My first question - Why did the Church of England break from the RCC?

[GKC]

The Church of England was established by King Henry VIII but this infant Church did not really stray from the old faith, that is, from the teachings of the Catholic Church. The English people were not protestant, they were Catholics who were forced to accept the Church of England. They were forbidden to attend the Catholic Mass and practice the old religion. Despite the actions of King Henry, the general public remained Catholic. They were protestant in name only.

After the death of King Henry, why didn’t the Church of England revert back into the Catholic Church in England? Why did the Church of England remain protestant? It suprises me that the England did not want to return to the Catholic faith which it had professed for centuries.

The popularity of the break with Rome varied widely, depending to what part of Britain one was in. The north was relatively conservative, the cities, esp. London, more favorably inclined to Henry’s break, and the center of the more reformed movement to come. And there were the several hundred years history of friction between the throne and the Church. It was a mixed bag. For a (very good) RC flavored history of the period, Duffy’s STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS.

When Henry died and was followed by Edward, his markedly more protestant regency was relatively popular. Mary’s accession was relatively unpopular, esp. after she married Phillip. And Elizabeth, a centrist in polity, more popular, again.

Many RCs were indeed prohibited, by fines, primarily, from attending the old Mass. And it was eventually suppressed. But it wasn’t a completely unpopular thing to do, nation-wide.

GKC

 

[ahollars]

After the death of King Henry, why didn’t the Church of England revert back into the Catholic Church in England? Why did the Church of England remain protestant? It suprises me that the England did not want to return to the Catholic faith which it had professed for centuries.

You have Queen Elizabeth I and her 60 year reign to thank for that. Long story short, the country did not fall into chaos without a king. One has to wonder why Henry felt he didn’t have a heir. If Henry knew England would not collapse, would all of that still have happened?

 

[GKC]

You have Queen Elizabeth I and her 60 year reign to thank for that. Long story short, the country did not fall into chaos without a king. One has to wonder why Henry felt he didn’t have a heir. If Henry knew England would not collapse, would all of that still have happened?

It was the conventional wisdom. Henry had no idea how successful Elizabeth would be, and no reason to have expected it. England’s experience with (aspiring) female sovereigns was not a happy one (Maude/Stephen) and there was only a short generation or so since roses petals of all hues had littered the ground, in the York/Lancaster disagreements.

Safest to have a solid, male, legitimate heir. Or so it seemed.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

As to Anglicans being closest to Rome, I am not so sure as I used to be. In many ways there are, but you are seeing a slight pull from orthodoxy in some areas. It is nowhere close to what some Episcopalians have done, but it is starting.

I’m not sure how you’re defining “Anglicans” here. Episcopalians are Anglicans, though not all Anglicans are Episcopalians. If you mean that some other provinces of the Anglican Communion are moving in the same direction as the Episcopal Church, then you are right. Indeed, I’d question your claim that it is “nowhere close” to what Episcopalians have done. The Anglican Church of Canada is at least as liberal as the Episcopal Church in the U.S. The Episcopal Church in Scotland, the Anglican Church of Australia, and the Anglican Church of Southern Africa are more or less in the same ballpark as well.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Church of England was established by King Henry VIII but this infant Church did not really stray from the old faith, that is, from the teachings of the Catholic Church. The English people were not protestant, they were Catholics who were forced to accept the Church of England. They were forbidden to attend the Catholic Mass and practice the old religion.

That isn’t how it would have appeared to the common people. There were not many liturgical changes, so they would have believed themselves to be celebrating the Catholic Mass. And of course the Catholic Church does not question that the Church of England retained valid orders at this point.

Despite the actions of King Henry, the general public remained Catholic. They were protestant in name only.

Not quite. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, had strongly Protestant beliefs and did everything he could (without getting in trouble with the kind) to further Protestantism. Under Cranmer’s patronage, Protestants (or at least people with broadly “evangelical” sympathies–perhaps Protestant is the wrong word) obtained some quite influential positions. And in spite of Henry’s conservative leanings and his frequent lurches back toward Protestantism, he allowed a certain amount of change in a Protestant direction and died leaving his son and heir under the authority of Protestant tutors and regents. (See Diarmaid MacCulloch’s magisterial biography of Cranmer.)

After the death of King Henry, why didn’t the Church of England revert back into the Catholic Church in England? Why did the Church of England remain protestant? It suprises me that the England did not want to return to the Catholic faith which it had professed for centuries.

As I said, Edward was brought up as a Protestant (with his father’s tacit approval) and the regents during his reign were Protestants. In fact, there was a coup part way through which replaced a relatively moderate, Lutheran-leaning regent with a more stridently Reformed regent. After Edward’s death, his sister Queen Mary did of course reunite England with Rome. But after Mary’s death, the remaining sister, Elizabeth, moved back to a Protestant position, although a more moderate and diplomatic one than had prevailed under Edward. (Bear in mind that Elizabeth was the daughter of Ann Boleyn.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The books Characters of the Reformation and How the Reformation Happened by Hilaire Belloc are excellent reading for an in-depth answer to your question.

I disagree that Belloc’s account has much depth, and it is certainly extremely biased. There are many better books (from Catholic, Protestant, and secular perspectives) which describe what happened in a more thorough and scholarly and less propagandistic manner.

Belloc is a great satirist, but not such a great historian. The two qualities unfortunately do not mix well.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

anglicans/episcopalians are unitarians playing catholic.

Rather odd that Unitarians would recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday, and routinely list it as the basic summary of their beliefs, wouldn’t you think?

This characterization is just plain unjust. Yes, there are some Anglicans who disregard or deny their church’s own most solemnly held beliefs. The same is true in Catholicism, though admittedly you impose more discipline on your dissenters than we do (even apart from the fact that your doctrinal parameters are much narrower). But you have no excuse for confusing what some Anglicans say with theofficial beliefs of Anglicanism.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

Generalizing about Anglicans is like trying to generalize about humans.

I think it was WF Buckley who said “Nobody from the pope to Mao Tse Tung can say with any certainty that he is NOT an Anglican.” Now that’s quality humor!

P.S. Nice to see you Contarini.

 

[GKC]

Generalizing about Anglicans is like trying to generalize about humans.

I think it was WF Buckley who said “Nobody from the pope to Mao Tse Tung can say with any certainty that he is NOT an Anglican.” Now that’s quality humor!

P.S. Nice to see you Contarini.

Yes. Buckley.

GKC

 

[ralphinal]

I’m not sure how you’re defining “Anglicans” here. Episcopalians are Anglicans, though not all Anglicans are Episcopalians. If you mean that some other provinces of the Anglican Communion are moving in the same direction as the Episcopal Church, then you are right. Indeed, I’d question your claim that it is “nowhere close” to what Episcopalians have done. The Anglican Church of Canada is at least as liberal as the Episcopal Church in the U.S. The Episcopal Church in Scotland, the Anglican Church of Australia, and the Anglican Church of Southern Africa are more or less in the same ballpark as well.

Edwin

I define Anglicans as the non-Episcopalians. I may be wrong for doing so, but in my mind, I have always seen them as separate.

I had no idea that the Anglican Church of Canada was that close to the edge. Or the others. Pity, really.

The Anglican communities have such a rich tradition. It is a shame that some choose to trash it to be modern.

 

[GKC]

I define Anglicans as the non-Episcopalians. I may be wrong for doing so, but in my mind, I have always seen them as separate.

I had no idea that the Anglican Church of Canada was that close to the edge. Or the others. Pity, really.

The Anglican communities have such a rich tradition. It is a shame that some choose to trash it to be modern.

Anglican is the genus, Episcopal the species.

And much of the developed, first-world Anglican communion is over the edge.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I define Anglicans as the non-Episcopalians. I may be wrong for doing so, but in my mind, I have always seen them as separate.

Why? I understand that the linguistic usage is confusing, but the reason Scottish and U.S. Anglicans call themselves Episcopalians is primarily political (in both countries there were liabilities to being thought of as an “English” church, which “Anglican” implies). It doesn’t really have theological implications, though it’s true that both of these provinces are among the most liberal.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

Anglican is the genus, Episcopal the species.

And much of the developed, first-world Anglican communion is over the edge.

GKC

And in all fairness, the same goes for the Catholic Church. We just happen to have one more layer of authoritative oversight that has helped contain and limit the damage a bit more.

 

[Dempsey1919]

And in all fairness, the same goes for the Catholic Church. We just happen to have one more layer of authoritative oversight that has helped contain and limit the damage a bit more.

The situation in the Catholic Church is vastly different to the situation in the Anglican Communion. The liberals within the Anglican Communion were able to change church practice and doctrine regarding female ordination, contraception and homosexuality. The liberals within the Catholic Church tried to change Church practice regarding female ordination, contraception and homosexuality but they failed. Many Catholics want the Church to adopt a similar position, but this will never happen. The Catholic teaching regarding sexuality and birth control can never change.

Papal Infallability will prevent any changes to the faith of the Apostles. The Catholic Church is the guardian and protector of this faith, and the gates of hell will never prevail. The Anglican Communion does not have the protection of the Holy Spirit, and this is why the Anglican faith has changed over time. The faith of King Henry VIII is vastly different from the faith of many contemporary Anglicans.

 

[ralphinal]

Anglican is the genus, Episcopal the species.

And much of the developed, first-world Anglican communion is over the edge.

GKC

Anglicanus episcopalious

Why? I understand that the linguistic usage is confusing, but the reason Scottish and U.S. Anglicans call themselves Episcopalians is primarily political (in both countries there were liabilities to being thought of as an “English” church, which “Anglican” implies). It doesn’t really have theological implications, though it’s true that both of these provinces are among the most liberal.

Edwin

Because I have known more crazy episcopalians than anglicans.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If i broke any of the rules for first time posters i am SORRY… =(

I just wanted to know if you could give me a little insight as to why the church in England broke off and became the Anglican church. Now I know the basic story of Henry VIII wanting to get a divorce, but if possble I would like some other information, the sociopolitical aspects that wer going on at that time, etc.

One more thing, The Anglican church is thought to be the CLOSEST to Catholicism in the Protestant realm (hence some dont consider Anglicanism all that protestant),to Roman Catholics: What are your thought on the Anglican Communion and can an Anglican in your opinion have the same relationship with God that a Roman Catholic can?

Be gentle, im new here =)

God can have a relationship with anyone He wishes - Anglicans are no more dependent on God than are Catholics, or anybody else. It is man who is limited by divisions between Churches, by canon law, by doctrine, by sacraments & their discipline their validity: not God.​

 

[manualman]

The situation in the Catholic Church is vastly different to the situation in the Anglican Communion. The liberals within the Anglican Communion were able to change church practice and doctrine regarding female ordination, contraception and homosexuality. The liberals within the Catholic Church tried to change Church practice regarding female ordination, contraception and homosexuality but they failed. Many Catholics want the Church to adopt a similar position, but this will never happen. The Catholic teaching regarding sexuality and birth control can never change.

Papal Infallability will prevent any changes to the faith of the Apostles. The Catholic Church is the guardian and protector of this faith, and the gates of hell will never prevail. The Anglican Communion does not have the protection of the Holy Spirit, and this is why the Anglican faith has changed over time. The faith of King Henry VIII is vastly different from the faith of many contemporary Anglicans.

You used a lot more words to say the same thing I did. But the fact of the matter is that the PERSONAL theology of the average American catholic is just as likely to be heterodox as the average American Episcopalian. That the official teaching of the catholic church has been preserved from nuttiness ain’t our achievement, it’s the Holy Spirit. Our rank and file is every bit as messed up as theirs is.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

anglicans/episcopalians are unitarians playing catholic.

That’s a really gross overgeneralization. My experience as an Anglican before my reversion to the RCC is that some Anglicans are very orthodox and Catholic, some lean protestant, and there is the lunatic fringe out there…But I find that in Catholicism, too, Maize. There are a ton of Roman Catholics using birth control, wanting lady priestesses, who are ok with gay marriage, ok with stem cell research, who don’t go to Mass every Sunday, on and on. That unitarian, group-hug, all ways to Christ are good ways, folks are in every denomination, not just Anglicans. You need to differentiate Anglicans from Episcopalians in the U.S. bigtime! Many Anglicans in England have entered into that liberal free-for-all mindset but worldwide there are many orthodox Anglicans that are quite conservative and traditional…