• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Bishop Peter Manchester (Not Bishop Sean Manchester) Solicits Your Testimony

The Augustinian Principle, as it is known in Catholic circles, in non-negotiable ~ even by Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But the legitimacy of a line of succession is open to question, investigation and re evaluation. A line may be deemed illegitimate.

It is interesting that many of the irregular churches pay so much attention to the notion of 'apostolic succession'. In most Catholic and Orthodox circles this has not been a political / theological issue since the 19th century. Consequently little attention has been paid to this issue during the past 100 years.

I suspect that a proliferation of irregular churches will force Roman theologians to pay closer attention and make rather more rulings.

As I said before - I'm very interested in this letter from Cardinal Mercati. Does this letter still exist? Can it be seen? Is it known to be genuine?
 
Evidence ...

A photocopy of the Cardinal Mercati letter can be provided by snail mail, but the source (not me, incidentally) would need to have your snail mail address.

But back to Peter Manchester's allegation:

"I gather from articles on [Bishop Manchester's] site and from other postings on these forums that he is anxious to distance himself from the activities of people who appear to have been his former associates - understandable, given his current occupation and advanced years."

Exactly who is it "who appear to have been his former associates" from whom "he is anxious to distance himself"?

Peter Manchester really ought to put up or shut up! Anyone can make unsubstantiated allegations without a single shred of evidence, but only a coward will do so and then refuse to either (a) admit they were wrong, or (b) provide some sort of reason for making the accusation in the first place.
 
Re the Mercati letter:

A photocopy would be excellent. Thanks. Where do I apply?

Do any sources exist from which or from whom I could learn more regarding the context of the letter - ie the circumstances which caused it to be written etc.

In what language is the letter written?
 
Legal Position With Rome

The 1952 Mercarti epistle has somewhat been superseded by the 1982 application to Rome by the British Old Catholic Church which holds fast to the True Mass and Traditional Catholicism. This is the denomination in which Bishop Manchester received Orders.

The concise history is important, explains much, and here follows:

In 1710 the Archbishop of Utrecht died. Rome did not appoint a successor because it was felt that some of the Clergy might hold Jansenist views. An Enquiry was instituted, but the matter was not resolved until 1853 when a new Archbishop was appointed, that is, after a lapse of 143 years.

In the meantime the Dutch Church felt obliged to take matters into their own hands, for in 1724 Bishop Dominque Marie Varlet passed through Utrecht on his way to his new See in the Lebanon. There had been no Confirmations for fourteen years and as an act of clemency, Bishop Varlet was persuaded to Confirm 604 children.

It became obvious that if there were no new Archbishop of Utrecht the same situation would continue, and would be compounded by the fact that there could be no Ordinations and therefore no new Clergy.With this in mind, Bishop Varlet agreed to Consecrate a Bishop for them.

Rome was informed of what had happened, and as a result Bishop Varlet was suspended. He continued to live in Holland, but tool no part in the affairs of the Dutch Church. It is fortunate that he was there because the Bishop he Consecrated died soon after, and it was necessary to provide another - and another - until at last a the fourth Bishop outlived Bishop Varlet and Consecrated his own successor.

This line of Bishops was still in existence when Rome at last decided to provide its own candidate. From their point of view he was obviously a "New" Catholic, so that the existing Bishops became known as "Old" Catholics.

In 1870 the First Vatican Council defined the position of the Pope, and the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The Old Catholic Church did not feel able to accept it, and in consequence did not accept the later definitions of the Doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady.

There were groups of similar thinkers in Germany, Switzerland, Poland and the United States of America, and they all joined the Dutch Old Catholics to form an independent Church.

In due course the Continental Old Catholic Church signed agreements of mutual recognition with the Lutheran Church and with the Church of England, and their liturgy was adapted to reflect the new thinking.

In 1908 Arnold Harris Mathew was Consecrated by the Utrecht Church and appointed as Regionary Old Catholic Bishop for Great Britain and Ireland. He began to recruit Clergy, mainly from Anglicans who wanted to be sure of the validity of their Orders. He also provided a resting-place for discontented and lapsed Roman Catholics who were not prepared to join the Church of England. In the meantime, the Continental Old Catholic Church revised the liturgy and moved ever closer towards Protestantism. This did not meet with Bishop Mathew's approval. In 1910 he issued an official rejection of Anglican Orders which was contrary to the position held by the Continental Old Catholic Church. He also decided to make it unnecessary for his flock, should he die, to have his successor Consecrated by Continental Bishops for, in such an event, this Consecration would not have be in accordance with the formula of the Pontificale Romanum. He, therefore, consecrated two Roman Catholic Priests to the Episcopate. In the following year, 1911, Bishop Mathew Consecrated four more Priests. Thus a valid Apostolic Succession was assured for traditional Old Catholics.

The British Old Catholic Church was not prepared to follow the lead of the Continental Old Catholics, and they resigned from their allegiance to Utrecht. They readopted the full Catholic Faith and to emphasise the fact, styled themselves as traditional Old Catholics.

They applied to Rome for admission to full unity, but as a Uniate Church, that is, one having its own Clergy, Liturgy and administration, whilst fully acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope. This request has not been rejected, but after almost a century, Rome still has not announced a decision. In order to ensure that the legal position remained unchanged, application was made to Rome in 1982 asking for confirmation that Old Catholic Orders were still recognised as fully valid. A reply was received which states: "I have attached a brief scheme of succession which ties (the then Archbishop Primate) to the Supreme Pontiffs Benedict XIII, Benedict XIV and Pius IX, with the aim of assuring him that his lineage truly links him to the See of Peter."


Mass is said in traditional British Old Catholic Churches according to the Tridentine Rite, just as it was in all Catholic Churches for centuries although the use of the vernacular is permitted. After the Second Vatican Council the mainstream changed to the New Mass, but traditional Old Catholics chose not to do so. Thus, unlike some other Churches, they are not trying to re-establish the past, but have simply resisted the change.
 
Sean - I have responded to this on the 'Notes and Queries' thread where you posted almost identical infomation.

However - I would still be interested to see a copy of the 1952 letter and await details of where to send my request. I would also be interested to actually see the 1982 attachment. Despite the fact that this does not, of course, relate directly to your own consecration.
 
At the risk of repeating myself ...

For the attention of Peter Manchester:

Please identify who exactly it is "who appear to have been [Bishop Manchester's] former associates" from whom "he is anxious to distance himself"?

Your silence, to date, speaks volumes on the weight we may attach to this reckless statement.
 
Hello all

I have a newly created web site at http://www.petermanchester.info the purpose of which is to promote the outlook of Apathetic Agnosticism.

One of the ideas I have is to invite personal testimony from people who have been involved in religion in any way at all.
They are welcome to recount their true experiences and, if appropriate, describe how they became agnostic or atheist or simply changed their beliefs.

Stories submitted will be published on my web site.

If your story is long I may wish to edit it down (subject to your agreement). You must provide email address for me to contact you, although you may remain anonymous for the purpose of publication. Oh .. and your story must be true.

Please submit your stories by email to [email protected]

Thanks

IMPORTANT: Please send submissions in the body of your email and makes sure that any attachments are text only. Emails which have no content and which carry attachments such as Word documents will be deleted.

Concerning Bishop Sean Manchester - there are pages on Bishop Sean's own web site which contain a great deal of information concerning a certain David Farrant.

eg http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Satanism.htm

Whoever was responsible for the following words seems to have known Mr Farrant very well indeed:

"David Farrant was a hippy in the late 1960s who wandered aimlessly from one French and Spanish town to the next until he returned to England in late 1967 to marry a Roman Catholic and settle down in Highgate. Within a couple of years, however, he was made bankrupt, evicted from his flat, and his wife left him ~ despite a gift of several thousand pounds from his father, inheriting a newsagent business, and also being provided with a flat. Farrant remained a hippy and squandered the money on alcohol, drugs and exotic parrots and macaws. His wife was left to run the business whilst he visited his local pubs with hangers-on and allowed their marital home to become a free hotel for social misfits like himself. When the money ran out, so did his “friends” and, as eviction grew nearer in August 1969, his complaining wife returned to her parents in Southampton. She had eloped for six months with one of Farrant’s “friends” in the previous year. Farrant accepted refuge in this same “friend’s” coal cellar, someone he described as “Hutchinson” who was fascinated with the occultist Aleister Crowley. It was from here that he penned his first letter to a local newspaper in February 1970, telling of how he had stumbled upon a “ghostly figure” by a cemetery gate a few weeks earlier. Nobody really believed him, but tales of a malefic spectre in the same vicinity had been rampant for three years prior. Indeed, Farrant heard these tales in the local pubs he frequented and was inspired by them. Later that year he was arrested in the same cemetery under suspicion of being there for “unlawful purposes” but was eventually acquitted at Clerkenwell Magistrates’ Court. It was during these excursions to his local graveyard that Farrant became actively involved with a dark manifestation of the occult and, in the autumn of 1970, converted to a form of Satanism akin to Crowleyism. Three years later he teamed up with John Russell Pope, a devout Crowleyite, and engaged in ceremonies and publicity stunts that were nothing short of an imitation, albeit pale, of Crowley at his most infamous. This led to a variety of charges and criminal convictions from indecency at Barnet Magistrates’ Court in 1972 to a catalogue of so-called witchcraft offences at London’s Old Bailey two years later. Further appearances in two libel cases proved ruinous for the already penniless Farrant. The tens of thousands of pounds in court costs and fines were to remain unpaid by him owing to his permanent unemployment since the time of his prison release. Throughout his notorious “witchcraft trials,” as the press would dub them, Farrant insisted that he was a high priest of witchcraft and was not a Satanist. He complained to the European Court that he had been prevented from practicing his religion, wicca, whilst in prison. Some saw this as a ploy to gain more publicity which it did. A number of gullible persons, mostly female, allowed themselves to be duped by Farrant. They paid the price with dreadful publicity in sensationalist newspapers. Some had nervous breakdowns and at least two are alleged (by Farrant) to have committed suicide. To most people’s mind, of course, Farrant is a Satanist; though he will always publicly deny this description. He and his associates admire and imitate Aleister Crowley who would have also publicly denied being a Satanist. However, Crowley’s own writings and actions reveal him to be an arch-Satanist."
 
"Whoever was responsible for the following words seems to have known Mr Farrant very well indeed." - PETER MANCHESTER

It wouldn't be very difficult given that Farrant is a compulsive publicity-seeker and has been actively propagating himself to all and sundry since early 1970. Sean Manchester interviewed him in 1970 and, again, in 1977. As did, incidentally, hundreds of other people, mostly journalists. He has also spoken to him on other occasions. But they were never associated in the way that Peter Manchester implies. "Former associate" sounds like a colleague or freind ~ and Farrant has never been that!

Sean Manchester, as stated in two of his published works (1988 and 1997) did successfully work undercover in the Seventies and early Eighties. Farrant and his lieutenant John Pope were investigated by Sean Manchester in the Seventies. The results of that investigation have been published elsewhere, but surely that does not make these miscreants his "former associates"? He has investigated a great many other occult charlatans, needless to say. They, too, are not "former associates" of his.

Much of the information on the page reproduced by Peter Manchester was gleaned from intimates who knew Farrant in the Sixties and Seventies, including his first wife. It seems bizarre that Peter Manchester would not assume as much. Sean Manchester, after all, is an author and has worked for over three decades in television and radio.
 
Addendum

Regarding the first section of the reproduced Farrant material, much of it can be found in the court transcripts of his notorious Old Bailey trials (there were several) that culminated in June 1974. The "free hotel" expression, for example, was offered by his then wife, Mary Farrant. Much else had been established elsewhere by those who either knew Farrant, or by Farrant himself (in articles published in various local newspapers and also New Witchcraft magazine to which Farrant contributed even while languishing in jail).

The "Hutchinson" story was an invention proffered by Farrant and reproduced, at his behest, in his local newspapers and also in Time Out magazine. He claimed that "Hutchinson" was a journalist who was really responsible for the incriminating photographs showing him hovering over open coffins in tombs in Highgate's catacombs. What he did not reveal (at that time) was that "Hutchinson" had eloped for six months with his wife in the late Sixties and that he was an ardent admirer of Aleister Crowley. It is generally accepted that "Hutchinson" stirred Farrant's interest in the occult, and that it was "Hutchinson's" coal cellar which Farrant occupied, while destitute, from 1969 to 1970.

Sean Manchester interviewed some of the duped females whose lives had been temporarily ruined by Farrant's exploitation of them. They invariably appeared naked in phoney witchcraft pictures in Sunday tabloids. Farrant himself, not long after his release from prison, told Sean Manchester that at least two females had committed suicide as a direct consequence of their involvement with him and his so-called witchcraft. The libel cases are a matter of public record and were widely reported in the press. The only way Farrant has managed to avoid paying his mountain of court costs, which runs into tens of thousands of pounds, is by remaining on the unemployed register, as confirmed by those who know him in Muswell Hill, London.

John Pope has been interviewed by Sean Manchester. Both interviews were tape recorded with Pope's permission. Pope confirms much of what is revealed in the reproduced piece from the Satanism file. Pope, also a self-publicist like Farrant, frequently gave interviews to the press, but, unlike Farrant, was less circumspect and did not shy from the label "Satanist."

See http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/John Pope de Locksley.htm
 
Highgate vampire

Interesting.

I have read accounts of the Bishop's activities in Highgate cemetary in the 1970s and heard recordings from his radio interview with Nick Campbell in which he describes the way in which he entered a tomb and encountered a 'vampire', and later 'excorcised' it by driving a stake through it's heart and burning it.

These accounts can be found at

http://www.mindsetcentral.com/highgateintro.html

http://www.mysterymag.com/html/interview.html

From these accounts, it would appear that, far from 'working under cover' to investigate the activities of Farrant, the Bishop was actually engaged in similar activities.

In particular, it is described how, in 1970,

Tombs and vault's were being vandalized and damaged, by over zealous "Vampire Hunters" looking for a late night thrill in the cemetery. Unfortunately the damage was not restricted to the tombs, as a mutilated corpse of a woman was discovered beside a broken vault. It had be beheaded and burned, and there was also evidence that some kind of occult ritual had taken place. Outraged at these atrocities, the citizens demanded that the authorities do something to protect the bodies of loved ones from this obscene abuse. David Farrant then once again came into prominence, when he was found "Vampire Hunting" in Highgate armed with a crucifix and stake. He was arrested, and later convicted of breaking into tombs at Highgate.

Manchester, disturbed by the goings on at Highgate, secretly returned to the suspected tomb, and in the dead of night lowered himself into the vault. Once inside he quickly realized than one of the three coffins was missing, and concluded that due to the increased activity in the cemetery the vampire was on the move. He then contacted the girl who had initially led him to the tomb, and asked her to accompany him to the site during the daylight hours. She agreed, and met Manchester and two assistants at the vault. Whilst seated outside the tomb, she went onto a trance like state and somehow became a host for the evil entity. She answered questions put to her by Manchester, and unwittingly led the group to another tomb deeper into the cemetery. Upon inspecting the door of the tomb, Manchester noticed that it was not sealed correctly, and the door yielded easily to pressure. Once inside the group noticed that the tomb was in a state of disarray, and was putrid with the stench of decay. Scanning the tombs contents, Manchester noticed that the vault contained an extra coffin, according to the inscriptions on the outside of the vault.

Of all the caskets in the vault, one that was situated toward the rear, appeared to be newer than the rest. The group led by Manchester approached the rear coffin, and slowly removed the lid. What lay in the casket was described by Manchester as, "Something not long dead, with the appearance of a three day old corpse". Which was strange to say the least, as the vault in which they were standing was a hundred years old, and there had been no recent admissions. The group stared at the vampire in silence, hypnotized with horror of the sight that beheld them. There in the coffin was the body of a bearded man, with eyes open and staring blankly into space. His mouth had slivers of fresh blood at the corners, and under his parchment like skin a strange bluish tinge could be detected. The silence was then broken, as Manchester removed from his bag a large wooden stake and placed it on the chest of the vampire. Manchester made eye contact with the monster, and described the scene. "The glazed eyes stared horibly, almost mocking me, almost knowing that my efforts to destroy it would be thwarted". His assistants, alarmed at this and in a state of panic, restrained Manchester before he could complete the deed. After a heated discussion, on what their course of action should be, they decided against the staking of the creature. As mutilating the dead is a crime in England, and carries a hefty penalty.
Click to expand...

So, I have to ask, did the Bishop actually engage in such activities? Did he in fact desecrate tombs in Highgate cemetary by entering them with the intention of mutilating corpses? Did he in fact, as related in the accounts I have referred to, and as he can be heard admitting in recordings from a radio interview, go on to actually mutilate a corpse by driving a stake through it's heart, and commit arson by cremating the corpse in a nearby 'gothic mansion'. How did the corpse get from the tomb to the mansion? Who moved it?

David Farrant was arrested and tried for his activities. Sean Manchester was not.
 
"From these accounts, it would appear that, far from 'working under cover' to investigate the activities of Farrant, the Bishop was actually engaged in similar activities." - PETER MANCHESTER

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bishop was not a bishop at that time. In fact, he was not in holy orders at all. You are confusing two completely different issues. One is the case of the Highgate Vampire in which Farrant was not involved. The other is Farrant's black magic activities that were investigated by Sean Manchester.

You have chosen to quote other people's latter-day renditions of accounts from goodness knows where. The scribes of these accounts were probably not born when the events took place!

Sean Manchester gained permission in 1970 to enter a vault for the purpose of a spoken exorcism (not a solemn exorcism) that is allowed, under certain circumstances. This is all that was carried out by him in Highgate Cemetery in relation to your question.

David Farrant entered catacombs and mausoleums for the purpose of black magic and publicity. He was eventually arrested and found guilty of malicious damage to tombs and offering indignity to the dead by performing black magic over coffins. Photographs were found of ceremonies involving a naked girl and coffins. There were other pictures of Farrant with satanic symbols in a mausoleum etc. This, coupled with the black magic altar in his small flat, was enough to have him charged with various offences.

The headless body found by two schoolgirls in Highgate Cemetery in August 1970 had nothing to do with either the Highgate investigation by Sean Manchester, or the black magic activities of David Farrant. Police treated it as the work of diabolists who, unlike Farrant, did not want publicity.

What occurred in the grounds of the derelict house (that had already been gutted by fire some years prior) was an exorcism involving the remedy employed by clergy in centuries past for such infestations. There was no "arson," nor any charge of "arson." The final cremation took place in the large rear garden area. The owner of the grounds and property, Mrs Image, did not object to the outcome and means required to bring it about.

Before Sean Manchester's investigation at Highgate Cemetery there was much vandalism occurring, plus clandestine meetings by genuine diabolists near the catacombs, as confirmed by police reports at the time. After his television appearances in 1970, all that came to a halt as the graveyard fell under scrutiny. It was no longer a haven for vandals and those with nefarious intentions involving necromancy and the occult. They dwindled and virtually disappeared altogether during the years of the investigation.

The derelict neo-gothic mansion had been used by various individuals for satanic purposes over the years, gaining for itself an evil reputation. Local residents would not walk near the property, and crossed the road rather than pass by it. Reports of strange happenings had been appearing for some time in the local press. Following Sean Manchester's final exorcism in its grounds, all that ceased. The building was eventually demolished.

Anyone wanting details of these matters from the horse's mouth, so to speak, should read Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire (Gothic Press, 1991) ISBN 1872486010 where a very comprehensive account is given together with archive photographic evidence. More than that I cannot offer.

"All these things happen, and the eyes of ordinary men do not see them, but the eyes of the mind and of the imagination perceive them with the true and truest vision."

~ Michael Sendivogius, 17th Century.
 
Who moved the corpse?

Who moved the corpse from the cemetery to the house?
 
Who do you think moved the corpse?

"Who moved the corpse from the cemetery to the house?"
- PETER MANCHESTER

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This, and questions like it, are dealt with in The Highgate Vampire (BOS, 1985; Gothic Press, revised and updated edition, 1991). If you are at all interested in getting your facts straight about the matter of the Highgate investigation, and the part Farrant didn't play in it, you would take the trouble to at least read this work.

People who are the least bit open-minded tend to read available material before levelling accusations of the kind Peter Manchester has with his "former associates" quip. Those with an anti-Manchester bias, and who do not shy away from Left-hand Path occultism, will obviously put some store in the lies published by Farrant and those who assist his pathetic endeavours. The "former associate" lie originates, along with much else, with Farrant. Now, I am not saying for one minute that Peter Manchester is one of Farrant's cronies, but he has quite possibly seen and read material which has a sympathetic bias in favour of Farrant. These tend to be home-produced publications which favour Aleister Crowley, and such like, and are produced by people who support anything that is vaguely subversive.

The bottom line in all this remains that various Magistrate Courts over the years have not believed Farrant and have found against him, plus a Judge and Jury decided not to believe him in 1974 and Farrant was given an almost five year prison sentence for largely black magic crimes that he denied having committed. Sean Manchester, on the other hand, has not once been charged with a serious offence, and has, throughout his life, never been found guilty of anything in the British (or any other) Courts of Law.

Farrant's subversive agenda and catalogue of lies in any one connection is just too long to list here, but he is by even Bizarre magazine's standard "monomaniacal" in pursuing his vendetta against Sean Manchester on whom Farrant has projected his resentment toward "Hutchinson" who remains elusive and untouched. It is perhaps understandable why Farrant feels such resentment ~ given that he lost his first wife to "Hutchinson" and blames that episode for his becoming bankrupt and his being evicted ~ but it is both cowardly and unfair of him to make Sean Manchester his whipping boy.

Many of the things told by Farrant (through other people and also in his own pamphlets) about Bishop Manchester are, in truth, often facts about "Hutchinson." There are so many descriptions ~ including forms of employment, lifestyle, politics, behaviour patterns etc ~ where Farrant has simply projected these onto Bishop Manchester with the desire to to besmirch him in some way. Those who support Farrant's malicious vendetta are successfully duped by all this, of course, but those who know (and there are quite a few) find it all too silly to even bother with.

All that Peter Manchester is revealing is that he is not in the know!
 
Answer the question

I asked a simple question which you have yet again avoided answering. Why all the stuff about Farrant yet again?

Who moved the corpse from the cemetery to the house? I could read the book which you mention but I can guess what it says - the corpse moved by itself. Well I'm sorry but I don't believe that answer, and I would prefer the truth. Who moved the corpse?
 
"I could read the book which you mention but I can guess what it says - the corpse moved by itself." - PETER MANCHESTER

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you would once again be wrong! I quote from page 124 of the 1991 edition of Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire:

" ... the clandestine method of exit by the Satanists ... an almost forgotten passage runs beneath Swains Lane to the newer graveyard founded in 1852. Existing as a discreet transportation of coffins from the chapel to the tombs on the other side of the lane, this subterranean tunnel might have provided an ideal escape route for the unholy convoy, especially as the eastern cemetery was free from surveillance by police and others."

I sincerely trust that Peter Manchester is not going to keep asking questions that oblige me to continue to quote from this book until virtually all of its contents are on this thread?

Might I suggest he takes a walk to his local library or bookshop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top