I must thank you, Polycarp and Siege, as I am Anglican, by family tradition, and by experimentation and choice. I have gone trough the trial-&-error process of defining what I believe to be true, about what I have been taught in matters of faith and religion. Between the two of you, you have managed to both educate me in some respects of the development of the Anglican Church, and express eloquently some notions I have been working to define for my own self.
I have to admit I lose patience quickly with the organizational and doctrinal differentiation between one style of faith and another, but my reasons for remaining Anglican mirror those which Siege has outlined. Among other issues, I feel that should the call to ministry come to me, I would be heartbroken to be told I was not genitally correct for the job.
I’m prepared to take this issue a step further: God would not have given us the intelligence to take control of our own lives if (s)he had no intention of letting us use that intelligence. This means that, although not blessed with wings to transport me from here to there under my own steam, I still am able to fly there from here. If God wanted us to fly, (s)he would have a) given us wings, or b) given us the ability to work it out for ourselves. As with flying, so with sex.
You knew you couldn’t keep me out of this by limiting it to Catholicism and Anglicism. Admit it.
I don’t mind “Catholic Lite,” having been on both sides of the aisle. It breaks me up because I remember the Bad Old Days of American Catholicism. I still have great respect for the Mother Church but it’s not really for me anymore.
I’ve been getting the impression that a full break from Rome was more Anne Boleyn’s idea because she was more of an activist. Henry went along because he was thinking with his smaller head. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Antiquarian, if you had been following in your missal you would’ve noticed a BIG difference in the Apostles’ Creed–“catholic” isn’t capitalized.
Poly, we Lutherans call it “consubstantiation,” where the Body and Blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine. I’m more a metaphor man, myself, and my wife’s a transubstantiation woman so we avoid the topic altogether. Four or five centuries ago people got killed over it. I don’t want to become the latest statistic.
I’d like to recommend the book I happen to be reading right now - Simon Schama’s History of Britain. The end of book 1 and the first half of book 2 cover the England-Rome split with exhausting detail, and they’re extremely well written to boot.
If I were Christian, I’d probably be an Anglican. Their balance between ceremony and common sense appeals to this Conservative Jew.
I don’t really have much to add to what my fellow Anglicans have said so eloquently. Just thought I’d comment on two points.
For example, in the new Book of Alternative Services, the Anglican Church of Canada has dropped the filioque in the Nicene Creed, bringing us closer to Orthodoxy. The BAS version reads:
However, as with so many aspects of Anglicanism, there is an element of compromise: the Book of Common Prayer is still authorised for use, and it retains the filioque:
While I appreciate discussing differences and similarities between the different branches of the catholic church, whenever I leave the discussion I mentally close with a prayer from the BCP that I think is ultimately more important than doctrinal differences:
And this is more of a sidebar:
This is still the case, as the Treason Act, 1351 is still in force. As summarised by Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed., Vol. 8, para. 882:
Thank you all very much for such a wealth of knowledge. Several Months ago my fiance and I went on a retreat to a place n Connecticut called Ender’s Island . It is an Edmundite Monestary on a small island off the coast of Connecticut. It is quite stunning to see and the new chapel on it is simply amazing. I was interested in the various religious relic’s there and my fiance was interested in the Institute of Sacred Art.
Being a Catholic monestary did not bother my Anglican Fiance one bit, why would it? But in a spiritual sense the place reminded me of a small Island I once went to off the coast of Ireland. Near Ackle Island. The stained Glass and architecture was simply breath taking.
I have noticed a difference in the architecture as well between the two religions…Any inference as to why? Anglican churches tend to be simpler and less in your face than some of the Catholic ones. I will never venture back to the Catholic church. It has too many doctrines I can not subscribe to.
I know this post is a bit punchy, I’m trying to dlo three things at once…
Originally posted by Illassit
I’m sure Henry would have come up with any reason he could have in order to have them out of the way…
No more so than people who said that Henry was doing it for theological reasons… Please. The guy, from accounts I’ve read, was a power hungry monarch. This was simply another avenue of power. The Episcopal church today seems to be a very nice place - women priests, an accepting view of homosexuality, a stolid take on birth control… Of course, I wonder if the Troubles would still be the Troubles if England and Ireland were both Catholic…
Illassit quote:
The RCC became a legitimate religion […]
What? Until Constatine, Christianity was a persecuted religion. He had a vision, slaughtered his enemies the next day and made Christianity the official religion. Not exactly the best of origins…
Illassit, I suspect that you may want to clarify whether you intend the word legitimate to indicate the narrower meaning of “legalized” or the broader meaning of “truly consituting.”
Your first remark about the RCC and Constantine gave the impression that there was no real Christianity (or, possibly, Catholic church*) prior to the Edict of Constantine.
(If you meant Catholic Church, you’re going to invite the wrath of the Orthodox.)
Illassit: I don’t think anyone here would debate that the Catherine of Aragon divorce/annulment was the immediate cause of the political separation between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Rome. This is a separate issue from the theological and other differences which may have existed prior to and certainly developed in years following the schism. IIRC Henry VIII was a devout, by the book Catholic - the title Defensor Fidei (Defender of the Faith) used by every English monarch since, was granted by the pope to Henry (and his descendents) for his tract In Defense of the Seven Sacrements. I would tend to agree with you that Henry’s later religious scruples as to the appropriateness of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon were largely a reaction to the lack of a male heir.
The theological/doctrinal differences, however, come from 500 years of independence from Rome, with influences from within and without (plus, I suppose the lingering influences of earlier English Protestants and pre-reformation influences). The Church of England under Edward VI tended to be fairly radical protestant. Under his successor Mary there was a Catholic reaction, followed by moderate protestantism under Elizabeth. Religous tensions in England between Protestant and Catholic, High Church and nonconformists continued for a long time. No doubt these all influenced the tendency of the Anglican/Episcopal Church to have a somewhat “big tent” philosophy.
Incorrect. The mere fact that the king’s act capped it does not mean that the rest of the things cited above were integral parts of the conflict between the English Church and Rome.
Absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
That is a very sweeping statement, stunningly incorrect. Immediately prior to Constantine’s action, Christianity had been persecuted; however, it had not been persecuted for its entire history to that point.
Well, since you’re completely incorrect about Christianity’s origin, this comment is also irrelevant.
And I postulate that if Henry had a male heir with his first wife, he wouldn’t have separated from the Catholic Church. When he didn’t, he seized his chance for more power.
cite?
[/QUOTE]
quote:
He had a vision, slaughtered his enemies the next day and made Christianity the official religion. Not exactly the best of origins…
*Originally posted by Monty *
Well, since you’re completely incorrect about Christianity’s origin, this comment is also irrelevant. **
[/QUOTE]
Quite possibly irrelevant, but not incorrect.
Tomndeb- Thanks. Good point. Though if you ask me the Catholic/Orthodox schism had more to do with Roman/Byzantine politics…
MMI- Great post, though I would hold Henry’s Defensor Fidei title came from battles for political gain that went hand in hand with the Pope’s agenda rather than for being particular religious reasons. Although even if he went to battle for religious reasons I don’t think that’s exactly the hallmark of a spiritual man founding his own denomination.
I argue that Henry VIII was not founding his own denomination. The Act of Supremacy merely established that the King (or Queen) of England would be the supreme leader within the (still Catholic) Church of England, rather than the Pope. His reason’s were primarily political, as was the Pope’s original dispensation that allowed Henry to marry his brother’s betrothed and the Pope’s later decision not to annul Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon - my bet is that had Catherine not been Catherine of Aragon the annulment would have at least been considered (of course, conversely the dispensation and marriage probably wouldn’t have taken place in the first place).
Again, the political independence of the Church of England from Rome is separate from the theological and doctrinal differences. My guess is that a sixteenth Pope would have tolerated some mild doctrinal differences in the Church as practiced in England if the King of England otherwise remained a loyal Catholic. A rejection of the Pope was intolerable, though.
