The Church of England, plus much of the acrimony with and discrimination against Catholics started when Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon, in defiance of the Pope, to marry Anne Boleyn, proclaiming himself head of the Church in England when he did so. But he later executed Anne Boleyn, the mother of Elizabeth I when she also failed to provide the much longed-for male heir to the throne. Jane Seymour provided the wherewithall, but Edward VI, a Protestant, who succeeded his father, died at a young age. His eldest half-sister, Mary Tudor, sometimes called Bloody Mary, married the King of Spain, Philip II, and both wanted England to revert to Catholicism. When Mary died, she was succeeded by Elizabeth 1, also known as Good Queen Bess and the Virgin Queen.
Elizabeth I's government did the most to establish the Church of England, having little option to do otherwise, since her mother wasn't recognised as a legitimate wife of Henry VIII by the Catholics. Instead the Catholics thought that Mary, Queen of Scots, the Catholic grand-daughter of Henry's sister Margaret, was the legitimate ruler of England. Mary's son, James I of England and VI of Scotland, ushered in the Stuart era, and though he, himself, was a Protestant, married to a Protestant, his ruling son and grandsons married Catholic princesses, and toyed with the idea of turning Catholic, themselves. Subsequent to James II being chased out of Britain, to this day, the Royal family has to marry Protestants or disqualify themselves from succession to the throne. That is, despite the Anglican church no longer being the state religion and it being now illegal to discriminate otherwise against RC's in UK.
The head of the Church of England is Queen Elizabeth II, though much of the overall administration etc would be in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury, traditionally the Primate or head churchman of the Church of England. Matters of doctrine are decided by the Anglican synods.
Stylteralmaldo, I don't put much weight on the recent Catholic invite to Anglicans, though some may very well decide on Catholicism. Because to join the Catholic church is to acknowledge that the Pope is the infallible head of the Church and there are many Anglicans who might disagree. Including C.S.Lewis, I would imagine.
Not only that, but a whole heap of Anglican clergy aren't going to divorce their wives to turn Catholic, and it would be unreasonable and unholy to ask them to do so. If Catholics permit married ex-Anglican clergy to practise in the Catholic church, how are they going to preserve their requirement of celibate clergy, not a requirement in either the Anglican/Episcopalian or the Orthodox churches?
Aravis Narnia wrote:I wonder what specifically is the biggest theological difference between the church of Rome and the church of England. There has to be more than just ritual differences, authority differences, or moral/social viewpoint differences.
The biggest theological differences between Anglicans and Catholics, to my knowledge, apart from the issue of married clergy and the overall authority of the Pope would be the doctrine of transubstantiation. Many Catholics believe that when you take Communion that the bread and wine are not just symbolic and 'in memory of Christ's body and blood, shed for you for the remission of sins'. They believe that the bread and wine literally and miraculously become Christ's body and blood.
I don't know what other Protestants believe, and notice that even in Anglican circles transubstatiation is rarely discussed, unlike among Catholics. Another glaring difference is the attitude to Mary, Mother of Christ, who in Catholic circles can be prayed to, with or without rosary beads.
I've been to Mass a few times, as a guest or in memory of a colleague who recently died. I notice that when RCs take communion it is only the wafer they have, never a sip of wine, unlike us Anglicans. They line up in the middle of the church, much as we do, but they do not kneel at the altar rail. The priest comes to them, and once given the wafer they peel off back to their seats. As
Coracle says, above, Article 30 of the thirty nine articles says that in the Anglican church, Communion is to be taken in both kinds, and that the cup is not to be denied to lay people. With current concerns about swine flu, we have little cups you can collect on the way up to the altar, which the officiating minister will bless, and if you object to alcohol, grape juice is also available.
I never felt free to take Communion with the Catholics, though as a stranger I might not have been noticed if I did. Not only was the ritual different from what I was used to, with no sidespersons to indicate when it was my turn, but also I believe in the Catholic Church you are not supposed to take Communion if you haven't made your confession to a priest beforehand. Whereas Protestants and Anglicans alike are not required to do this formally, to a priest, at any rate. It isn't only High Church Anglicans who can confess to a minister if they wish, and counsel from a priest can be a boon for those in trouble and distress. But unlike the Catholic church, formal confession is not set up as a pre-Communion requirement.
There is also a difference in what Anglicans and Catholics regard as a sacrament. Anglicans see baptism and communion as sacraments of course, but the Catholics also include as sacraments, extreme unction, confirmation, marriage and the ordination of priests. I'm not so sure about this demarcation though, and can well believe that High Church Anglicans would see things differently. Perhaps experts like
Dr Ransom or
MarkSommers could help with this?
I doubt that C.S.Lewis' non-denominational style and his sticking to 'Mere Christianity' would impel him to adopt Catholicism, whatever the events of today, as respectful of their beliefs as he was. But don't forget also, that it wasn't until after C.S.Lewis died that the Catholic church made the biggest change it had done in centuries when it allowed services to be conducted in one's own language, rather than in Latin. It isn't that C.S.Lewis didn't know Latin - he did, and enjoyed and appreciated that language. But in his lifetime he struggled with different languages, unlike Tolkien, and it shows in his Narnia books, in particular, where he does little dabbling with alternative languages, despite dreaming up several different countries existing over hundreds of years.