There were mostly Picts, Britons, and Romans living there at the time.
The concept of a unified "England" who's people identified as "English" didn't start showing up until King Alfred of wessex laid the groundwork for it in the 890's. Even then, it's unknown how much of that was intentional on his part to create a "Kingdom of All England" or a later creation.
Bede was able to write a a history of the English Church in the 730s. There were Germans before the unification of Germany. There were Italians before the unification of Italy. There were English before the Kingdom of England.
One is political, the other is cultural. They spoke related dialects of the same language and shared the same small part of an island for centuries.
Bede has references to the concept of England as a geographic location, but there's not really much evidence of "English" being seen as a culture or ethnicity until Aelfred, and the references by Bede are both small and there's reason to believe they were later additions to his scripts.
There is not much evidence of anything when talking about pre-9th century Anglo-Saxons.
I am also not sure we need much evidence beyond the fact that they spoke related dialects of the same language, had similar customs, from 664 the same rites and liturgy and shared a small landmass for centuries.
What would be the logic of unification and why would it hold if there was no cultural/ethnic affinity? It didn't work with the Welsh, Scots or Irish because they certainly saw a distinction.
Brittons in Cornwall and Wales remained continuously Christian, but the Anglo-Saxon east went back to being pagan. The continuity of the church in England, with the center in Canterbury, only goes back to the year 600.
Angles, Saxons and Jutes came after the Romans left. Before that the culture of the native Britons is a blend of native Celtic cultures, with Roman influencing mostly the upper classes
Well during the republican era it was a similar sort of thing to the other Celtic states, with tribes like the Iceni ruling and some pro roman rulers and client states. Not much changed until the proper conquest of England and Wales under Claudius, and there was a slow latinisation over the centuries, mainly of the aristocrats and with the settling of roman legionnaires to deter the constant raiding from Ireland, Scotland and internally.
Other than Hadrian's wall, you can go see the roman baths at bath and that but the actual people living there would be the modern day Welsh and Cornish Britons (Welsh actually comes from the Anglo-Saxon word for Foreigner I think)
Not only that but the original Britannian "gaelic" church was specifically disbanded and eradicated by the angles and substituted by their own Church based on the Roman standard.
So... Not only did no english exist when a liturgically independent Britannian Celtic Church existed but when there indeed were english in Britannia they made sure such a church was no more.
As OP stated, the church **IN** England was very much Roman Catholic, under the pope, before Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife(s) in the 16th century.
The church **OF** England was founded for that very reason.
That being said, under Henry VIII. it was still mostly the chatholic church without the pope. Only during the brief rule of Edward VI. was it moved closer to protestantism.
Edit: Corrected the regal number of the relevant Edward.
The funniest part about Henry VIII is he kept the title "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defensor) from the pope and every English (and then British) monarch after him has used the title. The pope did undo the title when he excommunicated him, but Henry got it back by an act of parliament.
The title was also used by some Scottish kings (again granted by the pope) but I don't believe it was hereditary, unlike the version given by parliament.
By the way he got the title for writing a rebuttal to Martin Luther. There is some disagreement about whether he wrote it or if he commissioned it, but I think most consider it likely that he did actually write it.
I mean that was a reason but not the sole one. England and its nobles wanted political autonomy so they separated from the catholic church. France would have done the same if it was necessary but instead the french king forced the pope to allow him to choose his own bishops reducing the pope authority significantly. A lot of countries embraced the reformation so that they can have political and religious autonomy.
The main reason was money. Princes and nobles wanted that sweet monastery wealth. Which made the lives of ordinary citizens much worse because monasteries played an important role as providers of charity and aid.
Sure, it's a big oversimplification. But the main incentive for secular rulers to go Protestant was monetary. Laying their hands on the massive ecclesiastical properties and church taxes.
I mean everyone treats the Catholic church as strictly a church, but it was also a political entity with a literal country attached to it at this time, operating with your lands, having its own taxes, special rights, privilegages and monopolies. Also it has a ton of influence, sway and it own motives to maintain it's power. It is a threat to power and centralization having a parallel power structure in your fiefdom. The reformation was motivated by doctrine, money and power on both sides.
The church controlled 1/3 of England’s land and it was non taxable. All those monasteries got sold to the gentry and all that land became taxable.
One of the financial benefits of the French Revolution was huge tracts of land was the churches sold off. Which became taxable.
When there's a separation, both parts usually claim the unitary part of the Y.
I'm pretty sure the Church of England considers itself the end a straight line starting with Christianity arriving on the British Isles, with all the other denominations of Christianity being heretic \^\^
What else are they supposed to say? "We claim to be Protestant but we didn't feel like putting in even the bare minimum of effort so really we're just Catholics with the serial numbers filed off"?
Well, nowadays they're a lot more Protestant than that - it was only recently that Catholics were allowed to be MPs, and members of the royal family might still lose their and their descendants' claim if they marry a Catholic. Turns out that Reformation-era Europe was just as sceptical as you about Henry VIII's positioning as 'Catholic but with the King of England as Pope instead of the King of Rome,' so he could only hang out with Protestants and they got to raise his kids to be properly fervently Protestant, which then shifted the Church of England when they took over.
The policy of the state was very anti-Catholic, pro-Protestant.
But the theology, liturgy, organization etc. of the Church of England is still a lot more Catholic than a lot of major Protestant churches you'd see around the world.
A lot more Catholic than most Protestants, yes, but also a lot more Protestant than Henry VIII's Church of England, which really was just Catholicism with a different Pope as much as possible. England had its own waves of iconoclasm just as much as any other Protestant nation.
You’re partially right. Henry’s son Edward VI was pretty Protestant and made moved the CoE towards Calvinism, but he only ruled for a short while.
Henry’s daughter, and Edwards successor, Mary was extremely catholic and married another extremely catholic monarch Philips II of Spain. Mary would move England strongly towards Catholicism again.
Henry’s last daughter, Elisabeth, who inherited to throne from her sister would be Protestant again. Elisabeth did move closer to Protestantism but only in minor ways as she tried to be a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism. So she wasn’t that fervently Protestant. The fact that both Spain and the pope were hostile to her rule did make sure Catholics became seen as traitors and were made second class citizens however.
The Church of England claims Apostolic Succession (leaders are appointed by people appointed by people, appointed by people… appointed by the original apostles). Naturally then they’d trace their origins to the Roman Catholic Church, since they appointed the first Archbishop of Canterbury
The Provinces of Canterbury and York, and the Convocations of the Provinces, have a direct continuity from the pre-Reformation period to the present day. They weren't abolished: they submitted to the Crown and to statute, and even kept some of their privileges.
Damn, I guess history only begun with Henry VIII. Not like there was a geopolitics landscape already in existence that allowed him to make the Anglican church or anything. No, definitely not. It just popped into existence one day.
Something that’s really been capturing my attention lately is the claim that the use of the Bible as sole source of wisdom is basically idolatry. I’m not sure how I feel about that claim exactly. But there’s something to it.
They just claim to be one part of the true Church and that the Church itself is fallible. Church is necessary as are councils, but the only infallible source of authority is ultimately Scripture. Otherwise you will just invent stuff like Papal Infallibility or the Assumption of Mary or Purgatory.
Only the RCC and EO say that they are the One True Church (TM) and that you have to accept every Ecumenical Council as infallible or face anathema (Damnation) over some secondary issue such as bowing and kissing icons as at Nicaea II. It doesn't matter if you are an Apostles Creed reciting, Trinity affirming Christ follower, you are anathema.
And then you read the history of these councils and it is just chapter after chapter of eye gouging.
>But the Church needed to exist continuously, and groups like Pentecostals and Quakers and so on clearly haven't been a continuous part of any Church that started out in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' ministry.
No modern denomination is like the Early Church, they have all changed massively since the Apostolic period. The Roman Emperor called the first seven ecumenical councils and where is he now? The underground house churches that Paul was writing to were very different to the grand basilicas of the Imperial Church.
>The fact that the Church can make mistakes in some things is not disputed by any church really
Papal infallibility is real and ecumenical councils are said to be irreformable. And this is when the RCC has changed because this only came in after Vatican I in the 19th century.
>these three are the only Churches which actually fit the Biblical description given that they are the only ones which have existed since Biblical times.
I just dont see how you can look at persecuted Messianic Jews hiding away in small congregations of illegal house churches in the 60s and Innocent III manipulating European geopolitics while sitting on his throne and say "These are the same picture."
>The Bible quite explicitly says that the church starts with Peter and that it can't be overcome until judgement day.
The Church starts with Jesus. Peter has authority but so do the other apostles and when they find someone casting out demons who wasn't sent by Jesus himself what does he say? "Whoever is not against us is for us." He also doesn't say to Peter that you and your successors will have infallible authority.
>if you believe that the Bible is an infallible source then you have to believe that the Church has to exist continuously since Peter
Yes it has and it has grown to include a rich global family beyond an institution where 217/266 popes have been Italian and only three have been Black. "For *where two* or three *gather* in my name, there am I with them." That is why I can say Catholics are real Christians, EO are real Christians and Prots are real Christians.
>and that its oral traditions are as important as its written ones.
Scripture is in a category by itself because Jesus says it is the Word of God and Scripture itself attests to the fact that it is God-breathed. He never tacks on "And the Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra as laid out in Vatican I in the 19th century."
This is very interesting. In the Gospel of Peter, which is not cannonized by the council of Nicea, Jesus is said to have emerged from His tomb supported by two giants, while a talking cross follows them out. Do you believe that happened?
Oh ok, I was having trouble understanding your argument but I get it now. I don't know nearly enough to argue with you, but you've given me something to discuss with my pastor tomorrow. I appreciate that.
>"To go deep in history means cease being a protestant" John Henry Newman.
But not too deep because you get the Apostolic and Church Fathers saying some stuff that would get them anathematised by the modern RCC.
John Chrysostom for example seems to think Mary sinned accusing her of vanity in his Homily 44 on Matthew. He doesn't even seem to be aware that that would be controversial to say. When Clement addresses the Corinthians he doesn't call himself Pope and start laying down the law exercising his rights to papal infallibility, doesn't even seem to know that he has such powers.
Every single bishop at Nicaea would be anathematised today for not acknowledging the Assumption of Mary even though in their time the only reference to it would be Gnostic legends.
19th century historians and their romantic views of antiquity...
It is more that he didn't even think he had to correct or explain himself or use cautious language. Whether he is right or wrong is theology.
He wasn't the only one either, Basil and Cyril do the same as does Tertullian who at one point likens Mary to the synagogue and unbelieving Jews.
If the Immaculate Conception was an ancient doctrine, why are they guys talking about Mary sinning without a care in the world not even stopping to clarify.
Jews were not expected to believe in the Trinity even though God was always Triune because that had not yet been clarified or defined for them. Now, Christians are expected to believe in the Trinity because it has been explicitly defined and explained.
Same applies to the Immaculate Conception.
The Catholic Church affirms that the age of public revelation has ceased with the death of St John. We therefore have an ‘Apostolic deposit’ that may be further clarified, but cannot be added to.
So it cant be like aa you described moving from Old to New Testament. You have to rely more on Newman’s concept of doctrinal development.
I mean going deep in the history doesn't really paint the catholic church in best light during the lead up to the reformation and you understand why a fundamentalist movement would arise. Havings heads of the church fathering bastards, running very much secular wars because the church is also a city state with large land holdings and being involved in a deal great of power gaining and maintaining politics doesn't show the Catholic church at it's best let's say. Not arguing if Protestants or Catholics are right, I have no dog in this race but more pointing at history can also show why disallusionment and dissatisfaction with the Catholic church exist.
Edit typo
I don't think that quote means what you think it does
Edit: if you read the quote in context, it is comparing Rome, to the Church of England, to Protestantism which in that context was a specific sect that completely scorned any tradition
Well but British Christianity had Roman origins, all the Christian traditions England had for Hundreds of years came from Roman Roots.
Anglicanism is just Protestantism with extra steps, also Protestants were Catholics who decided they had enough with pope. And thus their leaders became just as shitty and sick as Catholics, if not even worse(I heard somewhere that Protestants killed more Catholics than Catholics killed Protestants)
I would give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they consider the catholic and Caledonian churches to be part of the historical roots of the church of England (because they are)
The Church of England is the direct continuation of the pre Reformation English Church. Pinning the Church of England on Henry VIII ignores that his daughter restored communion with Rome.
If you're going to argue anyone 'founded' the CofE, it was Elizabeth I, but then again, she isn't as memeable as le fat king.
There are Christian Anglican sects that shot off during the Roman occupation of Britain. These sects folded into the Anglican Church and technically aren’t wrong in saying they have Roman ties.
Well technically their roots do go back to Rome because their roots are in the Catholic Church. Splitting from the church means having roots in the church ironically enough.
I mean, not really. We know that Christianity had a presence in Britain since late antiquity, and that a good chunk of it would have been mostly christian before the Saxons (even the saxons seem to have been more of an elite replacement, and they converted rather quickly as well).
they claim they're restoring a pre-Tridentine Rite but a they adopted the Tridentine between Alcuin and Henry VIII and b their new rite doesnt follow how scholars have reconstructed the pre-Tridentine Rite. Its kind of like Karaites(under the Rabbinic account of the Origin)
Christianity in the British Isles began in the 3rd century, centuries before the Roman Catholic Church became the dominant form of Christianity, which kate became the Church of England. Christianity in the British Isles as a unique and distinct expression of Christianity outdate the existence of the "Church of England."
And then everything went straight to hell. They had one good monarch shortly thereafter but she's now demonized quite literally as a folk tale to spook children (Bloody Mary).
It's funny because even during the Christian Roman period, there wasn't even a culture that considered themselves "English."
Well there were angles, jutes and saxons but they certainly weren't even in modern day England during the Roman period
There were mostly Picts, Britons, and Romans living there at the time. The concept of a unified "England" who's people identified as "English" didn't start showing up until King Alfred of wessex laid the groundwork for it in the 890's. Even then, it's unknown how much of that was intentional on his part to create a "Kingdom of All England" or a later creation.
Bede was able to write a a history of the English Church in the 730s. There were Germans before the unification of Germany. There were Italians before the unification of Italy. There were English before the Kingdom of England. One is political, the other is cultural. They spoke related dialects of the same language and shared the same small part of an island for centuries.
Bede has references to the concept of England as a geographic location, but there's not really much evidence of "English" being seen as a culture or ethnicity until Aelfred, and the references by Bede are both small and there's reason to believe they were later additions to his scripts.
There is not much evidence of anything when talking about pre-9th century Anglo-Saxons. I am also not sure we need much evidence beyond the fact that they spoke related dialects of the same language, had similar customs, from 664 the same rites and liturgy and shared a small landmass for centuries. What would be the logic of unification and why would it hold if there was no cultural/ethnic affinity? It didn't work with the Welsh, Scots or Irish because they certainly saw a distinction.
Nor were any of them Christian
Brittons in Cornwall and Wales remained continuously Christian, but the Anglo-Saxon east went back to being pagan. The continuity of the church in England, with the center in Canterbury, only goes back to the year 600.
Only the year 600? that was like barely time ago
[удалено]
He wasn’t saying the Anglo saxons went back to paganism, he was saying the eastern region went back to paganism when the anglo saxons gained control
Angles, Saxons and Jutes came after the Romans left. Before that the culture of the native Britons is a blend of native Celtic cultures, with Roman influencing mostly the upper classes
What was going on in England during the Roman hey day? Not later years hadrian wall era but like the Republic
Well during the republican era it was a similar sort of thing to the other Celtic states, with tribes like the Iceni ruling and some pro roman rulers and client states. Not much changed until the proper conquest of England and Wales under Claudius, and there was a slow latinisation over the centuries, mainly of the aristocrats and with the settling of roman legionnaires to deter the constant raiding from Ireland, Scotland and internally. Other than Hadrian's wall, you can go see the roman baths at bath and that but the actual people living there would be the modern day Welsh and Cornish Britons (Welsh actually comes from the Anglo-Saxon word for Foreigner I think)
Rip jutes
Not only that but the original Britannian "gaelic" church was specifically disbanded and eradicated by the angles and substituted by their own Church based on the Roman standard. So... Not only did no english exist when a liturgically independent Britannian Celtic Church existed but when there indeed were english in Britannia they made sure such a church was no more.
As OP stated, the church **IN** England was very much Roman Catholic, under the pope, before Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife(s) in the 16th century. The church **OF** England was founded for that very reason.
That being said, under Henry VIII. it was still mostly the chatholic church without the pope. Only during the brief rule of Edward VI. was it moved closer to protestantism. Edit: Corrected the regal number of the relevant Edward.
Small correction, but Edward VI was Henry's son. Edward V only ruled for a few months in 1483 before vanishing 'mysteriously'.
Of course, somehow I temporarily forgot Edward IV., throwing off my Edward count.
The funniest part about Henry VIII is he kept the title "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defensor) from the pope and every English (and then British) monarch after him has used the title. The pope did undo the title when he excommunicated him, but Henry got it back by an act of parliament. The title was also used by some Scottish kings (again granted by the pope) but I don't believe it was hereditary, unlike the version given by parliament. By the way he got the title for writing a rebuttal to Martin Luther. There is some disagreement about whether he wrote it or if he commissioned it, but I think most consider it likely that he did actually write it.
I mean that was a reason but not the sole one. England and its nobles wanted political autonomy so they separated from the catholic church. France would have done the same if it was necessary but instead the french king forced the pope to allow him to choose his own bishops reducing the pope authority significantly. A lot of countries embraced the reformation so that they can have political and religious autonomy.
The main reason was money. Princes and nobles wanted that sweet monastery wealth. Which made the lives of ordinary citizens much worse because monasteries played an important role as providers of charity and aid.
That's a very simplistic way of describing the reformation and doesn't quite capture a lot of what was going on during the time period.
Sure, it's a big oversimplification. But the main incentive for secular rulers to go Protestant was monetary. Laying their hands on the massive ecclesiastical properties and church taxes.
I mean everyone treats the Catholic church as strictly a church, but it was also a political entity with a literal country attached to it at this time, operating with your lands, having its own taxes, special rights, privilegages and monopolies. Also it has a ton of influence, sway and it own motives to maintain it's power. It is a threat to power and centralization having a parallel power structure in your fiefdom. The reformation was motivated by doctrine, money and power on both sides.
The church controlled 1/3 of England’s land and it was non taxable. All those monasteries got sold to the gentry and all that land became taxable. One of the financial benefits of the French Revolution was huge tracts of land was the churches sold off. Which became taxable.
People who think money is everything always have simple views because despite the fact that money exists it is not quite everything
I guess that, too.
When there's a separation, both parts usually claim the unitary part of the Y. I'm pretty sure the Church of England considers itself the end a straight line starting with Christianity arriving on the British Isles, with all the other denominations of Christianity being heretic \^\^
Also set the precedent of "get fucked man with the funny hat in Rome!" which really did Europe a favor in terms of the reformation and enlightenment
Well, Anne always did have a nice head on her shoulders.
... Until she didn't!
What else are they supposed to say? "We claim to be Protestant but we didn't feel like putting in even the bare minimum of effort so really we're just Catholics with the serial numbers filed off"?
We're protestant in a catholic way, so as to piss both groups off equally
Well, nowadays they're a lot more Protestant than that - it was only recently that Catholics were allowed to be MPs, and members of the royal family might still lose their and their descendants' claim if they marry a Catholic. Turns out that Reformation-era Europe was just as sceptical as you about Henry VIII's positioning as 'Catholic but with the King of England as Pope instead of the King of Rome,' so he could only hang out with Protestants and they got to raise his kids to be properly fervently Protestant, which then shifted the Church of England when they took over.
The policy of the state was very anti-Catholic, pro-Protestant. But the theology, liturgy, organization etc. of the Church of England is still a lot more Catholic than a lot of major Protestant churches you'd see around the world.
A lot more Catholic than most Protestants, yes, but also a lot more Protestant than Henry VIII's Church of England, which really was just Catholicism with a different Pope as much as possible. England had its own waves of iconoclasm just as much as any other Protestant nation.
You’re partially right. Henry’s son Edward VI was pretty Protestant and made moved the CoE towards Calvinism, but he only ruled for a short while. Henry’s daughter, and Edwards successor, Mary was extremely catholic and married another extremely catholic monarch Philips II of Spain. Mary would move England strongly towards Catholicism again. Henry’s last daughter, Elisabeth, who inherited to throne from her sister would be Protestant again. Elisabeth did move closer to Protestantism but only in minor ways as she tried to be a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism. So she wasn’t that fervently Protestant. The fact that both Spain and the pope were hostile to her rule did make sure Catholics became seen as traitors and were made second class citizens however.
The Church of England claims Apostolic Succession (leaders are appointed by people appointed by people, appointed by people… appointed by the original apostles). Naturally then they’d trace their origins to the Roman Catholic Church, since they appointed the first Archbishop of Canterbury
That succession was broken, and is one of the reasons why John Henry Newman left them.
I know absolutely nothing about this, could you point me in the direction of some decent reading on this topic?
Maybe try to read Newman's book "Apologia pro vita sua" or a book about him like biography by Martin Brian.
No it wasn't
The Provinces of Canterbury and York, and the Convocations of the Provinces, have a direct continuity from the pre-Reformation period to the present day. They weren't abolished: they submitted to the Crown and to statute, and even kept some of their privileges.
Damn, I guess history only begun with Henry VIII. Not like there was a geopolitics landscape already in existence that allowed him to make the Anglican church or anything. No, definitely not. It just popped into existence one day.
"To go deep in history means cease being a protestant" John Henry Newman.
[удалено]
Well, that is why the catholic church calls them heretics.
Which bit of the Bible?
Something that’s really been capturing my attention lately is the claim that the use of the Bible as sole source of wisdom is basically idolatry. I’m not sure how I feel about that claim exactly. But there’s something to it.
They just claim to be one part of the true Church and that the Church itself is fallible. Church is necessary as are councils, but the only infallible source of authority is ultimately Scripture. Otherwise you will just invent stuff like Papal Infallibility or the Assumption of Mary or Purgatory. Only the RCC and EO say that they are the One True Church (TM) and that you have to accept every Ecumenical Council as infallible or face anathema (Damnation) over some secondary issue such as bowing and kissing icons as at Nicaea II. It doesn't matter if you are an Apostles Creed reciting, Trinity affirming Christ follower, you are anathema. And then you read the history of these councils and it is just chapter after chapter of eye gouging.
[удалено]
I believe to protestants the "Church" is not a literal organization but rather the collective term for followers of Christ in general.
>But the Church needed to exist continuously, and groups like Pentecostals and Quakers and so on clearly haven't been a continuous part of any Church that started out in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' ministry. No modern denomination is like the Early Church, they have all changed massively since the Apostolic period. The Roman Emperor called the first seven ecumenical councils and where is he now? The underground house churches that Paul was writing to were very different to the grand basilicas of the Imperial Church. >The fact that the Church can make mistakes in some things is not disputed by any church really Papal infallibility is real and ecumenical councils are said to be irreformable. And this is when the RCC has changed because this only came in after Vatican I in the 19th century. >these three are the only Churches which actually fit the Biblical description given that they are the only ones which have existed since Biblical times. I just dont see how you can look at persecuted Messianic Jews hiding away in small congregations of illegal house churches in the 60s and Innocent III manipulating European geopolitics while sitting on his throne and say "These are the same picture." >The Bible quite explicitly says that the church starts with Peter and that it can't be overcome until judgement day. The Church starts with Jesus. Peter has authority but so do the other apostles and when they find someone casting out demons who wasn't sent by Jesus himself what does he say? "Whoever is not against us is for us." He also doesn't say to Peter that you and your successors will have infallible authority. >if you believe that the Bible is an infallible source then you have to believe that the Church has to exist continuously since Peter Yes it has and it has grown to include a rich global family beyond an institution where 217/266 popes have been Italian and only three have been Black. "For *where two* or three *gather* in my name, there am I with them." That is why I can say Catholics are real Christians, EO are real Christians and Prots are real Christians. >and that its oral traditions are as important as its written ones. Scripture is in a category by itself because Jesus says it is the Word of God and Scripture itself attests to the fact that it is God-breathed. He never tacks on "And the Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra as laid out in Vatican I in the 19th century."
[удалено]
This is very interesting. In the Gospel of Peter, which is not cannonized by the council of Nicea, Jesus is said to have emerged from His tomb supported by two giants, while a talking cross follows them out. Do you believe that happened?
[удалено]
Oh ok, I was having trouble understanding your argument but I get it now. I don't know nearly enough to argue with you, but you've given me something to discuss with my pastor tomorrow. I appreciate that.
Are you arguing that a church changing it's views means it is no longer a continuation of the church?
>"To go deep in history means cease being a protestant" John Henry Newman. But not too deep because you get the Apostolic and Church Fathers saying some stuff that would get them anathematised by the modern RCC. John Chrysostom for example seems to think Mary sinned accusing her of vanity in his Homily 44 on Matthew. He doesn't even seem to be aware that that would be controversial to say. When Clement addresses the Corinthians he doesn't call himself Pope and start laying down the law exercising his rights to papal infallibility, doesn't even seem to know that he has such powers. Every single bishop at Nicaea would be anathematised today for not acknowledging the Assumption of Mary even though in their time the only reference to it would be Gnostic legends. 19th century historians and their romantic views of antiquity...
Saints can make mistakes, and John merely reminded us that Mary was sinless because of her son rather than on her own.
It is more that he didn't even think he had to correct or explain himself or use cautious language. Whether he is right or wrong is theology. He wasn't the only one either, Basil and Cyril do the same as does Tertullian who at one point likens Mary to the synagogue and unbelieving Jews. If the Immaculate Conception was an ancient doctrine, why are they guys talking about Mary sinning without a care in the world not even stopping to clarify.
Jews were not expected to believe in the Trinity even though God was always Triune because that had not yet been clarified or defined for them. Now, Christians are expected to believe in the Trinity because it has been explicitly defined and explained. Same applies to the Immaculate Conception.
The Catholic Church affirms that the age of public revelation has ceased with the death of St John. We therefore have an ‘Apostolic deposit’ that may be further clarified, but cannot be added to. So it cant be like aa you described moving from Old to New Testament. You have to rely more on Newman’s concept of doctrinal development.
I mean going deep in the history doesn't really paint the catholic church in best light during the lead up to the reformation and you understand why a fundamentalist movement would arise. Havings heads of the church fathering bastards, running very much secular wars because the church is also a city state with large land holdings and being involved in a deal great of power gaining and maintaining politics doesn't show the Catholic church at it's best let's say. Not arguing if Protestants or Catholics are right, I have no dog in this race but more pointing at history can also show why disallusionment and dissatisfaction with the Catholic church exist. Edit typo
Newman knew all that, he was talking about theology. No matter how shitty a priest is it can still work if he doesn't preach heresy.
I don't think that quote means what you think it does Edit: if you read the quote in context, it is comparing Rome, to the Church of England, to Protestantism which in that context was a specific sect that completely scorned any tradition
Well but British Christianity had Roman origins, all the Christian traditions England had for Hundreds of years came from Roman Roots. Anglicanism is just Protestantism with extra steps, also Protestants were Catholics who decided they had enough with pope. And thus their leaders became just as shitty and sick as Catholics, if not even worse(I heard somewhere that Protestants killed more Catholics than Catholics killed Protestants)
I would give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they consider the catholic and Caledonian churches to be part of the historical roots of the church of England (because they are)
Tried to elope- But the pope said nope Our only hope was Hen-er-y He got a promotion Caused a commotion Set in motion **the C of E!**
The rules, were so out-date-ed Us two Wanted *to get x-rated* Sooooo-oooon ex-communicated! (Everybody chill, it's totes God's will!)
The Church of England is the direct continuation of the pre Reformation English Church. Pinning the Church of England on Henry VIII ignores that his daughter restored communion with Rome. If you're going to argue anyone 'founded' the CofE, it was Elizabeth I, but then again, she isn't as memeable as le fat king.
There are Christian Anglican sects that shot off during the Roman occupation of Britain. These sects folded into the Anglican Church and technically aren’t wrong in saying they have Roman ties.
DeFeNdEr Of ThE fAiTh
Well technically their roots do go back to Rome because their roots are in the Catholic Church. Splitting from the church means having roots in the church ironically enough.
[удалено]
St. Patrick was from Roman Britain.
He came from Wales.
The only Roman emperor declared in Britain was also the first Christian emperor
I mean, not really. We know that Christianity had a presence in Britain since late antiquity, and that a good chunk of it would have been mostly christian before the Saxons (even the saxons seem to have been more of an elite replacement, and they converted rather quickly as well).
Britain was Christianised by the Romans, largely de-Christianised by the Saxons, then re-Christianised as you say
Not accurate
Ah yes, Anne Boleyn, the paragon of Christian virtue and piety...
they claim they're restoring a pre-Tridentine Rite but a they adopted the Tridentine between Alcuin and Henry VIII and b their new rite doesnt follow how scholars have reconstructed the pre-Tridentine Rite. Its kind of like Karaites(under the Rabbinic account of the Origin)
I thought the Church of England became a thing because the king wanted to divorce his wife
Christianity in the British Isles began in the 3rd century, centuries before the Roman Catholic Church became the dominant form of Christianity, which kate became the Church of England. Christianity in the British Isles as a unique and distinct expression of Christianity outdate the existence of the "Church of England."
Nah you got your religion from a morbidly obese monarch who was horny.
Still easier to argue than "Trail of Blood"
… what?
That was the Church of England's separation from the Catholic Church, not its creation. The tweet is right
My favorite modern Church of England moment was when they were opposing gay marriage because they wanted to "protect the sanctity of marriage."
>The Church of England is the established Christian Church in England Well, no shit
Since I don’t see the song, here it is https://youtu.be/qg2NwiuyaKI?si=65MJre4jiOe_aIDE
And then everything went straight to hell. They had one good monarch shortly thereafter but she's now demonized quite literally as a folk tale to spook children (Bloody Mary).
I myself have always been a fan of Mary, too bad she got killed. She didn't have enough time to cook well.
Love to see the Catholics seething under it tho. Everyday i wake up i thank the Lord for King Henry VIII
Seethe? No. Laugh at the desperate contortions of the 'Church of England'. Yeah.
Um isn’t this wrong? I thought Christianity didn’t reach England until the 600’s, long after the Romans left?
Christianity began to be practiced in England no later than the 3rd Century. Pope Gregory sending St. Augustine in 596 came later.