History of the RC to Church of England question

[GKC]

What just happened…

I saluted a number of thoughtful posts.

 

[Padres1969]

I saluted a number of thoughtful posts.

I meant those thoughtful posts. They came out of nowhere… Suddenly this place was in full on historian mode. It was refreshing.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I meant those thoughtful posts. They came out of nowhere… Suddenly this place was in full on historian mode. It was refreshing.

See what can happen when there’s the prospect of beer at the end of the day?

 

[GKC]

I meant those thoughtful posts. They came out of nowhere… Suddenly this place was in full on historian mode. It was refreshing.

Yeah, I sometimes feel lonely. But Picky Picky, Kanichen, and (name removed by moderator) have shown their colors (colours, as appropriate) before, and stepped in to add variety and breadth to my accustomed Henrician observations.

 

[GKC]

Na habair e

Or words to that effect.

 

[HB11]

:sad_yes:

The reason why England seemed to “switch quickly” and seemed to side with the king over the Pope was very simple. The church’s lands were sneezed and immediately distributed. The new landed class and the nobles in existence were enriched by the action. They all had a huge material incentive to side with the King. There was no one to lead the fight for the Pope.
Contrast that with France, whose king specifically protected church lands and you ended up with religious wars, because people saw in Switzerland and England the bounty that could be gained from a split with Rome.

 

[Millie123]

Okay, first, I’m sorry if this isn’t in the right spot, it seemed the best fit.

But I’m wondering if anyone can suggest a history of the birth of the Church of England.

I’m watching the Fr. Brown mysteries with my wife, and it got me to thinking as to how the C of E got started, and when Henry VIII made his break, what happened to the local parishes?

I mean, in my mind it was always a clean break; Thursday the parish is RC, Friday its C of E. But I know that can’t have happened that way.

How did the priests and bishops handle it? Did they flee? Some surely followed Henry, but what of those that didn’t? And what about the parish’s themselves? If Donald Trump declared himself head of ‘The American Church’ and put pressure on American Catholics to break from the Church, I can’t imagine going along with it, but I know it was a different time.

Though a little later than the time period your talking about. I think you’d enjoy reading the book Autobiography of a Hunted Priest by Father John Gerard. He was a Catholic Priest who ministered in England during the Elizabethan era. Ive read his story a couple of times just because I find his story so interesting, his narrative of how he ministered to Catholics during that era, and how the faithful cared for him in their own homes. How he reconciled some people back to the church. And his experience of imprisonment at the Tower of London.

 

[GKC]

Though a little later than the time period your talking about. I think you’d enjoy reading the book Autobiography of a Hunted Priest by Father John Gerard. He was a Catholic Priest who ministered in England during the Elizabethan era. Ive read his story a couple of times just because I find his story so interesting, his narrative of how he ministered to Catholics during that era, and how the faithful cared for him in their own homes. How he reconciled some people back to the church. And his experience of imprisonment at the Tower of London.

And, as in my suggested list way up there, Hogge/GOD’S SECRET AGENTS is a good history.

Caraman/HENRY GARNET -1555 - 1606 AND THE GUNPOWDER PLOT is harder to find but also good. Or Waugh/EDMUND CAMPION -A LIFE.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

When he split with Rome, he did not embrace the Protestant ideas/theology initially. He was, in his mind, just separating the English Catholic Church from the Bishop of Rome; much as the Eastern Bishops split with Rome in the Great Schism.

Except there were genuine theological issues in the East-West schism. Not to say there wasn’t politics also, but it wasn’t all politics.

 

[GKC]

Except there were genuine theological issues in the East-West schism. Not to say there wasn’t politics also, but it wasn’t all politics.

It’s very rarely all anything. Politics and religion, esp. in the day, were tightly intertwined.

And while Henry, in the beginning, trod a strict orthodox (not to confuse the issue) path, over his reign he tried out a few innovations, both to exercise his role as head of the CoE, and for some political purposes, late in life. But the split was not, originally, over doctrinal points, differing from the continental fracas.

 

[Evan]

You might read Robert Hugh Benson’s ‘Come Rack, Come Rope’ gutenberg.org/ebooks/15992 which describes the life of a recusant (one who did not follow the King to CofE). They were heavily fined if they did not show up at anglican services. If they were found at a mass, they could loose their land. If a priest was found, his punishment was death. All of this tended to move the luke-warm Catholics out of the faith.

 

[GKC]

You might read Robert Hugh Benson’s ‘Come Rack, Come Rope’ gutenberg.org/ebooks/15992 which describes the life of a recusant (one who did not follow the King to CofE). They were heavily fined if they did not show up at anglican services. If they were found at a mass, they could loose their land. If a priest was found, his punishment was death. All of this tended to move the luke-warm Catholics out of the faith.

Or his BY WHAT AUTHORITY, for another fictionalized account…

 

[KjetilK]

Henry VIII was seen as a loyal Catholic before his marital issues. When he split with Rome, he did not embrace the Protestant ideas/theology initially. He was, in his mind, just separating the English Catholic Church from the Bishop of Rome; much as the Eastern Bishops split with Rome in the Great Schism.

Yes, and that is exactly it. I don’t see how one logically could, from a Roman Catholic perspective, claim that there’s any principled difference between the break between the Roman Catholic Church and, say, the Russian Church, on the one hand, and the break between the Roman Catholic Church and, say, the Church of England, Sweden or Denmark-Norway, on the other. They did develop differently, of course, but the breaks themselves were of the same nature (if one sees this from a Roman Catholic perspective).

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, and when the Roman Catholic hierarchy was legally re-introduced in England, in the 1850s, many called it ‘the Italian Mission to the Irish’ (and not as a term of endearment).

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, and that is exactly it. I don’t see how one logically could, from a Roman Catholic perspective, claim that there’s any principled difference between the break between the Roman Catholic Church and, say, the Russian Church, on the one hand, and the break between the Roman Catholic Church and, say, the Church of England, Sweden or Denmark-Norway, on the other. They did develop differently, of course, but the breaks themselves were of the same nature (if one sees this from a Roman Catholic perspective).

Aren’t all breaks?

The Church: “We have a few issues here, Let’s hold a council at Chalcedon.”
-post Chalcedon-
Non-Chalcedonians: This meeting didn’t appease us! We’re out!

Henry: For a myriad of seemingly just reasons, I need to cancel my marriage.
-post request-
This didn’t appease me! I’m out!

We all have an authority problem.

 

[GKC]

Aren’t all breaks?

The Church: “We have a few issues here, Let’s hold a council at Chalcedon.”
-post Chalcedon-
Non-Chalcedonians: This meeting didn’t appease us! We’re out!

Henry: For a myriad of seemingly just reasons, I need to cancel my marriage.
-post request-
This didn’t appease me! I’m out!

We all have an authority problem.

Probably true. Might have been Clement, might have been Charles. But a problem.

 

[KjetilK]

Aren’t all breaks?

The Church: “We have a few issues here, Let’s hold a council at Chalcedon.”
-post Chalcedon-
Non-Chalcedonians: This meeting didn’t appease us! We’re out!

Henry: For a myriad of seemingly just reasons, I need to cancel my marriage.
-post request-
This didn’t appease me! I’m out!

We all have an authority problem.

The problem is that many Roman Catholics seem not to understand and end up treating, say, the Russian Church in another fashion than the Norwegian or English. Of course that didn’t happen at the break. Rome acknowledged Cranmer as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Even if we go by the Roman understanding that the Anglicans lost valid orders sometime before 1896, they still regained it (by logical consequence of the Roman Catholic understanding) when the Old Catholics were involved in episcopal consecrations.* Yet the (validity of), say, the Russian Church is treated differently.

• Of course that isn’t the understanding of the Church of England (or of myself). They insist that their orders have remained valid.

 

[Vonsalza]

The problem is that many Roman Catholics seem not to understand and end up treating, say, the Russian Church in another fashion than the Norwegian or English.

I can’t speak knowledgeably about the Norwegian communion, but the Russian Church is Orthodox. They’ve kept the deposit of faith and their sacraments retain validity in the eyes the Catholic Church.

I don’t believe that is necessarily so for the Anglican communion.

Even if we go by the Roman understanding that the Anglicans lost valid orders sometime before 1896, they still regained it (by logical consequence of the Roman Catholic understanding) when the Old Catholics were involved in episcopal consecrations.

That’s news to me concerning Anglican orders. I was fairly sure they were currently invalid in Catholic eyes. Someone be sure to issue correction if this isn’t the case.

But I’m very tempted to say that that involvement of a valid sect doesn’t necessarily legitimize anything. Clean doesn’t rub off onto dirty. Dirty only further stains the clean.

Again, the only point there being that in Catholicism, Rome makes the ultimate call.

 

[GKC]

I can’t speak knowledgeably about the Norwegian communion, but the Russian Church is Orthodox. They’ve kept the deposit of faith and their sacraments retain validity in the eyes the Catholic Church.

I don’t believe that is necessarily so for the Anglican communion.

That’s news to me concerning Anglican orders. I was fairly sure they were currently invalid in Catholic eyes. Someone be sure to issue correction if this isn’t the case.

But I’m very tempted to say that that involvement of a valid sect doesn’t necessarily legitimize anything. Clean doesn’t rub off onto dirty. Dirty only further stains the clean.

Again, the only point there being that in Catholicism, Rome makes the ultimate call.

That last is correct, as to the judgement of the RCC, as for the RCC. And while one can certainly speculate, on a complex matter (or form, or intent), there has been no ultimate call on the question raised here. I draw no personal conclusions from that.

 

[poche]

Okay, first, I’m sorry if this isn’t in the right spot, it seemed the best fit.

But I’m wondering if anyone can suggest a history of the birth of the Church of England.

I’m watching the Fr. Brown mysteries with my wife, and it got me to thinking as to how the C of E got started, and when Henry VIII made his break, what happened to the local parishes?

I mean, in my mind it was always a clean break; Thursday the parish is RC, Friday its C of E. But I know that can’t have happened that way.

How did the priests and bishops handle it? Did they flee? Some surely followed Henry, but what of those that didn’t? And what about the parish’s themselves? If Donald Trump declared himself head of ‘The American Church’ and put pressure on American Catholics to break from the Church, I can’t imagine going along with it, but I know it was a different time.

Donald Trump cannot do that without a change in the Constitution.