Church Of England


#1

Why do Catholics consider the Church of England to be heretical?
The church can be traced to Augustine and has had an unbroken line of bishops and apostolic succession since the 6th Century so I don’t understand why it isn’t considered part of the One Church. I can understand your opinion on the Baptists and my own Methodist denomination as both split from the COE and broke succession but I don’t understand your opinion of the Church of England itself.
Please explain.
WP


#2

King Henry VIII started The Church of England. He was in fact a madman who beheaded 2 of his wives and married three times. He was upset that The Pope wouldn’t give him a divorce so he could marry yet again. Another person mad at the Pope, therefore goes starts another religion.
I’m telling you,every religion is a shoot-off from Catholisism, and every religion was through an arguement or a fight. You just cannot get mad and go start a religion…


#3

Henry Tudor Jr. (Or Hank The Fat,as I like to call him) was a complete lunatic and tyrant but I don’t (and the Anglicans don’t) consider him to be founder of their church.
Augustine founded it in the Saxon times.
WP


#4

The bishops of the church in England defected to the King. The succession was broken both form and intent although the structural office of ‘bishop’ was retained.

Augustine found Christians when he got to England.


#5

Augustine found remnants of the Old British Church when he arrived in England.
Here is a link explaining Methodist claims to Apostolic Succession via the English Church.
revneal.org/Writings/apostoli.htm
WP


#6

all i know is that the Church of England was born because of a king who was not given annulment by the Pope. In other words, a schism based on personal matters.


#7

. . . and the 50% of the GNP that was leaving England for the coffers of the Holy See via the untaxed monastic lands.


#8

what is the GNP?:o


#9

gross national product. . .


#10

oh thx :slight_smile:


#11

1. There was a Church in England before Augustine - as Bede’s account of Augustine’s dealings with the British (the correct term in this context) bishops shows. In addition to which, three of the bishops of the pre-Gregorian Church wrote to St. Sylvester of Rome in 314, having attended the council of Arles.

  1. Henry VIII was no madman - if he had been, he could hardly have been excomunicated. Madmen are not capable of building navies; let alone reforming the Churches in their realms. He did both - and he could claim good pre-Reformation authority for doing so.

Besides, what is wrong with executing one’s wife ? If Constantine could execute his wife and his son, to paint Henry VIII as some kind of monster for doing likewise seems extremely unfair.

There is a lot less to be said against Henry VIII than people sometimes realise. ##


#12

I beg to differ.
Tudor Jr. was an illegitimate monarch, a murderer and was guilty of countless crimes. I will bless you by repeating a short summary of Henry which I wrote for Siol nan Gaidheal.
WP

britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon41.html
royal.gov.uk/output/Page19.asp
Henry Tudor Jr. was a ruthless scoundrel
best known for the murder of his wives, his eating habits, playing
dice and being a general waste of DNA. Henry was the man responsible
for the death of James IV and the brave men at Flodden Field and was
no friend to the Scots, he was the son of the Henry Tudor the self
declared English King and Elizabeth of York the turncoat sister of
Richard III, the true King of England. Henry VIII was known not only
for his ruthlessness but also for his delusion that he was a religious
leader, his bad personal hygiene and the fact that his voice was much
like that of a woman. Henry blessed the world with his passing on 28
January 1547 of unknown causes but rumoured to be a result of his
syphilis. Good Riddance to Henry Tudor Jr.!
Deo Vindice
WP


#13

Henry VIII was a very complex man. Few know that in defense of the Pope against Luther’s claims he wrote a treatise in DEFENSE of the Catholic faith. Erasmus was very impressed with the younger Henry, and there is no doubt that he was well educated and had tremendous gifts–an excellent physique until a fall at jousting caused a leg ulcer which never healed and was conducive to packing on the pounds in his later life; great personal magnetism; and a fine capacity in choosing the men who helped him run his kingdom, though he would discard them if they ‘failed’ him. (It took him a while with Wolsey; by the time he sent Cromwell to the block he was well on the way to despotism).

That being said, Henry’s executions of his two wives, Anne Boleyn and her cousin Catherine Howard, were judicial murders pure and simple. Before he beheaded Anne, he had her sign away hers and her daughter Elizabeth’s rights, on the ground that Anne had a precontract with Harry Percy of Northumberland. . .of course, if that had been the case, Anne was never legally married to Henry and thus did not NEED to die for adultery. But Henry, who thought she ‘failed’ him for not producing a son, and was angry at all that he ‘suffered’ for her, sent her to death quite cheerfully.

He sent Catherine LESS cheerfully. First, she was much younger than he. And she actually was guilty–not of adultery, though. Catherine was not a virgin when she married Henry. And he found out. And to ‘save face’ (and because a small group of his “new men” found Catherine, and her family, too “catholic” for their taste), Catherine was sacrificed.

And then, it was put in as an article of law, that whomever the king should marry would be a virgin. . .or a WIDOW. Henry wasn’t going to take any chances. . .

As for Constantine, not knowing nearly so much about the circumstances of his ‘excutions’ as I do about Henry’s circumstances, I won’t hazard a guess as to their legitimacy. However, the old saying is 'two wrongs don’t make a right" so even IF Constantine’s executions were just as wrong as Henry’s wouldn’t make Henry’s OK.

However, I have to thank you–I intend to hit the public library tomorrow to do research on Constantine now. I appreciate your giving me a new historical research project!!


#14

I think these two articles will help your understanding:

bringyou.to/apologetics/num37.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a34.htm


#15

Very interesting links indeed.
I thank you.
WP


#16

I’ve done Horny Hank and the subject of annulments, impediments and dispensations, as routinely practiced at the time, absent the Holy Roman Emperor, too many times here to do it again. Your last para is quite correct, and I strongly recommend J. J. Scarisbrick’s HNERY VIII for those who deal in cartoon cutouts in this area.

GKC


#17

Try* Apostolicae Curae*. Another complicated subject. To provide some perspective, and contrasting facts, that the link given above leaves out, re: Anglican orders, there’s ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and also STEWARDS OF THE LORD, both written by Fr. John J. Hughes.

GKC


#18

WRONG, this is what your church wants you to think. Stop misinterpreting faith.


#19

The rite of ordination was so changed as to strip it of any ties to the Church and thus broke the lines of apostolic succession. The anglicans priests and now priestesses lack valid ordination.


#20

Add to that the fact that in Catholic sacramental theology only a baptized male may validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders . . .


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.