Posted on 06/27/2009 8:50:42 PM PDT by ozguy
It was Henry VIII, not Henry VII, and he didnt “start another religion”.
The break with Rome was purely political (and economic). He changed the Church in England from being Roman Catholic to being English Catholic. There was no change in any other theology, indeed he persecuted protestants very heavily for much of the rest of his reign.
It was after Henry that changes in belief came about.
Thats a great prayer! Thank you for sharing it.
England has “suffered” from centuries of “unrelenting, non-stop immigrations” and yet, curiously, we are still here.
The CofE is a very odd institution. Its a very broad church indeed. You really dont know what you are going to get until you get into one! Ive been to Anglican Churches that are very evangelical. Ive been to Anglican Churches that are extremely charismatic. Ive been to Anglican Churches that are “more catholic than Rome”.
Given the greater mobility and increased individualism of Britons that might not be a bad model.
In raw membership, the church of England far outnumbers any other Christian denomination in the country because they declared it the "official" state religion of England and spent years discriminating against other Protestants and Catholics. Nevertheless, it is those other Christian faiths, like Catholics and Pentecostals, where the membership is growing. The Church of England is dying. IMO, they should dissolve it.
I'm usually not one to advocate anyone switch denominations -- if someone was raised Baptist and believes their doctrines more than Catholicism, so be it. But if I was raised Episcopalian, I'd have a real problem knowing my branch of Christianity wasn't created for any spiritual purpose or genuine disagreement over Catholic church doctrine, but solely so some fat King could live his lecherous life with official church sanction. IMO, Episcopalians/Anglicians should seriously consider whether they want to remain members of that denomination. The U.S. Episcopal church is falling apart as well, even since they ordained that openly gay bishop.
Shots Across The Bow
That new version that liberal Anglicans embrace, of course, is a modern interpretation of Scripture that allows for gay clergy and same-sex blessings.
With the two sides unwilling to compromise, the conservative leaders aimed two shots across the bow. First, they declared that they no longer see the archbishop of Canterbury as the one who decides who is Anglican or not. Second, they said they intend to form an alternative church or province in North America — one that would compete with the Episcopal Church for members, money and church property.
To be fair, although Henry VIII became a fat, addled, syphilis-ridden wreck by the end of his life, when the break with Rome was accomplished he was still a vibrant, lusty young monarch.
And furthermore, his motivations were not purely selfish. Catherine of Aragorn was barren and therefore there was no heir. That is very bad news. The Tudors had come to power as a culmination of major dynastic dispute that had torn the country apart, doing immense damage to its economy and social structure. Nobody was keen to repeat the experience. No heir, or only female heirs, might very well have led to a “Wars of the Roses II”, which the country might not have survived, and Henry knew it.
Anglicanism may have been created purely for political (and economic) reasons, but that doesnt mean that it doesnt have its own specific theology and practices here and now. Its biggest problem its that it is too broad a church. It has made too many compromises in order to represent a society that is increasingly diverse.
As for the charge of discrimination: the problem is that Anglicanism increasingly became tied to English Nationalism. Such discrimination that other denominations were subject to (particularly Catholics) was largely motivated by that.
I still recall the official policy when I was a child, which isnt that long ago. If you had to fill in any kind of form in which you had to state your religion (a hospital one for example) the options would be “CofE”, “Roman Catholic” and “non-conformist” (which was basically everyone else). Does that kind of mildly derogatory statmement count as discrimination? I suppose it could be construed to be, but there is no sting in it. Anyway, most Baptists I know revel in the term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.