On the Articles: Article XXXVI

The Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

The final Articles of religion deal with a number of more practical matters primarily, while making less significant theological statements. While the Canadian Book of Common Prayer last revised in 1962 contains within it the rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops, the Ordinal, as it was commonly known, was originally published separate to the Book of Common Prayer. Similarly, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion themselves are not published within the BCP but separately. When Anglicans refer to the three formularies, though, they mean the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal referred to in this Article, and the whole of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

At the time of the English Reformation, the question of the right ordination of priests was one that became somewhat contentious. Especially as Mary assumed the throne and sought to restore Roman supremacy to England. This Article affirms the English rites that would be used to ordain priests to Christ’s priestly ministry.

The statement implicitly affirms the right of the English Church to exist as part of the Catholic Church apart from Roman jurisdictional authority, much as the Eastern Orthodox churches have since their inception (meaning since the time of the Apostles, not simply since the Schism in 1054).

This Article relates directly to Article XXIII which defined the need for a properly ordained priest to preside over the sacraments and to preach or teach. It is in this Article that it is clearly defined how we are to know who has properly called by God and consecrated by the Church for that task.

Just as there was an importance in defending the validity of English ordinations, it was also an article that was important in determining the invalidity of Protestant ministers to preside over English Catholics. At times, Protestants sought to take charge and preach and teach within English churches and due to the confusion of the day, this practice was allowed in some locales for a time. It was Article XXIII’s insistence on properly appointed ministers that clarified that it was not a congregational decision who would preach and teach, something that reflected the congregational polity of Presbyterians coming from Scotland, while it was this Article that clarified in perpetuity the importance of the Ordinal as establishing the means, qualifications and rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops.

It should be noted that this Article does not address lay ministers which have always existed as minor orders historically and today are viewed as laity with particular permission to act in a certain way. This includes licensed lay ministers who preach and officiate at services in parishes without permanent clergy as well as catechists and other particular forms of lay ministers who have permission to perform a specific function. These people are not considered to be a form of ordination to holy orders and therefore do not contravene this Article, and similarly find their practice in the authority of the Church to allow for local practices and customs as necessary.

On God the Mother

The First Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the strength of all them that put their trust in thee: Mercifully accept our prayers; and because through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping of thy commandments we may please thee both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

It is both topical and old news that people within the Anglican Communion are working towards adoption of a view of God as Mother. The most recent news comes from a report that fresh on the heels of approving the ordination of female bishops, female clergy are pushing for a formal review of the church’s liturgies to refer to God as mother and using feminine pronouns. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the various national working groups reviewing liturgical resources and our hymn book have long used the term “inclusiveness” to mean using gender neutral and feminine terms to refer to God. There are many reasons presented for this, including that presenting God as Father and using masculine pronouns perpetuates a patriarchal view of society and oppresses women, and that women are more capable of understanding God when he is presented as Mother rather than Father. Other arguments are also presented, but ultimately there is a general two point argument presented in support of whatever the goal for presenting God as mother, or using feminine pronouns, happens to be.

First, God is beyond gender. No right-thinking Christian would disagree with this point. God the Father may be referred to in his identity using the masculine pronouns, and with the term Father, but he is not a man or male.

This is quite true. God is beyond gender, but that isn’t always the point. It would be incorrect to refer to God as ‘it’ though it is something that seems to frequently happen in relation to God the Holy Spirit. God is neither a man, nor male, but neither is he a woman or female.

Second, God is presented often using feminine imagery in the Bible, and therefore it is entirely Scriptural to refer to God as Mother. The most compelling verses come from Isaiah 66, where God himself describes himself as a mother. God says, “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you.” Most other verses compare God to a mother in some way, either human or animal. While these verses tend to be used in support of this position, one of the two counter-arguments for the Scriptural supports is found in them.

In Psalm 131. 2, the Psalmist writes to God saying, “But I have calmed and quietened my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me.” There are two points to be made here. It is not entirely clear that the mother in this picture is meant to be God. As the Psalmist says, “I have quietened my soul,” not, “You have quietened my soul.” Even, however, if we accept that in this image it is meant to be God that is the mother, and not the Psalmist, it is mere imagery in a poem that is being used to give weight to the words. It is describing something by simile. God is not a mother, but acting like a mother acts. Similarly in Hosea 13, God says to Israel, “I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast.” In this passage the image of a mother cub is invoked to show how God will guard Israel. Again it is imagery that conveys the meaning and weight of God’s willingness to protect his chosen people. It does not imply God is in fact a mother bear, and more than the passage in Isaiah or the Psalm should be taken to suggest God is a human woman.

Beyond the fact that these passages are merely using imagery, the most important point is that they are describing attributes of God, but not God’s identity. Again, further proof of this is found in the Gospels, where Christ himself, incarnate as a man, uses the same feminine imagery to describe himself in the Gospels. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Here Christ uses the image of a mother hen protecting her chicks to describe how he would protect Israel, but it in no way impacts his identity. A practical example could also serve. How often has a father been described as protecting his children in the same way as a mother bear? Does this impact his identity as a father, or impact the use of the male pronouns for him? Certainly not, so why would a similar image in Hosea cause us to act any differently towards God the Father?

St Justin Martyr once wrote that, “no one can give a name to God, who is too great for words; if anyone dares to say it is possible to do so, he must be suffering from an incurable madness.” Here he makes two points. First, yes God is beyond gender: too great for words. Second, no one can give name to God. It is fine to use imagery or other words to describe God’s nature, but it is different to seek to change his identity by naming him.

One last argument that is sometimes raised, usually in connection with the first idea of God being beyond gender is that the use of masculine pronouns and Jesus’s identification of God as, “our Father,” is simply an entrenchment of patriarchal values of Jesus’s day. He spoke in terms that were acceptable to the male-dominated culture of his day, or the Bible writers merely recorded his words that way because of their own biases.

The first argument is easily disproved by the Gospel of St John. In chapter 6, Christ performs many signs and miracles, and then finishes the chapter preaching at the Synagogue in Capernaum where he tells the assembled Jews that he is the true bread of life and that all must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. This was abhorrent to the Jews, given the Jewish dietary restrictions against the consumption of blood and human flesh. They ask for clarification of what he means by this, thinking there must be some other meaning, but he again says clearly and without any desire to avoid offending their sensibilities maintains that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to receive eternal life. A few verses later, the Gospel records:

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (St Jn 6. 60-63)

It was a hard saying and they were offended. Christ came not to weave himself into Jewish society, but to reveal God’s truth and love. There is no compromising that truth or love.

According to St Justin Martyr, anyone who seeks to redefine God’s identity must be insane. There is another possibility, however, and it is that they simply are not yet ready to submit to God. Rather than transforming ourselves to conform to God, we seek to transform God to conform to our expectations of him, or in this case her, and in doing so, we replace God with ourselves.

Christ came into the world to save sinners, to reconcile us to God, not to allow us to transform God to be more like ourselves.

Upon hearing Christ’s difficult and troubling words, his disciples asked, “who can listen to it?” The answer must be all those who wish truly to follow Christ, for as he answers, “the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

On the Anglican Communion

The Fifth Sunday in Lent commonly called Passion Sunday

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, mercifully to look upon thy people; that by thy great goodness they may be governed and preserved evermore, both in body and soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For someone who was neither raised Anglican, nor raised in a Commonwealth country, the Anglican Communion may take a word of explanation. This is particularly true for someone who is not familiar with Anglicanism at all, but has some basic knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church. Due to the many outward similarities—vestments, liturgies, etc—someone might think of the Anglican Communion as being a very similar structure to the Roman Catholic Church, with its leadership vested simply in the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the Bishop of Rome.

This, however, is not the case. The Anglican Communion is in fact an association of 38 autonomous national Anglican churches, called provinces, which are in full communion with the Church of England. While the Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals, his position is more akin to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the early Christian East or the Bishop of Rome in the early Western Church. The Archbishop has precedence of honour, but does not directly exercise authority outside of the Church of England as the Bishop of Rome does today.

While in certain ways, this organization more closely resembles both the organization of the Early Church as well as in certain ways the continued organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church, much like Anglicanism itself, the Anglican Communion is a product of its history.

With England spreading its political power throughout the world in the form of the British Empire, religion was sure to follow. The Church of England held services in Canada in 1578 and the first permanent Anglican parish established in North America was in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607.

Following the American war for independence, the Episcopal Church was founded, borrowing its naming convention from the Scottish Episcopal Church. With the ordination of William White and Samuel Provoost in 1787, there was a direct tie to the Church of England by an autonomous national Anglican church, foreshadowing the nature of the Anglican Communion.

Shortly afterwards, Charles Inglish was consecrated as the Bishop of Nova Scotia, and given episcopal oversight over all of British territories in North America. Over the next hundred years, many more colonial bishops would be consecrated as a result of various English missionary societies. Missionaries had established Anglican churches throughout the British Empire, and it was in 1840 that Bishop Blomfeld of London published a letter asking the Archbishop of Canterbury extend the episcopate, as by this time there were millions of practicing Anglicans in the colonies, thus far only ten colonial bishops had been consecrated. As a result of his advocacy, the Colonial Bishoprics Council was created, and many new colonial sees and bishops were created.

While these first bishops were originally quite tied to England—they were de facto extra-territorial suffragan bishops in practice—they would ultimately gain greater autonomy over time, both personally and legislatively. After a series of legal decision relating to the stipends of colonial bishops in the 1850s and 1860s, colonial churches were given the ability to appoint and consecrate their own bishops.

This autonomy in the appointment of bishops led in 1867 led to the first Lambeth Conference, which was attended by 76 bishops from around the world. While in many ways modelled on the ecumenical councils of the Early Church, the Lambeth Conference was not designed to be authoritative, due in large part to the desires of colonial bishops to maintain their autonomy with respect to local circumstances, and instead the Lambeth Conferences were designed to be consultative in nature, helping bishops to from different parts of the world to connect with one another and in particular in the early days of the conferences, to help English bishops in the Church of England to understand the challenges and struggles of the colonial bishops.

In Canada in particular, the first Canadian synods were established in the 1850s, the first Canadian synods were established at the local level, and in 1861 the Church of England in Canada (a name that would be retained until the 1970s when it became the Anglican Church of Canada) became somewhat self-governing, though again largely this meant greater local autonomy rather than a colony wide organization for Anglicans in British North America. It took until 1893 for the first General Synod to be called in Canada, and one of its first acts was to promulgate the Solemn Declaration of 1893. This document laid out the relationship between the Church of England in Canada and the Church of England, as well as the limits on the autonomy of the Canadian General Synod.

Of particular importance, the Solemn Declaration declared that the Church in Canada would be in full communion with the Church of England, that it received the catholicity of the Church of England, described as:

one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders…

This description incorporates the four tenets of the early Church: one canon of Holy Scripture, one faith defined by the three creeds and seven Ecumenical Councils of the early Church, the one sacramental life and the threefold order of apostolic ministry.

The solemn declaration goes on to incorporate the three Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

This model would become fairly standard for the way in which the relationship between the Church of England and her daughter churches around the world would be viewed. It should be noted that while there is an emphasis on full communion with the Church of England, doctrine comes from the formularies and the early Church, not the Church of England itself.

In modern times, the Anglican Communion has added two more “Instruments of Communion” to the decennial Lambeth Conferences, namely the standing Anglican Consultative Council and the Primate’s Meetings. All three of these instruments work together to help provide a venue for dialogue and discussion, but unlike, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, it is not the Archbishop of Canterbury that provides doctrinal leadership for all worldwide Anglicans, but in theory the inheritance of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, along with Anglican catholicity, the Scriptures, the creeds and councils, the sacraments and the order of ministry.

On the History of the Prayer Book

The Second Sunday in Advent

BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

When the Church of England gained its independence from the Bishop of Rome, there was no equivalent to the Prayer Book in use in England. Different books existed for different rites. For instance, the Sarum Rite Missal which provided for the Eucharist, The Breviary provided for the daily offices while The Ritual included rites related to the other sacraments such as baptism, marriage and the funeral rites. The Pontifical was the Bishop’s book which included rites for ordinations.

These were maintained during the reign of Henry VIII who, despite having removed the Pope’s temporal authority over the Church and Realm of England, did not support continental reformers in the Protestant movement. It was not until the reign of his successor, Edward VI, that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer was able to compile the first version of the Book of Common Prayer, which collected the various offices and sacraments together, and provided for them in English. The title Book of Common Prayer can be misleading to some because Common was not meant to refer to it as being ordinary, but rather that it was shared by all. This was in keeping with the restoration of the practices of the early church of holding services in the local vernacular, rather than the later practice which had developed in the Western Roman Church which had required all services to be held in Latin regardless of local vernacular and whether or not the people would understand anything.

Cranmer’s work began in 1547 upon Edward VI’s coronation and the first version of the Book of Common Prayer was completed and authorized for use in 1549. It represented a slightly reformed theology, in keeping with Cranmer’s personal views, and collected the daily offices, readings for Sundays and Holy Days throughout the year, the Holy Communion, baptism, confirmation, holy matrimony, visitation of the sick and burial. An ordinal with rites for the ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons was added in 1550. The entire Prayer Book was only intended to be temporary and was supplanted by a new version in 1552.

The 1552 Prayer Book included several more revisions from the 1549 version, adjusting and removing certain aspects of Roman influence and doctrine. By the time of the 1552 version, it was quite explicit in the Prayer Book that humanity could offer no works to God which would contribute to their salvation, in contrast with Roman doctrines on salvation. Other aspects of Roman practice remained, however. The Sarum Rite was created in the 11th century, and thus it included within the Nicene Creed the filioque. The filioque has been preserved in the Book of Common Prayer since, however several ecumenical statements between the Anglican Communion and Eastern Orthodox Church have stressed that future revisions of Anglican Liturgy would remove the filioque clause.

With the death of Edward VI in 1553, however, the Roman Catholic Queen Mary I took the throne, and the Marian persecutions began as Roman practices were restored. Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake in 1556, however his work survived him as Cranmer’s 1552 Book of Common Prayer was restored in 1559 upon the coronation of Queen Elizabeth I. Over the next hundred years, several more revisions would take place as the English Civil Wars would challenge the religious status quo in England.

At the relative end of this bloody and destructive period, a new Prayer Book was published in 1662. This final version for the Book of Common Prayer, published along-side the Ordinal, represented a final acceptance of the fractured reality of English Christianity. While the previous Prayer Books were essentially used by all Christians in England, by the time the 1662 Prayer Book was published, it was the book used by Anglicans, while nonconformist protestants would develop their own liturgical books and styles. The 1662 Prayer Book represents the first truly Anglican Prayer Book, through it continues to hold to much of the language and theology of Cranmer’s original 1549 version.

The 1662 Prayer Book is viewed, alongside the Ordinal and 39 Articles of Religion, as one of the formularies of Anglicanism, as its doctrine fully reflects the breadth of Anglican doctrine in the way that was desired of the 1552 Prayer Book, which continental German reformer Martin Bucer hoped would make “fully perfect” the doctrines made implicit in the 1549 Book.

In addition to its doctrinal implications, the Book of Common Prayer 1662 is considered a literary classic, having introduced many phrases into the English language. While it was written in the language of the people, Cranmer maintained a particular poetic style that has made the Book of Common Prayer a classic along the lines of Shakespeare and the King James Bible. Such lines include, “speak now or forever hold your peace,” from the sacrament of Holy Matrimony or the even more famous, “ashes to ashes, dust to dust,” from the funeral rite.

As Anglicanism spread throughout the world with the expansion of the British Empire, so did the Book of Common Prayer. The Prayer Book has been locally adapted in many places, sometimes with more or less changes. In Canada, the 1962 Prayer Book minimally updates the language—mainly adjusting spelling to more conventional modern spelling while maintaining the original language and poetry—and rather simply adding some local observances, prayers suitable to local occasions and so forth. Others, such as the American Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer represent a significant break from the 1662 Prayer Book tradition.

While the Book of Common Prayer remains extremely popular, it has been supplanted, both in England and in Canada, by modern alternative service books. Common Worship was introduced in the Church of England in 2000, and contains significantly revised liturgies, far less restrictive rubrics and updated language, while the Anglican Church of Canada had similarly authorized the Book of Alternative Services in 1985 with similar modifications. While these books have become the most commonly used, their strongest proponents do tend at least to view them as being in continuity with the Prayer Book and reflective of the theology and doctrine espoused by Cranmer.

The modern philosopher Roger Scruton, however, takes the approach of a purist, saying that, “To describe the new services as ‘alternatives’ to Cranmer is like describing Eastenders as an ‘alternative’ to Shakespeare, or Lady Gaga as an ‘alternative’ to Bach.” Debates over the effect of language are central to the discussion of the continued relevance of the Prayer Book, and the utility of modernised alternatives such as Common Worship and the Book of Alternative Services.

On the Church of England

The Eighth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth: We humbly beseech thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which be profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Whereas last week’s entry spoke to the origins of the Ecclesia Anglicana, the English Church, this week’s entry takes place in the 16th century, discussing the ending of communion between the English Church and Rome and the origin of the modern Church of England.

While the history of the English Church is relatively unknown in popular terms, particularly among non-Anglicans who focus purely on the idea of King Henry VIII replacing the pope as the head of the church in order to grant himself a divorce, it is at least relatively straight forward. The same cannot be said for the true history behind the English Church’s break with Rome and subsequent development into the modern Church of England and Anglican Communion. One of the reasons for this is that this portion of the Church of England’s history mixes together influences of both theology and politics.

The history of Christianity is replete with politics interfering with the governance of the Church, dating back to the early 4th century when the legalization of Christianity allowed early Christians, and their leaders, to focus on more than merely their own survival. Emperor Constantine the Great himself called the Council of Nicaea as a way of hopefully resolving some of the debates which had sprung up among the bishops throughout the Empire, and in doing so established the beginning of a precedent of civil interference in religious matters, a precedent which was not lost on many of the bishops who attended the council. In following years, the pro-Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia used his influence with Emperor Constantine to attack various anti-Arian bishops including Saint Athanasius and have them exiled. He further exerted influence with the Emperor to appoint Arian clergy and promote Arian doctrines in the Church in opposition to the Nicene Creed and Trinitarian formula that had been adopted by the Council of Nicaea.

The political influence of the Pope has a long history that dates back to the 4th century when the Roman Empire began to be split. Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were among the foremost cities in the Empire (to which was later added Constantinople). While Rome was originally the capital, under Constantine and subsequent Emperors, the capital was moved and the Empire often split between the leadership of a number of co-leaders. For many years, then, the Bishop of Rome was the senior most authority in Rome, and the Roman people looked to him not simply for spiritual leadership, but civic leadership as well. With the fall of the Roman Empire, the Bishop’s authority grew even greater as civic authority was disbanded. The powerful Roman Bishop easily moved into the vacuum created by the fall of the Western Empire, and over the centuries the religious and civic authority of the Pope was solidified to the point where in the 16th century the Pope was not just the leader of Western Christianity, but his own state and quite often a well-heeded advisor of numerous European monarchs.

Other examples are found of political influence in every era of the church. By the 16th century, however, perhaps the best example of this confluence of religion and politics was the Pope himself, who was not merely the head of the Catholic Church, but also the Head of State of the Papal States and an important political player in European statecraft. Pope Leo X had allied himself with King Henry and his allies a number of times over the years. Notably, perhaps, in exchange for a sum of money to support Leo’s ambitions of obtaining political authority for his relatives in the tumultuous Italian peninsula, Leo joined the Papal forces in an alliance with Spain and England against France. Ultimately, with Henry’s financial support for a military campaign, Leo’s nephew was confirmed as the Duke of Urbino.

It was under Pope Leo X that Martin Luther initiated what would become the Protestant Reformation. While the Reformation is perhaps best remembered today for opening the way to major theological expansion, Luther’s original goals were more limited to the reform of abuses being perpetrated by the Roman Church and by various clerics under Roman authority, most notably concerning the practice of indulgences. Indulgences were a form of remission of temporal punishment associated with an already forgiven sin. It was associated with alms during the early church, but as the practice grew in popularity during the medieval period, it became little more than a tax used to support various projects including the rebuilding of St Peter’s Basilica by Pope Leo X, which ultimately prompted Luther’s opposition.

Luther published his famous Ninety-Five Theses protesting various abuses of the Roman Church, sparking the Protestant Reformation. Pope Leo X’s response was to reject Luther’s demands for reform, and in this he was supported by his political ally King Henry VIII who, for his support of the Pope, was awarded the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) by Pope Leo X just prior to his death in December 1521.

It was under Pope Clement VII that communion between Rome and England ended. By 1527 Henry was becoming so concerned with the failure of his wife, Catherine of Aragon, to bear him a male heir that he took the matter to Pope Clement VII asking for an annulment on the basis of Leviticus 20. 21. At the time, however, Rome was besieged by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and nephew of Catherine of Aragon. Faced with the political pressure of Charles’ sacking of Rome in May 1527, Clement VII refused Henry’s request and a number of subsequent requests for an annulment. Over the course of the next three years it became clear to Henry and his advisors that no annulment would be forthcoming.

The politics of Pope Clement VII were making him an unreliable ally to the still staunchly Catholic Henry VIII. Papal supremacy was looking less like the spiritual primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and more like the political supremacy of a foreign and not necessarily friendly or reliable European state leader. In 1532, with the political support of King Francis I of France, Henry married Anne Boleyn and by the next year had his marriage and annulment of his marriage Catherine of Aragon recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. When news of the marriage reached Pope Clement VII, he excommunicated both Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer from the Roman Catholic Church. Over the next few years and with Henry’s support, the English Parliament passed a number of laws that redefined the relationship between the Pope and the English crown and state, curbing the Pope’s political authority in England.

The 1534 Act of Supremacy marks the full break of the English Church with Rome, declaring the King to be the supreme head of the Church of England. Supremacists argued that the Pope’s actions were being dictated by civil and political considerations rather than religion, and thus if the Church of England was to have a civil authority over it, it should rightly be an English, and not foreign, one. It should be noted that while there had been a political divorce from Roman authority, Henry VIII remained dogmatically inclined to Rome and following a visit by a number of Lutheran theologians in 1538, Henry had Parliament pass the Act of Six Articles, a precursor to the current Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which maintained complete orthodoxy with Roman Catholic belief.

The Church of England’s independence from Rome stemmed from Reformation issues, but rather than being based in theology, it dealt primarily with abuses of political authority rather than religious authority. The Roman Catholic Church, in its counter-reformation Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, recognized these issues explicitly with respect to indulgences, defending the theological value of indulgences while condemning the temporal abuses through the sale of indulgences. The Act of Supremacy is often cited as the start of the English Reformation, a period of significant instability in England. Not everyone accepted the King’s actions, and not everyone supported Henry’s retention of Roman Catholic doctrine. To this day, Henry VIII is not commemorated in the Anglican Communion. It would take until the Restoration in the 1660s before the issues of doctrine had been finally settled to the point where they would be able to remain intact to the present day and the current formulation of the Church of England would become recognizable with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion published therein.