I'm not saying that there wasn't a church in England just that the entity that is now called the Church of England came into being through the acts of supremecy. Yes there was dissenting voices who looked to the events in Europe and wanted to throw off the yoke of Rome but then we have to remember that Henry was given the title of defender of the faith by the pope for his defence of the Roman Catholic faith. If the issue of the annulment of his marriage hadn't happened then we may have never seen the English reformation taking place or it happening at a much later date.
Here we go, straight from the horses mouth so to say: https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/history/detailed-history.aspx
Yup, there it is: Church of England's ANCIENT HISTORY. It begins with, "The roots of the Church of England go back to the time of the Roman Empire" The last thing it would say is that the church was created under Henry 8.
Yes it's roots do link back to that period. It states that the Church came to Britain during the Roman period, a while later a group sent from the Pope came to Britain to bring the gospel and united the already existing churches under the authority of Rome. This church then remained under the authority of the Pope until the split during Henry VIII's reign. This English reformation is what led to formation of what is now the church of England through the first act of supremacy which stated that the crown and not the pope was the head of the church in England (which was later amended in the second act of supremacy to read governor of the church as Christ is the true head of the church). It was those acts of supremacy that gave the legal framework for the church to split from Rome, that gave it the authority to seize and control the property of the former Roman Catholic church for use of the now state sanctioned Church of England.
I think I may have found where the confusion is, what I mean by the church of England was created during the reign of Henry VIII is that the denomination as a distinct entity was created, not that a whole new church that previously hadn't existed was created. That it changed from being a part of the Roman Catholic Church, to a separate and distinct denomination that was autonomous under Christ through her own line Archbishops, Bishops, Priests etc. That that church was given a legal standing in the eyes of state through the acts of supremacy, that the king was made governor of the church.
I can totally agree with your last statement GB-UK! I'm glad we are starting to come together. Do you see how one could get the wrong impression from what you have said in the past? In just your penultimate post you say, As to formation, the church of England was formed during the Roman Empire. Later it came under the sway of the Popes, and the sixteenth century led to the re-formation of the Church, back to its original state. It was never formed, except at its beginning in Antiquity. In modern times it was only re-formed, having no new principles, no new priesthood, as so eloquently said above. Again to reiterate- in the sixteenth century the property was the Church of England's. Just because it was under the sway of the Popes does not mean it owned nothing, or that its ministers held no intrinsic right. The jurisdiction and the right were always intrinsically theirs, despite the pope's pretensions. At the reformation the pretensions were simply rejected.
There was never a Roman Catholic Church till the Council of Trent in 1564 AD. The Church in Italy was known as the Suburbicarian Church of Rome, that is the suburbs for about a hundred leagues about Rome, plus the three islands. Then this ,'particular Church' recruited as far down Italy as the Toe. After the last western Emperor disappeared the northern patriarch was taken over and the Church took the name of the Suburbicarian Church of Italia! It was a,'particular church in that it was a part of the One, Holy Catholic Church. The Council of Trent, saw that the bishops of most of Northern Europe abandoned their bishops ,'character,or authority, on to the shoulders of the bishop of Rome and the new church ,as most people thought it, was named The Holy Roman Church! Not only did it add its own gloss to the Creed of Nicea, but added to the Revelation against, the Pauline Injunctions, by fabricating the idea of the Papal Jurisdiction and some time later the papal infallibility. It was business of Rome offending against the Catholic Canons that Henry VIII, used to break the Roman hold on England. It wasn't new, it stemmed from the Council of Nice, if I remember aright,or from one of the Councils. The English Church was named English/ or Anglican about 750 AD. It was never at any time a part of the Roman Church, simply in Communion with it, 1570, in fact when the papists withdrew from the traditional Church in England.
I think we have been seeing the same thing but from different points of view! I completely agree with what you have posted here.
I would hazard a guess that the RCC would disagree with your post above. From a protestant perspective and probably an orthodox perspective this would be how how it is viewed, that in fact the bishop of Rome is just that, that it took on more is a point that led to the split of the eastern and western church and brought about the reformation.
Hooray! I knew we held in common on the underlying point. I am sorry about my scruffy comments earlier on in the conversation.
Dear GB_UK. The later group, which in my day was known as the ,'Roman Mission', didn't last. It was met by a Bishop and a Christian Queen, bertha! Given the use of two Churches belonging to the native Church. When the Romans came they broke the Canons of the Catholic Church,( no interference in the See of another Bishop), when they actually met The Church in Britain, Augustine of Canterbury treated them as little better than serfs. Showing gross impertinence from a lowly monks to experienced Christian Bishops. When they talked, the main , if not only subject, was the subservience of the British Church to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. There were two Councils actually in the West near Bristol. The British Bishops refused Roman Authority fully, the questions regarding work with pagans Saxons , didn't arise as far as I can see, Roman precedence was acknowledged as far as it was given by the Councils, in fact there was only political precedence,but the British Church was under the Bishop of Caerleon. When Pagans attacked Christians some time later the Roman Mission, did a runner back to Gaul and it was under the ancient church that Christianity was restored. At no time was authority given to Rome to oversee the British Church. In 1066, the Norman King sacked all but one of the catholic Bishops and all of the other leading clergy and intruded French help.
Always, but , there's very little they can show to challenge it! The name of their Church After Trent, became the Holy Roman Church! At Trent they added to the Nice Creed, which is forbidden by the Councils, also and most terrible of all, was the fact that the Continental Catholic Bishops surrendered their authority on to the shoulders of the Papal Court. Neither is this just from a protestant view point, it is the point of view of a Catholic and stems from several hundred years of Anglican Catholic Teaching. It was the basis of the Anglican Reformation and the Old Catholic Resurgence in 1713 and 1870 AD. Not being rude, (believe me) read the Later Reformation Fathers and the writings of the nonjurors, Hicks. Always remember that the bedrock of Anglicanism, rests on Christ's Revelation, Scripture interpreted by the Bishops in Council and the Greek Fathers of the first three hunded years.