Considering the fact that most history books describe the Church of England as having been created out of Henry VIII's desire to have a divorce that the Pope wouldn't allow, how do members of the Church of England (and Episcopalians) view their own history? I imagine that Anglicans must have a more religious vision of their own history. What is it?

Sarai, I'm not an historical expert, nor a theologian, so this can only be a personal view.

First, Protestantism was taking root around Europe at that time. England was not the only country to break away from the Pope's authority.

It happened that I was born in England to a Church of England family. As I became old enough to question things, I have found that there are elements of Roman Catholic doctrine that I would find it hard to accept, and I have not been tempted to convert to RC.

I have a purely personal theory that the longer a religion (or religious "strand" such as RC or C of E) has been established, the more the frailty of the humans who head it distorts the fundamental basic truth. If that is so, then the older Christian churches - RC, Coptic, Orthodox - are tending to veer away from basic belief into convoluted doctrine. Protestant churches are less diverted, and perhaps later churches, such as the various non-conformists, are closer to "true" teaching. However, I don't want to enter into a spirited argument over that, certainly not in News and Reference.

It doesn't bother me that my religion sprang from a King's desire to be rid of his wife, any more than I feel deeply upset about any other accident of history long before my time.

Anglicans do not think about it. I am sure that a more religious vision ' is not the way to describe the view when they do. No Anglican prays to give thanks for Henry VIII or to thank God for giving him wisdom to save the people from "popery" !

The Church of England is the 'established church'; the Queen is its lay head; the Queen, acting on the advice of her Prime Minister, Mr Blair,chose the spiritual head, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It might seem as though the President of Italy, or a committee of heads of Roman Catholic states were to choose their archbishops or even the Pope himself. Anglicans simply regard all this as just so much administration not something of doctrinal significance. It is the present sign of a long forgotten historical accident of politics

I suspect that the very breadth of the church, so that it accommodates those whose services and practices are 'High Church' appearing to some like Catholic services, to very Low Church, far more austere, and with all shades in between; you can find a church for your personal taste; is a reult of the church being a 'political'creation. Over centuries it had by necessity to appeal to as many subjects as possible.( This is no criticism of the devout people who use the churches)

Catholics and we Quakers ( I was once Church of England, Anglican) do not have this as much. Our places of worship and the proceedings are much the same the world over ( with the option of Latin for Catholics ). Then we never felt such a need to accommodate; which is not to say there were not fierce disputes along the way.

Thanks, guys. Just to clarify, I was raised Episcopalian (the North American version of Anglican). I left the church a long time ago, but lately I've been wondering about our history. I remember being told by a priest once that Episcopalians were "the true Catholics." That memory is what makes me think that very religious Anglicans/Episcopalians must have a religious view of their history. Other protestant religions were born out of a particular reading of the Bible, not a desire to divorce. So it seems to me that Episcopalians/Anglicans must feel there was more to Henry's theology than just wanting a divorce. I'm not trying to open a religious debate in the News and Reference section at all - just wondered if there is more to Episcopalian history than a King's need to divorce.

Anglicans/Episcopalians and Catholics are very close in their beliefs, and were even closer at the time of the split (the main difference at that point was the question of papal authority). Over the past century, there have been movements towards uniting the churches (more on the Anglican side than the Catholic side), and priests from the Anglican Church can convert to Catholicism and retain their priesthood fairly easily. The current differences (that I can think of):

papal authority (Anglicans don't disagree that there can be a Pope-like figure, but do disagree about the details)

transubstantiation (C) vs. consubstantiation (A)

the role of Mary - Anglicans do not hold the Catholic beliefs of the Immaculate Conception or her Ascension.

Anglicans allow divorce and remarriage, Catholics do not.

There are women priests and bishops in the Anglican Church, but not in the Catholic Church.

Catholics are not permitted to use birth control, Anglicans are.

Catholics are not allowed to use in vitro fertilization, Anglicans are.

Anglicans, while forbidding abortion in most cases, allow for abortions in special circumstances (danger to the mother, rape, and severe handicapping of the child). Catholics forbid it in all cases.

Anglicans have made moves towards accepting homosexuals and homosexual relationships.

Anglican priests may be married, while the only married Catholic priests are those who converted and were ordained and married before their conversion.

Further to Methos' reply:
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is only good for a comment on the attitude and opinion of the church; whatever he says on policy is subject to what the church's parliament, the Synod, decides. He is as close as they get to 'pope-like'( i.e. not much !). Of course the idea of any one clergyman, however high, being the final arbiter on serious matters seems anathema to them. A side effect is that Anglicans can shop around the various clergymen until they find one whose views are acceptable to them; clergymen have considerable latitude in what practices they allow in their own parishes.

On the immaculate conception you have a choice. Some C of E clergymen accept it as literally that, others say this is simply a misunderstanding of the text. Nobody seems to think it matters either way.

Anglicans certainly accept abortions. I understood them to accept it on the terms and principles of our Abortion Act, which is intended to stop women having abortions at will without any other reason ( but in practice that ideal seems easily circumvented; there are certainly 'borderline cases')

I can't think of any women bishops; none in Britain anyway; we have Anglican women vicars and curates, certainly, in the UK.

Homosexual priests are a matter of controversy. The official line is that they are accepted. The new Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he will not seek to intervene in the case of a clergyman who has lived in a homosexual partnership for 27 years and who has just been chosen to be a bishop.
. It has been headline news here for some days.


On marriage the church would not marry any divorced person in church. This had curious results. A catholic woman who had been married to a protestant was not married in the eyes of many catholics so her divorce was irrelevant and she might be allowed to marry a catholic in a catholic church; but if she tried to marry an Anglican in an a C of E church the service would be refused her. The vicar might bless the couple but some refused to do so with any ceremonial; there would be only close friends and family allowed , if at all. The church has been reviewing this policy which seems certain to change completely.

Princess Anne remarried not in a C of E church but in a church of the Church of Scotland, which applies a different rule. Her own mother being the secular head of the Church of England, this did not pass without comment !

It remains the law that we cannot have a Catholic sovereign; that the heir to the throne shall not marry a Catholic ( Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles is one ); that any member of the Royal Family may not marry a catholic without the permission of the sovereign.

The Queen is 'Defender of the Faith' ( a title awarded to Henry VIII by a pope but maintained ). Prince Charles has said he would prefer to be 'defender of faith', which we take to mean that he does not want to be associated only with the C of E in the minds of the people.

An interesting footnote is that Mr Blair is known to go to Catholic services ( his wife is Catholic and his children at Catholic school). The leader of the opposition, his rival to be Prime Minister, is a Catholic ( Mr Duncan-Smith) This could make choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury a little difficult as he is chosen traditionally on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Thanks for the details, Fred. A couple comments/revisions/questions:

The Anglican Church has performed second marriages in the past. Some of the reviewing of its current policy can be found here,

Are you sure about that Immaculate Conception thing? This seems to me to be one of the chief complaints of Anglicans against Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine says that Mary was born without sin (unlike the rest of us)(Immaculate Conception) and rose to heaven intact instead of dying (Ascension). Some Catholics have even elevated her to the position of co-redeemer (alsongside Jesus). I thought that Anglicans rejected all three of these ideas.

I myself was refused even a blessing in public when I proposed it to my own Church of England vicar here; you need not wonder what he would have said to a marriage .It is from this that I took the example of the catholic woman. It could have applied to me had I been prepared to become catholic !

Many clergymen of the Church of England hold that Mary was not the mother of a child, Jesus, conceived without her ever having known a man, to use a biblical expression. Others, on the other hand, certainly do believe the contrary, probably the majority. Usually the explanation proposed is that there has been a misunderstanding or mistranslation of the original word that we have as 'virgin'.It certainly does not seem to be an issue either way.One deeper theory, which I heard propounded by a theologian on the BBC this weekend is that the belief is rooted in some ancient idea that Mary would have been defiled by intercourse and so Our Lord would have, as it were , been himself 'defiled' before he even started out in life. Whether many Anglicans attribute the belief to that and do not accept it for that reason I cannot say.

Mary , whatever the views on that issue, certainly has no special status in the Church of England such as she holds in the Roman Catholic faith.

May I be pedantic for a moment and point out that catholic (small 'c') is a secular word meaning worldwide, comprehensive, universal. In a discussion such as this I feel one should be careful to say Roman Catholic (with capitals) for the Christian Church of Rome.

Methos, this business of Mary is one of the things that I cannot accept. As far as I know, the Bible tells us very little about Mary, except that she conceived a child (Jesus) by the Holy Ghost and not in the sinful way that other unmarried mothers conceive. To me, that is the Immaculate Conception, the conception of Jesus. I don't know where the RCs got the doctrine of Mary herself being immaculately conceived, nor of her ascending into Heaven without dying. Again, the only Ascension I know of is that of Jesus.

To return to the original question, I suspect that Henry did what people have been doing for centuries and made a secular political move under the guise of religion. He wanted to do his own thing, so he jumped on the bandwagon of Protestantism. As Fred says, none of this is a great burning issue to most Britons. Our national religion is soccer more than Christianity anyway!

Fred - I believe you are misuderstanding the phrase "Immaculate Conception." I am using this phrase in reference to the Roman Catholic "Feast of the Immaculate Conception," which refers to Mary's conception (free from original sin), not Jesus'. I believe the Anglican Church is pretty much united in rejection of this idea. The issue of whether or not Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth is perhaps related, but not the same.

Ewood - Of course you may be pedantic . As far as where who got anyone got what idea and how much of a stretch they are or aren't... I'll leave those discussions for solospirit.

Indeed Methos; just shows how protestant I am !

Ewood- Catholic/catholic ? I see I used both in above posts ( and 'Roman Catholic' too ) . I try not to be a Pedant. I wouldn't want to make a religion out of it ! Seriously the truth is I couldn't be bothered to regularise it.

However, this all reminds me that I was puzzled as a child by words in the Anglican Prayer Book. At one point we were expected to pray for 'The Holy Catholic Church'. What ? The other lot ? Were we praying that they might see the error of their ways ? A patient granny explained that 'catholic' here referred to our side not just to the Roman team; it was just like Manchester United soccer club in that it had a proper title defining its home ground but was 'United' for short, and 'united' was an ordinary adjective too.
Good theologian, my old Gran ! ( She didn't explain why and how the Roman team was so much more successful playing away from home, but then she wasn't into soccer much ).

[This message was edited by FredPuli on 06-24-03 at 04:44 AM.]

[This message was edited by FredPuli on 06-24-03 at 04:45 AM.]

I just thought that I'd add that, privately, the Orthodox church regards such differences as stated above as just some squabbling amongst Protestants.

My three children were conceived by Immaculate conception. At least my wife said afterwards, that the conception was immaculate.