Did the Anglican Church Begin Because of King Henry VIII's Divorce?
DMBoyleJr
The Episcopal church has been called the church of history. Stealing
from the Chart of Church History, "The four-fold stream of church life.
From the teachings of our Lord, and the practice of the first
Christians, we learn the four basic characteristics of the historic
Church: Faith--Trinitarian formula, gradually taking permanent form in
the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds; Ministry--Bishops, Priest, and Deacons
in a direct line of succession from the Apostles; Bible--Old Testament
entire, plus the traditions of Christ, written in books of the New
Testament; Sacraments--Two "of the Gospel" Baptism in water and
Communion in bread and wine using the Eucharistic prayer of our Lord.
Ironically, I like just about everything about the Episcopal Church except it's
history. It is commonly thought that it began because the Pope would not grant
King Henry VIII a divorce (as seen in the movie A Man for All Seasons). How do
you respond to this?
DMBoyleJr
Bill Jones
"mostly no." (I guess.) Henry was an avowed Catholic to his death. He
wrote a rebutal of Luther's attack on the sacraments that earned him the
title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope. He was the king, was going
to remain the "boss on his turf", and thought it intolerable that the
Pope's political difficulties should deprive him of a male heir to the
throne. The "marriages" appears to be a (long) combination soap opera
and modern lawsuit, to which I couldn't begin to do justice.
Henry's advisor, Thomas Cranmer, and a couple of dukes tried to force
Protestantism when 9 year old Edward took the throne. His sister Mary
Tudor took the throne as an extreme Catholic a few years later. Then
Elizabeth I a few years later with a moderate stance, which became more
Protestant as time went on. And through this time three versions of the
Book of Common Prayer were being written. And a bunch of other stuff
happened...
An excellent overview of Church history is, "Ye Are the Body" by Bonnell
Spencer. Should be available at any Episcopal bookstore. He's very good
at putting together social, economic, political, religious trends into
an evolving "big picture." He condenses the situation of Henry VII into
10-12 pages and actually makes sense of it, in a way I have obviously
been unable to do...
God's peace,
bill+
DMBoyleJr
DMBoyleJr
>technically
>it wasn't because of a divorce but rather an annulment. Henry had his
>marriage
>to Catherine of Aragon annulled when the Pope wouldn't give it to him. For
>its
>first 10 years till Henry died Anglicanism was a schism from Catholicism,
>not
>a heresy. That began when Cranmer got free rein to do what he wanted, under
>the
>boy king Edward VI and his likewise Protestant regent. Anglicanism has been
>officially Protestant ever since. The Anglo-Catholics tried to reverse this
>starting in earnest 150 years ago but failed. End of story.
Thanks for the reply. Any Anglicans or Episcopals care to refute this?
Sergei592
it wasn't because of a divorce but rather an annulment. Henry had his marriage
to Catherine of Aragon annulled when the Pope wouldn't give it to him. For its
first 10 years till Henry died Anglicanism was a schism from Catholicism, not
a heresy. That began when Cranmer got free rein to do what he wanted, under the
boy king Edward VI and his likewise Protestant regent. Anglicanism has been
officially Protestant ever since. The Anglo-Catholics tried to reverse this
starting in earnest 150 years ago but failed. End of story.
+++++++
+ Presvjataja Bohorodice, spasi nas + Most holy Mother of God, save us +
Pray without ceasing; it's later than you think
- Fr Seraphim Rose
'Are you Orthodox or Catholic?' Yes!
Dana Netherton
> >The Anglican Church did begin with the Henrician schism in 1534 but
> >technically
> >it wasn't because of a divorce but rather an annulment. Henry had his
> >marriage
> >to Catherine of Aragon annulled when the Pope wouldn't give it to him. For
> >its
> >first 10 years till Henry died Anglicanism was a schism from Catholicism,
> >not
> >a heresy. That began when Cranmer got free rein to do what he wanted, under
> >the
> >boy king Edward VI and his likewise Protestant regent. Anglicanism has been
> >officially Protestant ever since. The Anglo-Catholics tried to reverse this
> >starting in earnest 150 years ago but failed. End of story.
>
>
>
>
No. Not because I agree with it (I don't), but because I Have A Life.
A "real answer" would have to spend time on things such as (1) the
meaning of "the Anglican Church" (some say that it actually began in 598,
when Augustine of Canterbury landed in Kent; while others say that it
began earlier still in that century, when the Irish monks began their
work in the northern Anglo-Saxon kingdoms), and (2) whether Anglican
Christianity today is "a heresy", as described above (something that
doesn't deserve the dignity of a response in this NG -- let non-Anglicans
fuss over it in their own NGs).
All this simply constitutes polysyllabic name-calling, and I don't have
time to indulge myself in it.
--
(Mr) Dana Netherton
Juno address is a spam dump. To reply by e-mail, send to:
"netherto" ( "cais" ) "com", where "(" = at, and ")" = dot.
Chris Collin
>Bill Jones wrote:
>
>Ironically, I like just about everything about the Episcopal Church except it's
>history. It is commonly thought that it began because the Pope would not grant
>King Henry VIII a divorce (as seen in the movie A Man for All Seasons). How do
>you respond to this?
You must have missed the discussion we had on this last year!
It is my understanding that the English church existed long before
Henry VIII. However, during the Dark Ages, communications with Rome
became sporadic, and the chuch in England developed on a slightly
different path than what happened elsewhere. By the time the Dark
Ages ended, the Church in England was doing things in a different way.
The "break" was more of a realization that the churches had in fact
been separate for centuries, than an actual split. It is sort of like
a dialect of a language becoming a language of it's own. It is hard
to say precisely when this happens!
Chris Collin, Gloucester, Ontario, Canada
danae(L)
and orthodox.
Sergei592 wrote:
> The Anglican Church did begin with the Henrician schism in 1534 but technically
> it wasn't because of a divorce but rather an annulment. Henry had his marriage
> to Catherine of Aragon annulled when the Pope wouldn't give it to him. For its
> first 10 years till Henry died Anglicanism was a schism from Catholicism, not
> a heresy. That began when Cranmer got free rein to do what he wanted, under the
> boy king Edward VI and his likewise Protestant regent. Anglicanism has been
> officially Protestant ever since. The Anglo-Catholics tried to reverse this
> starting in earnest 150 years ago but failed. End of story.
>
Sergei592
Roman ways of doing things, but the former was VERY strict, like the Orthodox
today. Both were Catholic and in communion with the Pope. After St Augustine of
Canterbury, the Synod of Whitby, etc., the medieval Church in England WAS the
Roman Catholic Church, but with its own 'dialect' in rite, the Sarum use
(variant) of the Roman rite: its own variant missal, breviary, etc., mutually
intelligible with other Roman-rite books. Basically, New Age ('no popery,
please, *we're* Celtic') and anglophilic tales notwithstanding, there was no
Anglican Church until 1534.
rdbeaver
make a flagrant misuse of the words Anglican and episcopal. All
Episcopalians are Anglican, all Anglicans are not Episcopalian. It is also
correct to refer to those of the episcopal faith as Episcopalian. Episcopal
is a verb, not a noun.
By the way, I would also like to make a statement about the subject of your
message. We all know that Anglicans are in communion with the Church of
England. There was a Church of England a long time before Roman Catholicism
came to be in England. The actions of Henry VIII simply reverted the state
church back to what it was before. A protestant is defined in the
dictionary as "any Western Christian not an adherent of the Roman Catholic
Church." This would make your suggestion, that protestantism began with
Henry VIII, ridiculous. Anglicanism (the protestant faith of the time) was
well into practice before the Roman Catholics came on the scene. To refer
to Anglicanism as a schism from Roman Catholicism is to imply that they were
once one religious body which later divided due to doctrinal differences
(because this is what schism means, is it not?). This simply is not true.
Anglicans were always seperate from the Roman Catholics. I believe heresy
would be a much more factual word to use. I think, also, that you give
Henry a little too much credit. Perhaps you would like to refute that?
By the way, are you Anglican? Your posting makes me think not. If not, I
invite you to experience it for yourself. Anglicanism is a truly reverent
and beautiful faith. May the Peace of the Lord be with you.
DMBoyleJr wrote in message <19990208121442...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>>The Anglican Church did begin with the Henrician schism in 1534 but
>>technically
>>it wasn't because of a divorce but rather an annulment. Henry had his
>>marriage
>>to Catherine of Aragon annulled when the Pope wouldn't give it to him. For
>>its
>>first 10 years till Henry died Anglicanism was a schism from Catholicism,
>>not
>>a heresy. That began when Cranmer got free rein to do what he wanted,
under
>>the
>>boy king Edward VI and his likewise Protestant regent. Anglicanism has
been
>>officially Protestant ever since. The Anglo-Catholics tried to reverse
this
>>starting in earnest 150 years ago but failed. End of story.
>
DMBoyleJr
>What the hell is this? This is supposed to be a NG about episcopals not
>catholics
>and orthodox.
>
>Sergei592 wrote:
>
>> The Anglican Church did begin with the Henrician schism in 1534 but
>technically
>> it wasn't because of a divorce but rather an annulment. Henry had his
>marriage
>> to Catherine of Aragon annulled when the Pope wouldn't give it to him. For
>its
>> first 10 years till Henry died Anglicanism was a schism from Catholicism,
>not
>> a heresy. That began when Cranmer got free rein to do what he wanted, under
>the
>> boy king Edward VI and his likewise Protestant regent. Anglicanism has been
>> officially Protestant ever since. The Anglo-Catholics tried to reverse this
>> starting in earnest 150 years ago but failed. End of story.
>>
D. Stephen Heersink
>> The Anglican Church did begin with the Henrician schism in 1534 but technically
>> it wasn't because of a divorce but rather an annulment. Henry had his marriage
>> to Catherine of Aragon annulled when the Pope wouldn't give it to him. For its
>> first 10 years till Henry died Anglicanism was a schism from Catholicism, not
>> a heresy. That began when Cranmer got free rein to do what he wanted, under the
>> boy king Edward VI and his likewise Protestant regent. Anglicanism has been
>> officially Protestant ever since. The Anglo-Catholics tried to reverse this
>> starting in earnest 150 years ago but failed. End of story.
I don't think this is the end of the story, but it certainly is the
beginning. Ever since the Reformation, efforts to restore the church's
catholicity have continued to evolve -- particularly outside of
England. The fact that Episcopalians (Anglicans in the U.S.) lost half
a million members in a decade, and less than 3% of the Anglicans in
England attend any kind of service, I would say the Anglican Communion
is definitely on the decline. The fact that many of its members
question, if not down right deny, such basic themes as the
incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, it's a marvel there are any
members.
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@sprintmail.com
"In things necessary, unity;
in things doubtful, liberty;
in all things, charity."
--Augustine of Hippo
D. Stephen Heersink
>You must have missed the discussion we had on this last year!
>
>It is my understanding that the English church existed long before
>Henry VIII. However, during the Dark Ages, communications with Rome
>became sporadic, and the chuch in England developed on a slightly
>different path than what happened elsewhere. By the time the Dark
>Ages ended, the Church in England was doing things in a different way.
>The "break" was more of a realization that the churches had in fact
>been separate for centuries, than an actual split. It is sort of like
>a dialect of a language becoming a language of it's own. It is hard
>to say precisely when this happens!
This has become the "pat" response to the uniqueness of the English
Church, which was not destroyed as a result of the schism. But the
Church isn't merely in schism, the belief of a great many Anglicans
are heretical. Many of the heresies that evolved at the time of the
Reformation have now been replaced by heresies of modernism. Anglicans
aren't alone in modernist heresies, but they seem to be losing members
in masse as a result of the pablum.
Deborah Griffin Bly
simplistic, this easy, this <ahem> 'true'???
Your view is so narrow.
--Deb
proudly Episcopalian, and always
> I don't think this is the end of the story, but it certainly is the
> beginning. Ever since the Reformation, efforts to restore the church's
> catholicity have continued to evolve -- particularly outside of
> England. The fact that Episcopalians (Anglicans in the U.S.) lost half
> a million members in a decade, and less than 3% of the Anglicans in
> England attend any kind of service, I would say the Anglican Communion
> is definitely on the decline. The fact that many of its members
> question, if not down right deny, such basic themes as the
> incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, it's a marvel there are any
> members.
> ___________________
> D. Stephen Heersink
> San Francisco
> dsh...@sprintmail.com
>
> "In things necessary, unity;
> in things doubtful, liberty;
> in all things, charity."
>
> --Augustine of Hippo
* * * *
* * *STILL the tasteful little sig block of dg...@poopity.com*
* * <infomonger.com>
* * * *
Moorjv
>Anglican Church until 1534.
>
I might be prejudiced , but I think it was a magnificant creation. Where else
you be liturgical and feel related to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox while at
the same time alowing for Protestant leanings?
Baptists would shun other Baptists if, out of boredom, they began tinkering
with Catholic prayer beads and/or Orthodox prayer ropes.
LjaquesAK
>Subject: Re: Did the Anglican Church Begin Because of King Henry VIII's
>Divorce?
>From: moo...@aol.com (Moorjv)
>Date: Thu, Feb 11, 1999 4:49 PM
>Message-id: <19990211194920...@ng-fs1.aol.com>
DMBoyleJr
>>no
>>>Anglican Church until 1534.
>>>
>>
>>I might be prejudiced , but I think it was a magnificant creation. Where
>>else
>>you be liturgical and feel related to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox while
>>at
>>the same time alowing for Protestant leanings?
>>
>>Baptists would shun other Baptists if, out of boredom, they began tinkering
>>with Catholic prayer beads and/or Orthodox prayer ropes.
>
charismatic episcopal church and loving it. I did, however, pose this question
initially because the way the Anglican Church was founded bothered me.
The best defensive answer I can give to my original question is: No, that is
too simplistic. For one thing it wasn't a divorce it was an annulment.
Still looking for answers.
-Dennis
David S. Johnson
>> question, if not down right deny, such basic themes as the
>> incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, it's a marvel there are any
>> members.
>> ___________________
>> D. Stephen Heersink
>> San Francisco
>> dsh...@sprintmail.com
"Many of its members"? We have some loons, but I'd hardly say they comprise
"many" of our members.
I will agree to this extent: Growth in all Christian churches oocurs where
their is a genuine reverence for God and His scripture, a realization of the
power of the Holy Spirit and a love of our Saviour, the Lord, Jesus.
While the press and cynics like yourself focus on the rogues like Bp. Spong
and ex-PB Browning (powerful rogues thay may have been), we Episcopal laymen
are engaged in sprit-filled acts of worship, thanksgiving and service in His
name.
And by the way...we're growing here in the Diocese of Virginia. More
churches are being planted every year.
Dave Johnson
Sr. Warden
Varina Parish
LjaquesAK
much there, but one is the Episcopal Church today and I think the other is
Orthodox are NOT Christian.
>Subject: Re: Did the Anglican Church Begin Because of King Henry VIII's
>Divorce?
>From: dmbo...@aol.com (DMBoyleJr)
>Date: Fri, Feb 12, 1999 8:02 AM
>Message-id: <19990212110244...@ng-fv1.aol.com>
Amdeus4444
In my Episcopal church we believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation and the
Resurrection (the core beliefs of all Christianity), and that thru prayer,
meditation, and study of Scripture, we can enter into a personal relationship
with our Saviour.
Where is the heresy in that?
You make too many broad, unfounded statements about the state of
Anglicanism/Episcopalianism today.
Membership at my church, founded in suburbia, is on the rise.
Moorjv
>initially because the way the Anglican Church was founded bothered me.
Re: Did the Anglican Church Begin Because of King Henry VIII's
Divorce?
On 2/12/99 Dennis wrote
" ... the way the Anglican Church was founded bothered me."
God's people have always been embarrassed by their political
leaders. Although Israel's leaders often led the Jewish people
down the path of idolatry, the faithful religious received the
promise " ... the Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces
and the disgrace of his people he will take away from the earth"
(Isa 25:8).
All the major churches have their disgraceful moments that are an
emarrasment. Catholics and Orthodox alike have fallen into
immoral disgrace, shed the innocent blood of those who disagree
with them, and made some very silly pronouncments much to the
embarrasment of their followers. The Reformed Churches used to
rebaptise Baptist by immersion and drown them.
I can live with the accusation that King Henry was an immoral
wretch. The Roman Pope was not much better and the Anglican
Church was probably no worse for being run by a British pagan
than a Roman pagan. Although I respect the present Pope, I still
believe that it is better for the English to be under a British
bishop.
I think individuals should shrug off the embarrasment caused by
those in political power. The litergy of the Church and beliefs
of the individual christians is often of a higher quality than
the practices of those in power.