Archbishop of Canterbury?

[Image_of_God]

I know this guy, named Anselm was the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that he is venerated in both the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Was it true that Canterbury was a Catholic See under Rome before the Reformation? If so how was it made Anglican? Who and how many saints have occupied this See? When was the See first made and how was it Christianized?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I know this guy, named Anselm was the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that he is venerated in both the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Was it true that Canterbury was a Catholic See under Rome before the Reformation? If so how was it made Anglican? Who and how many saints have occupied this See? When was the See first made and how was it Christianized?

++ “This guy” is a Saint, an Archbishop & a Doctor of the Church.

The See of Canterbury was in union with Rome almost continuously from its foundation in 601 (IIRC) until the break with Rome in 1535. After that, matters become untidy From the resumption of union with Rome in 1554 until the consecration of Matthew Parker (who had been ordained priest in 1527), it was Catholic in the Roman sense. Since that time, it has been an Anglican see

From St Augustine until the death of Cardinal Pole (the last Catholic Archbishop) there were about 70 bishops in that see. Since then there have been c. 34 Anglican successors of St. Augustine.

As to Saints - there are many Saints & Beati.

As to Christianisation: your best course of action is to read Bede’s “History of the English Church and People”

 

[jbuck919]

I think you could go to any good encyclopedia, including probaby the Wikipedia, and get complete information about this, whereas I (and I imagine others here who may have made some study of it) can only point out certain things to, I hope, sustain your interest in a fascinating topic.

England was in fact Christianized in the first millenium by an emissary from Rome who became the first Archbishop of Canterbury. His name was Augustine, but he is not to be confused with St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. He is, however, considered a saint (St. Augustine of Canterbury, in fact). A number of other archbishops of Canterbury are saints, most notably St. Thomas a Becket, a multi-volume story in his own right.

Everything was going swimmingly. In fact, England was considered by many the most Catholic country in Europe. Then along come this guy called Henry VIII and he decrees a separation from the Church of Rome and replaces the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think his name was Warham) with his own pick, one Thomas Cranmer, who had Lutheranizing tendencies. He ended up being the true ruination of the Church in England (a classic case of a fool being capable of as much evil as a knave).

Cranmer was himself a validly ordained bishop, but it was during his ascendency that the validity of Anglican orders was broken by the introduction of defects in intent. He is actually considered an Anglican martyr, because he was executed under the failed attempt of Mary Tudor (herself more than a fool) to restore Catholic Christianity in England.

For centuries thereafter, the Archbishops of Canterbury ruled what they were wont to call the Church of England without official interference from Roman Catholicism. Only in the 19th century were Catholics allowed to function again in England on an equal footing based on freedom of religion. When they finally re-established a hierarchy there, it was found necessary to set up a “parallel” establishment, whereby the Archbishop of Westminster, a prelature cut out of the whole cloth, functions as what the Archbishop of Canterbury should be.

There are far more twists and turns to the story than I have been able to cover, but let me conclude with one extended thought. The “English Reformation” is unique in the establishment of protestantism in that it was based entirely on the ego of one very evil ruler. (One can argue about Luther’s ego, but he was not a ruler and not evil in quite the way Henry VIII was.) England’s defection from Rome was tragic in a unique way. We should be greeting the Archbishop of Canterbury as what he would have been: The primate of England and a if not the precedential prelate of the Roman Church in northwestern Europe.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I think you could go to any good encyclopedia, including probaby the Wikipedia, and get complete information about this, whereas I (and I imagine others here who may have made some study of it) can only point out certain things to, I hope, sustain your interest in a fascinating topic.

England was in fact Christianized in the first millenium by an emissary from Rome who became the first Archbishop of Canterbury. His name was Augustine, but he is not to be confused with St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. He is, however, considered a saint (St. Augustine of Canterbury, in fact). A number of other archbishops of Canterbury are saints, most notably St. Thomas a Becket, a multi-volume story in his own right.

Everything was going swimmingly. In fact, England was considered by many the most Catholic country in Europe. Then along come this guy called Henry VIII and he decrees a separation from the Church of Rome and replaces the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think his name was Warham) with his own pick, one Thomas Cranmer, who had Lutheranizing tendencies. He ended up being the true ruination of the Church in England (a classic case of a fool being capable of as much evil as a knave).

Cranmer was himself a validly ordained bishop, but it was during his ascendency that the validity of Anglican orders was broken by the introduction of defects in intent. He is actually considered an Anglican martyr, because he was executed under the failed attempt of Mary Tudor (herself more than a fool) to restore Catholic Christianity in England.

For centuries thereafter, the Archbishops of Canterbury ruled what they were wont to call the Church of England without official interference from Roman Catholicism. Only in the 19th century were Catholics allowed to function again in England on an equal footing based on freedom of religion. When they finally re-established a hierarchy there, it was found necessary to set up a “parallel” establishment, whereby the Archbishop of Westminster, a prelature cut out of the whole cloth, functions as what the Archbishop of Canterbury should be.

There are far more twists and turns to the story than I have been able to cover, but let me conclude with one extended thought. The “English Reformation” is unique in the establishment of protestantism in that it was based entirely on the ego of one very evil ruler. (One can argue about Luther’s ego, but he was not a ruler and not evil in quite the way Henry VIII was.) England’s defection from Rome was tragic in a unique way. We should be greeting the Archbishop of Canterbury as what he would have been: The primate of England and a if not the precedential prelate of the Roman Church in northwestern Europe.

At the time of the break with Rome, I would still be inclined to call the adherents of the Church of England Catholic, although schismatics from the Roman See. They held to every doctrine the Church professed except they held their King as the head of the English Church. Henry VIII succeeded in ridding England of Catholicism (the hierarchy, at least) for nearly two centuries by tearing down all of the monasteries and exiling the priesthood. He forced people to attend Anglican worship services and receive communion. Those who did not receive communion in the Anglican church were called “traitors” as they were presumed to be Catholic spies. There were many attempts to reCatholicize England but those attempts failed.

Henry VIII was jealous of the Pope because he would not allow the monarch to attain an annulment for his divorce because it was a proper marriage. He then took the “Divine Right of Kings” too far which was a speculation based on various passages in Scripture which basically says that since no King can rule without God’s power, that the King must be the head of the Church also in his land.

England (part of the island of Great Britain) has a rocky history with Ireland because Ireland remained loyal to Rome and thus created many of the splinter terrorist groups by attacking Catholic civilians (although we as Catholics must denounce terrorism in any form, including “Catholic” terrorists like the former Irish Republican Army).

The English Church did not become fully Protestant and lose its holy orders up until the time of Oliver Cromwell who was a secular Republican leader who overthrew the English monarchy and became a dictator. He instilled what many would consider “Fundamentalist” beliefs to the Anglican church. He finished what Henry VIII started.

To this day, a Catholic may not be in succession to the Royal Family.

 

[Image_of_God]

I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury will become Roman Catholic See again, as it was in the beginning

 

[Image_of_God]

++ “This guy” is a Saint, an Archbishop & a Doctor of the Church.

The See of Canterbury was in union with Rome almost continuously from its foundation in 601 (IIRC) until the break with Rome in 1535. After that, matters become untidy From the resumption of union with Rome in 1554 until the consecration of Matthew Parker (who had been ordained priest in 1527), it was Catholic in the Roman sense. Since that time, it has been an Anglican see

From St Augustine until the death of Cardinal Pole (the last Catholic Archbishop) there were about 70 bishops in that see. Since then there have been c. 34 Anglican successors of St. Augustine.

As to Saints - there are many Saints & Beati.

As to Christianisation: your best course of action is to read Bede’s “History of the English Church and People”

I didn’t know that Anselm was a Doctor of the Church…thank you, I learned something new.

 

[GKC]

“The English Church did not become fully Protestant and lose its holy orders up until the time of Oliver Cromwell who was a secular Republican leader who overthrew the English monarchy and became a dictator. He instilled what many would consider “Fundamentalist” beliefs to the Anglican church. He finished what Henry VIII started.”

There are a couple of historical problems with this post, but I’ve just admitted my mother to the hospital, have been up for most of 3 nights, and am not going to try to address anything but this paragraph. According to Apostolicae Curae, it was the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, many years before Cromwell’s time, that caused the break in apostolic succession and the loss of the validity of the Anglican orders. It had nothing to do with fundamentalism or Cromwell, but issues of form and intent, in the sacramental sense.

It’s a subject I’ve posted on more than I care to remember. But I will say again that for anyone wanting to read the best treatment of the subject of the validity of Anglican orders, from the RC standpoint, get a copy of Clarke’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. For the Anglican side, read Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

It’s a complicated and sad subject.

And, what the heck. For good coverage of the very complicated issue of Henry’s quest for a decree of nullity, see J.J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. Much detail on impediments, dispensations, and decrees of nullity, and how they changed over the years, for various reasons, and how it all related to Henry’s case. For even more details, see Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.

History is very complicated.

GKC

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Does the Catholic Church operate a diocese of Canterbury with its own Bishop? Or do we just not tread on those grounds?

 

[Contarini]

Does the Catholic Church operate a diocese of Canterbury with its own Bishop? Or do we just not tread on those grounds?

The Roman Communion has refrained from establishing its own rival See of Canterbury. Originally I think this was for political reasons. Remember that until the early 19th century Catholicism was illegal in Britain. The episcopal hierarchy was reestablished a few decades later, and this act caused a firestorm of anti-Catholicism. Naming a rival archbishop of Canterbury would have made things far worse. Creating a new title–archbishop of Westminster–was relatively diplomatic.

Today this policy has ecumenical repercussions. It makes the tone of Anglican-Catholic dialogue less tense. If (which may God grant someday) the Church of England were ever reconciled with Rome, Canterbury could keep its primacy without much fuss.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I didn’t know that Anselm was a Doctor of the Church…thank you, I learned something new.

++ You’re welcome

There’s a list of them in “The Teaching of Christ”, which is an outstandingly good account of Catholic teaching - it includes all sorts of useful lists of that nature

 

[sandmountainsli]

Everything was going swimmingly. In fact, England was considered by many the most Catholic country in Europe. Then along come this guy called Henry VIII and he decrees a separation from the Church of Rome and replaces the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think his name was Warham) with his own pick, one Thomas Cranmer.

Cranmer is author of the basic outline of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England and the Methodist Church.
The articles were put into present form by Archbishop Matthew Parker and Father John Wesley respectively.
WP

 

[lak611]

Cranmer is author of the basic outline of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England and the Methodist Church.
The articles were put into present form by Archbishop Matthew Parker and Father John Wesley respectively.
WP

Are the Articles of Religion of the Church of England and the Methodist Church different? I know that Father Wesley had no intentions of starting a new Church. If the Articles of Religion are different, when did they officially change?

 

[GKC]

Are the Articles of Religion of the Church of England and the Methodist Church different? I know that Father Wesley had no intentions of starting a new Church. If the Articles of Religion are different, when did they officially change?

One related point to remember is that for Anglicans generally, the Articles are in no way binding. The only exception is, in a technical sense, on ordinands of the Church of England itself, due to its Erastian nature (all goes back to some of Elizabeth I’s legislation). But in general, Anglicans may affirm or deny or ignore or burn the Articles, in toto or in part, as they see fit. Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional.

GKC

 

[sandmountainsli]

Are the Articles of Religion of the Church of England and the Methodist Church different? I know that Father Wesley had no intentions of starting a new Church. If the Articles of Religion are different, when did they officially change?

The COE has 39 Articles and the Methodist have 25.
The ones in the Methodist Church are word for word from the COE Articles but the ones which applied to the king etc. were removed.
The United Methodist Church does not follow the articles but sees them as a Historical document, however the FCM Church and others consider them binding.
WP

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

“The English Church did not become fully Protestant and lose its holy orders up until the time of Oliver Cromwell who was a secular Republican leader who overthrew the English monarchy and became a dictator. He instilled what many would consider “Fundamentalist” beliefs to the Anglican church. He finished what Henry VIII started.”

There are a couple of historical problems with this post, but I’ve just admitted my mother to the hospital, have been up for most of 3 nights, and am not going to try to address anything but this paragraph. According to Apostolicae Curae, it was the use of the Edwardine Ordinal, many years before Cromwell’s time, that caused the break in apostolic succession and the loss of the validity of the Anglican orders. It had nothing to do with fundamentalism or Cromwell, but issues of form and intent, in the sacramental sense.

It’s a subject I’ve posted on more than I care to remember. But I will say again that for anyone wanting to read the best treatment of the subject of the validity of Anglican orders, from the RC standpoint, get a copy of Clarke’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. For the Anglican side, read Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

It’s a complicated and sad subject.

And, what the heck. For good coverage of the very complicated issue of Henry’s quest for a decree of nullity, see J.J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. Much detail on impediments, dispensations, and decrees of nullity, and how they changed over the years, for various reasons, and how it all related to Henry’s case. For even more details, see Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.

History is very complicated.

GKC

You are right. I guess sometimes I am like Homer Simpson in the fact that sometimes I learn too much new stuff but forget old stuff I’ve learned, lol.

But we must not discount the fact that Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury probably has valid but illicit orders now and that there are a few Anglican Bishops who do have valid apostolic succession. These individual bishops received their ordination from Old Catholics who were in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and some co-consecrators who were Orthodox although these Anglican Bishops are few and far between.

The Anglican Communion recognizes its lack of valid holy orders from the view of the West & East and has been trying to reconcile this by having Old Catholic co-consecrators at their ordinations.

I’m sorry to hear about you having to admit your mother into the hospital in what’s supposed to be a cheerful time of year, and hope that the Christmas season won’t become a burden to you from now on. I’ll say some prayers for your mother.

God Bless

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

One related point to remember is that for Anglicans generally, the Articles are in no way binding. The only exception is, in a technical sense, on ordinands of the Church of England itself, due to its Erastian nature (all goes back to some of Elizabeth I’s legislation). But in general, Anglicans may affirm or deny or ignore or burn the Articles, in toto or in part, as they see fit. Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional.

GKC

So the Articles in the Anglican Communion are seen more as a suggested guide for Christian life than as canon law as in say the Catholic Church?

Does the Anglican Communion have an equivilent to canon law or canon lawyers, or church tribunals?

Does each individual Church in the Anglican Communion have to have the same Articles as the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Thanks!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Roman Communion has refrained from establishing its own rival See of Canterbury.

The term “Roman Communion” is a misleading label to apply to the catholic Church. You wouldn’t say that an Eastern Rite Catholic belonged to the “Roman Communion”. The Eastern Rite Catholic belongs to his respective sui ierus particular Church.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury will become Roman Catholic See again, as it was in the beginning

I hope it’ll become an Anglo-Catholic (in communion with Rome) See again… as the Anglicans used a different liturgy when they were in Communion with Rome than the Romans (the English used the Sarum Use).

 

[Cam-masta]

I hope it’ll become an Anglo-Catholic (in communion with Rome) See again… as the Anglicans used a different liturgy when they were in Communion with Rome than the Romans (the English used the Sarum Use).

In order for that to happen, the entire Anglican communion would have to be reconciled with Rome, since Anglo-catholics (or high church Anglicans) are part of the see of Canturbury. For this to happen, the radicalisation of the church of England would have to end and be reversed back to orthodoxy. Bishops like Katherine Schori (presider of the ECUSA) would have to stop using radical politically correct feminist labelling of Christ such as “Mother Jesus”. I am sure they have many good intentions and kind hearts, but the progressivist highjacking of Anglicanism in the Western world must end if there is going to be any effective dialogue and results. By the way…I love the Latin Rite. I started attending a parish called St. Clement’s and fell in love with the beautiful way in which the liturgy is expressed. Merry Christmas!

 

[GKC]

So the Articles in the Anglican Communion are seen more as a suggested guide for Christian life than as canon law as in say the Catholic Church?

As with many things in the hodge-podge of Anglicanism, different people see the Articles as different things. If you examine them, you’ll discover that many of them are “mere Christianity”, as Lewis said. That is, you’d have no trouble affirming many of them yourself. Others are more problematic, as appealing to the evangelical side of Anglicanism.

What they are is what Elizabeth I intended them to be, a sort of middle of the road statement that avoided the extremes she saw as threatening the Church in England, as she took the throne. Elizabeth liked nice, quiet, non-extreme things, even if she had to kill to get them. The Articles were designed to make a nice quiet Church of England, by addressing the issues of the day, and setting limits on what could be proclaimed. Accordingly, they are theology as statecraft, and rightly belong in the category of historical documents, where they are placed in the 1979 prayer book used in ECUSA.

Does the Anglican Communion have an equivilent to canon law or canon lawyers, or church tribunals?

Doctrinally, no. Administratively, yes. And canon lawyers all over the place. And remember that the official Anglican Communion is made up of 38 independent jurisdictions, under 38 Primates, in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, as symbolic head. This doesn’t include the Anglicans not in communion with Canterbury. Each jurisdiction will have their own canon laws. And tribunals, for whatever good they do.

Does each individual Church in the Anglican Communion have to have the same Articles as the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Nobody has to have Articles at all, if you mean the 39. If they do use them, I know of no changes anyone has made to the official Articles. Of course, an Anglican can affirm or deny the Articles, as a group, in whole or in part (except, theoretically, as noted above). They are not an Anglican Confession, *a la *Augsburg. At bottom, they are an historical document that reflects how Elizabeth I chose to govern the CoE.

Thanks!

You’re welcome. Any time.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus