Luther and Calvin said what?????

[Contarini]

Do share the great theological changes that occurred in the Anglican Church when Henry Separated?

There weren’t that many, other than the authority issue, as you say. There were moves against the veneration of saints, though that was focused on St. Thomas A Becket, whose example pointed in the “wrong” direction politically. And, of course, the monasteries were dissolved, which had a lot of theological implications. But the theological and liturgical structures of what we call Anglicanism post-date Henry.

And that is why you are wrong to identify Herny VIII as the founder of what we now call Anglicanism. You want simple–that’s simple.

For Anglicans, the break with Rome is not the thing that defines them. You, as a non-Anglican, do not get to tell Anglicans what defines them.

Instead of saying “the Anglican Church is founded on this unjust act” say “the Anglican Church broke from Rome through this unjust act.”

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

The struggle between the Throne and the Church, for relative power in the realm, ran back at least 250 years (and even further back, to Henry II) . 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. Henry and his Great Matter were the perfect storm, for something that had been building for centuries. It was nascent nationalism that also drove the split.

I would say the struggle between Throne and Church went back to the beginning, when the Romans sought the annihilation of the church, there was then the uneasy peace broken by persecutions until Constantine made Christianity the state religion. We have seen cardinals running the state, as in France historically, as well as bishops appointed by the state, as in Ottoman Constantinople, where the patriarch was hired and fired at the ruler’s whim and on at least one occasion publicly hanged. We have seem papal power overrule all secular power, and we have seen secular powers today suppress the church, as in North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Our own separation of church and state is historically unusual, and the prevailing historical trend seems to have been that the belief of the ruler shall be the belief of the people.

While the annulment was the catalyst, it was certainly not the sole cause, and if it had been granted, it is more than likely that something else would have been the catalyst. It is simply illogical to maintain the annulment was the sole grounds for the founding of the Anglican church (which I believe maintains it was founded at Pentecost, and never recognizes Henry’s actions as its inception, nor regards Henry as its founder).

 

[GKC]

I would say the struggle between Throne and Church went back to the beginning, when the Romans sought the annihilation of the church, there was then the uneasy peace broken by persecutions until Constantine made Christianity the state religion. We have seen cardinals running the state, as in France historically, as well as bishops appointed by the state, as in Ottoman Constantinople, where the patriarch was hired and fired at the ruler’s whim and on at least one occasion publicly hanged. We have seem papal power overrule all secular power, and we have seen secular powers today suppress the church, as in North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Our own separation of church and state is historically unusual, and the prevailing historical trend seems to have been that the belief of the ruler shall be the belief of the people.

While the annulment was the catalyst, it was certainly not the sole cause, and if it had been granted, it is more than likely that something else would have been the catalyst. It is simply illogical to maintain the annulment was the sole grounds for the founding of the Anglican church (which I believe maintains it was founded at Pentecost, and never recognizes Henry’s actions as its inception, nor regards Henry as its founder).

Perhaps I could have been clearer in my reference to Throne and Rome. I was only referring to the history of the English situation, with selected examples, as precursor to Henry’s actions, not the wider history of Church and state relations…

I completely agree with your 2nd para.

GKC

 

[Tomyris]

Perhaps I could have been clearer in my reference to Throne and Rome. I was only referring to the history of the English situation, with selected examples, as precursor to Henry’s actions, not the wider history of Church and state relations…

Well, you got me thinking about the Bigger Picture. There also is the whole question as to how much an individual influences history as opposed to how much history influences an individual. Henry was caught up in his times with only limited courses of action available to him. I certainly do not view him as some sort of saint, but I really don’t have a good grasp of his interior life - difficult to do even for a close personal friend. For him Christ and state were aligned, I think. I think he probably regarded himself as God’s Appointed and Anointed. Absolute power also corrupts. I see I am rambling, so I will stop.

I completely agree with your 2nd para.

GKC

Thank you.

There is much in Episcopalianism I find appealing. I was raised in the Episcopal Church until I quit going as a teenager. When I cam back, the rampant liberalism, along with an ardently conservative Presbyterian boyfriend, now husband, drew me away. I think the High church types may go Catholic, but there are also a lot of low church types who are anti-Catholic, and then there are the liberals who, well, reject anything historical in Christianity and therefore any idea of joining the Catholic church is out of the question. The idea that all the Anglicans will merge with Rome is untenable IMHO. You know this, GKC, but some thread readers may not.

 

[GKC]

Well, you got me thinking about the Bigger Picture. There also is the whole question as to how much an individual influences history as opposed to how much history influences an individual. Henry was caught up in his times with only limited courses of action available to him. I certainly do not view him as some sort of saint, but I really don’t have a good grasp of his interior life - difficult to do even for a close personal friend. For him Christ and state were aligned, I think. I think he probably regarded himself as God’s Appointed and Anointed. Absolute power also corrupts. I see I am rambling, so I will stop.

Thank you.

There is much in Episcopalianism I find appealing. I was raised in the Episcopal Church until I quit going as a teenager. When I cam back, the rampant liberalism, along with an ardently conservative Presbyterian boyfriend, now husband, drew me away. I think the High church types may go Catholic, but there are also a lot of low church types who are anti-Catholic, and then there are the liberals who, well, reject anything historical in Christianity and therefore any idea of joining the Catholic church is out of the question. The idea that all the Anglicans will merge with Rome is untenable IMHO. You know this, GKC, but some thread readers may not.

Also agree more or less with your para 1. I have made similar points. But wasn’t really thinking of them at the time.

Hank was a fascinating train wreck (I may copyright that). Headstrong and hard to turn aside. He certainly came to think of the role of the sovereign as God’s anointed, based largely on the influence of Tyndale’s OBEDIENCE OF A CHRISTIAN MAN, after he failed to receive his decree of nullity. The system he worked under was incredibly complex, by intention, and tried to balance the necessities of preserving the sacrament of matrimony, under the Church’s control, with the necessities of dynastic marriage and real-politics. In this case, politics was the driver.

GKC, non-Episcopalian

 

[commenter]

I am enlightened by the history insights of the Christians posting on this thread - there is complicated history here, in the formation of Anglicanism, Lutheran, and Reformed Christianity. One mistake people make with history is to applaud, or demonize certain people who lived in the 1500s (the popes, or Luther, Calvin, or Henry), to justify our current affiliation. We project our biases backwards, as if we knew as much about Henry as about Bill Clinton.

History is still being made today! Most denominations went through more changes in the past 40 years than in the previous 400. Things once considered basic and unchangeable, beyond the need of any church to defend them (sacredness of life in the womb, marriage, the canon of the New Testament) are now up for grabs. More is to come.

Evidence is still coming in. That Katharine Jefferts Schori could rise to power tells as much about Anglicanism as studying the lives of people in the 1500s. Fair, impartial (and charitable!) assessment of Luther and Calvin teaches us, but is not more informative than looking at trends in Lutheranism and Reformed Christianity since 1970.

 

[Peter_J]

From this sermon.

Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage in the third century.

(1) “He is not a Christian who is not in Christ’s church”; (2) “He cannot have God for his father who has not the church for his mother”; and (3) “There is no salvation outside the church.”

Luther said, “Therefore he who would find Christ must first find the Church. How should we know where Christ and his faith were, if we did not know where his believers are? And he who would know anything of Christ must not trust himself nor build a bridge to heaven by his own reason; but he must go to the Church, attend and ask her. Now the Church is not wood and stone, but the company of believing people; one must hold to them, and see how they believe, live and teach; they surely have Christ in their midst. For outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation.

Calvin put it like this: But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels, (Matth. 22: 30.)

Wow! A far cry from Sola Christus, Sola Fide or “Personal Relationship”…

I would have “A far cry from Sola Ego” (although I’m not sure how many Protestant churches officially teach that anyhow).

 

[Per_Crucem]

I would have “A far cry from Sola Ego” (although I’m not sure how many Protestant churches officially teach that anyhow).

Only internet Calvinist churches

 

[GKC]

I am enlightened by the history insights of the Christians posting on this thread - there is complicated history here, in the formation of Anglicanism, Lutheran, and Reformed Christianity. One mistake people make with history is to applaud, or demonize certain people who lived in the 1500s (the popes, or Luther, Calvin, or Henry), to justify our current affiliation. We project our biases backwards, as if we knew as much about Henry as about Bill Clinton.

History is still being made today! Most denominations went through more changes in the past 40 years than in the previous 400. Things once considered basic and unchangeable, beyond the need of any church to defend them (sacredness of life in the womb, marriage, the canon of the New Testament) are now up for grabs. More is to come.

Evidence is still coming in. That Katharine Jefferts Schori could rise to power tells as much about Anglicanism as studying the lives of people in the 1500s. Fair, impartial (and charitable!) assessment of Luther and Calvin teaches us, but is not more informative than looking at trends in Lutheranism and Reformed Christianity since 1970.

I actually know more of Hank than I do of Clinton.

Speaking personally, of course.

GKC