The Church of England's continuity

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have been thinking these last few days about the Church of England. Specifically its claims to continuity with the historic Church of England before the Reformation. Anglicans will contest that their Church was founded on the decision of its monarch to get an annulment and that it was the same Church before and after (though obviously it changed with Henry VIII and Elizabeth). To me this argument doesn’t seem to work when we consider the character of the English Church prior to the Reformation and the claims of the Church of England Prior to it.

The Supreme leader of the Church (or governor) is the monarch and this due to the act of Supremacy. Yet before the respective acts of Supremacy it seems obvious that the Church of England’s head was the Pope Inasmuch as he was appealed to by both Bishops and Kings for matters the Church in England itself was unable to take upon itself. This is why Henry requested the annulment in the first place, he had not the authority to do it. The Church’s Archbishops were first instated by the Pope and received the proper authority to do what they did from him (this continued until the reformation). My point in mentioning all this is to say that before Reformation everyone seemed to know who and who did not have the authority to do certain things. The Kings of England were not the head of the Church prior to the decision of king and parliament. On a side note to this, it seems to me there is little legitimacy in the act of Supremacy by scriptural standards and especially by traditional Church standards.

The problem does not end here but continues when we consider that there were those who remained loyal to the Pope and the Catholic Church as a whole when the greater Church renounced papal authority. Who then properly speaking belonged to the Church of England? More or Cranmer? Were those who remained Catholics in England with the supremacy act now no longer part of the Church of England? It wasn’t those loyal to the Pope who changed, rather it was those who left the authority of the Pope over England and asserted it for themselves that changed and established a new entity which prior to it did not exist. That there were Catholics in England before and after points to the real continuity belonging to English Catholics rather than the Church of England today.

If I am wrong please offer corrections. I have tried to be accurate as possible regarding the history of the Church. Is there a precedent I am unaware of for regarding the secular head of state as the true head of a specific Jurisdiction? Did the Pope not have the authority to confirm the Bishops of Canterbury during all the time prior to the reformation? Please comment.

 

[Philip_B]

I do get most of what you are saying, however I think you need to look at a wider canvas to understand what Anglicans are saying in this.

The Origins of the Church in England are clearly early, possibly 1st Century and certainly 2nd century. The Augustinian mission, as in part recounted by the Venerable Bede discusses at some length the Date of Easter, which was in many ways the keynote flagged issue between the pre-extant Celtic Church and the Latin Church.

The eleventh Century (the century of two conquests) saw the arrival of the Danes led by Cnut, and then following the death of his two sons, the return of the Kingdom to the House of Wessex under Edward the Confessor. His first Archbishop of Canterbury was Robert de Jumieges from Bec, however following some politicking, he absented himself from the Kingdom, and Stigand was made ArchBishop of Canterbury. The Pope excommunicated Stigand, and yet he continued to serve in the role until the Norman conquest (1066) and William ultimately had him incarcerated, and he died in custody of Starvation.

Following the Norman conquest the English Bishops were essentially deposed, removed from office, and replaced largely with Normans and Italians. This also led to the loss of a great deal of the liturgy that preceded this time, and new churches and Latin liturgy became the staple diet of the English Church.

The independence of the English Church, and the relationship of the English Church to the Pope has been a little chequered.

I have remarked elsewhere that if Popes had acted less like princes, princes may have acted less like popes.

If you look at the History of the Eastern Churches you will see that the relationship between the various national churches and heads of state has been complex, as indeed it has been in Rome as well. The Byzantine Empire shows much of this complexity in the relationship, and indeed some part of the reformation was about the separation of Church and State.

There are few simple answers to the matter of the acts of supremacy, and certainly the first needs to be considered with a mind to the Tudor obsession with succession and the reasons for that, and the reasons why the Pope was unable to do what he would normally have done for any European Kingdom.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I do get most of what you are saying, however I think you need to look at a wider canvas to understand what Anglicans are saying in this.

The Origins of the Church in England are clearly early, possibly 1st Century and certainly 2nd century. The Augustinian mission, as in part recounted by the Venerable Bede discusses at some length the Date of Easter, which was in many ways the keynote flagged issue between the pre-extant Celtic Church and the Latin Church.

The eleventh Century (the century of two conquests) saw the arrival of the Danes led by Cnut, and then following the death of his two sons, the return of the Kingdom to the House of Wessex under Edward the Confessor. His first Archbishop of Canterbury was Robert de Jumieges from Bec, however following some politicking, he absented himself from the Kingdom, and Stigand was made ArchBishop of Canterbury. The Pope excommunicated Stigand, and yet he continued to serve in the role until the Norman conquest (1066) and William ultimately had him incarcerated, and he died in custody of Starvation.

Following the Norman conquest the English Bishops were essentially deposed, removed from office, and replaced largely with Normans and Italians. This also led to the loss of a great deal of the liturgy that preceded this time, and new churches and Latin liturgy became the staple diet of the English Church.

The independence of the English Church, and the relationship of the English Church to the Pope has been a little chequered.

I have remarked elsewhere that if Popes had acted less like princes, princes may have acted less like popes.

If you look at the History of the Eastern Churches you will see that the relationship between the various national churches and heads of state has been complex, as indeed it has been in Rome as well. The Byzantine Empire shows much of this complexity in the relationship, and indeed some part of the reformation was about the separation of Church and State.

There are few simple answers to the matter of the acts of supremacy, and certainly the first needs to be considered with a mind to the Tudor obsession with succession and the reasons for that, and the reasons why the Pope was unable to do what he would normally have done for any European Kingdom.

I have no contention with the history presented because I think it strengthens my position.

Would I be right in believing that those who were part of the Celtic Church prior to Augustine's arrival accepted his authority and eventually accepted the common date for Easter? If the native Celts accepted this arrangement of the Pope and the Synod of Whitby this tends to add to my points about just how Catholic the Church of England was prior to the Reformation. Ideally Augustine perhaps should have been rejected as a Bishop and an election amongst themselves should have happened. Thus England accepted Papal authority at that time.

In bringing up the Eastern Churches I can think of one example of a Church attaining independence but it's independence is not disputed or debated as to the legitimacy. The Russian Orthodox Church attained autonomy by the recognition of the Ecumenical Patriarch and was granted it's own Patriarchate. If the COE had attained it's autonomy this way no one would debate it's legitimacy even if they later turned to Protestantism.

So given the sudden rendering of the English Church from Rome does not the Church of England represent a new entity? It does not appear to be the same Church before and After Henry and Elizabeth. The politics of the Henry's reasoning I also don't find justifiable for his breaking with the Church. Even if the Pope did what was in his political interest in a strange economy of divine providence the Pope was right to tell Henry no.

 

[klutedavid]

It is not hard to see the collision of a church supposedly which is not of this world. Colliding with with a monarchy who was very much of this world. Even the Catholic church was a political machine in it's own right.

One political entity collided with another political entity, and produced a church deeply political.

Avoid both of these political and worldly entities, and seek out the universal church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It is not hard to see the collision of a church supposedly which is not of this world. Colliding with with a monarchy who was very much of this world. Even the Catholic church was a political machine in it's own right.

One political entity collided with another political entity, and produced a church deeply political.

Avoid both of these political and worldly entities, and seek out the universal church.

An interesting offer but one unrelated to the purpose of the thread. I think even the Anglicans will agree with me on the necessity of a historic Church, one that exists to which people can point to and see rather than a vague ethereal entity which cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way.

It wasn't a non-denominational Church grappling with the world for 2000 years, it was a historic Church.

 

[Philip_B]

Even if the Pope did what was in his political interest in a strange economy of divine providence the Pope was right to tell Henry no.

Of course part of that question is if the Pope should have said yes in the first place?!

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Of course part of that question is if the Pope should have said yes in the first place?!

I would say given the laws of the Church and the understanding of the Papacy at the time, yes. While it was an ideal more than a standard, monarchs should be held accountable to at least some spiritual authority. Even in the act of asking and receiving annulments/divorces they admitted they themselves did not have the authority to do certain things which belonged to the realm of the Church. This was a necessary check on absolute monarchy.

 

[Philip_B]

I would say given the laws of the Church and the understanding of the Papacy at the time, yes. While it was an ideal more than a standard, monarchs should be held accountable to at least some spiritual authority. Even in the act of asking and receiving annulments/divorces they admitted they themselves did not have the authority to do certain things which belonged to the realm of the Church. This was a necessary check on absolute monarchy.

I think if you want to apply the 'no' as correct, then you would have to argue that the 'yes' may have been doubtful at best. Arthur and Catherine following their marriage was the last public bedding of English Royalty.

The suggestion that Henry wanted to create a new Church is at odds with who he was. He was a Catholic King, and their is no doubt that much of his sympathy lay with the old ways. On the basis of what we know of Henry VIII, I believe he believed that his marriage to Catherine was outside the will of God, and hence the jeopardy to the Tudor Line - only at its second iteration.

The truth is that Henry being married to Catherine was in the Pope's interests, not least of which for the security of the Papal States, and indeed his own claim to the chair.

I believe much of Henry's attitudes to religious matters was influenced by the women in his life. So the advent of Anne Boleyn saw the introduction of King's Bible - in English in every church in the land. He was perhaps less enthusiastic for the project whilst married to Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard.

There was a lot of stress in the relationship with Rome (busy raising funds for the new basilica) with a significant economic outpouring to Rome. Henry spent a lot of money, and was both good and bad of English economics, however he was keen to stem the flow of cash out of the kingdom. This may well have severed the friendship anyway, if the King's Great Matter had not arisen.

I think it historically deceptive to paint the Popes as purely spiritual leaders in this time, for to a large extent they acted a temporal Lords.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well certainly ever since the Irish Church bent the knee to Rome in Anglo-Saxon times, the Popes were the technical head of the Church of England. But though Augustine's mission left churches under Rome and the Irish-descended churches acknowledged their supremacy, Britain is far from Rome. Read Bede, and a lot of Royal control also occured.

For instance, Stigand mentioned above. This was part of the reason, along with Harold's oath and quite frankly politics, that the Pope supported William of Normandy's invasion. It was to better control a church thas was far too independant in their minds.

Now this is not too unfamiliar. We see the Investiture Controversy in continental Europe, or how the Byzantine Emperors deposed and instituted bishops too.
Throughout the mediaeval period, the Popes gradually tried to assert more and more control over the churches, as remember there was no real National Churches, just the 'catholic church' in this period.
King John placed the entire English realm in vassalage to the Pope though, so the English argument of legal control of their own ecclesiastical affairs is really a weak one. That being said, the Anglican Church is the continuation of the Bishops that had then been legitimately enthroned, so is the continuation of the Mediaeval Church. By Mediaeval Canon Law though, the Roman Catholic Church in England would be, but the whole point was a 'reformation' of where legitimacy is placed. So I don't really get what we are trying to prove here?

You should also remember that Continental Europe use laws descended from Justinian's Code, so they are proscriptive. Those that made the laws are the interpreters thereof, in this case the Pope. Britain uses Common Law, so usage and legal precedent determine the interpretation. So by English Law, it may be legitimate, though Continental and Canon Law would disagree.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think if you want to apply the 'no' as correct, then you would have to argue that the 'yes' may have been doubtful at best. Arthur and Catherine following their marriage was the last public bedding of English Royalty.

The suggestion that Henry wanted to create a new Church is at odds with who he was. He was a Catholic King, and their is no doubt that much of his sympathy lay with the old ways. On the basis of what we know of Henry VIII, I believe he believed that his marriage to Catherine was outside the will of God, and hence the jeopardy to the Tudor Line - only at its second iteration.

The truth is that Henry being married to Catherine was in the Pope's interests, not least of which for the security of the Papal States, and indeed his own claim to the chair.

I believe much of Henry's attitudes to religious matters was influenced by the women in his life. So the advent of Anne Boleyn saw the introduction of King's Bible - in English in every church in the land. He was perhaps less enthusiastic for the project whilst married to Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard.

There was a lot of stress in the relationship with Rome (busy raising funds for the new basilica) with a significant economic outpouring to Rome. Henry spent a lot of money, and was both good and bad of English economics, however he was keen to stem the flow of cash out of the kingdom. This may well have severed the friendship anyway, if the King's Great Matter had not arisen.

I think it historically deceptive to paint the Popes as purely spiritual leaders in this time, for to a large extent they acted a temporal Lords.

Henry's desire to not create a new Church does not mitigate what happened as a result of him breaking with Rome and making himself head of the Church. While in form similar to Catholicism, at the moment he broke the communion there seems to have been two entities from that point on instead of the one. The one entity, the Catholic Church in England retained what it had before and has everything in common with the historic Church of England (IE the Pope confirms Bishops and is the final authority on matters religious). Henry's split made the monarch and Parliament the final authorities on Spiritual matters. Regardless of the legitimacy of Henry's actions it seems clear that from that point on the Church was no longer Catholic despite his adherence to Catholic liturgy, practice and theology. It would be like saying the Iconoclasts were Eastern Orthodox only without the icons. Doesn't work.

I would not suggest the Popes were purely concerned with Spiritual issues. This is why I said it was a strange Providence that denied Henry from the Pope what he wanted, because it seems the Pope was acting in his best interests in denying the annulment. That is the Pope did not want to annoy the Holy Roman Emperor who was the Cousin of Catherine (if I recall correctly). I still think that an annulment on the grounds Henry wanted is absurd and little justification can be made for saying that Mary was a Bastard and that the marriage wasn't legitimate. It was sought for solely political reason and would not have happened if he had a son by Catherine.

Still, I would like to know, how does the Church of England continue to claim continuity despite all the issues I have mentioned? i think implied in the actions of Henry is that the Pope had no right to exercise theological control over the Isles. The question then is to ask did the Pope ever have the right to send his Bishop and missionary Augustine to exercise authority in the first place? What about those English who remained Catholic, were they now no longer part of the Church of England?

 

[Philip_B]

making himself head of the Church.

This title is often misunderstood. The intent was to declare that the Pope had no temporal authority in the realm. I think the intent may have change a little in the Elizabethan era, when there was a significant backlash to a number of things that had happened under Mary Tudor and Cardinal Pole. The Elizabethan Settlement hammered out between Elizabeth and Matthew Parker (amongst others) was to try and find a road to peace through accomodation.

It was sought for solely political reason and would not have happened if he had a son by Catherine.

That of course needs to be surviving Son because Catherine had delivered him of a son, Henry, Duke of Cornwall, born January 1511 and died in February 1511. You call it politics, but in the day Henry VIII understood that he had to provide an heir (and preferably a spare) lest England be thrust again into the great waste that was involved in the Wars of the Roses, a history at that stage not dim.

I think implied in the actions of Henry is that the Pope had no right to exercise theological control over the Isles.

I am a long way from certain that that is what Henry thought. The ten Articles published in 1536 seem to read a little differently from what many imagine:

1. The binding authority of the Bible, the three ecumenical creeds and the first four ecumenical councils
2. The necessity of baptism for salvation, even in the case of infants (Art. II. says that "infants ought to be baptised" and that, dying in infancy, they "shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not"; that the opinions of Anabaptists and Pelagians are "detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned".)
3. The sacrament of penance, with confession and absolution, which are declared "expedient and necessary"
4. The substantial, real, corporal presence of Christ's body and blood under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist
5. Justification by faith, joined with charity and obedience
6. The use of images in churches
7. The honouring of saints and the Virgin Mary
8. The invocation of saints
9. The observance of various rites and ceremonies as good and laudable, such as clerical vestments, sprinkling of holy water, bearing of candles on Candlemas-day, giving of ashes on Ash Wednesday
10. The doctrine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead in purgatory (made purgatory a non-essential doctrine)

This was followed by the Bishops Book 1537 and the six articles of 1539:

1. transubstantiation,
2. the reasonableness of withholding of the cup from the laity during communion,
3. clerical celibacy,
4. observance of vows of chastity,
5. permission for private masses,
6. the importance of auricular confession.

Whilst I think there is little doubt that Henry VIII was certainly very aware of the continental discussion and mood for reformation, it was not his intent to change the theology, nor the character of the Church. Whilst there was a mood for liturgical change, it was not extreme, and the Church was still the Church, people did not have to be re-ordained, (though I admit he was not keen for dissent in terms of his temporal authority, as Moore and Fisher attest ). The two big issues were the King's Great Matter, and the exodus of Cash from the realm to Rome.

I suspect pre Augustine, the English Church was rather more Eastern in look and feel, and I can see simply why Gregory would have liked to bring the Church in England within the Roman Preserve as Patriarch of the West. Augustine's relationship with the already existing church seems to have been accommodating, and looking for a solution that suited everyone. Much of Sarum Rite was retained, and the Celts agreed to celebrate East on the Roman date. Augustine does not seem to have brutalised the Celtic Church, nor failed to recognise their orders and legitimacy. That was to be the work of William of Normandy years later.

The abiding intent of the Elizabethan Settlement was to ensure that every Christian in the Kingdom could be loyal to Christ and Sovereign. To some extent it worked well, and in some sense it failed. Despite Anglicanism having very elastic sides, many people seem to want to push those sides further than they want to go. The sad state today bears testimony to that.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This title is often misunderstood. The intent was to declare that the Pope had no temporal authority in the realm. I think the intent may have change a little in the Elizabethan era, when there was a significant backlash to a number of things that had happened under Mary Tudor and Cardinal Pole. The Elizabethan Settlement hammered out between Elizabeth and Matthew Parker (amongst others) was to try and find a road to peace through accomodation.

If Henry before he had this title did not have the Proper authority annul his marriage, this would seem to imply an accumulation to himself of Spiritual authority which until that time in the English Church had been understood to belong to the domain of the Church. This spiritual authority resided the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope but not the monarch. It's just the opposite of what you are saying, the point of the title was to justify Henry's annulments and to prevent his subjects from being in communion and loyal to the Pope in Rome. Did the Popes ever try to take unto themselves Secular authority in England in the way you are suggesting? Not as far as I'm aware, the Popes seemed to have recognized the rights of monarchs to rule in the temporal domain but always asserted their right to rule in the Spiritual. Henry wanted both realms of authority under his control.

I am a long way from certain that that is what Henry thought. The ten Articles published in 1536 seem to read a little differently from what many imagine:

1. The binding authority of the Bible, the three ecumenical creeds and the first four ecumenical councils
2. The necessity of baptism for salvation, even in the case of infants (Art. II. says that "infants ought to be baptised" and that, dying in infancy, they "shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not"; that the opinions of Anabaptists and Pelagians are "detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned".)
3. The sacrament of penance, with confession and absolution, which are declared "expedient and necessary"
4. The substantial, real, corporal presence of Christ's body and blood under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist
5. Justification by faith, joined with charity and obedience
6. The use of images in churches
7. The honouring of saints and the Virgin Mary
8. The invocation of saints
9. The observance of various rites and ceremonies as good and laudable, such as clerical vestments, sprinkling of holy water, bearing of candles on Candlemas-day, giving of ashes on Ash Wednesday
10. The doctrine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead in purgatory (made purgatory a non-essential doctrine)

This was followed by the Bishops Book 1537 and the six articles of 1539:

1. transubstantiation,
2. the reasonableness of withholding of the cup from the laity during communion,
3. clerical celibacy,
4. observance of vows of chastity,
5. permission for private masses,
6. the importance of auricular confession.

Whilst I think there is little doubt that Henry VIII was certainly very aware of the continental discussion and mood for reformation, it was not his intent to change the theology, nor the character of the Church. Whilst there was a mood for liturgical change, it was not extreme, and the Church was still the Church, people did not have to be re-ordained, (though I admit he was not keen for dissent in terms of his temporal authority, as Moore and Fisher attest ). The two big issues were the King's Great Matter, and the exodus of Cash from the realm to Rome.

If one believed the Pope to be the proper Spiritual authority, as all of England before that time had believed, one was branded as a traitor and condemned to death. The personal intent of Henry matters little in the purpose of this discussion which is to determine whether or not the Church of England (which had it's course set by Henry and Elizabeth both) is the same Church that had existed before hand. Henry veered the English people in the direction of Protestantism by his rejection of the Pope alone. Even if he retained many of the same practices and beliefs he had before to say he was still Catholic is to redefine the word. At most his Church was Catholic in character for a short time.

Thomas More I find a good example to point to and perhaps we can compare him with Cranmer. Which of these two men can be said to be part of the Church of England historical? To my mind, More is part of the historic Church, since he followed what had been followed in the Church of England since antiquity. Cranmer in breaking with Rome and submitting to Henry as head of the Church followed the new Church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well certainly ever since the Irish Church bent the knee to Rome in Anglo-Saxon times, the Popes were the technical head of the Church of England. But though Augustine's mission left churches under Rome and the Irish-descended churches acknowledged their supremacy, Britain is far from Rome. Read Bede, and a lot of Royal control also occured.

For instance, Stigand mentioned above. This was part of the reason, along with Harold's oath and quite frankly politics, that the Pope supported William of Normandy's invasion. It was to better control a church thas was far too independant in their minds.

Now this is not too unfamiliar. We see the Investiture Controversy in continental Europe, or how the Byzantine Emperors deposed and instituted bishops too.
Throughout the mediaeval period, the Popes gradually tried to assert more and more control over the churches, as remember there was no real National Churches, just the 'catholic church' in this period.
King John placed the entire English realm in vassalage to the Pope though, so the English argument of legal control of their own ecclesiastical affairs is really a weak one. That being said, the Anglican Church is the continuation of the Bishops that had then been legitimately enthroned, so is the continuation of the Mediaeval Church. By Mediaeval Canon Law though, the Roman Catholic Church in England would be, but the whole point was a 'reformation' of where legitimacy is placed. So I don't really get what we are trying to prove here?

You should also remember that Continental Europe use laws descended from Justinian's Code, so they are proscriptive. Those that made the laws are the interpreters thereof, in this case the Pope. Britain uses Common Law, so usage and legal precedent determine the interpretation. So by English Law, it may be legitimate, though Continental and Canon Law would disagree.

That I do not see. If the Bishops of England for centuries derived their authority from their being confirmed by the Pope it stands to reason that those Bishops after Cardinal Pole who were not confirmed by the Papacy are not in the same line of succession. They were appointed by the New head, ie the monarch and stand in a different line of succession despite claiming the same office. It's not as if the English Church had been granted autocephaly (like the Russian Church received from Constantinople), rather it was never given (i don't think it can be given under the Papacy mind you).

As to the point of this conversation. I think the idea of historical continuity central to the idea of the Christian Church and I want to test the Anglican church to see if there is a legitimate reason for considering it the same Church in England before and after the Reformation. To my mind, it seems like the Anglican Church was not a continuation, it was a creation. It was a national church aimed at divorcing itself from Papal control which I think comes with the consequence of being something new which had not been known before. So is the Church of England the same Church that existed in England 1000 years ago? No in my mind.

 

[Philip_B]

I understand that you and I look at this differently. I accept that and I do not doubt the integrity of your position or of mine. I would hope that Christians in the Eastern tradition may see the point more generously, as they to at times have experienced Latin conquests of one sort or another.

 

[Inkfingers]

Did the Pope not have the authority to confirm the Bishops of Canterbury during all the time prior to the reformation?

The illegitimate son of a Medici with allegations of sodomy...hmm, good question.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That I do not see. If the Bishops of England for centuries derived their authority from their being confirmed by the Pope it stands to reason that those Bishops after Cardinal Pole who were not confirmed by the Papacy are not in the same line of succession. They were appointed by the New head, ie the monarch and stand in a different line of succession despite claiming the same office. It's not as if the English Church had been granted autocephaly (like the Russian Church received from Constantinople), rather it was never given (i don't think it can be given under the Papacy mind you).

As to the point of this conversation. I think the idea of historical continuity central to the idea of the Christian Church and I want to test the Anglican church to see if there is a legitimate reason for considering it the same Church in England before and after the Reformation. To my mind, it seems like the Anglican Church was not a continuation, it was a creation. It was a national church aimed at divorcing itself from Papal control which I think comes with the consequence of being something new which had not been known before. So is the Church of England the same Church that existed in England 1000 years ago? No in my mind.

What do you not see? Did you read my post at all?

I fully agree that by Canon law they are not the legitimate successors of the Catholic Church in England in the mediaeval period. I said as much. So their holding those sees is not accepted by the Papacy.

However, the bishops and priests before the break of Rome are the same as the bishops and priests after it. They thus maintained Apostolic Succession, and in fact are the successors of that Church, in Anglican eyes. They are thus schismatic: like the Donatists, or Old Catholics of Utrecht today. In practical matters, the people were the same: the same Bishops, the same flock.

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges this point. Pope Leo XIII investigated whether Anglican ordinations and sacraments were valid in the 19th century. They concluded they weren't, but Henry VIII's Church was not where they drew the line. Nor for that matter, did they consider the bishops of that Church illicit ones. In a fairly divisive decision (revisited again more recently under John Paul II), they decided that their ceremonial was invalid after the reign of Edward VI, and thus further consecrations thus aren't valid anymore. The original Bishops were valid though, and thus the Church of England maintained Apostolic Succession from Rome in Henry's day. As that Church gave rise to the later Anglican Church, it is a successor of the mediaeval one, though its rites are no longer seen as valid ones. This has led to increasingly acrimonious fights over Anglican priests and the legitimacy of their Apostolic Succession, which resulted in Orthodoxy and Catholicism shifting the goalposts by defining Succession differently (there was a Joint declaration recently). This was brought about by Anglo-Catholicism and conservative Anglican groups making noises about taking the Via Appia.

If the argument was that a Church was not the same Church anymore if it broke with Rome, Canon Law itself denies this by acknowledging the continuance of Schismatics in various guises. It does so for Anglicanism itself, considering its Bishops, sacraments and priests as legitimate ones up till the reign of Edward VI. The only reason Catholicism denies Anglican Apostolic Succession is based on liturgical considerations, not Headship of the Church. The English kings don't consecrate Bishops, previous Bishops consecrate other Bishops, and the first of these stood in direct succession of the Church of Thomas Moore, being in fact the very same Clergy.

 

[Isaiah60]

I have been thinking these last few days about the Church of England. Specifically its claims to continuity with the historic Church of England before the Reformation. Anglicans will contest that their Church was founded on the decision of its monarch to get an annulment and that it was the same Church before and after (though obviously it changed with Henry VIII and Elizabeth). To me this argument doesn’t seem to work when we consider the character of the English Church prior to the Reformation and the claims of the Church of England Prior to it.

The Supreme leader of the Church (or governor) is the monarch and this due to the act of Supremacy. Yet before the respective acts of Supremacy it seems obvious that the Church of England’s head was the Pope Inasmuch as he was appealed to by both Bishops and Kings for matters the Church in England itself was unable to take upon itself. This is why Henry requested the annulment in the first place, he had not the authority to do it. The Church’s Archbishops were first instated by the Pope and received the proper authority to do what they did from him (this continued until the reformation). My point in mentioning all this is to say that before Reformation everyone seemed to know who and who did not have the authority to do certain things. The Kings of England were not the head of the Church prior to the decision of king and parliament. On a side note to this, it seems to me there is little legitimacy in the act of Supremacy by scriptural standards and especially by traditional Church standards.

The problem does not end here but continues when we consider that there were those who remained loyal to the Pope and the Catholic Church as a whole when the greater Church renounced papal authority. Who then properly speaking belonged to the Church of England? More or Cranmer? Were those who remained Catholics in England with the supremacy act now no longer part of the Church of England? It wasn’t those loyal to the Pope who changed, rather it was those who left the authority of the Pope over England and asserted it for themselves that changed and established a new entity which prior to it did not exist. That there were Catholics in England before and after points to the real continuity belonging to English Catholics rather than the Church of England today.

If I am wrong please offer corrections. I have tried to be accurate as possible regarding the history of the Church. Is there a precedent I am unaware of for regarding the secular head of state as the true head of a specific Jurisdiction? Did the Pope not have the authority to confirm the Bishops of Canterbury during all the time prior to the reformation? Please comment.

I'm just gonna say this and keep it simple. I'm a new Anglican and have found nothing but good coming from my local church. I am not slouch when it comes to understanding Scripture or the realm of denominations. I gave up on American Protestantism (the home grown denominations) and the RCC. The Anglican church held the best doctrines of both Protestant and Roman Catholics! I used to exaggerate myself by humorously calling myself a Protecath, because I was half Protestant and half Roman Catholic. But now I just call myself an Anglican.

My particular church is of the Anglican Continuum. We do not follow the Pope or Papacy. We acknowledge the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, which he is. But we don't take it one town farther than that. But this view is of the Continuing Anglicans which preserve the orthodoxy of the ancient church.