Quite possibly I’m being naive here, but to all the Anglicans that frequent these forums, can you please tell me what the difference is between the Anglican Church and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association - in other words the non-underground Catholic Church in China? The reason I ask is because I see a lot of similarities between the Anglican Church and the CPCA.
I’m Anglican and your question baffles me. Can you list the similarities you see (validity of orders isn’t going to be one of them)?
I assume by “validity of orders” you mean how the Catholic Church views the validity of orders of the respective Churches. Yes I know this is different, and there are some other differences as well. As far as the similarities go, I was talking about how the respective Churches came into being. Both Churches branched off of the Catholic Church, possibly for the sole issue of Papal primacy. The remaining Catholics in the two countries (England and China) were then forced underground to avoid persecution. And both Churches are controlled by the governments of the respective countries. I’m no expert on the history of the Anglican Church, but I’m pretty sure that what I’ve said is true for the start of the Anglican Church, under Henry VIII. The Anglican Church then diverged further under Elizabeth I, I believe, the result being the Catholic Church no longer views the orders as being valid.
I would have thought that the Church of England would rightly condemn the actions of the Chinese government in discriminating against the Catholic Church in this way. And so my question is, what is the difference between what the Chinese government is doing today to the Catholic Church in China, to what Henry VIII did in his day to the Catholic Church in England?
While I am a loyal Catholic, not Anglican, allow me to offer my two cents. If I remember correctly, the CPCA still pays lip service to the Pope and they have sent priests to study in Rome before. I don’t know much more than that, other than what you have all ready stated here.
One difference is that Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, for all their faults, were not atheists. England was at that time an entirely Christian country, and the monarch claimed authority over the Church as the leader of the Christian community called the English people.
A second difference is that the government does not put restrictions on the Church of England similar to those imposed by the Chinese government. The British government does still play a role in picking bishops, etc., and this is a scandal. But it has a relatively light touch.
And finally, many–perhaps most–of the Anglicans here are not members of the Church of England, and hence have no relationship with the British government whatsoever. Your comparison has no real relevance outside England.
I was hoping you would spot this thread, Contarini.
Well my comparison was really for the start of the Anglican Church, not the current Anglican Church. However, I did not know that Anglicans outside of the CofE had no relationship with the British government, so I’m glad you said that. By “here”, I assume you meant the USA.
As usual, Contarini handles it well. But he also means that no Anglican outside of the Church of England itself (that is, none of the other 37 autonomous member Churchs of the Worldwide Anglican Communion), has any relationship with the British Government. It is only the CoE that is an Erastian Church.
There’s a new word for me to learn, cheers.
So what if I change my post to be specifically about the Church of England, rather than the Anglican Communion?
Then the rest of Contarini’s post, as well as Christ’sThe Way’s, still applies.
Henry’s main idea, when he took the Church in England private, was to remove all the political power the RCC had over England, a process that had been going on in England, and other places, for 300 years or so. It was the rise of nationalism. Certainly, Hank stepped out from under the Pope doctrinally, too, but that wasn’t his aim.
Well isn’t that what China is trying to do? Wouldn’t it have been possible to be nationalistic without persecuting those who stayed in good-standing in the Catholic Church? And wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Henry was more interested in the viability of his own line, rather than nationalism? I mean, he was an ardent Catholic earlier on, and named “Defender of the faith” by the Pope. If Henry’s main idea was to remove the political power of the CC, then why was this precipitated by a move on the CC’s part that had nothing to do with politics (the refusal of an annulment)? And why was this move of his followed by persecution of Catholics?
No. By “here” I meant this board. All the Anglicans I can think of who frequent this board are either Episcopalians or American “Continuing Anglicans.” I’m sure there probably are some C of E folks–there are an awful lot of people who come to these boards–but I don’t recall encountering any.
QUOTE=Atreyu;1531720]Well isn’t that what China is trying to do?
No, it seems to me that Contarini’s comment is correct
Wouldn’t it have been possible to be nationalistic without persecuting those who stayed in good-standing in the Catholic Church?
Theoretically, sure. But not in the the 16th century. Else surely Mary could have managed her reign with more gentility. But I doubt even a terminally irenic Henrician Church would have met with Papal approval (“Go with blessings, my son”). Wars were fought over such things.
And wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Henry was more interested in the viability of his own line, rather than nationalism?
Yes, indeed, his dynasty was precisely the political issue that Henry was insisting be under national control, not Papal control (as directed, in this case, by Imperial dictate). Hence the need for a national Church, and a national Head. As Hank saw it.
I mean, he was an ardent Catholic earlier on, and named “Defender of the faith” by the Pope.
Actually, he wheedled that title of *Defensor Fidei *out of the Pope. Funny story associated with it; Henry loved titles and other sparklies. Ask if you’re interested. But yes, generally, and in the beginning, Henry considered himself a good Catholic. Including after the Acts of 1534-1535.
If Henry’s main idea was to remove the political power of the CC, then why was this precipitated by a move on the CC’s part that had nothing to do with politics (the refusal of an annulment)? And why was this move of his followed by persecution of Catholics?
The search for a decree of nulllity was precisely a political issue, in Henry’s case, as it usually was at that level of society. The whole incredibly complex canonical system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity was designed, in addition to preserving the concept of marriage as a sacrament, to also allow the making and breaking and remaking of marriages as political alliances. It happened literally all the time. One of my favorite discussion topics, that.
Repression of the Roman Catholics in his realm was a political move, to ensure stability, by surpressing a group potentially disloyal, and beholden to a foreign political power. As it was seen, in those days.
Gratefully accepted, mate.
The CCPA is not free to criticise the People’s Republic of China: the Church of England is as free as anyone else to criticise the Government - and it does so.
It’s difficult to compare the two accurately, because the English Church in the 16th century, both before & after the Reformation, was not in a wholly different position from the CCPA now; but that’s an unfair comparison, for several reasons - not least that one cannot really compare two forms of Christian life which are four hundred years apart. If the comparison is to be fair it has to be between contemporaneous forms of Christian life.
So it’s illuminating to compare (say) Papal Rome with Calvin’s Geneva, or Geneva in 1540 with England in 1540 - but one can’t usefully compare these with Anglicanism in 1940: the types of society are too different.
The CPCA is not the Church of the nation, not even in principle - the English Church was, both and before after the break with Rome. It still is, in principle.
The liberty of the CPCA was not assured by statute - the liberty of the Ecclesia Anglicana is assured in Magna Carta: Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit. (Though whether the libertas is from the Pope or the Crown, is another matter…)
I’m not sure I agree with Edwin about the part of the Crown (which in effect has long = the government of the day) in the nomination of bishops. Far from being a scandal, it could be regarded as provision for the good estate of the Church in the Queen’s realm, by the Queen as “godly prince”.
It is more difficult to think of the Chinese government as playing the part of the “godly prince”, than to think of a Christian monarch as such. Though there are ideas in mediaeval theorising about the relation to the Church of Pope, Emperor, kings & others, which might justify governance over the Church by unbelievers. ##
Holy resurrected thread, Batman!