Anglican Church beginnings...

[Carl Emerson]

Hi there,

You might enjoy this video of my son and a friend speaking on this topic...

Comments and feedback appreciated.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sorry to be a pain but could responses be posted on the Youtube comments section otherwise they will be coping with two seperate dialogues...

I hope this is OK...

Appreciate your kind feedback.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[Carl Emerson]

?

 

[Dave G.]

Absolutely not, for privacy reasons.

If I'd known this was going to be a request for people to reveal their YouTube identities, I would never have replied.

I think you missed the point, reply here on the content of the video I believe is Carl's point. As far as public goes though and privacy, everything you do online has a permanent tag someplace out there. If you think you do anything online in private you're dreaming.

 

[Tolworth John]

It depends what one means by the church of England?
Henry VIII removed the pope from being the head of the Roman Catholic church in England and assumed that position himself, but the theology was not changed. That really only started under his son Edward, was reverse by Mary and resumed by Elizabeth, she stopped the reformers from completing the reformation of the church. Mary in driving many of them, the reformers, to protestant Europe and to Calvinistic Switzerland made Elizabeth job far harder as they were all far more extreme on there return.

 

[Albion]

Not a posting on the You Tube comment section, Carl, but I will give you the answer to your question, which I realize you have a personal interest in knowing. And I'll be as succinct as I can.

It is almost certain that Christianity was brought to the British Isles in the first or at least the second centuries.
(This was even played out a drama during the opening ceremonies of the London Olympics a few years ago.)

History also records that although three British bishops were seated at the Council of Arles in the early 300s, the British church did not conform to Roman Catholic liturgical use, admit of any jurisdiction by the bishop of Rome, or even have any real day-to-day knowledge of the doings in Rome.

In the early Middle Ages, there was an agreement to use the Roman liturgical style, but that's all.

In short, the only period in the history of the British church in which the Pope's jurisdiction was acknowledged was between the time of Prince John (but even so, the the Magna Carta states that "the Anglican church shall be free") and the rule of Henry VIII.

When Henry failed to secure an annulment from the Pope--and the Papacy had already granted one to the king of France--the king turned to his own Archbishop of Canterbury, who had jurisdiction. Sending Cardinal Wolsey to Rome to negotiate with the Pope is not, you understand, anything that an ordinary person would do or need to do in the same situation. It was more a matter of political pull in this case.

As a result, the English church returned to the status it had previously had, autonomy.

No new church was started and the king died a Catholic, albeit an excommunicated one (any Catholic who remarried without permission would be in the same situation). He forbid the doctrines of the Continental Reformation from being taught in England while he was king.

In 1571, the Pope at last despaired of getting England back under his control, a number of his attempts to overthrow the monarchy having failed, and he called upon all Englishmen who remained loyal to Rome to leave their (Anglican) churches and to start Catholic/Papal chapels instead.

Rome thereby entered into schism from the 1500 year old Church of England.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Not a posting on the You Tube comment section, Carl, but I will give you the answer to your question, which I realize you have a personal interest in knowing. And I'll be as succinct as I can.

It is almost certain that Christianity was brought to the British Isles in the first or at least the second centuries.
(This was even played out a drama during the opening ceremonies of the London Olympics a few years ago.)

History also records that although three British bishops were seated at the Council of Arles in the early 300s, the British church did not conform to Roman Catholic liturgical use, admit of any jurisdiction by the bishop of Rome, or even have any real day-to-day knowledge of the doings in Rome.

In the early Middle Ages, there was an agreement to use the Roman liturgical style, but that's all.

In short, the only period in the history of the British church in which the Pope's jurisdiction was acknowledged was between the time of Prince John (but even so, the the Magna Carta states that "the Anglican church shall be free") and the rule of Henry VIII.

When Henry failed to secure an annulment from the Pope--and the Papacy had already granted one to the king of France--the king turned to his own Archbishop of Canterbury, who had jurisdiction. Sending Cardinal Wolsey to Rome to negotiate with the Pope is not, you understand, anything that an ordinary person would do or need to do in the same situation. It was more a matter of political pull in this case.

As a result, the English church returned to the status it had previously had, autonomy.

No new church was started and the king died a Catholic, albeit an excommunicated one (any Catholic who remarried without permission would be in the same situation). He forbid the doctrines of the Continental Reformation from being taught in England while he was king.

In 1571, the Pope at last despaired of getting England back under his control, a number of his attempts to overthrow the monarchy having failed, and he called upon all Englishmen who remained loyal to Rome to leave their (Anglican) churches and to start Catholic/Papal chapels instead.

Rome thereby entered into schism from the 1500 year old Church of England.

Thanks Albion...

Plenty of posts to be seen if you view from within Youtube and not direct through the link.

 

[Tigger45]

Great video Carl

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's hard to separate the Anglican Church from Henry since he was instrumental in it's inception. You don't really think of the Church before Henry as being anything other than part of the Catholic Church and thus the Idea of Henry being the inventor of the Anglican Church. I certainty credit Henry with the anemic institution of Anglicanism, even if his particular doctrine was not what was chosen in the end. If it were, there would have been more reconciling between Catholics and Anglicans.

Of course, protestants in general, who value the Church of Antiquity will argue they are in legitimate continuation with the Church before them. It comes down to a theological argument in the end about where authority lies.

The most odd thing I find is that Anglicanism itself is established an illicit power grab. Henry seized for himself the spiritual authority of the Church which had belonged to the Pope. To my mind, the secular monarch and the spiritual head should be different offices with different avenues of influence. Later monarchs seemed to recognize their mistake, accruing to themselves the title "supreme governer" a demotion if ever there was one. SO the foundations of modern Anglicanism rest on the desire of a King to annul his legitimate marriage.

 

[Albion]

It's hard to separate the Anglican Church from Henry since he was instrumental in it's inception.

No, he wasn't. It was then about 1400 years old. All Henry did was make himself the "head," (meaning political protector) of the church. That's not much different from the role of the Emperor in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The spiritual head of the Church in England remained the Archbishop Canterbury as is still the case today.

You don't really think of the Church before Henry as being anything other than part of the Catholic Church and thus the Idea of Henry being the inventor of the Anglican Church.

Anyone who thinks that...anyone who believes that...is mistaken.

I certainty credit Henry with the anemic institution of Anglicanism, even if his particular doctrine was not what was chosen in the end.

Do you mean "anemic" as in it's the church that gave the most widely-read translation of the Bible to the four corners of the world? Or which planted the faith in every continent rather than glorying in being the faith of basically a single segment of the world... Eastern Europe, for instance?

The most odd thing I find is that Anglicanism itself is established an illicit power grab.

Well, here's an idea. Rather than me trying to correct misconception after misconception in a single post, any interested party could simply go to the Anglican forum here on CF and get the facts from a whole bunch of really nice and really well-informed people.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, he wasn't. It was then about 1400 years old. All Henry did was make himself the "head," (meaning political protector) of the church. That's not much different from the role of the Emperor in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The spiritual head of the Church in England remained the Archbishop Canterbury as is still the case today.

Where did Henry distinguish his headship of the Church from the Spiritual headship of the Pope? If it was in the Pope's authority to annul a marriage, this would seem to indicate it was a spiritual authority of the Pope, not a secular authority which rightfully belonged to the King. Henry took that spiritual authority for himself in order to get the marriage he desired.

I doubt Henry thought of himself as subject to anyone spiritually, especially Cranmer.

Anyone who thinks that...anyone who believes that...is mistaken.

Am I though? I look at Augustine of Canterbury and I don't see in him proto-Anglicanism. I see in him Catholicism being spread tot he British Isle which the Kings willingly submitted to, which lead tot he people submitting to it.

IN the interactions between Popes and Kings, the crusades, you don't think of Richard the Lion heart as a loyal Anglican of the Church of England going to Jerusalem. You think of a Catholic King answering the Pope's call to go on crusade. You don't think of Thomas More belonging to the Anglican Church or that he himself changed instead of the whole nation changing around him.

You can say I'm wrong but I just don't see it.

Do you mean "anemic" as in it's the church that gave the most widely-read translation of the Bible to the four corners of the world? Or which planted the faith in every continent rather than glorying in being the faith of basically a single segment of the world... Eastern Europe, for instance?

If that Christian influence by the Anglican had continued I wouldn't criticize it so. I call it anemic mostly by what I see of it's leadership and failing nature of the Church itself. When I think of Anglicanism, I think of giving way, of buckling to secular trends, instead of an affirmation of anything traditionally Anglican.

Also, you're free to criticize the Orhtodox Church. Certaintly we could do more to have missionary efforts. Though it's not as if the Orthodox aren't doing any missionary work. I know my Church here in NZ and in Australia established an Orthodox Church in Fiji. I think and ordained it's first priest from that population some years back. As for Orthodoxy being stuck in Eastern Europe, I would prefer though Orthodoxy become more solidly entrenched in Eastern Europe to protect it from western influence. I would love if the Anglican Church was able to exert some spiritual influence on England, but unfortunately it is powerless to do so in the face of modernism which it doesn't challenge but instead concedes bit by bit to.

Well, here's an idea. Rather than me trying to correct misconception after misconception in a single post, any interested party could simply go to the Anglican forum here on CF and get the facts from a whole bunch of really nice and really well-informed people.

Well, people are free to decide for themselves who they find more convincing. I consider Henry's claiming of the title an illicit and improper power grab which he had not the authority to do. The very action, the annulment was unjustified and was done to make licit the immoral relationship of the King and his desire for a male heir. Who thinks what Henry did was actually justified in moving heaven and earth to get an annulment?

 

[Albion]

Where did Henry distinguish his headship of the Church from the Spiritual headship of the Pope? If it was in the Pope's authority to annul a marriage, this would seem to indicate it was a spiritual authority of the Pope, not a secular authority ...

But you know for a fact, don't you, that if a Catholic layman here or there wants an annulment, he does not go straight to the Vatican asking for it to be granted. Common sense and the experience of people you know personally answer this question for you as it would for me as well. And if we took your premise to heart, we'd have to have the king declaring hi8mself Pope...or a presiding bishop...or something of that sort. And everybody knows that this did not happen.

Am I though? I look at Augustine of Canterbury and I don't see in him proto-Anglicanism. I see in him Catholicism being spread tot he British Isle which the Kings willingly submitted to, which lead tot he people submitting to it.

Do you also see Christians already established in Britain greeting Augustine as he arrived, thinking he was going to bring Christianity to the Isles?...because that is what happened.

You can say I'm wrong but I just don't see it.

Okay. I've already suggested another way you might approach the matter.

 

[Panevino]

Not a posting on the You Tube comment section, Carl, but I will give you the answer to your question, which I realize you have a personal interest in knowing. And I'll be as succinct as I can.

It is almost certain that Christianity was brought to the British Isles in the first or at least the second centuries.
(This was even played out a drama during the opening ceremonies of the London Olympics a few years ago.)

History also records that although three British bishops were seated at the Council of Arles in the early 300s, the British church did not conform to Roman Catholic liturgical use, admit of any jurisdiction by the bishop of Rome, or even have any real day-to-day knowledge of the doings in Rome.

In the early Middle Ages, there was an agreement to use the Roman liturgical style, but that's all.

In short, the only period in the history of the British church in which the Pope's jurisdiction was acknowledged was between the time of Prince John (but even so, the the Magna Carta states that "the Anglican church shall be free") and the rule of Henry VIII.

When Henry failed to secure an annulment from the Pope--and the Papacy had already granted one to the king of France--the king turned to his own Archbishop of Canterbury, who had jurisdiction. Sending Cardinal Wolsey to Rome to negotiate with the Pope is not, you understand, anything that an ordinary person would do or need to do in the same situation. It was more a matter of political pull in this case.

As a result, the English church returned to the status it had previously had, autonomy.

No new church was started and the king died a Catholic, albeit an excommunicated one (any Catholic who remarried without permission would be in the same situation). He forbid the doctrines of the Continental Reformation from being taught in England while he was king.

In 1571, the Pope at last despaired of getting England back under his control, a number of his attempts to overthrow the monarchy having failed, and he called upon all Englishmen who remained loyal to Rome to leave their (Anglican) churches and to start Catholic/Papal chapels instead.

Rome thereby entered into schism from the 1500 year old Church of England.

My understanding is that the annulment was sensibly unlikely given the King had made significant effort to have the original wedding declared valid by the Church in the beginning as the King was marrying his brothers widow.

I hope I have that right.

 

[Albion]

My understanding is that the annulment was sensibly unlikely given the King had made significant effort to have the original wedding declared valid by the Church in the beginning as the King was marrying his brothers widow.

I hope I have that right.

It sounds like you are referring to the king having damaged his chances with the Pope. But I would point out a few things about that.

1. It says nothing about the claim that the king started a new church for one reason or another.

2. The Pope might well have agreed with the king, who was a loyal Catholic at the time...except that the times had changed around the Papacy. That is to say, Luther had only recently come onto the scene, and it is noted by historians that the Papacy was, understandably enough, of a mind that it had to show its authority if it were not to be challenged by one reform movement after another.

3. Also, the city of Rome had been occupied by Spanish troops, and the Pope was counting on the Habsburgs to play a major role in opposing the spread of Lutheranism and other reform movements in the Holy Roman Empire. The Pope's hands were tied, you might say.

 

[Panevino]

It sounds like you are referring to the king having damaged his chances with the Pope.

I guess I am entering out of the loop of the conversation, but I was making the point that the pope was asked at the beginning of the marriage to confirm validity given the king was marrying his brothers widow. That process would of reviewed other things beside that to seek any other issues also. This process would of made it very difficult to then declare an annulment at the end, as the annulment is fundamentally focused on the circumstances of the initial marriage. Given that there is a real chance that the annulment was rejected for those reasons and not a broader political power play by the pope

 

[Julian of Norwich]

I guess I am entering out of the loop of the conversation, but I was making the point that the pope was asked at the beginning of the marriage to confirm validity given the king was marrying his brothers widow. That process would of reviewed other things beside that to seek any other issues also. This process would of made it very difficult to then declare an annulment at the end, as the annulment is fundamentally focused on the circumstances of the initial marriage. Given that there is a real chance that the annulment was rejected for those reasons and not a broader political power play by the pope

The politics of the time are much more likely. Importance of Spain and it's monarch, Charles V (who didn't want the marriage annulled either) holding him essentially prisoner.