/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

They don’t believe it to be the only true church. They’re just a national church meant to unite Apostolic churches and Protestant churches. I used to think they were valid but illicit, but it turns out their orders are considered invalid. However, Anglicans do believe they are valid apostolic churches with proper communion. They don’t believe they are the only true church, they believe they are a branch of the true church

Basically it's vaguely like Orthodoxy, in that they see themselves as being autocephalous and apostolic. Anglicans don't see themselves as being "the" church and no one of them would ever pretend that Canterbury has the same authority that Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria etc. have, but they do see themselves as part of the wider "catholic" church.

In actual fact they are just spiritually dead excommunicants of zero validity.

>>576341

>They’re just a national church meant to unite Apostolic churches and Protestant churches.

How? How does it do one or the other never mind both?

>>576344

>but they do see themselves as part of the wider "catholic" church.

Do you mean the wider "Orthodox" church?

>>576346

Pedantic trolling aside, no, since all apostolic churches consider themselves "Catholic".

I don't know how valid you may consider this but on this board itself I've seen this kind of weird mutual appreciation between Orthos and Anglos.

>How? How does it do one or the other never mind both?

They tried really hard walkingt the Erasmian Via Media, which is why English Christianity since the Reformation was such a mess. You had the High Church Anglo-Catholics with their smells and bells and holy traditions on he one hand, but on the other you had the low churches which were basically proto-prot churches which ended up splitting into dozens of smaller denominations or movements like methodists, levellers, nonconformists, puritans etc.

Medieval Gallicanism was actually pretty similar in that it wanted the Church in France to be under the authority ofthe French King rather than Rome, but this failed, otherwise we might be looking at an analogous movement in France today too.

>>576350

> since all apostolic churches consider themselves "Catholic".

Oh. I didn't know that. I'm still new to all of this.

I know Henry VIII broke with Rome because of divorce but couldn't he have left the Church of Rome and gone into Communion with an Orthodox Church in the East that would have granted him a divorce? Or is there something I'm missing here making that not possible? Like can a Church in Communion with Rome leave Rome and go into Communion with Antioch or something?

>>576352

>Oh. I didn't know that. I'm still new to all of this.

Sorry, I didn't realise, please accept my apology.

Yes, "Catholic" is the term all of the apostolic churches use to refer to themselves and also to others. It doesn't just mean the Roman church, but also the Syrian, Coptic/Oriental and Eastern etc. churches too. It's why in professions of faith we acknowledge and believe in "The Holy Catholic Church"/"One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

I know Henry VIII broke with Rome because of divorce but couldn't he have left the Church of Rome and gone into Communion with an Orthodox Church in the East that would have granted him a divorce?

To my knowledge Orthodoxy is only slightly less strict than we are with regard to divorce in that they can under certain circumstances is divorce licit, and only once. If you try again you can forget it. It's not like us where we consider a single marriage to be valid, otherwise an annulment can be procured if it can be proved the marriage was illicit or invalid. Otherwise a remarried couple have to live "as siblings" i.e. chastely, with no sex.

I might be wrong, though.

Anyway Henry's marriage was valid and Catherine could produce children, and therefore trying to annul it was a waste of time.

>Or is there something I'm missing here making that not possible? Like can a Church in Communion with Rome leave Rome and go into Communion with Antioch or something?

Theologically Anglicanism is a lot more similar to Rome than to Constantinople or Moscow, so it would still have been problematic, though not outside of possibility. Plus I suspect that an appeal to any of the Eastern Patriarch's would also probably have responded like Pope Clement VII did. By making your "own denomination" you can make up the rules as you please, so you can circumvent any interference from outsiders.

>>576327

Because shut up bigot we need our gay priests and divorces.

>>576357

Thank you.

So it it technically possible for a Church in Communion with Rome to move over to an Eastern Church or vice verse?

>>576364

I don't honestly know about many Western churches going east. Certain Catholic schismatic groups just tend to branch off and stagnate like the Utrecht Union or the Polish National Catholic Church.

Many Eastern churches have, however, come back to Rome like the Ukrainian-Greek Church, the Ruthenian Orthodox Church, Maronites, Melkites etc. while retaining much of their more "Orthodox" customs and culture.

>>576364

Yes and this has happened several times with what are called the Eastern Catholic Churches, which were Eastern Orthodox but eventually decided they wanted to recognize the Papacy again and came into communion with the Catholic Church.

The only exception is the Melkite Catholic Church which IIRCis the only Eastern Catholic Church that never stopped recognizing the authority of the Papacy in the first place.

I don’t think there is any example of a local church leaving the Roman Catholic Church and joining the Orthodox but if there is then someone can correct me

Simple: Sacraments, succession, and preservation of the deposit of faith. We don't claim that we are ALL of Christ's church, just to be in it, and working towards temporal signs of the reunification thereof. Someone once pointed out here that one of the reasons Anglicans are nice is that our ecclesiology orders it, which is kinda true.

See articles 19/20:

XIX. Of the Church.

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

>>576363

Falsest of flags

>>576346

Well, they don’t really. Apostolic churches don’t view them as apostolic at all, and a lot of Protestants just view them as fencesitters who need to just pick a a side. It’s just that that’s what they’re trying to be. A bridge between the apostolic and Protestant churches united by their English heritage

It's funny, there doesn't seem to be much unity on doctrine whatsoever between Anglicanism and the various other apostolic churches, yet the apostolics mock protestants for not agreeing on what the Bible says.

>>576375

>Falsest of flags

Actually I'm pretty sure it was mockery.

>>576424

Anglicans are Protestants, they just have larpers among their ranks who like to pretend otherwise, like Baptists.

>>576432

See, the apostolics don't even agree on who is or isn't apostolic. No unity whatsoever there.

>>576375

>sacraments

Article XXV denies all sacraments but baptism and communion.

But I suppose that doesn't apply to your sub denomination for… Reasons…

>>576352

>Like can a Church in Communion with Rome leave Rome and go into Communion with Antioch or something?

That's kinda what a large part of OCA is the result of.

Rome treated them like crap, so Alexis Toth negociated with the russians for Moscow's apostolic tutelage.

As i recall, there is also a mexican catholic group that went East, as a whole.

And partially, this is what happened to romanian and ukrainean uniates under communism, though that was under duress.

On the other side, you have that puerto rican orthodox jurisdiction that swapped sides recently.

So yeah, you can technically swap your patriarch.

But Henry wasnt exactly looking for that.

>>576471

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.

Please read this again, brother. Baptism and communion are Gospel Sacraments, as they have had a sign or ceremony ordained by God in the Scriptures. This does not mean the other Sacraments are heretical superstitions, merely that they are different. Indeed, if you read:

>have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper

>are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel

It is clear that article XXV is making a distinction between the 2 and the 5, rather than denying the validity of the 5.

For anyone unfamiliar, this is a typical "middle ground" Anglican position. It affirms the privileged position of the Gospel Sacraments while not denying the efficacy of the others. When I get home I'll write you a full answer to your original question if you're still interested, OP.

>>576478

>But Henry wasn't exactly looking for that

No, he was too busy looking for another wife to murder. :^)

>>576493

Problem with it is that Christ established others Sacraments in Gospel too. For he made new priesthood, he gave to those priest power to absolve sins, he said to them to anoint the sick, he gave them Holy Spirit and elevated marriage to the Sacremnt. In fact only time word Sacrament is used it is in refrence to Matrimony.

>>576368

Off the top of my head, a good chunk of the Uniates in the USA doing the same under St. Toth. There are other examples as well, like the New Skete monks.

>>576368

The Melkites are the complete opposite of what you have in mind here - they don't recognize the authority of the Pope as defined by Vatican I and II but they're in communion with him anyway.

>I don’t think there is any example of a local church leaving the Roman Catholic Church and joining the Orthodox but if there is then someone can correct me

If things continue at the pace they're going at, the Melkites might very well schism again and merge with the Antiochian Orthodox.

You might have the Maronites in mind rather - but they're actually ex-monothelites.

>>576344

>extra Canterbury nullas sallus,

Why didn't Henry VIII make the Archbishop the Head of Church like in Orthodox Churches rather than himself? It would have given the Church of England more respectability right?

>>576437

1.285 billion apostolics agree that Anglicans are not apostolic. 80 millions think otherwise.

>>580338

Because a huge number of people in England disagreed with the split from Rome, and he needed the power of the new church vested in his own person in order to quell dissent effectively (see Sir Thomas More).

>>580347

So you mean to say that apostolics are not unified in your opinion on who is, or who isn't, apostolic?

>>580349

Could Henry the VIII made the Church of England autocephalous and apostolic simply by splitting from Rome and becoming like an Eastern Church? Or is there something that would have prevented that?

>>580351

I don't see how such a thing could have played out.

If you mean that the Church of England would have retained some sort of organisational ties to continental Catholicism, then certainly not. In no way would Rome have accepted anything other than straightforward excommunication. Whilst it's important to remember that Henry did not initially suggest any changes to Catholic doctrine or theology (those came later), it's inconceivable that the Pope would have allowed the Church of England to continue as a sort of satellite national Catholic institution.

If you mean that Henry would begin a dialogue with the Orthodox churches, then that is just as much of a non-starter. There was almost no communication whatsoever between East and West during the middle ages, and certainly none which would have made any impact on Western Europe. In fact, the Orthodox churches were entirely unaware that the Anglican church was actually not the Catholic church for about a hundred years after the split. Henry was probably only barely aware that there was such a thing as Eastern Orthodoxy. Even supposing such a dialogue could have been struck up between England and the East, you have to remember that Henry's aim was not to alter the tenets of the faith, but merely to cut off the Pope's authority over the institution of the church. The Orthodox churches had been in significant doctrinal disagreement with Rome for many centuries, and even if Henry had personally converted to Orthodoxy, there is simply no way he could have dreamed of attempting to implement a top-down conversion of the country single-handedly. Henry wanted to strengthen the House of Tudor's position, and the surest way to ruin his house would have been to start a civil war over the imposition of a form of Christianity utterly alien to the English people.

http://www.exclassics.com/protref/protint.htm

William Cobbett is always excellent on this topic.

>>580350

It's 94% of the apostolics who agree Anglicans are not apostolics.

>>580357

If you read this, it's worth bearing in mind that the suppression of Catholics by England (and later Great Britain) was intimately connected to the situation in Ireland. There was always a certain paranoia about the potential for Irish uprisings, because on multiple occasions throughout history, foreign powers had tried to attack the English by destabilizing Ireland and pitting the Irish against them. Of course, that doesn't excuse the treatment of Catholics, but it does go some way towards explaining it.

You should also know that there were large numbers of members of parliament in England who publicly decried the Popery laws and other anti-Catholic legislation, such as Edmund Burke.

>>580362

>using politics as an excuse to murder those who practice the faith of their fathers

It's a similar and familiar way of sinful thinking not foreign to our own times, but as Cobbett points out, that they would do it to those believers of whom are of their OWN, it is especially heinous

>>580365

This needs to be placed in the historical context, however. Catholics had also murdered large numbers of protestants and had plotted against the British constitution from both without and within (for example, during the reign of Queen Mary, during the Thirty Years' War, and in the run up to the Glorious Revolution).

Again, I am not trying to excuse the persecution of Catholics. I am trying to convey that the religious situation was intimately tied up with the political one, and for most people the political motivations for persecution weren't 'excuses' - a kind of smokescreen - for the real, religious motivations, but rather the genuine and primary reasons for the persecution. This has been true for centuries. No one will honestly say that people were fighting and killing each other in Northern Ireland over a disagreement about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Conflicts which appear to be religious prima facie almost always turn out to be political instead.

>>580373

>Catholics had also murdered large numbers of protestants and had plotted against the British constitution from both without and within (for example, during the reign of Queen Mary, during the Thirty Years' War, and in the run up to the Glorious Revolution).

All answered in Sir Cobbett's book :)

>>580357

>>580377

Miss what point? You keep trying to say "but the Catholics did this", but all this "protestant apologetics" is addressed in the book.

The Anglicans were faced with being "British" or being "Catholic", and they chose the former. Sir Cobbett even analyzes the political situation you say excuses them, and no sir, they are not excused.

Read it.

>>580354

No I mean could Henry have made Church of England autocephalous with the Archbishop being the head of the Church rather than himself? Essentially having the same organisation structure as an Eastern Church while still being independent? Or is that not possible?

>>580608

If you’re just asking if they could’ve organised their church such that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of their church instead of the King of England, then of course, but caesaropapism was one of the explicit purposes of its inception. If you’re asking whether or not it could be considered autocephalous, it would be correct in a sense to call it independent (of communion with any apostolic Church, but it has its own communion) and autocephalous (pretty sure the Anglican churches don’t have any real hierarchy), but it’s clearly not really comparable to an Eastern Church. If you’re asking if they could’ve just been schismatics without the whole Reformed/Catholic, Puritan/Anglo-Catholic, low/high church rift that wars were fought over and still lives on in the church, then yes, I think initially the CoE continued to follow the Sarum Rite initially before it embraced Protestantism under Edward the Confessor.

Otherwise you’re going to have to clarify what you mean.

>>580618

Thank you for the valuable answer.

I mean could Henry VIII have essentially done a *repeat* of the Great Schism in 1054 and made the English Church independent of Rome but still "Catholic and Apostolic" the way the Eastern Churches did? That way the Church of England still has the proper legitimacy and respect (through Apostolic succession and valid orders) of an Eastern Church while still being autocephalous?

Because these days the Eastern Churches have more status in the eyes of Roman Catholics than the Anglican Church. Basically, would it have been possible to make the Church of England independent of Rome but maintain the same status of what Eastern Churches have today?

By the way, why doens't the Church of England have the same status as Eastern Churches today in the eyes of Catholics?

>>580362

>There was always a certain paranoia about the potential for Irish uprisings, because on multiple occasions throughout history, foreign powers had tried to attack the English by destabilizing Ireland and pitting the Irish against them. Of course, that doesn't excuse the treatment of Catholics, but it does go some way towards explaining it.

How does persecuting Catholics stop foreign powers from supporting Irish uprisings?

>>580618

>Edward the Confessor

He ruled from 1042 to 1066. You mean Edward VI. The protestantism in Anglicanism began to develop slowly during and after Edward's reign, because, having thrown out the Pope, influential Protestants at court could start to gain the king's ear in a way they never could have done before.

Remember that there was widespread rioting after the announcement of the Act of Royal Supremacy. The protestants at court realised that this was an opportunity to commence a reformation in England, but they knew it had to be done slowly because they were trying to impose it on the people, who were, for the most part, still staunchly Catholic.

>>580622

>I mean could Henry VIII have essentially done a *repeat* of the Great Schism in 1054 and made the English Church independent of Rome but still "Catholic and Apostolic" the way the Eastern Churches did? That way the Church of England still has the proper legitimacy and respect (through Apostolic succession and valid orders) of an Eastern Church while still being autocephalous?

The difference you are describing is really just a semantic one. Anglicans still refer to the Church of England as the 'catholic' church during formal worship. Adopting that language would in no way mean that the English church would gain any more respect from outside. Again, political motivations prevail.

>By the way, why doens't the Church of England have the same status as Eastern Churches today in the eyes of Catholics?

Because of doctrinal differences even more substantial than those between Rome and the East (e.g. no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist), the fact that the first head of Anglicanism was immediately excommunicated, the fact that the Papacy issued multiple denouncements of English monarchs (in particular Elizabeth I). The split was so violent, dramatic, and overtly political that it would not have been possible for Rome to recognise the Church of England in the way it recognises the Eastern churches. Also, remember that the Eastern churches had no status in the eyes of Rome for many centuries after the schism.

>>580630

>How does persecuting Catholics stop foreign powers from supporting Irish uprisings?

It doesn't, and I didn't say it would. The point is not that persecuting Irish Catholics outright prevents foreign intervention, but rather that it significantly reduces the potential effect of such intervention. If you deprive Irish Catholics of their lands, property, voting rights, citizenship, etc., then you make potential rebellion less likely to succeed because the rebels have fewer resources with which to rebel. At least, that was the idea. Of course, this strategy was the result of pure paranoia, and was based on faulty reasoning, as Burke pointed out:

>'I have great doubt of the exactness of any part of this observation. But let us admit that the body of Catholics are prone to sedition, (of which, as I have said, I entertain much doubt,) is it possible that any fair observer, or fair reasoner, can think of confining this description of them only? I believe it to be possible for men to be mutinous and seditious who feel no grievance; but I believe no man will assert seriously, that, when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to keep them in order, is to furnish them with something substantial to complain of.'

>>580641

So if there was no doctrinal differences (if the Anglican Church kept everything the same as Henry VIII intended), then would that the Anglican Church truly Catholic and Apostolic?

Or would they have lost their Catholic/Apostolic status anyway?

>But how can an Anglican serious argue that the authority of Christianity is the Monarch of Britain? How does one rationally justify Anglicanism?

Quite easily when you remember than the British are the true descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel tbqh

>>580622

>By the way, why doens't the Church of England have the same status as Eastern Churches today in the eyes of Catholics?

Because, as much as le evul schismatics as we are, we kept unintrerupted apostolic succesion.

Anglicans did some weird changes during Edward VI's time that ruined the sacramental transmission for long enough that even later attempts to restore the thing came after the last true bishops had died, in catholic opinion.

Tl;dr: Rome thinks Henry's anglican bishops are extinct, and modern anglo-catholics are the Heck cattle of apostolic Christendom.

>>580660

So basically if there had been no sacramental change, they would have kept Apostolic Succession and been the equivalent of Orthodox Church?

>>580667

Not the equivalent, no, because the Church of England arose from a split with the Roman Catholic Church, which itself arose from an earlier split with the Orthodox Church, which views Roman Catholicism as doctrinally incorrect.

However, things aren't that simple, because Pope Leo stated in the 1896 bull Apostolicae curae that Anglican consecrations are "absolutely null and utterly void" because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI. The Orthodox Church; however, has recognised Roman Catholic orders as far back as 1667, and the Ecumencial Patriarchate actually recognised Anglican orders in 1922, although that recognition hasn't been made by all the Orthodox Churches.

At the point of the Act of Royal Supremacy, Henry VIII cared about apostolic succession and believed it was crucial that the Church of England maintained it, which is what they initially claimed to be doing. However, once the protestants gained influence under Edward VI and Thomas Cranmer, the official position changed to the decidedly protestant view that apostolic succession was not necessary for valid ministry.

I think this applied to your question, unless you mean the term 'equivalent' in a different way. Ultimately, the recognition of apostolic succession and 'equivalence' is a human one. Who can say what God's perspective is?

>>580670

I mean from the Roman Catholic point of view not the Orthodox point of view:

If Edward VI didn't make the changes, would the *Roman Catholic Church* recognise the Church of England as being Apostolic, Catholic with valid consecrations? Or would Henry VIII's status as head of the church or something else *still* make the church wrong?

>>580673

It's hard to say, because the position of the Roman Catholic Church might have developed differently into the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries had the Church of England not changed as it did in the 16th and 17th Centuries. You're asking for a huge historical hypothetical which no one should really provide with any great degree of confidence.

From my perspective, I can't see that the Papacy would have been happy to recognise just about anything in the Church of England, given the fact that the English monarchs were immediately excommunicated and denounced on multiple occasions. In Regnans in Excelsis, Pius V referred to Elizabeth as 'the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime' and declared her 'to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.' Once again, political motivations prevail. Even if the Church of England had continued as a sort of carbon-copy of Roman Catholicism, 'just without the Pope,' I can't imagine any sort of recognition being forthcoming.

I can't say I know enough about the details of the history to give you a clear answer, just my own thoughts as an ignorant layman.

>>580676

Did the Church of England lose it's status as Apostolic and Catholic immediately after the break or was it only later on with Edward?

Just trying to gauge how opinion changed and if the Church ever seemed valid in the eyes of Rome.

>>580677

I don't think I know enough about the English reformation to answer that properly, but I can say that it's not quite as cut and dried as one might like it to be. Clement VII initially only excommunicated Henry VII and Thomas Cranmer (Archbishop of Canterbury), not any other bishops and priests, almost certainly because excommunicating every clergyman in England would have been quite ludicrous at that point, and would have ruined any chance of a Catholic restoration. Later; however Pius V declared that anyone who obeyed Elizabeth I was to be excommunicated, which had the perhaps unintended consequence of placing every English catholic in a vice between Royal power and Papal power, and more or less guaranteeing his severe persecution by the crown regardless of whether or not he had actually acted against it in any way.

I don't know what the precise relationship was between excommunication and apostolic succession at the time. Presumably apostolic succession was automatically broken by excommunication, but I don't know the details.

>>580682

>I don't know what the precise relationship was between excommunication and apostolic succession at the time. Presumably apostolic succession was automatically broken by excommunication, but I don't know the details.

Nope, Constantinople and Rome excommunicated eachother but both retain apostolic legacy. Its hard to determine truly when Anglicanism lost it, but I assume that it was happening overtime.Perhaps when liberal faction became dominant at least.

>>580641

Whoops, it’s been quite some time since I did history in school but I probably should’ve double-checked that.

>>580686

>>580682

The Catholic Church determined in the encyclical Apostolicae Curae that the promulgation of the Edwardine Ordinal in 1552, having substantially altered the form of ordination, was the point at which its holy orders ceased to be valid. You could make an argument for a later date, but there’s at least not much doubt now that a church in communion with Lutheran churches and that succumbed to the lunacy known as modernism to the point of ordaining female bishops has no such legitimacy. Of course it’s questionable in the first place how a church lacking any apostolic sees could be considered apostolic.