I am very interested in Anglican spirituality and theology but I have a couple issues with it. This is my main one. In my understanding, Anglicanism only exists because a King wanted an annulment and the Pope refused to give him one for political reasons. How can the Anglican Church be part of the one true church, if there is such a thing, with such an origin?
It's a great question. You'll probably receive a couple of different answers on this. The easiest answer (in my opinion) is this: Henry VIII is not the founder of the Church. That's just how he's listed in some history books. All Anglicans trace their roots to the Church in England, and the Church in England existed from very ancient times. There were Christians there before Rome asserted its authority, there were Christians there when Rome's authority was absolute, there were Christians there before/during/after the Reformation. It's the same Church. That's who we are. So, since we maintained bishops in Apostolic Succession, we can trace our lineage back to the beginnings of Christianity in England. Much like the Orthodox, we don't need the Pope for that. Anglican origins differ from the other Reformation-era groups. The Church of England just cleaned up a few excesses and continued on their way.
OK, I can understand that; however, it seems to me that going from accepting the Pope's authority to rejecting it is a change of faith. Wasn't the English Church stated my missionaries from Rome?
I would not agree with that. Legend has it that the church in England was founded by Joseph of Arimathea, but what is clear that there was a church thriving on the island prior to even the Council of Nicea, where delegates from Britain were present. No doubt the Romans in England imported Christianity prior to the fall of the empire but I think it went with them when they abandoned the island. However, there was also an independent Celtic church existing there too, which was distinct from Rome. Thus, it's clear there was already a church in Britain when St Augustine of Canterbury arrived. What he did, along with converting the Anglo-Saxons, was to Romanize the church there. The Synod of Whitby also did this to a large degree as well. But Rome's yoke, even then was very different from what evolved into in the middle ages.
OK. That makes a lot more sense. Sounds kind of like Eastern Orthodoxy. Are there any good balanced sources you would suggest to read about Anglican history?
Rejection of Papal authority in the British Church existed long before the English Reformation and we cannot say with certainty who brought the Christian faith to the British Isles. Certainly Christianity was well established in the remote parts of Britain before St Augustine's Roman mission in 597AD. There is a primitive tradition originating long before the English Reformation that the Gospel was brought to Britain by St Joseph of Arimathea. (As Lowly Layman pointed out above). The tradition says that St Joseph accompanied by 11 companions journeyed through Europe to the north coast of Gaul (now France). From there they crossed the sea to the south-west shores of Britain. The party travelled inland to a settlement where they met a local chieftain. Whilst the chieftain was hospitable he refused to become a follower of the Gospel - he did however give St Joseph and his companions 12 hides of land on which they built an enclosure for themselves. This was later to become Glastonbury. It would be unreasonable to expect any concrete confirmation of this tradition from documentary testimony but curiously in the Domesday Book there is an entry referring to 12 hides of land which had never been taxed, indicating a land donation of long standing. In Cornwall, a Celtic part of Britain where I live, there are pious traditions that St Jospeh of Arimathea brought Jesus as a youth whilst on trading missions. They were reputed to have landed at settlements on the Fal river. Whilst there is no proof of this, we do know that trading with the eastern Mediterranean did occur during this period. Roman Catholics often criticise all these claims as flights of fancy, but they would do well to remember that much of their own piety and tradition is based purely on such lines. (Cultus of Saints etc.) Tertulian, writing at the end of the second century refers to Christians in the remote parts of Britain. We know that 3 British Bishops, (also a Presbyter and Deacon) attended the Council of Arles in 315. British clerics were also present at the Council of Rimini in 359. At the Council of Basle in 1431 it was claimed that the British Church was formed in Apostolic times by St Joseph of Arimathea. Roman occupation of the British Isles ended in 410. After this, the country was invaded by Angles, Jutes and Saxons who brought their own pagan religions. The Celtic Church then retreated to the more remote parts of Britain. Roman Catholics often claim that Celtic Christianity had no fundamental differences with Roman Christianity. This is not the case when one looks at ancient records of the contacts between Celtic Christians and the representatives of the Bishop of Rome. Wherever and whenever meetings took place there was inevitably conflict. Without consultation with the British Bishops, Gregory, Bishop of Rome, gave Augustine jurisdiction over the Celtic Christians. The Celts refused to accept Rome's authority and customs. It went so far that Gregory, (pre-figuring the claims of Apostolicae Curae in the 19th century) did not recognise Episcopal Authority amongst the Celts. He assured Augustine that "you are the only Bishop" Laurentius, who succeeded Augustine regarded Celtic Christianity as unorthodox. A pastoral letter of his survives which shows that Celtic Christianity differed from "the customs of the universal Church" and that relations between the Celts and Roman representatives was acrimonious. Theodore of Tarsus, a later Archbishop of Canterbury was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome "to draw together a new people in Christ, and establish them in the Catholic and Apostolical faith." Theodore regarded the Celtic Christians as heretics and saw Celtic Orders as invalid. He also regarded Baptisms by Celtic clergy as invalid and anyone receiving Holy Communion from the hand of a Celt was required to "do penance for an entire year". The end of the independence of the segments of the Celtic Church took place at different times. Southern Ireland seems to have been the first to conform with Rome in the earlier part of the 7th century. Northumberland gave up its Celtic usages following the Council of Whitby. Northern Ireland conformed at the very end of the 7th century. In Scotland there was partial conformity with Rome in the early 8th century but remnants of Celtic Christianity survived until Margaret became queen in the second quarter of the 12th century. The Celtic Church in Wales conformed largely in the late 8th century. In Cornwall, apart from a brief period in the 9th century when the Cornish Bishop Kenstec acknowledged the authority of Ceolnoth, Archbishop of Canterbury, 833-870, it wasn't until 930 that the English King Athelstan conquered the Cornish and brought the remnants of the Kingdom of Dumnonia under English control. The Celtic Church in Cornwall then became remodelled on English lines following Roman custom and authority.
What an excellent and accurate account of Celtic Christianity! It is surprising but refreshing to see it presented.
A lot of good information there , do you have a link where i can get more information on the early celtic church?
Yes, and it's used as a stick to beat us with. I even heard a RC accuse a Presbyterian of having her Church ("The Protestant Church" sic) founded by Henry VIII. A reason why History is studied in Universities is to dispel such harmful myths. As discussion here indicates, the origins of the CofE are deep and complex. But on balance I opt for Elizabeth I. In 1558 she became the Protestant Queen of a RC country. By the time of her death in 1603 the CofE was the established church of this country. The Book of Common Prayer of 1547 and 1549, revised in 1662, and the King James Bible of 1611, the greatest and most enduring works of the CofE, have nothing to do with Henry VIII. He would deeply have disapproved of both.