Officially how old is the Diocese of Canterbury (Church of England) in the UK?

[Padres1969]

It’s not in the Church of England view… The Church of England traces it’s origins back much further than the 1500’s.

 

[Padres1969]

Sure whatever Leo…

Seriously though, in the COE view the above from Picky is correct. The line has remained unbroken and it’s been the same diocese since the beginning.

 

[Krisdun]

Some would argue the line was broken in 1534…

The more recently established Catholic diocese covering that geographical area today is not the same as the original diocese of Canterbury.

 

[Padres1969]

Catholics today would that’s true. But that’s the modern Catholic view.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Also has it always existed in its current form?

No. The Church of England has been changing diocesan boundaries quite regularly ever since the Reformation. A major round of boundary changes came in the 19th century when population growth and urbanization rendered the old diocesan structures unfit for purpose, as sprawling dioceses administered from ancient cities struggled to minister to major industrial towns. The Diocese of Winchester, for example, covered much of southern England, including what is now the southern half of Greater London. It was of course impossible for the bishop of Winchester to adequately serve half the citizens of the largest city of the British Empire, as well as a huge swathe of rural England and several major port towns on the south coast.

The boundaries of the Diocese of Canterbury were last changed, I believe, in 1985, when the Archdeaconry of Croydon was transferred to the Diocese of Southwark. Croydon had historical connections with the Diocese of Canterbury, having long been one of the archbishop’s several homes. By the middle of the 20th century, however, Croydon was in fact a significant commercial center of the southern suburbs of London.

As for your wider question, you have to remember that the Church of England was not established as a new Church in parallel with the Catholic Church, but, rather, simply took over the existing structures of the Catholic Church, such as bishoprics, cathedrals, parishes, and seats in the House of Lords.

 

[Krisdun]

As for your wider question, you have to remember that the Church of England was not established as a new Church in parallel with the Catholic Church, but, rather, simply took over the existing structures of the Catholic Church, such as bishoprics, cathedrals, parishes, and seats in the House of Lords.

That is true but the Catholic Church did not cease to exist completely and returned to re-establish itself (to some extent) in England. Nothing against forming a new breakaway CoE church but grabbing the existing Catholic churches/land for their own purpose was not the way it should have been done.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

I think you have to take into account that it was the 16th century. The relationship between the monarch and the Church had been a subject of controversy for hundreds of years in various parts of Europe. The notion that the king, with the authority of Parliament, could seize control of the Church within his territories and separate it from the authority of the pope was something that was part of the political controversies of the day.

People in the 16th century did not have a notion of religious pluralism or freedom of religion. If Parliament legislated that the king was head of the Church, the king was head of the Church. If the king declared that the liturgy was to be in English, the liturgy was in English, and attendance at church was compulsory.

This was also a period of history when many of the major powers in Europe were building overseas empires, sailing thousands of miles across the globe, seizing land, and in many instances enslaving people. This we also do not do today.

Notions such as separation of Church and state, democracy, human rights, and the international rules-based system cannot be imposed upon distant periods of history.

 

[GKMotley]

The relationship in England was particularly rocky, back, at least, to the Council of Westminster.

 

[BartholomewB]

For anyone who is not already familiar with it, I would warmly recommend this history of the English Reformation. Cobbett was not a Catholic, but his book is strongly supportive of the pre-Reformation Catholic institutions in England, and he presents the Reformation mainly as a long series of acts of piracy and plunder. He portrays Cranmer as a wheeler-dealer whose only guiding principle was the need to maintain political stability under the Tudor dynasty. Cobbett was, first and foremost, a campaigning social reformer, journalist, and politician in the pre-Victorian period. He was only incidentally a historian. Is his book fair or unfair to the Reformers? I don’t know, I’m not qualified to pass judgment on that. I’m sure @GKMotley will know the answer.

A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland

 

[GKMotley]

GKMotley knows that GKC was very fond of Cobbett and his positions.

 

[Krisdun]

Thank you for the recommendation seems like a worthwhile read!

 

[BartholomewB]

It certainly is. It’s a compelling read. Cobbett writes very well. His book is now nearly 200 years old but it’s still a page-turner.

 

[TomH1]

Some might argue it is only 486 years old after being officially designated a CoE diocese in 1534?

I am sure some might.

Some might argue that it is no longer a diocese. To have a diocese you need a bishop. The Catholic Church officially teaches that Anglican orders are null and void. Therefore, you could argue there is no bishop of Canterbury; therefore, there is no diocese of Canterbury.

Another argument could be that since the Church in England broke with Rome that the see is in abeyance.

I prefer to think that the See of St Augustine has existed since St Augustine founded it. In modern history Pope St Paul VI, Pope St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI all seem to have acknowledge the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[dochawk]

. But interesting to know nonetheless that one man switched from being a bishop of one church to another. I wonder what Thomas Cranmer truly thought about it all deep down at the time?

But they didn’t think that.

The anglican belief, right or wrong, is that Rome was exercising authority it didn’t have in other countries, and that it was told to “knock it off”.

they did not think they were separating or crating another church, but rather that they had slapped away interfering fingers, much as the Bishop of Las Vegas might do today if the Bishop of San Jose tried to exercise authority over him.

Some might argue it is only 486 years old after being officially designated a CoE diocese in 1534?

But that’s not what they did, nor what they thought they did. No “designation” or notion that the CodE was anything other than what it had been.

It’s not in the Church of England view… The Church of England traces it’s origins back much further than the 1500’s.

And this is the corresponding view from the other side of the split . . .

Neither side is going to agree to the other’s frame of reference as the basis for discussion,

 

[TomH1]

A recommendation I have followed. I would also recommend doing what I did, which is shop around. I found it at a much better price on a well-known online shopping site. Ordered, no delivery charge and on its way.

 

[BartholomewB]

Please come back, in due course, and let us know what you think of it!

 

[TomH1]

I shall. It shouldn’t take me long. I read quite fast and have quite a lot of unexpected time on my hands at the moment. Although I subscribe to the seller’s faster delivery service it appears I may be wating a week to receive it.

 

[GKMotley]

Meanwhile, I’ll be going over Chesterton’s COBBETT again.

 

[Krisdun]

The anglican belief, right or wrong, is that Rome was exercising authority it didn’t have in other countries, and that it was told to “knock it off”.

The English never liked the idea of outsiders ruling or exercising authority over them (e.g. Brexit). In a way I am surprised the Catholic Church survived as long as it did as the dominant religion in England.

 

[Angannas]

Also, as an archdiocese, the area of its province and the dioceses attached have frequently changed. Indeed for a brief period in the 8th century there were three archdioceses in England, with Litchfield raised to archepiscopal status for about 12 years