I’m a bit confused about that statement. IIRC, Henry VIII rejected the Pope’s authority, declared himself the head of the Church of England, demanded oaths of loyalty, persecuted Catholics, confiscated Church lands and dissolved the monasteries–among other things. Doesn’t that count as “choosing to leave?”
Henry, like German Emperors, French and English Kings, and numerous other leaders of nations had in the past, denied the Pope’s temporal authority to make legal judgments on who could or could not do things within his realm. His “headship” of the Church of England (which died with him, BTW), was apparently intended in the same sense as the Byzantine Emperors were “head” of the Orthodox Church. But Henry held the Catholic faith intact, and persecuted Protestants within his realm as well as Catholics unwilling to affrm their allegiance to him. (The monasteries is a different story, and one that is not particularly based in religious belief.)
But with all this, amazingly, Henry and those who followed him were not excommmunicated (as far as I can tell, anyway). The excommunication of Anglicans came later, under Pius V in 1570, and had to do with the claims of Philip II, with whom Pius was allied, to the realm of England.
Henry chose not to allow Papal authority as regards legal questions. By a present day analogy, John Paul II can choose whether or not to recognize a dissolved marriage in America as annulled, with reference to whether the Catholic(s) who had been involved in that marriage can remarry and remain good Catholics. But I doubt even the most devoted Catholic in America wants to allow him the authority to decide whether two Americans can legally divorce. But under the mindset and the laws of the time, this was the authority that the Pope had before Henry pulled his action.
BTW, the Bishop of Colorado Springs threatening to excommunicate anyone who votes for Kerry is playing the same sort of quasi-political game – and IMO he should be in state prison rather than the cathedral for having done it.
Brief hijack…
For what reason should he be imprisoned? His actions are perfectly in accord with traditional Christianity (both Catholic and Orthodox), where the Church holds itself above the state and able to judge its actions. In a monarchy, the Church would certainly have the power to pronounce the actions of the king moral or immoral, and to impose the appropriate ecclesiastical penalties (whether the king chooses to obey or not is another issue). In a republic such as ours, the supreme power theoretically resides with the people, and so the Church can judge those people who vote for evil laws or those who promote them. Sure, the state could imprison the bishop, but it would be interfering in the religious freedom of the Church, which has the duty to ensure as far as it is able that the sovereign (whether it be king or people) promotes the good and forbids the evil.
Henry was excommunicated in 1533 by Clement VII. And it was more than that Henry chose not to allow Papal authority as regards legal questions. The Act of Supremacy said that the King, not the Pope, has authority over the church in England on spiritual matters. From the Act (bolding mine):
Pius didn’t excommunicate Elizabeth to support Phillip of Spain’s claims on England because at that point, Phillip didn’t claim England. He had floated the idea of a marriage with her soon after she came to the throne, and after that he flirted with supporting Mary, Queen of Scots, but he never actually claimed the throne of England himself. (Even at the time of the Armada, he didn’t have that goal. His hopes were that if he were successful, England would stop supporting the revolt in the Netherlands and also show English Catholics more tolerance.) Remember also, both Paul IV and Pius IV had considered excommunicating her, but had held off, hoping that the Church of England would come back to Catholicism on its own. If anything, what inspired the excommunication, I think, was the overthrow of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her imprisonment in England, which convinced the Pope that his leniency toward England had ended with Scotland lost to Catholicism. (and Elizabeth’s act of Supremacy also said that she had sole authority over spiritual matters, as seen.
uh…the church died with Peter?
According to the gospels, Jesus did from time to time teach the apostles separately, but the conclusion you draw from it does not follow inexorably. After all, it was one one such occasion that Jesus instituted the Eucharist. If all Christians can participate in the Eucharistic meal which Christ shared only with his apostles, it seems at least possible that they can share in the apostolic succession. If the faith and the teachings of the apostles have been handed on to us, is the laying on of hands also essential?
Dumb question: What’s the big deal about apostolic succession? Yeah, it’s kinda cool to imagine the line of tag-you’re-it going back to Jesus’ day…but aside from that, what’s the point to AS?
It’s seen as a guarantee of validity and authenticity; the bishops are the successors of the apostles because each generation of bishops has recognised its own successors, right back to the apostles. Hence the church as a body, as a community, has an unbroken connection with the apostolic church, and so with Christ. The individual Christian doesn’t rely simply on his own encounter with Christ through the scriptures but also on participation in a continuing body which has an unbroken organic link with Christ.
Not surprisingly, the apostolic succession tends to be a bigger issue for Catholic and Orthodox Christians than it does for Protestants, who (gross generalisation coming) tend to place more emphasis on the individual standing before God and less on the communal aspect of faith.
Gotcha. Yeah, it does seem like the Lutherans do have entirely different priorities around what’s handled via succession.
“What, so Tante Brigitte didn’t give you her Stollen recipe? Schade…”
[Garrison Keillor voice]
So that’s what you think about apostolicity?
Do you feel a sudden strange craving for lutefisk? Do you find yourself humming Bach chorales? Do you get strange urges whenever you walk by a large wooden church door? You too could be a Lutheran!
[/Garrison Keillor voice]
(Produced by this Episcopalian in behalf of ELCA Dopers in the spirit of CCM! ;))
Former Southern Baptist and current ELCA member. We believe the catholic church is the one true church, however we don’t believe the Roman Catholic church has a monopoly on that.
Of course my church is a reconciling in Christ congregation registered with Lutherans Concerned so there are some other issues that separate us.
No, Garrison, that’s not what I think. I’m a good Catholic boy. My point to BlueMit11 was that sincere Christians can easily think this, and many do. They may, of course, have been driven mad by the effect of a constant diet of dried herring and coleslaw on the already depressive Scandinavian psyche, but we can’t dismiss out of hand the possibility that this is a defensible intepretation of scripture.