Is His Title Valid?

There've been many disputes over the validity of the Bishop's title. I'm having a look into the matter, myself.

And already, I've stumbled upon something rather interesting.

The Bishop's Holy Grail Church website contains a link discussing the British Old Catholic Church. I'll get to that a bit later.

Its importance lies in the fact that "The Right Rev’d Seán Manchester, O.S.G." page claims he is the "Presiding Bishop of the traditionalist British Old Catholic Church, Old Catholic Bishop of Glastonbury, and Primate of Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi."

Now, let's get onto that British Old Catholic Church (BOCC) link.

Here's a particular portion of its history that captured my attention:

In England a movement began in 1908 which resulted in the formation of the Old Catholic Church in England. In that year the distinguished English priest, Dr. Arnold Harris Mathew, de jure Earl of Llandoff, who had left the Roman Church, was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht assisted by all the continental Old Catholic Bishops, at the Cathedral Church of Saint Gertrude, Utrecht, on April 28th, and placed in charge of the English mission. On Saint Paul’s Day, 1911, he was elected Archbishop and Metropolitan of Great Britain.

Apart from it being a good starting point for finding out more about the Church, it's also been plagiarised. The same content is found in a link that reproduces "text taken from the 1941 articles written by the Old Catholic brother from New York State."

Don't believe me? Here's an extract from the article. The opening paragraph, in fact:

"In England a movement began in 1908 which resulted in the formation of the Old Catholic Church in England. In that year the distinguished English priest, Dr. Arnold Harris Mathew, de jure Earl of Llandoff, who had left the Roman Church, was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht assisted by all the continental Old Catholic Bishops, at the Cathedral Church of Saint Gertrude, Utrecht, on April 28th, and placed in charge of the English mission. On Saint Paul's Day, 1911, he was elected Archbishop and Metropolitan of Great Britain.

In light of my recent coverage of the Bishop's plagiaristic habits, it's especially startling to see this same practice applied to his church writings.

Keep scrolling down BOCC page from this point, and you'll see that the 1941 article has been blatantly plagiarised - with occasional revisions - right down to the last paragraph.

But it's the last paragraph that stands out most. And it's a doozy.

Here's how the original article ends:

"After Bishop Mathew's death, the small body of Old Catholics in England remained without legitimate Episcopal supervision of their own, and until a short while ago the Church remained in the protection of the Episcopate of the Old Catholic Church in Poland. Now, cut off from their Mother-house by the European War, the English Old Catholics have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of an American Old Catholic Archbishop.

Got that? Now here's how it ends on the BOCC page:

After Bishop Mathew’s death, on December 20th, 1919, the small body of Old Catholics in England remained without legitimate Episcopal supervision of their own, even though the Church remained in the protection of the Episcopate of the Old Catholic Church in Poland. Now, cut off from their Mother-house by the European Wars, English Old Catholics have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the British Old Catholic Church presided over by the Right Reverend Seán Manchester [emphasis added -ed].

That's right. With a few strokes of the keyboard, history is magically transformed by the Holy Grail Church!

But wait, there's more!

I've Googled other sections of the BOCC page and have come across the rest of the article, which is attributed to "an Old Catholic Benedictine brother who lived in an Old Catholic community in Woodstock, New York." It also mentions that it was "written and published in 1941" (as the other link established) "for a local newspaper, The Catskill Mountain Star."

Have a read through the article, which (unsurprisingly) you'll find has been ripped-off by the BOCC with the Bishop's usual lack of attribution.

Utterly, utterly shameless.

So, is the Bishop's title valid?

Going by these practices, I'd be surprised if it was. I've been making a coupla queries along those lines to certain authorities, so stay tuned.

But, as I've shown, he's already shown himself capable of historical revisionism. So, if those authorities aren't aware of it, they soon will be!