Do Anglicans believe that Christ founded the Church on Peter?

[Spengler47]

Precisely. If the imperial army hadn’t been camped out in Rome, Henry might have gotten a different answer.

 

[GKC]

Precisely. If the imperial army hadn’t been camped out in Rome, Henry might have gotten a different answer.

After Pavia.

And then there were those family relations, Charles and Catherine, because of Joanna. Not nice to dis the aunt of the HRE.

But even here, the complexity rule holds. There is no one reason for Henry failing to get his decree, or for Henry taking the Church in England private, that can be adduced, to the exclusion of the fabric of history then woven and weaving. Takes many threads to make a tapestry.

GKC

 

[BHTech]

To reply to the two previous postings. Yes, as GKC writes, everything in history is complex.

The posting Bhtech was responding too was indeed intemperate and badly reasoned. Anglicanism as a distinct denomination didn’t begin in the upper room in Jerusalem, nor is Roman Catholicism simply “medieval accretions.” I’m oversimplifying a bit here, but one could argue that there was one, universal Christian Church until the great schism of 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches split. The Protestant Reformation that began in 1517 was another split, or series of splits, this time within the western church. But, just as you cannot take the Anglican Church and read it back into the upper room, neither can you take the Roman Catholic Church of the high middle ages or the Counter Reformation and read it back into the upper room, either.

I agree with you for the most part. The Catholic church development is my opinion can be likened to that of a person going through the stages of fertilized embryo, baby, child, young adult and finally an adult. Of course through all the growing years they look different, but they are the same individual. Thus I would say that we can read its history back to the upper room, but I agree it does not look like what we see today because a fertilized embryo does not resemble the person it becomes.

God Bless

Bhtech

 

[Spengler47]

May God bless you, too.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

[Anglicanism as a distinct denomination didn’t begin in the upper room in Jerusalem, nor is Roman Catholicism simply “medieval accretions.”

You of course, were there?

**If we read various Orthodox publications we hear about Orthodox Britain!
Aristobulous the first Bishop. We know from the Orthodox Martyrology that S.Simon Zelotes suffered for the Faith in Britain! Fr, Persons and Cardinal Pole both claimed the Church in England originated in the East! We know from the early Church that the Church, the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, as our Prayer Book has it, took a part in the early Councils i.e. Sardica, and Ariminium. Mansi. Consilia.} Fr, Kevin Eastell, a modern Roman Scholar, claims that at least one British Bishop was at the Council of Nicea, [The Messenger,2007 289.] Also at the Council of Arles.The English Church was given precedence of place at Medieval Councils because it was claimed that the Faith was in Britain by 37AD. That Church was known as the Catholic Church. Albanicus, The British Historian claimed a start about the year of Tiberius Caesar, 37AD!

The name Anglican was given to the Catholic Church in England about the Eigth Cent,
It was mentioned at Runnymede in 1215 and several times during the middle ages!

The Catholic [Anglican,] Church in Britain has a pedigree of some two thousand years. This can easily be traced, whilst the Roman Church originated schismatical, in the 16th, Cent, with the Bull of Pius Vth, against the English Queen. I should like to point out that until the 19th, Cent, you didn’t even have regular bishops?

 

[peary]

They may think they do, but, as far as Anglicanism is concerned, the ‘head’ of their ecclesial community is the Queen or King of England. Period. It matters little if it be Christ because if they really believed that, they would recognize the succession of lineage with regard to the Pope.

 

[GKC]

They may think they do, but, as far as Anglicanism is concerned, the ‘head’ of their ecclesial community is the Queen or King of England. Period. It matters little if it be Christ because if they really believed that, they would recognize the succession of lineage with regard to the Pope.

No, that would be true only of the Church of England, IAW the Act of Supremacy of 1559, which modified the 1534 Supreme Head Act. This only affects the Church of England, not Anglicanism generally, which has no supreme head. Period. The recently completed General Convention of the Episcopal Church is a good demonstration of that.

This is a common misconception among RCs, who attribute a form of ecclesiastical structure to Anglicanism that it does not possess.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

No, that would be true only of the Church of England, IAW the Act of Supremacy of 1559, which modified the 1534 Supreme Head Act. This only affects the Church of England, not Anglicanism generally, which has no supreme head. Period. The recently completed General Convention of the Episcopal Church is a good demonstration of that.

This is a common misconception among RCs, who attribute a form of ecclesiastical structure to Anglicanism that it does not possess.

GKC

I would also say, if it isn’t already understood in your post, that what is meant by head is not what many Catholics imagine it to be.

 

[GKC]

I would also say, if it isn’t already understood in your post, that what is meant by head is not what many Catholics imagine it to be.

In fact, over 10 years ago, on another RC board, I made my very first post ever, on precisely that subject.

One current board member here replied to me, back then.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are very kind.

Books are my hobby, and have been for 50 years. I sort of drifted into learning bits and pieces of English history, Horny Hank and his Hormones, especially. about 12 years ago, or so. It’s not my favorite area, but then my favorite areas rarely come up on boards like these. Chesterton, sometimes.

Thank you.

GKC

LOL…hilarious…you could also call him Hank the Playah! LOL…or Henry the Randy Monarch! LOL

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You were close enough, the point was the same. But as others here can attest, I’m a nuisance.

And anyway, it was at Henry’s direction that both the measures were enacted.

GKC

I can only attest to the fact that GKC is a “perfectionist” how’s that!? LOL…he’s a “details man!” nuissance is a bit much! lol

 

[GKC]

LOL…hilarious…you could also call him Hank the Playah! LOL…or Henry the Randy Monarch! LOL

I’ve always thought that H.H And his H. sounded like a 50s rock group.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I can only attest to the fact that GKC is a “perfectionist” how’s that!? LOL…he’s a “details man!” nuissance is a bit much! lol

It works fine, until I’m incorrect. Then it falls apart.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

They may think they do, but, as far as Anglicanism is concerned, the ‘head’ of their ecclesial community is the Queen or King of England. Period. It matters little if it be Christ because if they really believed that, they would recognize the succession of lineage with regard to the Pope.

**According to what I was taught an American Bishop suggested that

A Dogma, to be Catholic must have three essential invariable notes.

A. It must be built on a truth positively and definitely stated.

B. It must have directly or by necessary inference scriptural warranty.

C. It must be a truth which has been attested by the Undivided Church
through an Ecumenical Council and accepted everywhere and by all.

Now where do the claims of the Bishop of Rome fit in to this scenario?

Where is the scriptural warranty? Where has it been put forward or accepted by an Ecumenical Council? The Council of Constantinople said quite clearly that the Pope has a ‘primacy of honour,’ . At Chalcedon, this was further illuminated by the statement that,to 'Old Rome the fathers gave priviliges with good reason, because it was the imperial city!"

The Pope was clearly told by the African Bishops at Carthage in 424,[Mansi.] to keep quiet until he knew what he was talking about. “Therefore, with all respect ,we earnestly entreat you for the future, not to be ready to admit to a hearing persons that come from this region nor be willing to receive into communion those who have been excommunicated by us.”
He also had it pointed out to him that his behaviour went against the teaching of Nicea." “For the Canons of Nice have most clearly committed not only inferior clergy but bishops to the judgment of their metropolitans”

There’s nothing in Revelation, Scripture or Tradition, to give support to the Bishop of Rome’s claims other than he was first amongst equals.

Further, most of what practical authority the pope held was from his close relationship with the Emperors. Gratian and Valentinian. He used the state police to force Catholics to bend to his will. [Hilary of Arles. ? ]

**

 

[7_Sorrows]

You are very kind.

Books are my hobby, and have been for 50 years. I sort of drifted into learning bits and pieces of English history, Horny Hank and his Hormones, especially. about 12 years ago, or so. It’s not my favorite area, but then my favorite areas rarely come up on boards like these. Chesterton, sometimes.

Thank you.

GKC

you are very good at retaining what you read! i love books as well - reading for just the pleasure of it and reading to learn about a particular subject. i never considered myself much a fan of medieval times, but i have come to appreciate that age now after reading some books on history and i love a good medieval mystery - especially one set in England. anyhow, i always learn something new when i am on a thread that you post on whether it is something about the anglican church or king henry viii. so i appreciate the knowledge you share with us here at CAF.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Spengler47!

**Please note, I did not say that Anglicanism began in the upper room in Jerusalem

I said Anglicanism had its genesis in the upper room , its beginning and as the Church in Britain was no more than a manifestation of the Catholic Church in this country this is true!

Further, Anglicanism has never been a,‘distinct denomination’. It has always held and taught the Catholic Faith, such as was taught by Convocation even unto today! You might not have held this faith and others of a similar bent might have shrugged it off, but the Church in England has always held to it. Revelation, Scripture and Traditio**n.

Regarding ‘Rome Catholicism’ being a medieval accretion. Do you deny that the Roman Church had its provenance in 1564 at the Council of Trent or that it broke away from the English Church in 1570 and encouraaged the followers of the papacy to form a new Church in this country?

 

[Spengler47]

Within the Anglican Communication, the British monarch is supreme governor of the Church of England. However, the king or queen is not in holy orders, is not a bishop or priest, and does not issue pronouncements on doctrine. Thus, the king or queen is not an Anglican pope. The monarch does appoint archbishops and bishops, in consultation with the prime minister, in order to ensure proper governance in the church. The heads of the Anglican hierarchy in England are the archbishops of Canterbury (Primate of All England) and York (Primate of England).

Within the worldwide Anglican communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury serves in an essentially honorary role as chief bishop, a sort of primus inter pares. The Anglican bishops from around the world gather every ten years for the Lambeth conferences in Canterbury to discuss issues of importance to the worldwide Anglican Church. However, those conferences are for consultation only. Each national Anglican Church is self-governing. The system is somewhat similar to the eastern orthodox churches, in which the Patriarch of Constantinople is chief patriarch, but each orthodox church (Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, etc.) is autocephalous.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Spengler47!

**Please note, I did not say that Anglicanism began in the upper room in Jerusalem

I said Anglicanism had its genesis in the upper room , its beginning and as the Church in Britain was no more than a manifestation of the Catholic Church in this country this is true!

Further, Anglicanism has never been a,‘distinct denomination’. It has always held and taught the Catholic Faith, such as was taught by Convocation even unto today! You might not have held this faith and others of a similar bent might have shrugged it off, but the Church in England has always held to it. Revelation, Scripture and Traditio**n.

Regarding ‘Rome Catholicism’ being a medieval accretion. Do you deny that the Roman Church had its provenance in 1564 at the Council of Trent or that it broke away from the English Church in 1570 and encouraaged the followers of the papacy to form a new Church in this country?

i recently converted to catholicism from anglicanism and i do see a lot of anti-anglicanism among catholics. i always felt that i was taught the Catholic faith - we said the apostle and nicene creeds, the lord’s prayer, the gloria, the holy communion, etc.
when i tell people i was raised in the episcopal church and briefly attended an anglican church, i get varied reactions.
i think i always saw that the Pope had a definite role in the universal church while growing up. my Catholic father and Lutheran mother (although both became episcopalians) did not explain why we were episcopalian instead of catholic. neither had previous marriages.
i think i always grew up respecting the Catholic faith as the true faith and i always looked at other churches like baptists, methodists, presbyterians as the odd ones, but i pretty much thought that anglicanism and catholicism were pretty much the same. i do know that christianity was introduced to England long ago. it is too bad that during the reformation there were so many problems between the two faiths.

 

[peary]

No, that would be true only of the Church of England, IAW the Act of Supremacy of 1559, which modified the 1534 Supreme Head Act. This only affects the Church of England, not Anglicanism generally, which has no supreme head. Period. The recently completed General Convention of the Episcopal Church is a good demonstration of that.

This is a common misconception among RCs, who attribute a form of ecclesiastical structure to Anglicanism that it does not possess.

GKC

Please explain to me, then, how the king or queen can be considered “the head of the Church in England”. What exactly does this mean then?

 

[GKC]

Please explain to me, then, how the king or queen can be considered “the head of the Church in England”. What exactly does this mean then?

Basically, nothing.

But it meant something when Henry had that title given him, in 1534, in the Supreme Head Act. What it meant then was that there ws no authority outside of the Throne that would be recognized as superior to the Throne, in the Church in England (that is, Rome). Henry ran the Church. The title itself was changed to Supreme Governor, in Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act, 1559. The implication of that change was an emphasis on administrative, rather legislative, supremacy.

Over the years, all functions of the Throne, with regard to actual rule of the country, have shrunk and disappeared, in a contitutional and democratic monarchy, to the point that the Monarch reigns, but does not rule, which ruling is done by the elected governement, in the Monarch’s name. Same is true with respect to the CoE, as reflected in the Monarch’s title.

One might could google those two Parliamentary Acts. I haven’t tried.

And remember, this is all applicable to the Church of England only, not Anglicanism in general.

GKC