|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 22
In vain does the Archbishop of Canterbury of to-day claim continuity
with the pre-"Reformation" Archbishops. For no one would be found to
admit such a claim. It may be said that this is of no great
importance. It may not be in itself, but it is the straw which shows
the way the wind blows; and clearly proves that the verdict of the
entire world and the chief centres of Christendom is against
continuity.
Let us take another "straw". Before the pseudo-Reformation there were
Cardinals exercising authority in the Church in England. Some of them
even became famous. There was, for instance, Cardinal Stephen Langton,
who was Primate of England, and who brought together the Barons, and
forced the Great Charter from King John. There, amongst the signatures
to that famous document we find the name of a Roman Cardinal. From the
time of Stephen Langton to the time of Cardinal Fisher in the
sixteenth century there was a long succession of Cardinals in England,
all of whom were members of the Church in England. From the time of
Cardinal Robert Pullen to that of Cardinal John Fisher there were no
fewer than twenty-two Roman Cardinals belonging to that Church. How is
it that during those thousand years the English Church could have and
actually did have Cardinals, up to the time of the so-called
Reformation, but never since? How is it that such a thing has ceased
to be possible? Clearly because it is no longer the same Church.
Before, England was a part of the Universal Church; and just as the
Church in Italy, France, and Spain, had, and still have, their
Cardinals, so England also was given its share of representation in
the Sacred College. We shall realise the inference to be drawn if we
consider what a Cardinal is. In the first place, he is one chosen
directly by the Pope; secondly, he is one of the Pope's advisers;
thirdly, when the Holy Father dies it is he, as a member of the Sacred
College, who has to elect a successor; furthermore, he swears
allegiance to the Sovereign Pontiff, and on bended knee, with his
hands on the Holy Gospels, he solemnly declares his adhesion to the
Roman Catholic Faith. No Anglican of the present day, no Protestant,
no one who is not an out-and-out Roman Catholic can be, or could ever
have been, a Cardinal, yet there were Cardinals here in the Church in
England, and, as we have stated, a long succession of them right up to
the time of the pseudo-Reformation. How can there be continuity and
spiritual identity between the Church _in_ England, which before that
change could and did have Cardinals, and the Church _of_ England
to-day, which can produce nothing of the kind? Cardinals or no
Cardinals is not a matter of great importance in itself, but it is
another "straw" which clearly shows the completely altered condition
of things. Let us pass to another point. During the period between the
sixth and sixteenth centuries there were many canonised saints in the
Church in England. I refer to such men as St. Bede, who lived in the
eighth century; to St. Odo of Canterbury; to St. Dunstan, Archbishop
of Canterbury, in the tenth century; to St. Wolstan of Worcester; to
St. Osmond, Bishop of Salisbury in the eleventh century; to St. Thomas
� Becket, in the twelfth century; to St. Richard, Bishop of
Chichester and St. Edmund, in the thirteenth century; and to many
others we could mention, whose names are enrolled in the lists of the
Catholic Church, and who are set up before her children as models of
virtue, as the most perfect specimens of sanctity, and as worthy of
our imitation--all members of the Church in England before the
pseudo-Reformation.[11] How is it that the present Church of England
has never canonised any saint? Those to whom I have referred represent
the best and truest of the Church in England before the "Reformation".
We still show them reverence. In many cases we even recite their
offices and Masses. How, then, can they be members of the same Church
as the Church of England of to-day, which we know to be a schismatical
body, cut off from the unity of Christendom some four hundred years
ago? There has been no saint canonised according to the rite of the
Church of England, but if there had been, we would not and could not
reverence them, for they would be to us outside the Church--aliens,
heretics, and, from that point of view at all events, unworthy of
imitation. Let us point out yet another "straw" which clearly
indicates the essential difference between the Church in England
before the "Reformation" and the Church of England after it. When the
young King Henry VIII. first came to the throne he, like all his
predecessors, both kings and queens, was a true Roman Catholic. So
much so, that when a doctrine of the Church was attacked he wrote a
book in its defence; in fact, the Pope was so pleased with his zeal
that he determined to reward him by conferring on him the title of
"Defender of the Faith". But, in the name of common-sense! Defender of
what Faith? Was it the Protestant faith? Was it the faith professed by
the present Church of England? Is it likely, is it possible, that any
Pope would confer such a title on any one who was not in union with
the Holy See, and who rejected Catholic doctrine? Such a thing is
unthinkable. Was the faith of Henry VIII. before the break with Rome
the same as that of Edward VII. who on his coronation day declared the
Mass to be false, Transubstantiation to be absurd, and Catholics to be
idolaters? If not, then what becomes of the continuity theory? The
fact is that between the Church in England before the sixteenth
century and the Church of England to-day there is no real connection,
no true resemblance, and those who endeavour to prove the contrary are
but falsifying history and throwing dust into the eyes of simple
people, and trying to prove what is absolutely and wholly untrue.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|