is a difference between those two words, that is something else. As to whether it is risky or not praying to Saints, that would depend on the sincerity of the person praying. The Church has officially condenmned the adoration of Mary and the Saints, and no sane and faithful Catholic will worship Mary nor be taught to worship her (or any of the Saints) as God.

Luther himself wrote (or said) good and beautiful things about Mary. So, the argument that it is dangerous to pray to Saints is useless.

CAWP, you have mentioned many times that there are incoherencies in what I say, can you please cite some examples where I contradict myself? Also, cite my “heresies.”

What is wrong with transnationalism? The Apostles did not condenm it, nor does the Bible. Does it? If you defend this, then indirectly you would somehow agree with Hitler’s idea of the purity of a nation or a race. This is not to be found in the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was something like it, but it was for religious reasons.

CAWP, the reason why Mr. Marcantonio wanted to continue the “discussion” was because you did not directly and substantially answered the real questions and arguments mentioned by many contrinutors. And you still haven’t.

All this was finished from the very beginning because you closed your mind to reason, and from the very beginning started attacking the contributors as a way to evade the arguments. I admire Moreland who ignored you (and your extremyly offensive comments) and never replied to your offensive comments about his/her posts.

Now, one last comment on the fallacy of your argument that because you are a British subject you have to submit to the laws and religion (indirectly) of that nation. If in the future, the “king” or “queen” of England decide (by the grace of God) to return to the Catholic Church, then that would mean that YOU, as a loyal subject of the Britisn crown would have to follow suit!? However, if muslims take over that nation and the “king” or “queen” makes islam the official religion of Britain, you would also have to accept that and go along with whatever they do?

That is an odd form of monarchical system, although it has happened before – sometimes for the better.

CAWP, no “almighty amens” please, because it would not mean the same to a Catholic than to an Anglican.

Now, you are not a monarchist? Then why that site that you promote? Besides, to “love” the pope, you do not have to be a monarchist, you just need to be an Apostolic Christian. This means that you have to follow Christ, not any other man (or woman nowadays) who feels like “reforming” the system, but ends up deforming everything in the process to bring back Apostolic purity, which they never return to. That is why there are so many thousands of protestant denominations – all claming to have been founded by Christ (or to follow the Apostles). I don’t mean to make fun of this whole issue, it just is sad.

Dear CAWP,

When you have finished reading thirty books on the subject, including the state papers of Henry VIII, the letters of Thomas Cromwell, Hull’s Chronicle, the trial records of Robert Aske, get back to me. It’s obvious that your attacks on my paper are partisan, and have nothing to do whatsoever with its writing. My professors would take issue with your statement that my prose is tiresome. I’ve been told on several occasions that I’m the best writer in the department. I did not recieve my scholarship to university on good looks and charm.

A fantasy? The events narrated in the paper are verified by primary source documents, including those written by Henry, Cromwell, and Cramer.

And yes, I am Catholic. What does that have to do with my arguement? How secretarian of you! Dr. Christopher Haigh came to the same conclusion I did in his work, and he is an Anglican.

You sir, are decieved. Your historical fantasies may be comforting, but they are not supported, and they are false.

Now do get started on reading those sources! We are all eagerly awaiting YOUR thesis! Twenty pages, 12pt font, double spaced, based on primary materials.

Also, if you would like to see how 14 year old’s actually write, I can provide some examples from my classes.

Now hurry off. I suggest starting with AG Dicken’s The English Reformation. It’s only about a thousand pages, but since you have gone to university, and more importantly than that a BRITISH university, that should not be a problem for you.

Er, wow. Was any of that ironic?

I mean, you claim you have great style, and yet write pompous stuff like: “You sir, are deceived”. How very fresh and supple. Then you admit you are a Catholic, and in the same breath ask what it has to do with your argument (which is about Catholicism)?

!

Earlier I am accused of chauvinism, and now you tell me to “hurry off”, and write with the most oily, sinister condescension and ridiculous, spurned pride about 12pt fonts, double spacing and “BRITISH” universities.

!

And I note you still refuse to tell us where you are based academically.

I also note that you do the (apparently) typical Catholic thing of ignoring my arguments and simply dismissing them as historical fictions. Nice. But not enough.

I would suggest that you were somebody’s parody of what the real Moreland might do in reply – the sustained and multiple ironies are so exquisite – but, judging from LatinMass, who posts at very similar times, I (alas) suspect not.

LatinMass –

I am not a monarchist. I am a British Monarchist. There is rather a large difference. You appear not to have looked beyond the website’s URL, which is something of a shame. If you had, you might have avoided making such a fool of yourself.

As for adoration and all that (and I was using the terms in their general meanings): you haven’t defeated my arguments against prayers to saints and Mary, you’ve merely asserted that improper relationships might form. But doesn’t everything in human nature – and all of God’s many warnings against graven images and other forms of idolatry, especially self-idolatry in pride – tell us that such Catholic ‘bonus doctrines’ (2 for the price of 1) are very dangerous indeed, and likely to lead to such mispractice?There is no Biblical license for them. I think that says enough. Try not simply *asserting* that it doesn’t.

I’ll assume the Hitler remark wasn’t serious (though I believe it rather indicative of your general level of maturity and intellectual sophistication), so shan’t bother responding to it with the indignance it really deserves. You use “nation” and “race” as interchangeable (“purity of a nation or race”), but of course they’re not: the latter is transnational, the former isn’t. And Hitler’s Arian project was emphatically transnational (which goes a long way to explaining why he invaded Russia and France and not merely the bits of land he claimed were historically German, you dolt).

Needless to say, if you knew anything about European history, you would also know that the strongest resistance to Hitler, to Fascism, to Communism all came from nationalist movements in other countries (not, incidentally, your pope, particularly in WWII… JPII wasn’t bad on the Reds, though).

And though, like so many of your arguments, it ignores or misunderstands the content of my previous post (and therefore doesn’t require rebutting), or betrays manifest stupidity, I feel I should reassure you about the Monarch changing their religion (as you seemed to get excited by the idea of a Catholic one coming in and sorting us all out). I – and Protestant Britain – wouldn’t change my faith if the Monarch did. We would change the monarch (go and read about 1688, and the Act of Settlement… you are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance here; this is the last friendly advice I’ll give you). This was rather the whole point I was making about Monarch and Subjects being one in Christian truth, secured in the Anglican and British constitutional structure, (historically) as a defense against the (well catalogued) shits at the Vatican.

Is there anything I’ve missed? Your posts are always long and mad, and time is precious, but if there is really anything you feel you’ve won the day on, please alert me to it and I will be happy to disabuse you of your victory.

EDIT: you asserted that improper relationships would not form.

The reason, by the way, I wish to end this, is because I doubt many of us have the time to carry it on for much longer; and because it has strayed, and continues to stray, so far from the original dispute, that it has the whiff of a nightmarishly perpetual, ever-increasingly boring, ever-decreasingly worthy waste of time. (A bit like purgatory. Or saying the hail Mary. Haha).

By now, my point is, the length of the discussion and duration of the opposition suggests we aren’t going to be coming to any kind of reconciliation soon. My suggestion was and is to come to some kind of amicable ceasefire. I am giving you the chance to retreat from the field – bloodied and defeated – with some measure of grace and honour.

And because I have really had enough of such self-evidently pointless disputation. REFUTE ME LOGICALLY, or just give it up.

Defeated! The Intercession of Saints is all over the early Church, for example (do St. Cyprian, Tertullian, and St. Augustine count?), and Scriptural references abound. Well, if you cannot detect your refutation by St. Edmund Campion, then I doubt anyone here is capable.

I agree that many of us don’t have time to carry this on. Let’s cease fire and resume once Britain turns Catholic and indolent.

I’m afraid I’ll be too busy reclining upon couches, nibbling at grapes, and thumbing rosaries. You know how it is.

But I do agree that it’s over. (In parting: I fear your faith in Campion is a bit misguided; his is addictive, gorgeous prose, the joy of which often depends on the obvious, precarious, sophistical logic it is employing. It’s all performance. His arguments have little weight, and can be easily brushed off. He charms. He doesn’t convince. Test his statements out as you proceed and I think it quickly becomes apparent).

That reads like it was rather charmless of me, actually; didn’t mean it to be. I was of course doing it in the merriest spirit possible, and thank you, Dino, for your graciousness throughout.

CAWP,

You would change your monarch? Then you would not be a *faithful* subject at all and the monarch would not be a true monarch at all. Forget about the Act of Settlement. A monarch (as has happened) should be able to change the law, otherwise to have a monarch at all would be the stupidest thing (especially to glory in having a monarchy at all, as you do).

Don’t kid yourself. You are a British Monarchist?? Show me where in the Bible you should just support one particular monarchical system and not the others. If you want to support a monarchy in one nation, and (as you claim) that would be going with what the Bible says, THEN you should also support the idea of a monarchist system in every other nation, no matter how small.

I did notice in your site that you stick to the British side of things and system, but since you, indirectly at least, think that the idea of being subject to the British monarch is going with the Bible and what it says, then you should also support other monarchies regardless of where they are and what religion they claim to follow. If you do not do this, then you are being a hypocrite.

About images and Saints: I did not say that “improper relations” might arise. At least NOT in the Catholic Faith. Those who worship images (even if they are “catholic ones”) are not Catholics. They are not recognized by the Church, and these people attribute other things to these images (or gods or protections, etc) that the Church has never attributed to any image of any Saint. Show me a Catholic who prays to an image (as opposed to praying before an image).

REMEMBER: The original book of common prayer. Dont forget it. Well, I guess you would not be able to read it because it would be in Latin, which is not british enough for you.

I wonder: Don’t you get suspicious when you hear that. Since the b of c prayer is in Latin, doesnt your mind conceive the idea that maybe the Pope wrote it? After all, the C of E does not have Latin for its language. Nah… once you start reading it, the protestant smoke affects your eyes.

So, if you do not want anything to do with “transnational,” what do you do then with other “territories somehow still subject to the British “queen”? Do you advocate that the “queen” should give those places up directly and indirectly (have nothing to do with them at all – officially)?

Are you that sure that the Pope did not do anything during wwii? So, why was Hitler more afraid of attacking the Vatican than attacking Britain? Why was Hitler more obssessed with kidnapping the Pope than getting rid of Churchill and your monarch?

REMEBER that the Pope is not the head of a nation and does not have a regular army. Well, neither does you monarch, but I digress…

CAWP, I have not lost nor won anything. But you have lost your patience. Instead of worrying about (British) monarchs and trying to prove that your obessession with the british monarchy is justified by the Bible, you should worry about Christian vitues that will eventually help you more in the end – and when you argue with other people, even if it is on-line.

Making fun of the Rosary? Is that supposed to make us think that we should not say it, or that because something is boring (to you), it is not biblical or it should be completely discarded? It is illogical, but then again, protestants are good at that. Like father(s) -Henry, Luther, Calvin, etc.- like son(s).

You are soooo worried about “winning” the ‘debate’ that you think you have already won. You have no clue of real and factual history because you use british lenses that destroy your 20/20 sight to the point that you have no clue about what pure Christianity actually is.

Last message:

CAWP, I feel sorry for you… your fanatical defense of a monarchy that is not a monarchy anymore (although it can look like one). Henry VIII would be ASHAMED to be the “king” of Britain these days, although I doubt that Cranmer would not want to be the “archbishop of Canterbury.

Your monarch is at the mercy of the parliament… and so are your dreams of a glorious monarch(y), too. Just wait 5 to 10 years, and you will see what will become of the monarchy you defend. We’ll see the glory of the monarchy when the next coronation takes place.

You know, I don’t think he’s coming back.

Er, I’m really not. At least not to this thread. Of course I shall remain a loyal reader of Cusack.

LatinMass that was hilarious! Thank you for the comic send-off we all needed!

Keep up the hysteria, historical ignorance (“Forget about the Act of Settlement” indeed! You’ve scarcely revealed yourself so hilariously before), refusal to engage in debate, and all that. A man of such madness would be dangerous with real facts and half an ounce of wit.

CAWP,
In all honesty, you haven’t responded to a single substantive thing Mr. Moreland has written. Instead, you’ve blown him off as so obviously mistaken that it’s not worth your time to engage him, and then you’ve foundlessly mocked his scholarship. I am disappointed by your response.

As you are so taken with academic credentials, one prominent Oxford scholar in the early 1900s wrote:

As we approach this long story, there is one thing always to be borne in mind: that the history of it as taught in our schools and universities is an official story and a thoroughly false one. Whether it be to the advantage of the State that official history alone should be taught, and that a criticism of it should be unknown, may be debated. There are those who think that such legends strengthen a nation. Others (and I am one) think that historical falsehood weakens a nation.

The mass of England was Catholic in tradition and feeling dur­ing all the last half of the sixteenth century. Even into the begin­ning of the seventeenth the tradition survived. A good half of the people still had Catholic sympathies in the earlier years of James I. A quarter of them had in varying degrees Catholic sym­pathies (and half that quarter was willing to sacrifice heavily for the sake of openly confessing Catholicism) as late as the fall of the Stuarts in 1685-1688. But during the whole time the steady official persecuting pressure continued; the practice of a Catholic life was rendered impossible, and what had once been the normal open profession of the national tradition in religious things fell to being but a sentiment, and then, from a sentiment to being but a memory, and at last, after 1688, died out.

So, you see, Mr. Moreland is not the only one to recognize British history as being perhaps a bit more complex than Anglican triumphalists will admit.

(The two paragraphs following the italicized one are Belloc’s words, not mine.)

was belloc catholic?

shall we get this to 100? please?

Yes. Read his superb “The Path to Rome” available as an e-book here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7373

isn’t it poor form to support a catholic re-reading of history with an older catholic re-reading of history?

not that i particularly care. i would like to see this go to 100, tho, since i am bored, and in need of the delight.

i have achieved it.