Anglican Reformation

[Albion]

Perhaps the Catholic Church wouldn't say that. I don't know. I do know my perspective and have given the reasoning for why I consider the Anglican Church a new entity in history not really in continuation with the old Catholic Church of England which became marginal at best.

I know. Others have picked up such ideas as well. I, as an historian, was merely summarizing the actual facts of history for the readers.

Of course, we could say that any time that some significant event occurs in the history of some entity, it brings about a "new day" or perhaps even a "new start" for that entity. That's a newness of sorts.

However, it is not the same as saying that the entity is brand new. If that were the case, the Roman Catholic Church would have been a new church after Vatican I...and then a new church again after Vatican II, both of which events in the history of that church were more significant than the changes effected in England under Henry VIII.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I know. Others have picked up such ideas as well. I, as an historian, was merely summarizing the actual facts of history for the readers.

Of course, we could say that any time that some significant event occurs in the history of some entity, it brings about a "new day" or perhaps even a "new start" for that entity. That's a newness of sorts.

However, it is not the same as saying that the entity is brand new. If that were the case, the Roman Catholic Church would have been a new church after Vatican I...and then a new church again after Vatican II, both of which events in the history of that church were more significant than the changes effected in England under Henry VIII.

I wouldn't compare the seizing of the Church's Spiritual authority, the breaking of communion with an Apostolic see and start of gradual changes which would divest the Anglican Church of it's Catholic character as time went on to ecumenical councils which more or less just defined aspects of theology officially even if I disagree with those councils.

If we take such a standard too far any change within a Church indicates the existence of a New Church, something I am not at all advocating. In the case of the English people and the establishment of Anglicanism the changes are radical enough to warrant being considered a New entity.

 

[Albion]

I wouldn't compare the seizing of the Church's Spiritual authority, the breaking of communion with an Apostolic see and start of gradual changes which would divest the Anglican Church of it's Catholic character as time went on to ecumenical councils which more or less just defined aspects of theology officially even if I disagree with those councils. .

A lot of new presumptions seem to have been include in that reply. Even if all of that were true, which is not the case, it would not substantiate what has been claimed previously.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am ex Anglican

Three issues to deal with.
- it was not entirely static. As evidenced early in the number of articles and changes to them

- it was to some extent influenced by monarchs

- third it was and seems to have become even more broad church theologically, so hard to pin down. There are near Catholics, and near Calvinists under the same umbrella.

I found that diversity a problem. The thing I couldn't figure which started a journey away, was how it could embrace both a seemingly high church view of the Eucharist ( i.e. Real body) whilst other parts considered low church had an almost purely symbolic view. How can it be both?

This thread is about an Anglican view of the Reformation. Coming from an Anglican background and still broadly Anglican in my view of the world I have been asked to preach on Reformation Sunday in a German Lutheran church.

It strikes me that the Anglican Reformation was very different from the Lutheran one in a number of different ways. But Liberal, Evangelical and AngloCatholic views of it vary considerably!!!

There were reforming movements in England from a very early age. But Henry VIII got the title Defender of the Faith from the pope for opposing Luther. Then later Henry creates a national church in order to secure his divorce and allows reformation forces to work in that. I have always thought Anglicanism is more Catholic / Calvinist than Lutheran. It believes it stands in the apostolic succession but it also spawned Baptism and Methodism and the whole Puritan movement associated with the Mayflower colonists. The Reformation was more a process spanning centuries in the UK than a single event. Politics and theology are heavily intermingled in that process. You could argue the civil war in the 1640s and the victory of the Puritan Parliamentary forces in that was the moment the Catholics lost Englands heart. But others cite the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. But the basic idea that something was deeply wrong with Catholicism and that we needed to get back to the basics of the early church and scripture was there. For some AngloCatholics the Reformation has never really happened at all. I'd be interested in your views:

1) What are the theological distinctives of the Anglican Reformation.
2) Was it an event or a process, if a process what were the key events that led to it?
3) Is Anglicanism the same as the reformed church that broke away from Rome. If not what are the key differences today

 

[Mountainmike]

A convenient myth.

The church in England had been in existence since the first century or so, was not established or "planted" there by the church at Rome, had no connections to the church at Rome for centuries thereafter, and was independent of the Papal church for most of her existence up until the 16th century, although not in the several centuries prior to that. What Henry brought about was a return to the historically autonomous status of the church in England. Incidentally, it had also been known as the "Anglican Church" during that earlier period.

 

[mindlight]

The church in England had been in existence since the first century or so, was not established or "planted" there by the church at Rome, had no connections to the church at Rome for centuries thereafter, and was independent of the Papal church for most of her existence up until the 16th century, although not in the several centuries prior to that. What Henry brought about was a return to the historically autonomous status of the church in England. Incidentally, it had also been known as the "Anglican Church" during that earlier period.

This is all about what filters you set for facts in your frame of reference. Yes there has been a church in England from the earliest times although the Greeks or Ethiopians or Syrians probably had the first gentile churches.

Yes the church in England had a degree of autonomy. But massacres of Anglo saxons church leaders to establish Catholic and therefore papal control show that was not absolute.

However Henry VIII made an unprecedented change when he dissolved the monasteries and brought the clerical hierarchies under his nation state rather than the pope.

 

[mindlight]

I am ex Anglican

Three issues to deal with.
- it was not entirely static. As evidenced early in the number of articles and changes to them

- it was to some extent influenced by monarchs

- third it was and seems to have become even more broad church theologically, so hard to pin down. There are near Catholics, and near Calvinists under the same umbrella.

I found that diversity a problem. The thing I couldn't figure which started a journey away, was how it could embrace both a seemingly high church view of the Eucharist ( i.e. Real body) whilst other parts considered low church had an almost purely symbolic view. How can it be both?

The Anglican church today is one in which pretty much anything is possible. The old discipine of BCP and Hymnology has broken down in the last 2 generations. I agree that its contradictions and theological conflicts are often irreconciliable. For me that makes it both a miracle that it has survived at all and a framework within which freedom of worship is still possible. Some times the best thing we can say is that the church is not in the way of someone finding God. But I agree that unless you fasten on to grounded and theologically alive Bishops in the church you will not find much helpful guidance there.

 

[Paidiske]

That's a bit of a sweeping condemnation of Anglican communities.

Sure, we're not perfect (no church is). But I have honestly never worshipped as part of an Anglican community where people weren't honestly and sincerely devoted to God. Nor have I ever encountered one from which I had nothing to learn, or which didn't help me grow.

 

[mindlight]

That's a bit of a sweeping condemnation of Anglican communities.

Sure, we're not perfect (no church is). But I have honestly never worshipped as part of an Anglican community where people weren't honestly and sincerely devoted to God. Nor have I ever encountered one from which I had nothing to learn, or which didn't help me grow.

The comment was not meant as a condemnation but rather as an observation on the freedom and diversity in the church having dissolved any common reference points for theological guidance. (edit)

ADDED after discussion about style of speaking with moderator to replace original text.

There are also some views in the US Episcopalian church that are rejected by the wider Anglican Communion either as contradictory to the teaching of the church or because of the schismatic effects of their implementation in the US Episcoplian branch of the Anglican church alone. There are movements of atheistic vicars in the Anglican church which by definition have nothing to do with God - e.g Sea of Faith.

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree @Paidiske!

I never doubted either the sincerity or indeed holiness of many I met in Anglicanism

I prefer the uniformity elsewhere.

That's a bit of a sweeping condemnation of Anglican communities.

Sure, we're not perfect (no church is). But I have honestly never worshipped as part of an Anglican community where people weren't honestly and sincerely devoted to God. Nor have I ever encountered one from which I had nothing to learn, or which didn't help me grow.

 

[Albion]

I found that diversity a problem. The thing I couldn't figure which started a journey away, was how it could embrace both a seemingly high church view of the Eucharist ( i.e. Real body) whilst other parts considered low church had an almost purely symbolic view. How can it be both?

Here is the answer. The official and customary view of the Eucharist by the church itself is to affirm the Real Presence. That view is reiterated in the wording of the liturgy every time there is a celebration of the Lords Supper.

To the extent that some members of the church (and I dont know anyone who has numbered them) think of it as only symbolic, this is not what the church stands for.

By comparison, a recent study of beliefs held by American Catholics showed that 2/3 of them believe that, in their church, it is really just symbolic. Does that mean that the Catholic church is wrong or that it equivocates? I would say not.

 

[Albion]

A convenient myth.

That's easy to say, but I took some care to confine myself to the historical facts in that post of mine.

Anyway, each denomination has its convenient myths. When I was in parochial school, I was taught--just as every convert to Roman Catholicism is taught these days--that Jesus created one denomination only and that it alone is a real church, that he created the Papacy, that its occupant is endowed with infallibility, and that Christians generally recognized all of this as true from the beginning. You have probably have heard that set convenient myths yourself.

 

[Mountainmike]

Albion,
I'm not going to get into a drawn out argument on this.

But the idea that Anglicanism had a separate either identity or theology from Rome early on is simply false. Period.

Protestant factions often try to use absence of evidence as evidence of absence of doctrinal issues, that too is false.

Just picking one period for example.
Eg Fact - bede clearly refers to the " apostolic see" at Rome. That is an acknowledgement of its function, not just its existence.

Eg Fact - the benedictines were a catholic order, who appeared in Britain at much the same time, and lasted till Henry decided to pervert the authority/ doctrine of Catholicism, because he did not like the consequence of it for his lineage! Where is the early clash on doctrine with the benedictines - if the doctrine clashed?

Fact - attacks on Catholicism began in that dynasty of kings, and lasted centuries on and off , which shows that the monarchy then doctored the faith - finding it necessary to write man made tradition "articles" denouncing the pope! then came the English martyrs. The story of Anne clitherow,is one that resonates with me.

So invent away to try to legitimise a separate denomination prior - history proves it a total #fail.

Doesn't stop the myths regurgitated ad nauseam.

Easy to say, but the facts say otherwise.

Anyway, each denomination has its convenient myths. When I was in parochial school, I was taught--just as every convert to Roman Catholicism is taught these days--that Jesus created one denomination only and that it alone is a real church, that he created the Papacy, that its occupant is endowed with infallibility, and that Christians generally recognized all of this as true from the beginning. You have probably have heard that set convenient myths yourself.

 

[Albion]

Albion,
I'm not going to get into a drawn out

But the idea that Anglicanism had a separate either identity or theology from Rome is simply false. Period.

No, it is true. Historians testify that the church in Britain, from the first century on through the following several hundred years, had almost no knowledge of what was going on in Rome with the bishop there and was completely self-governing. There is lots of historic information testifying that it was not started by missionaries from the Roman Catholic Church, either. Its founding in the first century, however, is attested to by five Roman Catholic church councils of later times.

What may be myth is the story of the church being founded by St. Joseph of Arimathea, and that was not part of my post.

It was not until the time of Prince John and the Magna Carta that the church in England came under the Pope, but even then the first article in that document states that the Anglican Church shall be free.

Yes, Henry confiscated and closed the monasteries (which is not a test of Catholicity!) and reasserted the historic independence of the church from the Papacy, but he didn't change anything else of importance, not even the regulations governing divorce and remarriage. In fact, he sternly warned against anyone try to do away with such as private confessions and other Protestant targets. The ones most easily criticized, I would say.

Fact - bede clearly refers to the " apostolic see" at Rome.

Fact - the bendectines were a catholic order, who appeared in Britain at much the same time, and lasted till Henry decided to pervert Catholicism, because he did not like the consequence of true doctrine.

Fact - attacks on Catholicism began in that dynasty of kings , which shows that the monarchy then doctored true faith - then came the English martyrs. The story of Anne clitherow,is one that resonates with me.

These matters are of concern to you, but they certainly do not bear upon the issue at hand and are not evidence of the church being created in the 16th century or any of the rest of that.

That little bit said, I agree that we ought not get into any drawn out thing.

 

[Mountainmike]

Meanwhile outside the world of Anglican wishful thinking, there were british bishops and papal legates at Arles ( when christianity became legal, so history is clearer) , in 4th century, and serious historians consider that even the Celtic church was not in opposition to Rome, despite wishful thinking contrary.

Arles incidentally is the council where it was considered that Easter should be celebrated at the same time.

Since the first Christians came with romans, the clue is in the name Rome.

Certainly Augustine / benefdictens/ Columba the first serious missions were in communion with Rome.

So the idea that Roman influence came only with William conq. Is hogwash!

There are none Albion, as blind as those who don't want to see. Which is why I long ago gave up arguing with you!

all Protestants love revisionism
And because history never supports them , they invent man made tradiotin in " articles" to impose their invention on others!

No, it is true. Historians testify that the church in Britain, from the first century on through the following several hundred years, had almost no knowledge of what was going on in Rome with the bishop there and was completely self-governing. There is lots of historic information testifying that it was not started by missionaries from the Roman Catholic Church, either. Its founding in the first century, however, is attested to by five Roman Catholic church councils of later times.

What may be myth is the story of the church being founded by St. Joseph of Arimathea, and that was not part of my post.

It was not until the time of Prince John and the Magna Carta that the church in England came under the Pope, but even then the first article in that document states that the Anglican Church shall be free.

Yes, Henry confiscated and closed the monasteries (which is not a test of Catholicity!) and reasserted the historic independence of the church from the Papacy, but he didn't change anything else of importance, not even the regulations governing divorce and remarriage. In fact, he sternly warned against anyone try to do away with such as private confessions and other Protestant targets. The ones most easily criticized, I would say.



These matters are of concern to you, but they certainly do not bear upon the issue at hand and are not evidence of the church being created in the 16th century or any of the rest of that.

That little bit said, I agree that we ought not get into any drawn out thing.

 

[Albion]

Meanwhile outside the world of Anglican wishful thinking, there were british bishops and papal legates at Arles ( when christianity became legal, so history is clearer) , in 4th century, and serious historians consider that even the Celtic church was not in opposition to Rome, despite wishful thinking contrary.

I didn't deny any of that; it doesn't detract from anything I referred to; and it surely doesn't advance your version of history to mention these things.

Therefore, let's back up to this point:

Albion,
I'm not going to get into a drawn out argument on this.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, it means recognizing that the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Christ at the moment of the Words of Institution.



Yes. Lutherans would still believe Christ is present in a real and true, albeit supernatural way, as per our confessions, they just would believe the emphasis is on the reception of the sacrament rather than the consecration.

Personally, I lean towards consecrationism and I think its the most obvious interpretation of "This is my body". So does my pastor.



Consecrationism does not necessarily imply that the bread and wine themselves are changed in substance. We do not preach transubstantiation.

I checked and the church where I will preach has a Consubstantial Consecrationist view. Like me they believe the elements spiritually contain the real presence and that it is the blessing that transforms them.

 

[FireDragon76]

I always heard it was the Synod of Whitby where England came under Roman subservience.

 

[Kalevalatar]

all Protestants love revisionism
And because history never supports them , they invent man made tradiotin in " articles" to impose their invention on others!

That's a bit wide brush, isn't it?

To say that the pre-Reformation Church in Finland operated rather independently and without virtually no Roman oversight is a historical fact. It should not, however, be translated to mean that the Church in Finland was independent per se. It simply means that Finland was geographically very, very far from Rome, without jet planes and telephone connections, and therefore quite homespun, with uneducated clergy and uneducated people, not unlike colonial churches everywhere far removed from the centres of power. The cardinals of Rome didn't exactly queue to get to Arctic Finland to inspect the local parishes. Since Rome could not be contacted to seek advice, indigenous improvision became the norm and the post-Reformation Church inherited those what you call "man made tradition". The sheer problem of geographic distance and inaccessible periphery still caused problems for the Church as late as in 1880s when all the bishops suddenly died in the same year and it wasn't just a matter of foreign bishops taking the plane and flying to the rescue.

 

[FireDragon76]

As a Nordic Lutheran, I beg to differ. Over here we are highly liturgical. Every Sunday 10 a.m. Mass anywhere in this country follows the same liturgy and liturgical cycle, the same readings, themes, the same liturgical colors. After all, we have the episcopal polity to oversee that and ensure that parishes don't just improvise. While my Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, arguably, is fairly "high church", I've been to the Church of Norway's services and they are even more so, possible because of their proximity and ties to the Church of England.

I believe that's because the Scandinavian churches are Lutheran in the same way that the Anglican church used to be considered Reformed. While the Lutheranism was there as a theological rationale at separation from Rome, ancient patterns of worship predominated.

Here in the US, in a pluralistic society, we are much more self-consciously Lutheran. And we are also influenced by the German tradition a great deal, as well as pietism and frontier religion.