Historic English denial of the pope

Discussion in 'Faith, Devotion & Formation' started by Jellies, Jul 25, 2021.

  1. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are there any books or anything else to read you guys would recommend of the Church of England denying the pope pre reformation period? Also proof that roman doctrines like purgatory etc. never existed in it? Thank you
     
  2. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    After the Roman Catholic forces conquered England in 1066 AD, there was a period when RC bishops from the continent came over and began to alter Anglican doctrines to be more in line with the Pope. It was often even dangerous to one’s life to resist them, as in the case of the famous martyr John Wycliffe. However there were numerous cases of resistance, such as:

    https://forums.anglican.net/threads...al-english-bishop-to-the-papacy-in-rome.3983/
     
  3. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    thanks, but that link only says that the bishop resisted the pope, not that he didn’t recognize his authority at all. Did the early Church of England always recognize the pope?
     
  4. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The historic position, is not so much about the Pope, but rather about what his authority meant/s.

    In the pre-conciliar and early conciliar period there were a number of significant bishops, generally referred to as Patriarchs, including Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Ephesus and then Constantinople. Rome was often understood as Patriarch of the West. The early English Church was likely more connected with Ephesus than Rome, and in part that probably relates to trade routes. Augustine was sent by Gregory to 'convert the English' though a meaningful reading of Bede suggests that the Roman Mission spent much of its time negotiating with the Celtic Church about the correct date to celebrate Easter, and they reached some compromises. Following the Augustinian Mission the English Church whilst relatively independent did look more to Rome than to the other Patriarchs for their connection with the whole Church.

    When William of Normandy set about the conquest of England in 1066, he did so under the Pope's Banners (as testified in the Bayeux Tapestry) and we know following the conquest the British Bishops in the main were deposed and replaced by Normans and Italians. Stigand, who had been a Mass Priest for Cnut became Archbishop of Canterbury whilst Edward the Confessor was King, and continued in that role, even though he was excommunicated by the Pope. Stigand was starved to death in prison and replaced by Llanfranc from Bec in Normandy.

    So the question wasn't so much about recognising the Pope, but what recognition might mean.

    When you reach the 1500's and the Act of Supremacy the statement that comes through clear is that ultimately is expressed in the Thirty Nine Articles 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England'.

    If you study the Great Schism of 1054, you will see that the question was not about recognising the Pope, so much what authority the Pope had. This is a repeated question in the English story. The principle idea in the East, and in the Anglican Tradition is to speak of 1st among equals, which seems to be the position of Peter when we read the account in Acts 15.
     
  5. Jellies

    Jellies Active Member

    Posts:
    236
    Likes Received:
    98
    Country:
    Usa
    Religion:
    Christian
    What was the goal of Christ with this “primacy of honor?” Is it that the Roman bishop is supposed to be unity for the whole church? And the chief of the elders?
     
  6. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The church fathers separated the concept of the Bishop of Rome, from the successor of Peter. These two concepts were later fused by the Papacy, but among the fathers they were separate.

    The Bishop of Rome had the primacy of honor as a human institution, not as a divine one, due to his oversight of the most important city of the Empire, kind of like our Archbishop of Canterbury.

    The successor of Peter, on the other hand, was seen to be every Bishop who has the apostolic commission to lead the Church in his diocese. You can still find this today, eg. among the Eastern Orthodox. Basically, the commission given by Christ to Peter was understood to be the commission by Christ to all the future leaders of the Church. A bishop was seen to sit “in the chair of Peter” in his diocese, and to have “the faith of Peter.”

    What happened with the Papacy which later emerged, was they fused the two, and declared the bishop of Rome to be the only one who sat in the chair of Peter and had the faith of Peter.
     
    Rexlion likes this.