Church Of England

[GKC]

The rite of ordination was so changed as to strip it of any ties to the Church and thus broke the lines of apostolic succession. The anglicans priests and now priestesses lack valid ordination.

What *Apostolicae Curae *said was that the Edwardine Ordinal was unable to validly convey the sacrament of Orders, due to a defect in both form and intent (and intent was the key. The suggested defect in form did not differ from a number of rites which the RCC recognises as conveying valid orders). It is a technically complicated matter, in an historically complicated saga. Again I recommend Fr. Hughes’ books, and Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, for the RC side. Anglicans look at the issue differently, as you might guess.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Add to that the fact that in Catholic sacramental theology only a baptized male may validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders . . .

Yep. The matter must also be valid, as well as the form and intent and minister. Hence, as I have often said, current mainstream Anglicaninsm is striving mightily to render *Apostolicae Curae *a prescient document, accurate in these days in summary, if not in detail.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

WRONG, this is what your church wants you to think. Stop misinterpreting faith.

How is it a misinterpretation?

++Rowan Cantuar is a direct successor of St. Augustine of Canterbury. We can trace the line of succession just as surely as you can for Rome.

Whether and when Anglicanism originated in the 16th century is a matter of interpretation. If you think that the key question is whether or not we are in communion with Rome, then obviously the first point at which we broke with Rome in a decisive manner is the key moment. I respect your right to define things that way. But to us that is not the key moment in defining our identity. Furthermore, the Ecclesia Anglicana was reconciled with Rome under Mary, so one could make a case that the real “founder” is Elizabeth. It’s a matter of definition. And I’m sorry, but we get to define whom we think of as our founder. Henry’s break with Rome is, from our point of view, incidental. The fact that you see it as vitally important is one of the things that differentiates you from us.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The rite of ordination was so changed as to strip it of any ties to the Church

That’s nonsense. As GKC says, the matter is complicated (I don’t understand it half as well as he does). But in no sense can the rite be reasonably be said to be “stripped of any ties to the Church.” What Church, anyway?

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

Yep. The matter must also be valid, as well as the form and intent and minister. Hence, as I have often said, current mainstream Anglicaninsm is striving mightily to render *Apostolicae Curae *a prescient document, accurate in these days in summary, if not in detail.

GKC

You have no idea how many buckets of tears this former Anglican shed over this issue. However positive a light I tried to shine on the Anglican situation (and there is so much in Anglicanism that is – or at least *was *-- spiritually GLORIOUS), it all came down to the matter of authenticity. Mere physical succession is not enough. Doctrinal continuity and communion are part of the equation. The hand-to-head matter of succession is only one issue.

 

[GKC]

You have no idea how many buckets of tears this former Anglican shed over this issue. However positive a light I tried to shine on the Anglican situation (and there is so much in Anglicanism that is – or at least *was *-- spiritually GLORIOUS), it all came down to the matter of authenticity. Mere physical succession is not enough. Doctrinal continuity and communion are part of the equation. The hand-to-head matter of succession is only one issue.

I understand.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[Belcanto]

How is it a misinterpretation?

++Rowan Cantuar is a direct successor of St. Augustine of Canterbury. We can trace the line of succession just as surely as you can for Rome.

Whether and when Anglicanism originated in the 16th century is a matter of interpretation. If you think that the key question is whether or not we are in communion with Rome, then obviously the first point at which we broke with Rome in a decisive manner is the key moment. I respect your right to define things that way. But to us that is not the key moment in defining our identity. Furthermore, the Ecclesia Anglicana was reconciled with Rome under Mary, so one could make a case that the real “founder” is Elizabeth. It’s a matter of definition. And I’m sorry, but we get to define whom we think of as our founder. Henry’s break with Rome is, from our point of view, incidental. The fact that you see it as vitally important is one of the things that differentiates you from us.

Edwin

Edwin,

Is Cranmer generally acknowledged by Anglicans as the one who developed the founding theology of the Church of England?

Pax Tecum,
Jay

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Is Cranmer generally acknowledged by Anglicans as the one who developed the founding theology of the Church of England?

Pax Tecum,
Jay

Not really. He wasn’t a terribly profound theologian, actually. He did shape our liturgy, and in many ways that is more important for us than theology (of course liturgy involves and reflects theology). Many Anglicans pride themselves on not resting on a “founding theologian” the way the Lutherans (and more dubiously the Reformed–Calvin isn’t actually their founding theologian but many of them act as if he was) do. That is one of the bases on which many Anglicans rest their claim to have more continuity with the pre-Reformation tradition than Continental Protestantism does.

If there’s one theologian who plays that role for us, it would be Richard Hooker, who wrote against the Puritans toward the end of the 16th century. Hooker gave our liturgy and polity a theological basis it hadn’t previously had, and he formulated a self-understanding of Anglicanism as clearly Protestant but in basic continuity with previous tradition, and hence with a less antagonistic attitude toward Catholicism than that possessed by other traditions. (Interpretation of Hooker is a controversial field, and there are a lot of people who would disagree with what I just said.)

But as I said, there’s a certain anti-theological, or at least anti-systematic tendency in Anglicanism. This is both a strength and a weakness IMHO.

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

How is it a misinterpretation?

++Rowan Cantuar is a direct successor of St. Augustine of Canterbury. We can trace the line of succession just as surely as you can for Rome.

Whether and when Anglicanism originated in the 16th century is a matter of interpretation. If you think that the key question is whether or not we are in communion with Rome, then obviously the first point at which we broke with Rome in a decisive manner is the key moment. I respect your right to define things that way. But to us that is not the key moment in defining our identity. Furthermore, the Ecclesia Anglicana was reconciled with Rome under Mary, so one could make a case that the real “founder” is Elizabeth. It’s a matter of definition. And I’m sorry, but we get to define whom we think of as our founder. Henry’s break with Rome is, from our point of view, incidental. The fact that you see it as vitally important is one of the things that differentiates you from us.

Edwin

Well said, Edwin!
I well remember, as a little girl growing up in the Free Methodist Church, that my grandmother–a stickler for such things–would not allow me to receive Holy Communion when the Rev. E.F. Phelps was presiding. He had direct succession from Francis Asbury, who had direct succession from Augustine. That meant that when he was in charge, we had the Real Presence in the Elements, & I had never been confirmed…
We never even thought about Henry Tudor. He was a subject for world history class in high school, nothing more.And, yes, he was indeed as mad as a hatter.

 

[GarryOwen]

Before Henry had ideas above his sation in life, the pope at the time designated him a Defender of the Faith. And the next thing you know he split the Catholic Church in England and formed the CoE.

 

[GKC]

Before Henry had ideas above his sation in life, the pope at the time designated him a Defender of the Faith. And the next thing you know he split the Catholic Church in England and formed the CoE.

The reason Henry got the *Defensor Fidei *title was partially because he had written (though the Pope had not yet read) the Assertio Septem Sacromentum, and partially because Henry was a royal pain in the the rear. It’s a funny story; ask if you want the details.

GKC

 

[GarryOwen]

The reason Henry got the *Defensor Fidei *title was partially because he had written (though the Pope had not yet read) the Assertio Septem Sacromentum, and partially because Henry was a royal pain in the the rear. It’s a funny story; ask if you want the details.

GKC

Please tell

 

[GKC]

Ok. Being short on time, I’m gonna try to C&P something I have on file already, from something I did on another board. If there are any questions, let’em fly.

Let’s see if this works. Sometimes my formatting is wonky.

Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”. So, he was His Most Christian Majesty.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume; some sort of unique title, maybe. Word went out to Rome. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England ( a familiar sounding title, that). Leo ignored it, and Henry, too. Things calmed down; Henry sulked.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Hank. Leo passed the idea to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (well, sure).

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. Good enough. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: *Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed that.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliment thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, Elizabeth I put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

And that’s the story.

Then there’s the one about Henry’s sister’s quest for a decree of nullity…

GKC

 

[jim1130]

Why do Catholics consider the Church of England to be heretical?
The church can be traced to Augustine and has had an unbroken line of bishops and apostolic succession since the 6th Century so I don’t understand why it isn’t considered part of the One Church. I can understand your opinion on the Baptists and my own Methodist denomination as both split from the COE and broke succession but I don’t understand your opinion of the Church of England itself.
Please explain.
WP

As far as my limited knowledge of history reveals, King Henry VIII decided not to allow the Pope to dictate to him so he formed the Church of England and installed himself, and future monarchs, as head. By assigning himself as head of the CoE, he broke Apostolic succession, although the CoE retained quite a few aspects of the Catholic liturgy.

 

[GKC]

As far as my limited knowledge of history reveals, King Henry VIII decided not to allow the Pope to dictate to him so he formed the Church of England and installed himself, and future monarchs, as head. By assigning himself as head of the CoE, he broke Apostolic succession, although the CoE retained quite a few aspects of the Catholic liturgy.

Nope. But you’ll find the answer in the posts above.

GKC

 

[catsrus]

A couple of corrections;
Henry VIII was married 6 times, not 3.
Richard III was not a “legitimate” king as he locked up the truely legitimate 12 year old Edward V and his 10 year old brother in the Tower of London. They were not seen nor heard of again and Richard claimed the throne for himself.
Having read much of the life of Henry VIII, I do not believe he was insane or had syphilis. He was a king of his times, no better nor worse morally than his fellow kings of Francis I of France and Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor.
Whether the COE wants to admit it or not, Henry’s break with Rome over his wanting to annull his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, and being denied, is exactly the start of that church.
It’s all in the history books.

 

[GKC]

A couple of corrections;
Henry VIII was married 6 times, not 3.
Richard III was not a “legitimate” king as he locked up the truely legitimate 12 year old Edward V and his 10 year old brother in the Tower of London. They were not seen nor heard of again and Richard claimed the throne for himself.
Having read much of the life of Henry VIII, I do not believe he was insane or had syphilis. He was a king of his times, no better nor worse morally than his fellow kings of Francis I of France and Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor.
Whether the COE wants to admit it or not, Henry’s break with Rome over his wanting to annull his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, and being denied, is exactly the start of that church.
It’s all in the history books.

That’s it’s the start of the Church in England, not in communion with Rome, is certainly in the books I read, too. I always recommend Scarisbick’s HENRY VIII.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Henry VIII was a very complex man. Few know that in defense of the Pope against Luther’s claims he wrote a treatise in DEFENSE of the Catholic faith. Erasmus was very impressed with the younger Henry, and there is no doubt that he was well educated and had tremendous gifts–an excellent physique until a fall at jousting caused a leg ulcer which never healed and was conducive to packing on the pounds in his later life; great personal magnetism; and a fine capacity in choosing the men who helped him run his kingdom, though he would discard them if they ‘failed’ him. (It took him a while with Wolsey; by the time he sent Cromwell to the block he was well on the way to despotism).

That being said, Henry’s executions of his two wives, Anne Boleyn and her cousin Catherine Howard, were judicial murders pure and simple. Before he beheaded Anne, he had her sign away hers and her daughter Elizabeth’s rights, on the ground that Anne had a precontract with Harry Percy of Northumberland. . .of course, if that had been the case, Anne was never legally married to Henry and thus did not NEED to die for adultery. But Henry, who thought she ‘failed’ him for not producing a son, and was angry at all that he ‘suffered’ for her, sent her to death quite cheerfully.

He sent Catherine LESS cheerfully. First, she was much younger than he. And she actually was guilty–not of adultery, though. Catherine was not a virgin when she married Henry. And he found out. And to ‘save face’ (and because a small group of his “new men” found Catherine, and her family, too “catholic” for their taste), Catherine was sacrificed.

And then, it was put in as an article of law, that whomever the king should marry would be a virgin. . .or a WIDOW. Henry wasn’t going to take any chances. . .

As for Constantine, not knowing nearly so much about the circumstances of his ‘excutions’ as I do about Henry’s circumstances, I won’t hazard a guess as to their legitimacy. However, the old saying is 'two wrongs don’t make a right" so even IF Constantine’s executions were just as wrong as Henry’s wouldn’t make Henry’s OK.

That wasn’t quite my point. I’m not concerned to incriminate Constantine - I want to know why, if Constantine’s acts can be defended (and C. is regarded as a holy man in certain Catholic Rites), Henry VIII’s can’t be.​

What is wrong with judicial murder ? It’s just another name (at least in UK parlance) for execution. If Popes and other rulers can execute criminals, why is Henry VIII to be uniquely picked on for doing no more than any man (or woman) in his position would do ? Why is he to be faulted for doing as he was fully entitled, even duty-bound, to do ? ISTM that Henry VIII has been taken out of his context, and treated as though he were some sort of tyrant

People used to be executed for all sorts of things that carry no such sentence now - & to complain of a monarch for executing criminals does not make sense; least of all by the standards of almost any time before our own.

Or can’t wives be criminals ? ##

However, I have to thank you–I intend to hit the public library tomorrow to do research on Constantine now. I appreciate your giving me a new historical research project!!

Anytime ​

 

[Sixtus]

Why do Catholics consider the Church of England to be heretical?

I do not know why one should think we think that. Some might. I do not. In a large enough group of people, statistically, most views will be represented.

I have a personal friend who is a C of E Minister.

I regularly attend Mass in a C of E church [which we use as our humble catholic chapel is now too small for us, as we have grown exponentially in numbers]. That is like ‘going home’. One would not feel that if one thought heresy was involved.

Whenever I go into a High Anglican [C of E] Church, I always genuflect before the Tabernacle. This was not an easily arrived at option!

After a lot of deliberation, realised.it is surely better to genuflect to a piece of bread one mistakes for the Lamb of God than to treat the Lamb of God as if He were just a piece of bread!

Pax Christi

 

[GKC]

I do not know why one should think we think that. Some might. I do not. In a large enough group of people, statistically, most views will be represented.

I have a personal friend who is a C of E Minister.

I regularly attend Mass in a C of E church [which we use as our humble catholic chapel is now too small for us, as we have grown exponentially in numbers]. That is like ‘going home’. One would not feel that if one thought heresy was involved.

Whenever I go into a High Anglican [C of E] Church, I always genuflect before the Tabernacle. This was not an easily arrived at option!

After a lot of deliberation, realised.it is surely better to genuflect to a piece of bread one mistakes for the Lamb of God than to treat the Lamb of God as if He were just a piece of bread!

Pax Christi

I have known RCs to do the same (genuflect at the tabernacle), in my church, and for the same reasons. I always remind them that we understand , if they don’t do it.

Actually, If you look at Anglo-Catholics, of the traditional sort, the term would be schismatic, not heretical. Though I can find you some heretical Anglicans, without looking too hard.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus