episcopal and catholic

[Daedelus76]

Same perhaps with gays. Without getting into Episcopal interpretations of verses, if science and reason determines homosexuals do not suddenly wake up some morning and say… “Hey, choosing to be homosexual today!”… any more than heterosexuals choose orientation, then so goes the customs of Biblical times…

Just FWIW, the image you have of Episcopalians may not be reflecting on Episcopalians all over the US or Anglicanism all over the world. In some parts of the US, Episcopalian beliefs aren’t that different from Roman Catholics regarding homosexuality (some of these parishes and dioceses are just barely hanging around in the TEC, like Bishop Howe’s diocese in Central Florida). I think in the Western world, Anglicans aren’t quite sure how to handle homosexuality, there’s alot of division. I also think some people are letting modernism influence their thinking alot, without really trying to dig into teleology.

Episcopalian/Anglicanism traditionally had a tone of “tolerant conservativism”, less interested in guilt tripping people. There is also the Wesleyan or Charismatic strain of Anglicanism that focuses on holiness and spiritual growth, too. I’m not sure its quite the same as Roman Catholicism, since RC’s sometimes seem to into the specific deliniation of sins (or else, of course), whereas Anglicanism developed more of a therapeutic tone due to its seperation with Rome, revisiting the Church Fathers and rethinking theology.

 

[CMatt25]

Just FWIW, the image you have of Episcopalians may not be reflecting on Episcopalians all over the US or Anglicanism all over the world.

Daedelus, yes I do know so thanks for clarifying that. I of course was speaking more or less about the ECUSA and the actions taken by. Fortunately in my area I’ve been told the ECUSA diocese has had little dissention and no exodus of churches. But of course you are absolutely correct.

 

[Daedelus76]

Daedelus, yes I do know so thanks for clarifying that. I of course was speaking more or less about the ECUSA and the actions taken by. Fortunately in my area I’ve been told the ECUSA diocese has had little dissention and no exodus of churches. But of course you are absolutely correct.

The average Episcopalian doesn't seem to bother too much with what a parish halfway across the continent is doing.   I know a few that are worried about things, though... I have a friend who is an Episcopalian in rural New York  (I'm a member of an Anglican community on Second Life) who is very much put off by the direction the leadership is taking at the national level, and the declining membership of his local parish.

I know several ex-Roman Catholics who became Episcopalians or Anglicans. Not all of them left the RCC because they felt that Rome was too demanding on them, either. One person I know left because they didn’t, in good conscience, believe the Pope was at all infallible anymore (they were raised Lutheran but converted in college).

 

[CMatt25]

The average Episcopalian doesn’t seem to bother too much with what a parish halfway across the continent is doing. I know a few that are worried about things, though… I have a friend who is an Episcopalian in rural New York (I’m a member of an Anglican community on Second Life) who is very much put off by the direction the leadership is taking at the national level, and the declining membership of his local parish.

I know several ex-Roman Catholics who became Episcopalians or Anglicans. Not all of them left the RCC because they felt that Rome was too demanding on them, either. One person I know left because they didn’t, in good conscience, believe the Pope was at all infallible anymore (they were raised Lutheran but converted in college).

I know. I’ve been told there are lots of former Romans turned Episcopalian. Even some rectors who could in good conscience no longer adhere to the Roman celibacy requirements.

 

[emeraldcoast]

The average Episcopalian doesn’t seem to bother too much with what a parish halfway across the continent is doing. I know a few that are worried about things, though… I have a friend who is an Episcopalian in rural New York (I’m a member of an Anglican community on Second Life) who is very much put off by the direction the leadership is taking at the national level, and the declining membership of his local parish.

I know several ex-Roman Catholics who became Episcopalians or Anglicans. Not all of them left the RCC because they felt that Rome was too demanding on them, either. One person I know left because they didn’t, in good conscience, believe the Pope was at all infallible anymore (they were raised Lutheran but converted in college).

I agree with your post.

God Bless!

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th Century.

If you are a Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jeasus Christ the son of God, and that it has not changed since that time.

Factually incorrect. The Protestant Episcopal Church was founded in the United States of America by remnants of the Church of England following the American Revolution. Samuel Seabury was the first bishop, as the Church of England did not have bishops in the colonial period in the colonies. I think there was never a single visitation by a bishop during that period. Samuel Seabury, by the way, was consecrated in Scotland as the Scotish Episcopal Church did not need the approval of Parliament to consecrate a bishop.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest part of the church founded by Jesus and His Apostles. That church has divided into several branches, including the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican and the Protestant. The idea that the Roman Catholic church is the sole church founded by Christ is Catholic doctrine, not historical fact. You cannot assume that we Anglicans have a church that is not founded by Christ as well.

I don’t know who “Jeasus” is, but perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

[CMatt25]

Factually incorrect. The Protestant Episcopal Church was founded in the United States of America by remnants of the Church of England following the American Revolution. Samuel Seabury was the first bishop, as the Church of England did not have bishops in the colonial period in the colonies. I think there was never a single visitation by a bishop during that period. Samuel Seabury, by the way, was consecrated in Scotland as the Scotish Episcopal Church did not need the approval of Parliament to consecrate a bishop.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest part of the church founded by Jesus and His Apostles. That church has divided into several branches, including the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican and the Protestant. The idea that the Roman Catholic church is the sole church founded by Christ is Catholic doctrine, not historical fact. You cannot assume that we Anglicans have a church that is not founded by Christ as well.

I don’t know who “Jeasus” is, but perhaps you could enlighten me.

I’m going to assume it was a typo. How do you answer the Romans though when they say Christ did not found a church to be divided? I’m not disputing anything you said. Just wondered how you respond. Thanks.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I was wondering if some of you would answer this question for me:

What are the major differences in beliefs between Episcopal and Catholic Christians?

1. 
   *]Eucharist/Communion
   *]Baptism, i.e. Are infants baptized in Episcopal Churches? Is there a confirmation at a certain age?
   *]Salvation, i.e. Is salvation an event (as in some Protestant Churches) or a process?
   *]Relationship between Christians and the Jewish people, i.e. Replacement Theology, Dispensationalism, other?
   
   To the OP, if this is not consistent with the intent of this thread, please let me know and I will start a new thread.
   
   Edited to Add P.S. I’m not asking for extensive theological explanations–just give me a general idea.
   
   Thanks,
   Anna

 

[GKC]

The Bishop of London has the cure of the colonies. Folks went to England to be ordained or confirmed.

The non-jurors in Scotland, who consecrated Sam, were not in communion with Canterbury. Sort of the first Continuing Church.

GKC

GKC

Factually incorrect. The Protestant Episcopal Church was founded in the United States of America by remnants of the Church of England following the American Revolution. Samuel Seabury was the first bishop, as the Church of England did not have bishops in the colonial period in the colonies. I think there was never a single visitation by a bishop during that period. Samuel Seabury, by the way, was consecrated in Scotland as the Scotish Episcopal Church did not need the approval of Parliament to consecrate a bishop.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest part of the church founded by Jesus and His Apostles. That church has divided into several branches, including the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican and the Protestant. The idea that the Roman Catholic church is the sole church founded by Christ is Catholic doctrine, not historical fact. You cannot assume that we Anglicans have a church that is not founded by Christ as well.

I don’t know who “Jeasus” is, but perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I’m going to assume it was a typo. How do you answer the Romans though when they say Christ did not found a church to be divided? I’m not disputing anything you said. Just wondered how you respond. Thanks.

I answer that they and the Eastern Churches divided. I am not saying which one carried off the “true church” when they did divide. I generally respect Petrine primacy, but not supremacy, so not being in communion with one Patriarch but being in communion with a whole lot of others does not, in my mind, remove legitimacy.

As to the Protestants, from their perspective, they had good reason, given the abuses that had grown up in the church over the centuries and the Church’s poor treatment of reformers. Most if not all Protestants recite the Nicene Creed and affirm their belief in “one holy and apostolic Church”. They do not feel they had divided from that in the slightest.

Christ did not found a church to be divided, but division started around 400 with the Coptic Schism. It is a sad fact that we ought to be about remedying.

Best we seek fraternal bonds and love one another as Christ loves us.

May He and His Blessed Mother pray that we may all be one.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

The Bishop of London has the cure of the colonies. Folks went to England to be ordained or confirmed.

The non-jurors in Scotland, who consecrated Sam, were not in communion with Canterbury. Sort of the first Continuing Church.

GKC

GKC

Yes, and I suppose the PEC was the second, or am I wrong?

I have a foggy memory that confirmation was delegated to the priests in the colonies, and I doubt that many made the voyage.

God bless the Scots who gave us a prayerbook with a beautifully ordered Eucharist. I shudder every time I read the 1549, 1559 or 1662.

 

[GKC]

The issue of priests confirming was one that caused Wesley to break from the CoE. I would have to do a little research, but I am not aware that confirmations were delegated to priests in the colonies. I am willing to learn, of course. I will now go and look at Holmes’ book on the Anglican Church in America.

The Episcopal Church was the first true daughter Church of Canterbury, the beginning of the Communion. The Non-jurors stayed separate for all their existence.

Sam had a struggle to get the Episcopal Church to allow him to keep his agreement to use the Scottish liturgy. Finally made it, of course.

GKC

Yes, and I suppose the PEC was the second, or am I wrong?

I have a foggy memory that confirmation was delegated to the priests in the colonies, and I doubt that many made the voyage.

God bless the Scots who gave us a prayerbook with a beautifully ordered Eucharist. I shudder every time I read the 1549, 1559 or 1662.

 

[Daedelus76]

I was wondering if some of you would answer this question for me:

What are the major differences in beliefs between Episcopal and Catholic Christians?

“Real Presence” is a widely held belief in Anglicanism, many having beliefs similar to the Orthodox on this matter. A minority would be willing to use the Roman Catholic term “transubstantiation”. I personally I have no problem with it, after having read Pope Benedict’s commentary on the issue. Another minority believes that Christ is present “spiritually”, similar to John Calvin’s theology. Zwinglian memorialism doesn’t have much of a home.

Anglicans practice infant baptism. Confirmation is done similar to Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism. Almost all Anglicans have “open communion” with any baptized Christian. Almost all Anglicans believe salvation is a process. Wesleyan/Arminian and more “catholic” theology is the most common, and even the Calvinists of Anglicanism are not the same as your average Baptists interpretation. Many Anglicans aren’t into deep theologizing. Anglicanism also had a Charismatic movement of its own, older than Roman Catholicism’s.

Beliefs about the relationship to the Jewish people are similar to Roman Catholicism. The average broad church and high church Anglican also tends to have similar views of, the communion of saints and prayers for the dead as Roman Catholics or Orthodox, though it doesn’t necessarily play out in catholic-esque piety (and the idea of purgatory in Anglicanism, is somewhere between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of things). Broad church/high church piety seems a mixture of Gothic Romanticism, Reformed sensibilities, and a dry focus on mystery (less sensory than the Eastern Orthodox, and not as sentimental as Roman Catholicism).

The big difference between Anglicanism and Rome, in the 20th century, Anglicanism has been relatively liberal on “social” issues, like women’s ordination, contraception, and homosexuality. This may stem partly from the 19th century attitude of “tolerant conservativism” and the Anglo-Catholic movement (which was politically more left leaning and not as moralistic as the Reformed strains). Anglicanism also has had a larger number of clergy and theologians willingly to openly challenge orthodoxy, and because Anglicanism is less magisterial, they tend to be tolerated moreso. Anglican polity is more democratic and congregational, as well, which means you can have liberal parishes and conservative parishes all within the same denomination.

I have heard that in the UK Anglicanism is on a steady decline, and Episcopalianism has had a steep decline in the last few decades. Particularly some areas are experimenting with “fresh” expressions of church, etc. Influenced by more individualistic strains of postmodernism and “Emergent Church”. (this is also happening in Lutheranism). Some secular types I have read about and talked to are actually turned off by the thought of people painting during a church service, people sitting around a talking about themselves, or hearing contemporary “praise” music (often not very theological/narrative in tone) instead of the more somber tone of traditional hymnody.

 

[GKC]

Not bad.

Anglicans, as noted, are certainly a motley crew.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

“Real Presence” is a widely held belief in Anglicanism, many having beliefs similar to the Orthodox on this matter. A minority would be willing to use the Roman Catholic term “transubstantiation”. I personally I have no problem with it, after having read Pope Benedict’s commentary on the issue. Another minority believes that Christ is present “spiritually”, similar to John Calvin’s theology. Zwinglian memorialism doesn’t have much of a home.

Anglicans practice infant baptism. Confirmation is done similar to Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism. Almost all Anglicans have “open communion” with any baptized Christian. Almost all Anglicans believe salvation is a process. Wesleyan/Arminian and more “catholic” theology is the most common, and even the Calvinists of Anglicanism are not the same as your average Baptists interpretation. Many Anglicans aren’t into deep theologizing. Anglicanism also had a Charismatic movement of its own, older than Roman Catholicism’s.

Beliefs about the relationship to the Jewish people are similar to Roman Catholicism. The average broad church and high church Anglican also tends to have similar views of, the communion of saints and prayers for the dead as Roman Catholics or Orthodox, though it doesn’t necessarily play out in catholic-esque piety (and the idea of purgatory in Anglicanism, is somewhere between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of things). Broad church/high church piety seems a mixture of Gothic Romanticism, Reformed sensibilities, and a dry focus on mystery (less sensory than the Eastern Orthodox, and not as sentimental as Roman Catholicism).

The big difference between Anglicanism and Rome, in the 20th century, Anglicanism has been relatively liberal on “social” issues, like women’s ordination, contraception, and homosexuality. This may stem partly from the 19th century attitude of “tolerant conservativism” and the Anglo-Catholic movement (which was politically more left leaning and not as moralistic as the Reformed strains). Anglicanism also has had a larger number of clergy and theologians willingly to openly challenge orthodoxy, and because Anglicanism is less magisterial, they tend to be tolerated moreso. Anglican polity is more democratic and congregational, as well, which means you can have liberal parishes and conservative parishes all within the same denomination.

I have heard that in the UK Anglicanism is on a steady decline, and Episcopalianism has had a steep decline in the last few decades. Particularly some areas are experimenting with “fresh” expressions of church, etc. Influenced by more individualistic strains of postmodernism and “Emergent Church”. (this is also happening in Lutheranism). Some secular types I have read about and talked to are actually turned off by the thought of people painting during a church service, people sitting around a talking about themselves, or hearing contemporary “praise” music (often not very theological/narrative in tone) instead of the more somber tone of traditional hymnody.

 

[Supercatholic]

Factually incorrect. The Protestant Episcopal Church was founded in the United States of America by remnants of the Church of England following the American Revolution. Samuel Seabury was the first bishop, as the Church of England did not have bishops in the colonial period in the colonies. I think there was never a single visitation by a bishop during that period. Samuel Seabury, by the way, was consecrated in Scotland as the Scotish Episcopal Church did not need the approval of Parliament to consecrate a bishop.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest part of the church founded by Jesus and His Apostles. That church has divided into several branches, including the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican and the Protestant. The idea that the Roman Catholic church is the sole church founded by Christ is Catholic doctrine, not historical fact. You cannot assume that we Anglicans have a church that is not founded by Christ as well.

I don’t know who “Jeasus” is, but perhaps you could enlighten me.

Your post is very enlightening. Not factual, but enlightening in the sense if you think the Catholic church has several branches, I’m suspecting that was something taught to you by someone else who believes that. And that’s more frightening than it is enlightening. Hate to burst your bubble, but I can’t confirm you in your error. First off the Eastern Orthodox church was a schism where a group of bishops broke away from Rome, not because of doctrinal dispute, but because a few popes’ bad behavior. Eventually over time this lead to the Orthodox doctrine that the Pope is a position of honor and not of authority. The Anglican’s were started by Henry VIII because the pope would not grant him a divorce just because he fell in love (lust) over a younger woman at his wedding reception. Rome never gave consent or recognized this as a branch (as you say) but a complete breakaway. Henry was a monarch and not a bishop, so he had no right whatsoever to establish a church. Then again a single bishop has no authority to establish a church either. In case you didn’t know, Henry was no fan of Luther or Tyndale either. He refuted all of Martin Luther’s arguments against the Catholic church. And he had William Tyndale strangled and burned at the stake for writing history’s most erroneous translation of the Bible. Henry VIII was once one of the greatest Catholics who received the title Defender Of The Faith. As for the Protestants which is up to 44,000 denominations (there’s a new one or two every five days), that was started by Martin Luther of his own accord AGAINST the Catholic church. NOT in support of it. One final factual tidbit. The early church recieved it’s name Catholic from Saint Ignatius who was a direct successor of the Apostle John. He wrote “Where the Catholic church is there is Christ” He wrote this somewhere between AD 100-107. He used the word Catholic to distinguish the authentics Christians from the heretical ones particularly the Gnostics. I have to shamefully admitt though, Protestantism exists because it was started and perpetuated by bad catholics who fell from grace. And that (this entire post) is historical fact.

 

[GKC]

Your post is not enlightening. Not overwhelmingly factual, either.

Henry was not looking for a divorce, no such thing exists in RC doctrine. He was asking for a declaration of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, based on an impediment that he maintained was ultra vires, beyond the authority of Julius II to dispense. It’s a complicated story, and involves history, a subject that is often complicated. What Henry asked was commonplace at the time; why it didn’t happen was…complicated. And involves politics and other stuff. The point about Anne Boleyn, and his wedding reception, is not history, on the other hand. Catherine and Henry were married in 1509. Anne’s date of birth is not known, precisely, but it was between roughly 1500 and 1507.

Henry was probably not the author of the entire Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, (which is limited to a defense of the sacraments, in response to Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica, not an argument against everything Luther said) though it’s likely he wrote the first two chapters. And the Assertio( as a point of interest) was not the entire reason he received the title of Defensor Fidei, as is often thought.

Henry did not have Tyndale executed, that was done under the authority of Charles V, in Brussels, though Henry did assist in Tyndale’s capture. That execution took place the year after Henry has separated the Church in England from Rome; he had no particular theological reason to want Tyndale dead. But he did resent that Tyndale had not supported his argument that the Levitical prohibition invalidated his marriage to Catherine. On the other hand, Tyndale’s book OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN had influenced Henry greatly. On balance, Henry wanted Tyndale dead, and helped the authorities under Charles get him.

Historical fact is interesting. Cartoon history, not so much. Behind each of these points lies a great deal more history. Hank and his problems is a hobby of mine.

GKC

Your post is very enlightening. Not factual, but enlightening in the sense if you think the Catholic church has several branches, I’m suspecting that was something taught to you by someone else who believes that. And that’s more frightening than it is enlightening. Hate to burst your bubble, but I can’t confirm you in your error. First off the Eastern Orthodox church was a schism where a group of bishops broke away from Rome, not because of doctrinal dispute, but because a few popes’ bad behavior. Eventually over time this lead to the Orthodox doctrine that the Pope is a position of honor and not of authority. The Anglican’s were started by Henry VIII because the pope would not grant him a divorce just because he fell in love (lust) over a younger woman at his wedding reception. Rome never gave consent or recognized this as a branch (as you say) but a complete breakaway. Henry was a monarch and not a bishop, so he had no right whatsoever to establish a church. Then again a single bishop has no authority to establish a church either. In case you didn’t know, Henry was no fan of Luther or Tyndale either. He refuted all of Martin Luther’s arguments against the Catholic church. And he had William Tyndale strangled and burned at the stake for writing history’s most erroneous translation of the Bible. Henry VIII was once one of the greatest Catholics who received the title Defender Of The Faith. As for the Protestants which is up to 44,000 denominations (there’s a new one or two every five days), that was started by Martin Luther of his own accord AGAINST the Catholic church. NOT in support of it. One final factual tidbit. The early church recieved it’s name Catholic from Saint Ignatius who was a direct successor of the Apostle John. He wrote “Where the Catholic church is there is Christ” He wrote this somewhere between AD 100-107. He used the word Catholic to distinguish the authentics Christians from the heretical ones particularly the Gnostics. I have to shamefully admitt though, Protestantism exists because it was started and perpetuated by bad catholics who fell from grace. And that (this entire post) is historical fact.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And there were precedents to Henry’s request for the dec. of null. as well. The pope normally would probably have granted the declaration were it not for holy roman empire politics and cronyism at the time. As you said, though, the RCC has never had divorces, annulments or nullity. My favorite part of this post was “and other stuff”

Your post is not enlightening. Not overwhelmingly factual, either.

Henry was not looking for a divorce, no such thing exists in RC doctrine. He was asking for a declaration of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, based on an impediment that he maintained was ultra vires, beyond the authority of Julius II to dispense. It’s a complicated story, and involves history, a subject that is often complicated. What Henry asked was commonplace at the time; why it didn’t happen was…complicated. And involves politics and other stuff. The point about Anne Boleyn, and his wedding reception, is not history, on the other hand. Catherine and Henry were married in 1509. Anne’s date of birth is not known, precisely, but it was between roughly 1500 and 1507.

Henry was probably not the author of the entire Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, (which is limited to a defense of the sacraments, in response to Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica, not an argument against everything Luther said) though it’s likely he wrote the first two chapters. And the Assertio( as a point of interest) was not the entire reason he received the title of Defensor Fidei, as is often thought.

Henry did not have Tyndale executed, that was done under the authority of Charles V, in Brussels, though Henry did assist in Tyndale’s capture. That execution took place the year after Henry has separated the Church in England from Rome; he had no particular theological reason to want Tyndale dead. But he did resent that Tyndale had not supported his argument that the Levitical prohibition invalidated his marriage to Catherine. On the other hand, Tyndale’s book OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN had influenced Henry greatly. On balance, Henry wanted Tyndale dead, and helped the authorities under Charles get him.

Historical fact is interesting. Cartoon history, not so much. Behind each of these points lies a great deal more history. Hank and his problems is a hobby of mine.

GKC

 

[GKC]

History is just full of other stuff. Sort of like my garage.

GKC

And there were precedents to Henry’s request for the dec. of null. as well. The pope normally would probably have granted the declaration were it not for holy roman empire politics and cronyism at the time. As you said, though, the RCC has never had divorces, annulments or nullity. My favorite part of this post was “and other stuff”

 

[Daedelus76]

. The Anglican’s were started by Henry VIII because the pope would not grant him a divorce just because he fell in love (lust) over a younger woman at his wedding reception.

The Church of England was started by St. Augustine of Canterburry in the 6th century, not Henry VIII. It was reformed after Henry VIII broke ties with Rome along the lines of Erasmus, Luther, and other continental reformers. Just like Roman Catholicism sought reform around the Council of Trent, clarity in doctrines was needed in Anglicanism because Roman Catholics had done such a bang-up job of leaving some things, like indulgences, purgatory, the Communion of Saints, up to uneducated, superstitious minds (Luther wrote the first Christian catechism that was widely published, BTW). I fully agree that some of the reformers often were excessive in their anti-Catholicism and introduced errors of their own (Cranmer in particular ended up too rationalistic at the end of his life), but I’m also willing to cut them some slack given the “conditions on the ground” that existed in the West in the Church.

 

[GKC]

The trigger point, the reason Henry took the Church in England private, so to speak, at that time, was his failure to obtain the decree of nullity he needed, both for dynastic and personal reasons. A long story, full of stuff…

But an even longer story was the ongoing and escalating conflict between the Throne and the RCC in England, stretching back several hundred years (at least) and traceable in a series of Parliamentary and royal decrees, starting (at least) with the first Statute of Westminster. All seeking to reduce the authority of any agency outside the country, over the Church in the country, and expand the authority of the state over it. Eventually, whether Henry and Catherine had produced a handful of healthy heirs to the throne, or whether Henry had ever seen Anne, a rupture would have occurred.

GKC

The Church of England was started by St. Augustine of Canterburry in the 6th century, not Henry VIII. It was reformed after Henry VIII broke ties with Rome along the lines of Erasmus, Luther, and other continental reformers. Just like Roman Catholicism sought reform around the Council of Trent, clarity in doctrines was needed in Anglicanism because Roman Catholics had done such a bang-up job of leaving some things, like indulgences, purgatory, the Communion of Saints, up to uneducated, superstitious minds (Luther wrote the first Christian catechism that was widely published, BTW). I fully agree that some of the reformers often were excessive in their anti-Catholicism and introduced errors of their own (Cranmer in particular ended up too rationalistic at the end of his life), but I’m also willing to cut them some slack given the “conditions on the ground” that existed in the West in the Church.