/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>542108

>this is what the divorce church actually believes

>>542128

She looks like an alien

>>542108

lol I don't believe there are any anglicans who can possibly believe this anymore. Gay trans giraffe-person vicars soon?

>>542127

No it's not, OP probably a false-flagger

>>542141

>anymore

We never did

>>542135

>>542128

She looks like an Latina. She's beautiful.

>>542522

>a

Fix'd.

>tfw you realize the Anglican Church created the KJV.

Didn't the 'Old Catholic Church' join with the Anglican Church?

Does that mean anything?

>>542534

It means birds of a feather flock together. Frivolous schismatic heretics joining forces doesn’t somehow add legitimacy to their knock-off church.

>le divorce church

>>542125

Henry didn't found the Church of England.

>>542127

>>542688

Divorce wasn't allowed in Britain and Anglicanism until the 20th century. King Henry VIII sought an annulment on legitimate grounds and was denied due to the Pope being a de-facto prisoner of Charles V.

>>552230

It wasn't a divorce you fucking idiot, nor was it a new church.

>>552232

So, he didn't create a new church because he didn't want to divorce?

>>552257

The Church of England was formed in the 6th century by Saint Augustine of Canterbury.

Henry VIII sought an annulment on legitimate grounds (Leviticus 20:21), which is completely different to divorce.

The Pope denied this annulment as he was under siege by Charles, King of Spain and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, who did not want the marriage annulled for POLITICAL reasons, as he was related to Catherine of Aragon and had influence in the English realm and court from her marriage to Henry.

After breaking from Rome, Henry VIII remained an ardent supporter of core Catholic theological teachings - he had even argued against Luther and released treatises against him. The Church of England was still Catholic, it was just out of communion with Rome, in the same way as various medieval European Catholic rulers had been when they were excommunicated or in political struggle with the Pope. It is likely that the Church of England would have quickly come back into communion with Rome if it wasn't for Mary, who was responsible for killing Catholicism in England by persecuting Protestants purely because of their faith and allowing England to be made a Spanish puppet through the Catholic Church.

The Church of England as we know it today was not created until the reign of Queen Elizabeth I with the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, a compromise between Protestants and Catholics in England to make the Church of England "CATHOLIC and REFORMED". It was at this point the Church of England became "Protestant".

So no, the Church of England was not created by "a fat king so he could fuck xddd", it existed as an institution since the 6th century, established by a saint. It did not become Protestant until the reign of Queen Elizbeth I, some time after Henry VIII's reign and death. It was always isolated from Rome and separate from the Catholicism of Continental Europe and modern Catholicism. It would have came back into communion with Rome if it wasn't for the actions of Queen Mary.

>>552259

The Church was founded by Christ in Judea. His Apostles and disciples spread it throughout the known world, including England. Over time it grew by the Holy Ghost into a vibrant Christian land. One day a fat king decided he wanted it all for himself, and providence allowed all this mayhem and made all these people reprobate and blind. He still allowed and protected an English remnant of believers who stayed true to Christ to the end. These are part of the one Church who is united in belief and in Christian unity by the power of the sacraments etc. The other abomination of sin is now like a circus freak there to look at and warn about the dangers of heresy. Your Church is retarded and no matter how hard you try to scramble around for nonsensical theories you will still be a wretched freak to all the eyes of the other Christians here, especially actual apostolics. Seriously, you are exactly what would happen to the Catholic Church if it wasnt protected by the Holy Ghost and Apostolic.

>>552259

Anglicans will defend this.

Dude he married 4 times

Quit yer shit.

>>552269

>>552270

Not arguments. Well done.

When Lanfranc was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury at the insistence of William the Conqueror, he set about bringing the English Church into line with Rome, imposing the Canon Law, and replacing English clergy with Normans wherever he could. The English Church was to be an orthodox and obedient subject of the Bishop of Rome, and the spiritual isolation of the Anglo-Saxon Church was to be overcome at the same time and by the same process that the English were to lose their Anglo-Saxon identity. But it did not happen. Just as England remained Saxon in its culture, retaining the English language, the common law and the rugged culture of Everyman, so did the English Church very soon revert to its old identity as the Church of England, rather than the Church in England that Lanfranc had wished to create. Throughout the medieval era England saw a running conflict between King and Pope, and the English Church, although the Pope was nominally in charge of it, would frequently side with the King.

There are many reasons for this conflict. But one of first importance is the English law, which is the product of secular courts imposing a territorial jurisdiction. The English common law has always been understood as the law of the land, the law that prevails within the sovereign territory of England, and which, as the jurist Henry de Bracton affirmed in the twelfth century, appoints the king who enforces it. Our common law is inimical to laws made outside the kingdom, and for purposes that may be in conflict with those of the Crown. And it upholds the interests of plaintiffs against their oppressors, by a system of appeals that have created the lasting precedents of Chancery. The attempts by Rome to impose a universal jurisdiction, granting protection to the clergy and removing them from the secular courts of justice, has therefore been resisted by English jurists and sovereigns from the earliest days of the Plantagenet Crown.

Despite this resentment towards Rome, medieval England was marked by the ardour of its faith, manifest in the wonderful buildings that it has bequeathed to us, as well as the writings of its philosophers and poets. One thing that stands out, however, is the emergence of a religious ideal of discipleship in which the parish priest, rather than the wealthy bishop, is seen as the true representative of the Church. The portrait of this priest is given to us by Chaucer, in the Poor Parson of The Canterbury Tales, and the portrait of his congregation by Langland in Piers Plowman - two great fourteenth-century celebrations of English life as it was, which awaken us both to the completeness with which Christianity had penetrated the English soul, and also to the completeness with which the English soul had penetrated Christianity, to produce the unique spirit that was later to find expression in the Anglican liturgy.

The Englishness of the English religion can be clearly perceived in Chaucer and Langland. The Holy Church of Piers Plowman was an institution deeply intertwined with the English settlement, marked by yeoman individualism, by respect for simple manners and plain speaking, and by the same industrious piety that created the Gothic window and the hammer-beam roof. Its claim to the landscape was older than that of the Norman Kings, and the division of England into parishes and dioceses was associated with forms of local government in which the Church spoke as much for the Saxon peasant as for the Norman lord.

At the same time the century of Chaucer and Langland saw a renewal of the conflict between Rome and the Crown. The conflict was resolved by two statutes of Edward III - the Statute of Provisors, 1351, and the Statute of Praemunire, 1353 - which effectively gave the King, rather than the Pope, the right to make appointments to the priesthood, and to regulate the secular affairs of the Church. This was also the century of Wyclif (1328-84), the Oxford theologian who shaped the proto-Reformation. Wyclif gave his name to the first widely used translation of the Bible into English - the Wyclif Bible - a translation from the Vulgate made by others, but which he caused to be copied and which he propagated as best he could.

English churches tell of a people who for several centuries have preferred seriousness to doctrine, and routine to enthusiasm - people who hope for immortality but do not really expect it, except as a piece of English earth. The walls are covered with discreet memorials, placing the dead at the same convenient distance that they occupied when living. The pews are hard, uncomfortable, designed not for lingering and listening but for moments of penitence and doubt. The architecture is noble but bare and quiet, without the lofty aspiration of the French Gothic, or the devotional intimacy of an Italian chapel. More prominent than the altar are the lectern, the pulpit, the choir stalls and the organ. For this is a place of singing and speaking, in which Biblical English passes the lips of people who beieve that holy thoughts need holy words, words somehow removed from the business of the world, like gems lifted from a jewel box and then quickly returned to the dark.

The call for a vernacular Bible was, therefore, not simply an appeal for an intelligible text. It was also an expression of communal sentiment on the part of people united as much by language as by faith. The defiance of Rome was more a rejection of foreign domination and foreign appointments to the priesthood than a call for a new interpretation of the Gospels. Henry VIII was awarded the title of Fidei Defensor - defender of the faith - by Pope Leo X, for his defence of the Church against the calumnies of Luther, a defence composed with the help of Henry's Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, whom Henry subsequently martyred. Henry's break with Rome was a dynastic rather than a dogmatic decision: he needed a male heir, and his wife, Catherine of Aragon (who was also Fidei Defensor in her own right), could not produce one. The refusal of the Pope to grant an annulment of Henry's first marriage was experienced by the King as a threat to his sovereignty. In declaring himself Head of the Church Henry hoped to end the possibility of a King being controlled from outside the kingdom in an affair of state such as this one, concerning the succession to the Crown. In doing so he was bound to unleashed nationalist sentiment, and also to create an opportunity fir a renewed attempt to create a reformed Church in England - perhaps even a reformed Church of England.

It should be said, however, that Henry's decision to declare himself Head of the Church in England merely brought to completion the long-standing separatist tendency of the English Crown and the English people. The Act of Supremacy, passed by Parliament in 1534, opened the way to the Reformation, but was not designed as a reform of the Church. It was rather a petulant gesture directed at the Holy See, and a declaration of a new kind of sovereignty - the sovereignty that we associate with the nation state.

>>552278

>Russian Church is Russian

>still has a greco-roman heritage and inheritence

>no we iz rushiens

>breaks away from EO communion and church and becomes just some autistic lone Church filled with heresy and autism

>gets called out on it by another EO on in image board

>posts a giant wall of text by some brainlet about how Russian Church is Russian so any other influence or rightful heritage is imperialism or something.

>>552259

And all scholars tried to find it was in fact legitimate. It was not. Scholars really tried to find support for it, they really did. But divine law is set.

Beside there is Deuteronomy 25:5: When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother:

Read this if you want to lear more: http://www.medievalists.net/files/11010101.pdf

> The Church of England was still Catholic, it was just out of communion with Rome

Being Catholic is being with union with Rome. St. Ambrose put this clearly: Where Peter is there is Church.

>it was just out of communion with Rome, in the same way as various medieval European Catholic rulers had been when they were excommunicated or in political struggle with the Pope.

And now real shocker. Rulers. Are. Not. Head. Of. National. Churches. Various bishops are. Church of England have nothing to do with English king who is only laitate. If some Pope excoumincated laitate kings. And even if he would excomunicate bishop, it does not mean that church under him is excoumincated. It's simple case of canon law, I learned that when I was like 10 years old.

>>552221

You can't receive an annulment for something you were dispensed for.

Daily reminder that Anglican orders are INVALID.

XXV. Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ORDINATION THEN YOU CAN'T ORDAIN. WITHOUT ORDERS YOU DO NOT HAVE THE CHURCH. ANGLICANS ETERNALLY BTFO.

>>552283

In English please

>>542108

There's no salvation inside of it either.

>>552385

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensation_(canon_law)

>>552399

What had Henry received dispensation for?

>>552404

For marrying his sister-in-law.

>>552770

In-law though. So she wasn't his blood relative, but the widow of Henry's brother.

>>552291

It's called historical fact, I realise this might be difficult for Catholics to understand.

>>552281

By your logic the Catholic Church only came into existence in the 11th century with the Great Schism. It didn't, it uniquely existed as an institution for many years before Rome and Constantinople broke communion with each other. Likewise, the Church of England uniquely existed as an institution for many years before Canterbury broke communion with Rome. This isn't difficult to understand.

>>552282

There's more to Catholic theology than simply being in communion with Rome. You can say that it's a major aspect and those not in communion cannot truly be Catholics, but you can still follow Catholic theology without being in communion with Rome. This is what Henry VIII did. I'm not saying he was a *good* Catholic, simply that he remained a Catholic up to his death and that the Church of England didn't become properly Protestant until the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The Church of England would've likely rejoined the Roman communion were it not for the actions of Mary, who is responsible for killing off Catholicism in England.

>>553585

>I don't know what catholic means: the post

>>552326

Right, you very obviously didn't read my post, since everything in yours is either a misrepresentation or strawman of my original post.

Henry sought an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon as she was originally married to Henry's brother, Arthur Tudor. Leviticus 20:21 states that it is an unclean/impure thing to marry the wife of your brother. Now Deuteronomy 25:5 contradicts this, and there were debates at the time over which one takes precedence, and there's still debates over this issue to this day. But the fact is Henry VIII saw Leviticus as taking precedence. He sought an annulment, and the Pope denied it as he was de-facto prisoner to Charles, King of Spain and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles was related to Catherine of Aragon and had considerable influence inside the English court and realm through this marriage. The annulment, although perhaps not on the best of grounds, would've otherwise been accepted, especially considering Henry's previous defence of the Catholic Church against Luther and the fact that Henry was Fidei Defensor. If the Roman Catholic Church could give annulment to Ted Kennedy (and it did), why not to Henry (better case)?

The break from Rome came five years after the annulment request was denied, so it wasn't because "MUH DICK", otherwise it would have been as soon as the annulment was denied.

My post never claimed that the Church of England was apostolic, but it is catholic in that it is universal and it does follow Latin Christian theology to a large extent, certainly more so than mainline Protestants.

>>552770

Not a divorce.

>>553608

You completely misinterpreted the post, either because you're a retard or because you're purposely doing so because you cannot argue in a fair or true manner.

>>553613

NOT. A. DIVORCE.

>>wtf I'll make my own church then and you're not invited

But the Act of Supremacy was passed five years after the annulment request was denied.

Following Rome isn't the only aspect of Catholic theology, I'm fairly sure. Henry followed Catholic theology, not Orthodox or Protestant. You can claim he wasn't a good Catholic but he still followed Catholic theology nonetheless.

>>553591

>There's more to Catholic theology than simply being in communion with Rome.

Like fact that spiritual powers are always above corporal, what Henry usurped? Like fact that Monasteries was always part of Catholic life?

>You can say that it's a major aspect and those not in communion cannot truly be Catholics, but you can still follow Catholic theology without being in communion with Rome. This is what Henry VIII did.

If he did he would not schismed.

>'m not saying he was a *good* Catholic, simply that he remained a Catholic up to his death and that the Church of England didn't become properly Protestant until the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

You cannot be Catholic if you are out of Church. Church is one, being schismatic is by definition denial of ONE church.

>The Church of England would've likely rejoined the Roman communion were it not for the actions of Mary, who is responsible for killing off Catholicism in England.

That would be Elizabeth and her Father, and their administration who persecuted clergy.

>>553706

>You cannot be Catholic if you are out of Church.

Again, Western theology doesn't pertain simply to Petrine authority and supremacy. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

>That would be Elizabeth and her Father, and their administration who persecuted clergy.

Elizabeth only persecuted clergy due to the Papal Bull Regnans in Excelsis, which of course she would do considering that it was a political threat to her and her life. The clergy were not persecuted for simply being Catholic, but for fermenting treason and encouraging treasonous acts. Regular Catholics were not persecuted, unless they themselves engaged in treasonous acts or sheltered those who did. In fact, most Catholics in England at the time ignored the Papal Bull and continued to be obedient and loyal subjects, and they were treated fairly, by the standards of their times. Meanwhile Mary persecuted all Protestants, regardless of their actions or whether they were clergy or laymen. Likewise, Mary allowed England to become a puppet of Spain through her marriage to Philip II of Spain, putting Rome above her own native land. It was Mary's actions and deeds that led to Catholicism dying in England, Elizabeth was evening willing to compromise with Catholics (and did).