Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Schroedinger&amp;#039;smMommym" data-source="post: 1507272" data-attributes="member: 592479">What do you mean &quot;lack of theological origin&quot;? Anglicans can claim some of the greatest theological minds of the 16th and 17th centuries as our forebears - Erasmus, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Parker, Donne, Herbert - not to mention the great English churchmen of the centuries between 597 (the foundation of the English Church) to 1534 (the split with Rome), including St Augustine of Canterbury, St Cuthbert, St Bede, St Anselm, Lanfranc, and Mother Julian of Norwich. Indeed, few churches anywhere in the world have such a rich theological history as the Anglican tradition. Henry VIII doesn&#039;t really have all that much to do with the formation of the Anglican Church. He led the break with Rome on a structural level (which was certainly a significant break), and he dissolved the monasteries in 1536 (which was much more significant in my view), but the Anglican Church in its modern form was not the product of the Henrician Reformation, which simply produced a Catholic Church without Rome and with some Erasmian traits (bear in mind that the authority of Rome at that time was less central to Catholics than it was to become after the Counter-Reformation). The Church of England is really the product of the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559, which established the Church of England as a middle-course between Catholicism and Protestantism. And such we have remained: a sensible, reasonable middle-course, eschewing extremes and repudiating violence, but trying to reconcile opposites and bring the alienated extremes together. Reconciliation, toleration, and unity in diversity are the cornerstones of the Anglican Church. We respect tradition, but recognise the need to live in the present. We adore the sacraments, but we revere the Word of God. If that isn&#039;t a sound theological basis for a Church, I don&#039;t know what is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Schroedinger'smMommym, post: 1507272, member: 592479"] What do you mean "lack of theological origin"? Anglicans can claim some of the greatest theological minds of the 16th and 17th centuries as our forebears - Erasmus, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Parker, Donne, Herbert - not to mention the great English churchmen of the centuries between 597 (the foundation of the English Church) to 1534 (the split with Rome), including St Augustine of Canterbury, St Cuthbert, St Bede, St Anselm, Lanfranc, and Mother Julian of Norwich. Indeed, few churches anywhere in the world have such a rich theological history as the Anglican tradition. Henry VIII doesn't really have all that much to do with the formation of the Anglican Church. He led the break with Rome on a structural level (which was certainly a significant break), and he dissolved the monasteries in 1536 (which was much more significant in my view), but the Anglican Church in its modern form was not the product of the Henrician Reformation, which simply produced a Catholic Church without Rome and with some Erasmian traits (bear in mind that the authority of Rome at that time was less central to Catholics than it was to become after the Counter-Reformation). The Church of England is really the product of the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559, which established the Church of England as a middle-course between Catholicism and Protestantism. And such we have remained: a sensible, reasonable middle-course, eschewing extremes and repudiating violence, but trying to reconcile opposites and bring the alienated extremes together. Reconciliation, toleration, and unity in diversity are the cornerstones of the Anglican Church. We respect tradition, but recognise the need to live in the present. We adore the sacraments, but we revere the Word of God. If that isn't a sound theological basis for a Church, I don't know what is. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…