www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Happy King Charles the Martyr's Day

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Yes, you raise a good issue - why don't they 'Pope?"

There is within Anglicanism a society that promotes the corporate reunion with Rome of the Anglican Church - the Papalists.

In the seventies, there were over 500 British Anglican clergy alone who were members of this group, all, of course, Anglo-Catholics.

Others, however, see Henry's schism in terms of his breaking away from the Patriarchate of Rome (remember, papal infallibility had not yet been defined) and setting up a Church with himself as head - something that was totally uncanonical and irregular.

Henry didn't change much - "Anglican" was in use for the Church in England since the days of St Theodore of Tarsus.

Thomas More opposed Henry on these grounds alone. More was actually quite "minimalistic" when it came to papal power claims, and he was closer to the Eastern Churches view on the role of Ecumenical Councils to define doctrine etc.

At his trial, More said that while he had read much on church history, nowhere did he ever read that a man (King Henry) who was neither a bishop, nor a priest, nor a deacon, nor a sexton etc. could ever be a "Head" of a Church!

In the religious world of Thomas More where church government was concerned, the Pope was first and the King was . . . nowhere.

Alex

Dear Alex -

There used to be a very ultramontane society - grandly named 'The Congregation of the English Mission'. They were very extreme Anglo-paplists. Whether they still exist I don't know. In the aftermath of the 'ordination' of women I doubt it very much.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Yes, many of those papalists went over to Rome as a result of a number of newer Anglican church initiatives.

Perhaps some of the women priests hold open the hope that Rome may change toward them, remembering the story of Pope Joan . . .

Alex

On the case of his marriage to Henrietta-Maria and its approval by the Pope...

Plenty of - to use an anachronistic term - Realpolitik - the Pope was hesistant to allow marriage with a schismatic and he only really agreed after the Queen made a promise that she would try to save Charles from the errors on Anglicanism. She herself was not particularly intelligent and whilst she was very brave during the Civil War, she made unwise moves. Before her departure for England, she was subjegated to a lecture from her mother, the Queen Dowager, and received a stern letter from the Pope which told her that she must work hard to save Charles and his court. I think that Charles was a very orthodox person but he was not a Catholic; he respected Rome and her tradition but he was the Defender of the Anglican Church, in which he fully belived in its dogma. And I am sure that we all know that Charles II was Catholic at heart and converted on his deathbed (thus bypassing all those annoying Puritans and their criticisms. He had his cake and he ate it!

Anton

There is the wonderful description of the deathbed reception of Charles II in the biography of him by Antonia Fraser. Always brings me to tears when I read it! Especially the way he greeted the Benedictine, Father Huddleston who had come to receive him into the Catholic Church

"you who once saved my body (after the battle of Worcester) have now come to save my soul!!!"

Dear Anton,

But, my friend, the fact is that Charles I was on very good terms with the Pope in his time - and with his Catholic subjects.

39 Articles notwithstanding, King Charles was hardly a "schismatic." He was born an Anglican to begin with.

The fact is also that there were High and Low Church people within Anglicanism.

He was a High Churchman and travelled to Spain to study Roman CAtholicism.

While he had nothing against "union with Rome as first among equals," when Jesuits asked him if he wanted to become a Catholic, he simply said, "But I already AM a Catholic!"

He bowed his head at the names of Jesus and Mary, attended Confession and Communion regularly, prayed and read spiritual reading several hours daily, asked Archbishop William Laud to put up statues of the Virgin Mary - are these the actions of a Protestant?

He was not formally "under Rome."

Cardinal Newman himself has analyzed the 39 Articles of the BCP and came to the conclusion, as did another Franciscan scholar, that they can be interpreted in a Catholic way - once we understand their background.

And Cardinal Newman and other Catholic converts of the 19th century continued to venerate St Charles privately, believing that it was he that began Britain's road back to historic Catholicism.

Alex

So then wouldn't he be a material heretic instead?

IMHO, you can act as Catholic, worship as a Catholic, and believe almost the exact same thing the Catholic Church teaches, but this doesn't make you Catholic.

JUST my opinion! I can already feel people swarming around me waiting to bite my head off!

ChristTeen287

ChristTeen is correct in his assumotio nevertheless; he was Anglican through and through. On a different tangent and yet similar, I like Alex's name of "Orthodox Catholic" - that sum me up perfectly (but obviously not in communion with Old Rome!)

Anton

Dear Anton and ChristTeen,

Yes, indeed, King Charles was Anglican.

"Anglican" was how the Catholic Church in England called itself, beginning soon after the coming of St Augustine to Canterbury "Anglicana Ecclesia."

"Catholic" basically means that the whole of the Church is in the part - it reflects a Eucharistic understanding of the Church of Christ where Christ is present in every Particle. The "universal" view of this term is a later one.

And the Orthodox Churches, Eastern and Oriental, have always called themselves "Catholic." They've even wondered about a possible contradiction in the term "Roman Catholic."

Not all Anglicans following that Church's split with Rome were Protestant in the Puritan sense. There were many who continued to believe in a hierarchical establishment of church (and secular) order, the Sacraments, the need for living a life of holiness etc.

King Charles was one of those people and he clearly was opposed to "Low Church" or Puritan Anglicans. For instance, he asked his Archbishop, William Laud (later a martyr too) to identify episcopal candidates for his royal approval by putting either an "O" beside their names on a list (for "Orthodox") or else a "P" (for "Puritan"). Charles always chose from among the "O's".

He was a Catholic although not in communion with Rome.

A saintly French priest, Pere Lamy, was asked about the impact of the validity of orders question on Anglican devotion to the Holy Eucharist.

He said, "Even if they don't have a true Priesthood, those Anglicans who adore the Blessed Sacrament in their Churches really do pray to It."

Alex

"Material heretic"? I've never come across that term. What does it mean?

Dear Hilde,

It means that while one cannot be held accountable for the "sin of heresy" because, most likely, one was born into a community that follows doctrine that is different from Catholic/Orthodox doctrine and is therefore heretical.

So while the person believes in things that are formally and objectively "heretical" because they were condemned by the Church, they are only "material heretics" in the sense that they are not guilty of personal heresy.

One can always hide behind the "invincible ignorance" argument too . . .

Alex