C of E – Church of England or Church of Europe?

Edward Spalton

Edward Spalton on the ruination of a national institution by socialist and Europhile folly

The English church pre-existed the unified kingdom of England and throughout history has been closely bound with it as an Estate of the Realm and as the educator of many of its most eminent administrators.  The first article of Magna Carta specifies “The English Church shall be free”.

Long before the Reformation, English kings wrestled with the problem of a church which, as a massive landowner, was exempt from the usual taxes on succession to estates because, unlike barons, the church never died.  Barons likewise found ingenious ways of giving parts of their estates to the church in trust for the benefit of their heirs.  The church took its cut as an on-shore tax haven, also offering prayers for the souls of benefactors, thus extending the benefits of wealth preservation of the hereafter – an attractive investment package.  Tax accountancy is not a new profession!

These massively wealthy corporate landowners, the monastic orders and dioceses, were part of an interlocking supranational cartel with their own internal system of law, answerable to Rome and not to royal courts.  Many acts of Parliament testify to this clash of interests.  The best known are the increasingly severe acts of Praemunire (1353,1365 and 1393) which penalised the offence of appealing to or obeying a foreign court.  Praemunire was replaced in 1967 in the run up to joining the European Economic Community.

The Lords Spiritual

The high officers of the church were important people who had to be consulted in Parliament.  Today every Act of Parliament begins “Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual”, who rank in precedence ahead of the Lords Temporal – lay the peers – and the Commons.

Today there are twenty six Lords Spiritual.  The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester serve ex officio.  The remaining twenty one are drawn from the bishops with the longest service.  On leaving office, they cease to be Lords Spiritual but some have become life peers and continue to serve in the Lords. At least one Lord Spiritual attends each sitting of the House to begin proceedings with prayer.

They sit together on their own bench without overt party affiliation or whip and have the same rights to debate and vote as any other peer.  They can take different views on the same subject but mostly follow the general line of the leftish liberal “social gospel” ascendancy which has dominated the Church of England for the last forty years.  One long-serving independent peer reports that they are “Europhiles to a man”.

This seems a little odd, as the whole foundation of the reformed Church of England was based on the assertion of national independence from foreign jurisdiction.  Henry VIII assembled a powerful think tank to justify this claim.  Unsurprisingly, by consulting “divers sundry old histories and chronicles” they found the answers he wanted.  Henry stopped the church from sending money to Rome (1532) and in 1533 passed the Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome. 

This was repealed for Northern Ireland in 1950 and for the rest of the UK in 1969 – again in the approach to EEC membership.

The act of Supremacy of 1534 stuck to the theory that Parliament was merely endorsing what had always been true – that the king was supreme over all subjects and inhabitants of his kingdom.  For the church this is summed up in the Article now numbered XXXVII in the Articles of religion, to which beneficed clergy of the Church of England subscribe today.

“The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction….”

It is the English Declaration of Independence and was accustomably included in the Book of Common Prayer to be found in each Parish.  This largely established “one use for the whole Realm” in the forms of Anglican worship until the liturgical fidgets which afflicted the Church of England from the Sixties onwards.  Very similar wording appears in the Bill of Rights of 1688 and in the oath taken by Privy Counsellors, including today’s Archbishops, to uphold the sovereignty of the Crown against all foreign powers.

Those of us who experienced the frantic liturgical innovations between the 1970s and 1990s wondered what it was all about.  Leading churchmen told us very forcefully that newer, modern wording was needed to be “meaningful and relevant in this day and age and moment in time” and to reach out to younger people.

The Anglo-Catholic party saw an opportunity to move the communion service nearer to the vernacular Roman mass.  Dom Gregory Dix’s book “The Shape of the Liturgy” was very influential.  Others were influenced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s idea of “religion less Christianity” for the common man.  Bonhoeffer was an admirable man and a martyr.  He himself drew strength from the traditional forms, which, he felt, were beyond the understanding on the average person.  There was a touch of arrogance in this which extended to the Anglican modernisers.  They seemed to believe that a dumbed down liturgy was needed for dumbed down people.

Older members of the congregation asked me to approach the vicar to ask for a Prayer Book Evensong occasionally.  He brushed it aside “They won’t understand it,” he said – referring to people who had know the service all their lives! “We must look forwards and outwards, not backwards and inwards”.  Immediately afterwards, he threw out all the Books of Common Prayer.

There was a very successful traditional parish not too far away, frequently attracting over two hundred morning services and a hundred to evensong.  So the Book of Common Prayer was certainly not repelling people there.  A new vicar was who arrogantly quipped that, as a first step, he intended “to bring the church into the nineteenth centaury”. Of course attendance plummeted. He has long since moved on to senior appointments.  I am told that when recently asked about this episode, he replied that the then Bishop had instructed him to “Get rid of the Prayer Book within three months”.

Without decrying the successful ministries of those using the modernised services, what was the point of suppressing what was working very well?

In ignorance of that episcopal directive, members of the Prayer Book Society went to see the Bishop’s successor who assured us of his concern and intention to maintain the Prayer Book ministry.  He insisted no minute should be kept.  Having seen no improvement in the situation, we wrote suggesting that clergy might be reminded to use the service appointed for the anniversary of the Queen’s accession.  The response was volcanic.  We had touched a raw nerve.  Some of the clergy still using the Prayed Book said that they were pressured to omit the prayer for the Queen’s Majesty “because she isn’t important anymore”.

 La Trahison Des Clercs

In the preface of the now discarded Alternative Service Book of 1980 the intellectuals of the Liturgical Commission said that they were “the mind of the Church”.  The book did not include the usual state prayers and Articles.  Neither does its successor, the pick-and-mix Common Worship.  In hindsight, it is plain that it was not just the sovereign who was being slighted but sovereignty itself. The pastoral was mixed with the political.

From the same era, the General Synod paper “Britain in Europe – the Social Responsibility of the Church” (Ref GS 95) is one of the most rabidly Europhile documents imaginable.  It lauds the European projects to the skies, containing phrases like “The European Economic Community was conceived by its brilliant and innovating creators…” – and looks forward to the Church of England’s role in dissolving the nation into the European polity.

As a solid, spiritually sustaining, much loved bulwark of personal faith and the constitutional settlement of Church and state, the Book of Common Prayer had to go because the Church’s leadership had decided that the nation itself had to go.  So had her Majesty’s Government.

 Edward Spalton is vice-chairman of Campaign for an Independent Britain

Association Agreement with EU is NOT just a trade agreement!

I heard a debate on Deutsche Welle in which the pro-CDU (ruling party) participants all kept insisting that the Association Agreement that Ukraine is being urged to sign before they have a chance to read it is only a trade agreement. None of the other participants, even those more friendly to Russia, seemed to know that this was a lie. This is typical of the lies and treachery with which the EU was shoved down the throats of most European nations. So being a nosy kind of guy, I went and found the text of that agreement.

Here is an example of this treachery in Article 16 of this agreement:

http://eeas.europa.eu/ukraine/pdf/4_ua_title_iii_justice,_freedom,_security_en.pdf

1. The Parties reaffirm the importance of joint management of migration flows between their territories…

Article 19 elaborates:
3. The Parties shall take gradual steps towards a visa-free regime in due course, provide the conditions for well-managed and secure mobility, set out in the two-phase Action Plan Liberalization presented at the EU-Ukraine Summit of 22 November 2010, are in place.

This means open borders are the ultimate goal (or multi-kulti, a pillar of the New World Order ideology). This will add even more unemployed immigrants to the rolls in UK, Germany, Holland and any other core countries already groading under the burden of excess immigration. It will also enable more of the crimmigrants in East Europe to show up on Ukraine’s doorstep.

So the next time anyone tells you the association agreement is strictly a trade agreement, show them this. If they continue to argue, show them the door.

Don Hank

Why the Russians might be right to go into Ukraine

Edward Spalton has his say on the uprising in Kiev.

Ukranian wounded

The uprising in Kiev was far from spontaneous. It was supported financially and organisationally by the United States and Germany. It overthrew a government which the OSCE (Organistion for Security and Co-operation in Europe) said was elected fairly, whatever its faults later turned out to be.

In Britain we have laws against foreign funding for political parties and pressure groups. The Ukrainian government passed a law that such parties or groups should be registered and identified as the agents of foreign powers. That is what started the protests which turned to a revolution.

Today’s German secret service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, grew out of the Nazi Gehlen organisation which was very useful to the Americans because of its contacts with anti-Soviet groups in Eastern Europe.

Among these were the Ukrainian Nazis who today command about ten per cent of the popular vote in the Ukraine. Neither the Americans, nor the EU , nor German representatives had any problem in meeting and dealing with these people whose views are totally Third Reich.
Rather more seemingly respectable is the figure of the former boxer, Vitali Klitschko of the UDAR party. He too is a willing German puppet, groomed and funded for years by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, an agency of the German Christian Democrats.

The population of Ukraine is decidedly mixed with Russian speakers predominating in the East and the Crimea where Russia has a lease on Sebastopol, its Black Sea naval base. It is unsurprising that the Russians living there do not want to be ruled by people from Kiev who try to make them speak Ukrainian. The Crimea was only transferred to Ukraine in 1954 when the border change was like a local government boundary.

Now Russia is calling a halt to the nonsense. EU policy is indistinguishable from German policy which goes back way beyond the Nazis. On 9 September 1914, the Kaiser’s Chancellor, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg wrote “Russia must be thrust back as far as possible from Germany’s eastern frontier and her domination over non Russian vassal peoples broken….We must create a central European economic association through common customs treaties to include France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Poland and perhaps Italy, Sweden and Norway…. all its members will be formally equal but in practice will be under German leadership…..”

It sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it? Yet David Cameron is warning Russia!

In last July he boasted in Khazakstan that he looked forward to the day when the European Union stretched from the Atlantic to the Urals.
He might consider the outcome of the last Crimean war when Britain was a real power and not entirely successful. I have rewritten a song of that era for him

“ O we do want a fight,
But by jingo, if we do,
We’ve got no ships, we’ve got no men,
We’ve got no money too.
So the Germans and the Yanks
Will have to find the tanks,
As our brave boys assault the Heights of Alma!
We’ll get Sebastopol
Before the election poll
And have a big parade in celebration.
With the dying safely done,
And old Putin on the run,
I’ll be Brussels’ favourite son,
And be the hero of next year’s election”!

Edward’s article first appeared in the Derby Telegraph

Get them young: Merkel plans EU education

Pupils should be given a “European Union education” in the classroom to tackle “ignorance” and growing public Euroscepticism, according to an election manifesto signed by Angela Merkel and eight other leaders.

The German chancellor and the leaders of Ireland, Poland, Spain, Hungary, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus and Latvia were in Dublin to launch a pro-EU, centre-Right manifesto for the European elections in May.The European People’s Party (EPP), a pan-EU political grouping, which David Cameron’s Conservatives left in 2009, will campaign around a 40-page, five-year programme that will aim to transform the EU into “a genuine political union”.

The programme calls for the introduction of “EU education in schools across Europe in order to prepare the next generation for future challenges and to nurture a European approach”.

“Europe has been in crisis for more than five years. Many people, especially the young, do not foresee a positive future. Euroscepticism is growing,” the manifesto said.”United, we can make sure that young people look at the future with optimism, hope and confidence.” Chancellor Merkel was a “strong supporter” of the proposal, said officials, because she believed lessons about the EU would “contribute to a common European identity and knowledge about history”.

The call for a federal Europe and European school lessons will put the Prime Minister at odds with Mrs Merkel, who is regarded as his key ally, and further isolate Britain at a time when other EU countries are seeking closer integration.In contrast to Germany and the bloc of EPP countries wanting “political union”, Mr Cameron is seeking to repatriate powers from Brussels and last year the Government cut references to the EU from the National Curriculum because the lessons were seen as biased.Syed Kamall, the leader of Britain’s Conservative MEPs, said the proposal showed that the Prime Minister had been right to pull the Tories out of the EPP, to set up their own grouping, while he was leader of the opposition five years ago.

“Schools should be quipping students with the skills and knowledge they will need to create a globally competitive Europe fit for the 21st century – not navel-gazing over a 1950s vision of what Europe means,” he said. Jean-Claude Juncker, the former prime minister of Luxembourg, was chosen by the EPP to be its leading candidate during the EU elections and as contender to be the next president of the European Commission in October. Mr Juncker, is a passionate supporter of the idea of a “United States of Europe” and chaired meetings of the eurozone at the height the EU single currency’s debt crisis until he resigned as Luxembourg’s leader amid a scandal over illegal phone tapping.

“The knowledge of Europe has to be deepened in school progranimes,” he said. “There is ignorance about the basics and this was evident during the so-called euro crisis.” In 2011, Mr Juncker courted controversy when he was caught on tape saying that he “had to lie” in his role as chairman of the eurozone and that important economic decisions could only be taken in “dark secret rooms”.”I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious,” he said on a video recorded by the EUobserver website. 

“When it becomes serious, you have to lie.”Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party accused the alliance of European leaders of wanting “to squeeze children into a one-size-fits-all scheme of thought”.

Post note: All official ‘histories’ of Europe now refer to the Second World War as “The European Civil War”.– Rev Philip Foster

 

EU demands Britain pays £2.5bn to plug massive black hole in budget

Union Jack and rag of stars
Britain could be forced to hand an extra £2.5billion to Brussels to help plug a massive black hole in the EU budget, it has emerged. In a dramatic admission, EU Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski said Brussels overspent its budget by an astonishing £20billion last year.

Mr Lewandowski, who blamed the situation on late invoices, said the cash would be taken from this year’s budget in the short term. But officials conceded it was almost certain to lead to a request for a bailout later this year, making a mockery of claims that the EU budget has been brought under control.

A request on this scale would cost British taxpayers about £2.5billion this year – more than the entire annual budget of the Foreign Office.
The revelation prompted an angry response in Britain, where David Cameron claims he has curbed EU spending.

Tory MEP Marta Andreasen, a member of the European Parliament’s budget committee, said it was astonishing that the EU was asking for more money just three months after it was granted an emergency £10billion top-up to allow it to balance its books.

Miss Andreasen, a former chief accountant at the European Commission, condemned the EU’s ‘utter incompetence’ and ‘continued disdain with which it treats taxpayers’ money’.

She said European taxpayers ‘should not be throwing more money away on failing policy areas’, and added: ‘It seems the European Commission is not only unwilling but is also completely unable to live within the means agreed. It repeatedly comes back, blaming others and looking for more cash.’ 

Bill Cash, Tory chairman of the Commons European scrutiny committee, described the situation as ‘completely unacceptable’, and said Britain should refuse any demand for more money.

He added: ‘They are stretching the patience of the British taxpayer beyond breaking point. 

‘We cannot go on just paying up every time they come back with their begging bowl.’ 

Pawel Swidlicki, of the think-tank Open Europe, said it was time Brussels put its affairs in order rather than demanding even more cash from Britain. He added: ‘This highlights the shocking lack of long-term planning or adequate controls in the EU budget. Any shortfall should be made up from future EU budgets rather than via a fresh top-up from member states.

‘The budget needs to be radically slimmed down and overhauled – ending the pointless recycling of regeneration funds among the EU’s richest members would be a good start.’ 

The UK Treasury is expected to oppose any extra cash for Brussels, as it did with last year’s demand for £10billion.
But the decision is made by qualified majority voting and Brussels sources say the UK is likely to be out-voted, as it was last year.