Sorry to see that this is closing

[scousekiwi]

I’m afraid I didn’t particularly get on with this forum, but evidently many of you are sad to be losing it, so I am sorry to see it go. No doubt much good has been done here as well as some ill.

I should also say that many of you helped me, though perhaps not in the way in which you hoped to. When I came here, I was seriously thinking about applying to join the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, as I am a former Catholic priest currently serving the Lord in the Church of England. However, my time here confirmed for me that I found my spiritual home when I was received into the Anglican Church and that that is where I am called to do God’s work.

I am sorry if this is a disappointing outcome, but I do believe that it is the right decision for me.

Peace be with you all.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

I have to ask. How do you reconcile the fact that the Church of England was founded by a monster like Henry VIII who only created C of E because of his lust for women and absolute power. I mean no disrespect I just don’t understand how the C of E justifies it’s existence based on the whims of a tyrant.

 

[scousekiwi]

First, you are quite right about Henry VIII. I don’t think you are going to find a single Anglican who is prepared to tell you that Henry VIII was a nice man!

Secondly, I think that most scholars now agree that the English Reformation (at any rate the Henrician Reformation) was a top-down Reformation initiated by the king, at least initially, because of his desire to procure a divorce. There was, of course, a religious dimension to this: Henry VIII does appear to have been convinced that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was quite probably unlawful and that God was punishing him for his unlawful marriage by denying him a male heir. Nonetheless, you are correct in thinking that on the eve of the Reformation, Catholicism remained popular in England.

Thirdly, I would suggest that there is no single date for the foundation of the Church of England. Rather, it was founded and re-founded several times. Remember that Catholicism was restored under Mary I and that what we now called Anglicanism was in many respects more a creation of the reign of Elizabeth I. In the following century, England adopted a more Calvinist theology and a more presbyterian polity during the interregnum. Anglicanism was restored with the monarchy in 1660, and, in some ways, one could say that contemporary Anglicanism dates from this point. Indeed, the founding of the Anglican Communion is usually dated to 1867, a period when the Church of England was undergoing significant change due to the Oxford Movement, which would ultimately determine the shape of the church in the 20th century and beyond.

Finally, I would say that we cannot judge anything solely by the circumstances in which it was created. Take the Commonwealth of Nations, for example. The Commonwealth has its origins in the British Empire, which in turn grew out of a history of violence. And yet the Commonwealth today does much good, especially for the people who suffered the most under the British Empire. Indeed, several countries in Africa have joined the Commonwealth, or applied to join, despite never having been part of the British Empire.

 

[Terence2369]

we cannot judge anything solely by the circumstances in which it was created

How true! This extends to many organizations, including the Roman Catholic church. Truth be told, the RCC’s own “received” history and it’s actual history aren’t one and the same. It’s actual history is a little less… “tidy”, shall we say? But in spite of that, the RCC has done much good.

I believe that Good is quite capable of infiltrating organizations that aren’t necessarily dedicated to the Good from the start. Regrettably, the reverse is also true: Evil is quite capable of infiltrating organizations that were meant to be staunch defenders of Good. Is the RCC a case of the former or the latter? I believe She’s gone through periods of both.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

I see! I enjoyed reading your response. I’m sorry I don’t have much time to give you a full response. Only to say that I understand what you are saying and i learned from it. I have more questions if you don’t mind. I really do look forward to hearing what you have to say. You are the first and only Anglican I have ever had an opportunity to ask for an opinion.

1.Thomas More. What do you say about the man and his defiance of Henry VIII? Justified or not? Heretic or Saint?

1. The monarch is the head of the Church of England what would happen if there was no monarch? I am quite familiar with English history but I never asked who was leading C of E when there was no Monarch? For example during Oliver Cromwell’s dictatorship?