Ask an Anglican/Episcopalian

[GKC]

I find it interesting that Anglicans attribute a much smaller (maybe even non-existent) role to Henry in the founding of the Church of England than Catholics would. I also accept the pride that the CoE has in seeing itself as the continuation of the Church of St Albans and St Augustine - I guess the Church of Sweden would say the same thing (probably with good reason, too).

My question would be whether Anglicans see Henry has having done the right thing (break with Rome) for the wrong reasons (to secure his heir). After all, Henry remained Catholic in his outlook to the end of his life. Protestant strand in CoE only came in ascendant with Edward VI and later, James I.

If Henry’s role is to be minimised (Dustin did not even mention him), is the Act of Supremacy 1534 the true origin of the modern Church of England (as opposed to the medieval Church in England)? Or would it be the 1549 BCP (still very Sarum Rite), 1552 BCP (less Catholic), 1558 Act of Supremacy (which declared the CoE to be both Catholic and Reformed), 1563 XXXIX Articles (which defined CoE doctrines) or the 1571/1662 BCP (with the incorporation of XXXIX Articles into BCP)?

It is not a question of Henry having done the right thing. He did something that, in some form or other, would have come about eventually, with or without him. The relationship between the Throne and Rome had been a contentious one for hundreds of years, as the monarchy sought to reduce the power of any outside agency (Rome) over the Church in England, while increasing the power of the Throne over it. Henry and his Great Matter was a collision, an inevitable one, between the Church, as then structured and functioning, and the emergence of nationalism. What Henry did, in taking the Church in England private, was a difference in degree, not in kind, of a process that had been on going in England for +/- 300 years; the increasing independence of the ruling class (monarchy, at the time) from any control from outside the realm. Looking back to the 12th century and forward to Henry, acts of Parliament and Royal decrees limiting and abolishing Papal and Church prerogatives were numerous (Council of Westminster, Council of Clarendon, First Statute of Winchester, Statute of Mortmain, the Writ* Circumspecte agatis* , the Statue of Carlisle, and the double Statutes of Provisors and* Praemunire*, for example). The Henrician Acts (basically a bluff: Henry expected Clement to cave) were a watershed. Politics and religion were tightly intertwined in the period, but the nature of the relationship had been shifting. Had Henry produced a regiment of legitimate male heirs, with Catherine, eventually, some sort of break would have come. In watching this, one is watching not merely a religious struggle, but a political one as well. Nascent nationalism made inevitable a disconnecting of the intertwined roles of the Church and the State. Henry’s move made it less drastic than the Continental reformers

Minor points: Henry toyed with Lutheran doctrines, toward the last days of his life, and expressed varying ideas on what actually constituted a sacrament. Hence the discussions on how many Anglicans accept. But it is fair to say he was basically a Catholic, in his eyes. The Articles are not so much the doctrine of the CoE, as a job description for Anglican clergy. They were not formally binding on the laity. And I’d say the point at which the Church of England became a separate entity would be the 1534 acts.

GKC

 

[David_Zampino]

I don’t understand your position here. Clearly marriage (whatever God has joined together, etc.) and Confession (whose sins you shall forgive, etc.) come straight from the mouth of the Lord. He established the priesthood at the Last Supper. Confirmation Bar Mitzvah) comes from ancient Hebrew tradition, which isn’t the Gospel, but Jesus followed that law for most of His life. How can you say the Gospel gives you only two Sacraments? No offense, but don’t you mean Martin Luther gave you only two?

Anglicanism is not Lutheranism, and they did not spring from the same part of the Reformation.

 

[David_Zampino]

If Lewis lived today I think he’d say the Anglican checks and balances are seriously wounded in the C of E, and in the TEC (!). Would he reconsider his view on the necessity of a single, world-wide living Magisterium? Lewis was a deep student of history, and the last 50 years provide new data he did not have, on what happens when you don’t have a Magisterium. It may show that a support that was optional during sunny weather become indispensable during stormy weather. I think Lewis would find real True Doctrine - for now - in ACNA and the Continuing Anglican churches, but he would see they are in the long run subject to the same processes as the TEC; they lack the living Magisterium.

I agree. But the ACNA and the Continuum have their own unity issues. Would Lewis have become Catholic? An interesting question for another time . . .

 

[GKC]

I agree. But the ACNA and the Continuum have their own unity issues. Would Lewis have become Catholic? An interesting question for another time . . .

And one that I’ve discussed, when it arises, many times, based on my 50 years collecting Lewis. It is a perennial favorite around here.

GKC

 

[aidanbradypop]

And one that I’ve discussed, when it arises, many times, based on my 50 years collecting Lewis. It is a perennial favorite around here.

GKC

Lewis was a wonderful author and theologian! It is interesting at how people view him. I remember being in a Lutheran small group and I was Roman Catholic at the time. I mentioned that I enjoy Lewis and they were so surprised by that. They were in shock that a Roman Catholic enjoyed Lewis. Then I see on the forum that many RCs believe that Lewis would be Catholic today as well as Luther. lol

 

[GKC]

Lewis was a wonderful author and theologian! It is interesting at how people view him. I remember being in a Lutheran small group and I was Roman Catholic at the time. I mentioned that I enjoy Lewis and they were so surprised by that. They were in shock that a Roman Catholic enjoyed Lewis. Then I see on the forum that many RCs believe that Lewis would be Catholic today as well as Luther. lol

Lewis, at least, though I wouldn’t account him a theologian. He was an apologist. But the subject certainly arises with somewhat numbing regularity.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

They were in shock that a Roman Catholic enjoyed Lewis.

Heh. I think many Catholics are shocked when they find out that protestants enjoy Lewis.

 

[Peter_J]

And one that I’ve discussed, when it arises, many times, based on my 50 years collecting Lewis. It is a perennial favorite around here.

GKC

Yes, lots of discussions about that.

I don’t know if this has been asked before: If he was going to leave Anglicanism and become either Roman or Orthodox, which might it have been? Did he ever say anything to suggest (or hint at) one or the other?

 

[Picky_Picky]

I find it interesting that Anglicans attribute a much smaller (maybe even non-existent) role to Henry in the founding of the Church of England than Catholics would. I also accept the pride that the CoE has in seeing itself as the continuation of the Church of St Albans and St Augustine - I guess the Church of Sweden would say the same thing (probably with good reason, too).

My question would be whether Anglicans see Henry has having done the right thing (break with Rome) for the wrong reasons (to secure his heir). After all, Henry remained Catholic in his outlook to the end of his life. Protestant strand in CoE only came in ascendant with Edward VI and later, James I.

If Henry’s role is to be minimised (Dustin did not even mention him), is the Act of Supremacy 1534 the true origin of the modern Church of England (as opposed to the medieval Church in England)? Or would it be the 1549 BCP (still very Sarum Rite), 1552 BCP (less Catholic), 1558 Act of Supremacy (which declared the CoE to be both Catholic and Reformed), 1563 XXXIX Articles (which defined CoE doctrines) or the 1571/1662 BCP (with the incorporation of XXXIX Articles into BCP)?

I don’t think the idea of “the right thing for the wrong reason” would be rejected as part of the case by English Anglicans. But there is often a distaste for thinking anything in our history is 100% a Good Thing or 100% a Bad Thing, in fact there is a sort of national joke about that. By the way, the events you date would not be seen by the Church of England, I think, as part of its foundation but as part of its reform. As to the Split, I don’t know that the average CofE member would think about it much differently from the way an average Catholic Italian or Orthodox Greek would think about the Schism. They would no doubt all assume that their own side was in the right, but mostly they would just feel that the church they were members of was the natural one for them. In that way English Anglicans might think the Split with Rome was unfortunate, but was just part of the 2000 years or so that produced the church they love and love to be a member of.

 

[jimkhong]

It is not a question of Henry having done the right thing. He did something that, in some form or other, would have come about eventually, with or without him. The relationship between the Throne and Rome had been a contentious one for hundreds of years, as the monarchy sought to reduce the power of any outside agency (Rome) over the Church in England, while increasing the power of the Throne over it. Henry and his Great Matter was a collision, an inevitable one, between the Church, as then structured and functioning, and the emergence of nationalism. What Henry did, in taking the Church in England private, was a difference in degree, not in kind, of a process that had been on going in England for +/- 300 years; the increasing independence of the ruling class (monarchy, at the time) from any control from outside the realm. Looking back to the 12th century and forward to Henry, acts of Parliament and Royal decrees limiting and abolishing Papal and Church prerogatives were numerous (Council of Westminster, Council of Clarendon, First Statute of Winchester, Statute of Mortmain, the Writ* Circumspecte agatis* , the Statue of Carlisle, and the double Statutes of Provisors and* Praemunire*, for example). The Henrician Acts (basically a bluff: Henry expected Clement to cave) were a watershed. Politics and religion were tightly intertwined in the period, but the nature of the relationship had been shifting. Had Henry produced a regiment of legitimate male heirs, with Catherine, eventually, some sort of break would have come. In watching this, one is watching not merely a religious struggle, but a political one as well. Nascent nationalism made inevitable a disconnecting of the intertwined roles of the Church and the State. Henry’s move made it less drastic than the Continental reformers

Minor points: Henry toyed with Lutheran doctrines, toward the last days of his life, and expressed varying ideas on what actually constituted a sacrament. Hence the discussions on how many Anglicans accept. But it is fair to say he was basically a Catholic, in his eyes. The Articles are not so much the doctrine of the CoE, as a job description for Anglican clergy. They were not formally binding on the laity. And I’d say the point at which the Church of England became a separate entity would be the 1534 acts.

GKC

I agree with you that Henry was very much a political animal. I see much of his actions as protecting his legitimacy (after all, he wasn’t Arthur and was almost everything Arthur wasn’t) and looking for political advantage (dissolution of the monasteries was very much motivated by the need to satisfy his nobles financially and the opportunist in him used the stones to build his fortificatons against the expected Catholic counter-attack).

The question is how much of his actions was personal belief and which was politically-motivated. I would like to believe that his treatise against Luther was personal belief while the rapproachment with Lutherans was a political act to seek allies againsts the Catholic counter-attack which he was expecting. But will we ever be able to look into the mind of a complex man five centuries ago.

I don’t think that England was unique in Europe for having anti-Roman sentiments and not all nations with anti-Roman sentiments eventually broke with Rome. Definitely poltical sentiments reinforced doctrinal differences. But the experience of the Flems and southern Germans clearly demonstrated that the discipline of Trent could override anti-Roman sentiments. The story of the Reformation was one of political leaders support of the Reformers that confirmed the religious cleavage. Without the protection of kings, princes and city councils, the Reformers could well have gone the way of the Cathars (just stating a scholarship opinion, not advocating that a crusade is desirable.)

If the 1534 Act did not happen (if Katherine had a son), England would certainly have been ripe for the Counter Reformation. I wouldn’t have seen the break as inevitable. Still, setting the diversity of the English Church against the centralising trends of Trent & the nationalism of some of the Popes of the day, would certainly have made for interesting reading. I guess we can go on with this ‘what if’ game. What is clear is that the ultimate outcome is likely substantially different from what the players of 16th century Europe intended.

 

[aidanbradypop]

In that way English Anglicans might think the Split with Rome was unfortunate, but was just part of the 2000 years or so that produced the church they love and love to be a member of.

This American Epsicopalian believes the same. The split us unfortunate but I love TEC and love being a part of it.

 

[GKC]

I agree with you that Henry was very much a political animal. I see much of his actions as protecting his legitimacy (after all, he wasn’t Arthur and was almost everything Arthur wasn’t) and looking for political advantage (dissolution of the monasteries was very much motivated by the need to satisfy his nobles financially and the opportunist in him used the stones to build his fortificatons against the expected Catholic counter-attack).

The question is how much of his actions was personal belief and which was politically-motivated. I would like to believe that his treatise against Luther was personal belief while the rapproachment with Lutherans was a political act to seek allies againsts the Catholic counter-attack which he was expecting. But will we ever be able to look into the mind of a complex man five centuries ago.

I don’t think that England was unique in Europe for having anti-Roman sentiments and not all nations with anti-Roman sentiments eventually broke with Rome. Definitely poltical sentiments reinforced doctrinal differences. But the experience of the Flems and southern Germans clearly demonstrated that the discipline of Trent could override anti-Roman sentiments. The story of the Reformation was one of political leaders support of the Reformers that confirmed the religious cleavage. Without the protection of kings, princes and city councils, the Reformers could well have gone the way of the Cathars (just stating a scholarship opinion, not advocating that a crusade is desirable.)

If the 1534 Act did not happen (if Katherine had a son), England would certainly have been ripe for the Counter Reformation. I wouldn’t have seen the break as inevitable. Still, setting the diversity of the English Church against the centralising trends of Trent & the nationalism of some of the Popes of the day, would certainly have made for interesting reading. I guess we can go on with this ‘what if’ game. What is clear is that the ultimate outcome is likely substantially different from what the players of 16th century Europe intended.

I agree with much of this, mostly. Not only was he not Arthur, the Tudor grasp on the throne was tenuous and not to be imperiled by the problem of the heir.

The Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, to the extent it was Henry’s, and that was a minority, did reflect his beliefs. The late term maneuverings were partly for political advantage, partially influenced by Katherine Parr. The dissolution of the monasteries was the next stage in the realization of what having the Church under his control implied. The move was occasioned by Cromwell, and the benefits included the military preparations you mentioned, as well as solidifying Henry’s position vis a vis the emerging aristocracy power base. He bought friends.

That the reformers were sheltered by the power structure, where it was true, is exactly my point. And however long it took to spread throughout Europe, no nation-state stands in anything like the power relationship with the RCC that was true in 1500. That evolution was inevitable. IMO. But my 12 years of reading on Hank, and the hundreds of books on the subject that are near to hand, still don’t give one a crystal ball. I call it as I have seen it. But it isn’t clear. History, in all aspects, is complex. Full of people, and things like that.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yes, lots of discussions about that.

I don’t know if this has been asked before: If he was going to leave Anglicanism and become either Roman or Orthodox, which might it have been? Did he ever say anything to suggest (or hint at) one or the other?

As far as a possible hint might be found, he was complimentary to Orthodoxy, as he had found it. But I wouldn’t take that as more than the merest hint.

GKC

 

[jimkhong]

I don’t think the idea of “the right thing for the wrong reason” would be rejected as part of the case by English Anglicans. But there is often a distaste for thinking anything in our history is 100% a Good Thing or 100% a Bad Thing, in fact there is a sort of national joke about that. By the way, the events you date would not be seen by the Church of England, I think, as part of its foundation but as part of its reform. As to the Split, I don’t know that the average CofE member would think about it much differently from the way an average Catholic Italian or Orthodox Greek would think about the Schism. They would no doubt all assume that their own side was in the right, but mostly they would just feel that the church they were members of was the natural one for them. In that way English Anglicans might think the Split with Rome was unfortunate, but was just part of the 2000 years or so that produced the church they love and love to be a member of.

I would tend to agree with you. If the Church in England had remained in communion with Rome, certainly its adherants today would feel their Church is ‘the natural one for them’ as you described. And if the CoE and Rome were to reunite today (on whatever terms), their decendants a century from now would feel their reunited Church is ‘the natural one for them’.

(just an observation and not an indictment of a people) I have met many atheist/non-religious English people who viewed their Christian history as an abberation/mistake that modern educated English people would not repeat - if they have a chance, their Christian heritage would have been airbrushed from history. (The Scots, Irish and Welsh seems to have a different view of their religious history.) English Anglicans see the break with Rome as an unfortunate event and seems to be equally embarassed by the reasons behind the 1534 Act.

I accept the CoE’s view of itself as a continuation of the Church of St Albans and St Augustine but the unfortunate break with Rome was certainly precipated by Henry’s brinkmanship with the 1534 Act. Whatever our view of history (and recognising the long history of clash of Pope and Throne in England and elsewhere in Europe), the 1534 Act was what led to the separate entity called the Church of England, out of an identity that previously saw itself as that part of the Church which happened to be in England. Like it or not, Henry played the pivotal role in making the CoE a separate entity from the Church of Rome.

How does the CoE see that part of its history? This question is not directed to the Anglican Communion as a whole as the TEC (for intance) have had a separate identity from the CoE for more than half the history of the Anglican Communion.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I would tend to agree with you. If the Church in England had remained in communion with Rome, certainly its adherants today would feel their Church is ‘the natural one for them’ as you described. And if the CoE and Rome were to reunite today (on whatever terms), their decendants a century from now would feel their reunited Church is ‘the natural one for them’.

(just an observation and not an indictment of a people) I have met many atheist/non-religious English people who viewed their Christian history as an abberation/mistake that modern educated English people would not repeat - if they have a chance, their Christian heritage would have been airbrushed from history. (The Scots, Irish and Welsh seems to have a different view of their religious history.) English Anglicans see the break with Rome as an unfortunate event and seems to be equally embarassed by the reasons behind the 1534 Act.

I accept the CoE’s view of itself as a continuation of the Church of St Albans and St Augustine but the unfortunate break with Rome was certainly precipated by Henry’s brinkmanship with the 1534 Act. Whatever our view of history (and recognising the long history of clash of Pope and Throne in England and elsewhere in Europe), the 1534 Act was what led to the separate entity called the Church of England, out of an identity that previously saw itself as that part of the Church which happened to be in England. Like it or not, Henry played the pivotal role in making the CoE a separate entity from the Church of Rome.

How does the CoE see that part of its history? This question is not directed to the Anglican Communion as a whole as the TEC (for intance) have had a separate identity from the CoE for more than half the history of the Anglican Communion.

But the CofE, although regarding itself as a separate entity from the Church of Rome, still regards itself as “that part of the Church that happens to be in England”. As to the Acts of Supremacy, there is no concern that I know of in the Church of England about being a national church or having the monarch as its Supreme Governor. There is a lurking concern with being seen to have a lien on the throne – many Anglicans will think preventing a Catholic from inheriting the Crown is a problem waiting to happen: in other words there is more concern with the church’s handle on the State than the other way around. Only among a small sliver of the church is there any hankering after “submitting to the Pope”.

I am myself an atheist/non-religious English person but I certainly do not view our Christian heritage as something that should be airbrushed from history. It seems to me an integral and inseparable part of our national heritage. I have a great admiration for the Church of England, and I find it difficult to imagine a greater tragedy for the coherence of our society than its disappearance.

As to our embarrassment about this or that: embarrassment is now, I fear, the fundamental element of the English character. It has incorporated worse elements in the past, as you may know.

 

[Peter_J]

(just an observation and not an indictment of a people) I have met many atheist/non-religious English people who viewed their Christian history as an abberation/mistake that modern educated English people would not repeat - if they have a chance, their Christian heritage would have been airbrushed from history.

Yes. It’s all rather sad of course.

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (Unfortunately, that has been used by some of our fellow Catholics as a cheap-shot to “prove” that the Orthodox should be in communion with Rome; but that doesn’t take away it’s underlying value.)

 

[David_Zampino]

As far as a possible hint might be found, he was complimentary to Orthodoxy, as he had found it. But I wouldn’t take that as more than the merest hint.

GKC

Agreed on both counts. Sayer’s excellent biography suggests that Warnie was possibly closer to converting than Jack, though he never did as well.

I don’t see either Lewis having much truck with the radical sexual agenda so prevalent in 1st World Anglicanism.

 

[GKC]

Agreed on both counts. Sayer’s excellent biography suggests that Warnie was possibly closer to converting than Jack, though he never did as well.

I don’t see either Lewis having much truck with the radical sexual agenda so prevalent in 1st World Anglicanism.

D’accord, on both points.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

But the CofE, although regarding itself as a separate entity from the Church of Rome, still regards itself as “that part of the Church that happens to be in England”.

Point taken.

Many – among Catholics especially, if I’m not mistaken – have trouble with the fact that the word “church” can mean a particular church or the universal church. This is an intra-Catholic issue as well, since many Latin Catholics will call the Eastern Catholic Churches “rites” in order to avoid calling them “churches”.

 

[Peter_J]

As far as a possible hint might be found, he was complimentary to Orthodoxy, as he had found it. But I wouldn’t take that as more than the merest hint.

GKC

Makes sense. Honestly, I would have been surprised if you had said that Lewis did indicate.