I've enjoyed this understanding of Anglicanism in the US. As an Episcopalian, I’ve come to get a better understanding of the divisions. For the people arguing in the comments. My dad was in the second graduating class at Trinity School for Ministry. Dr Rodgers used to invite seminarians and their families to dinners, especially when there were visiting dishops from other nations. So there I was, laying on the floor watching tv after dinner , a preteen in a room full of important people, when during a pause in the program, I accidentally passed gas. I trumpeted out a loud long blast, guaranteed to have registered on seismic equipment. The cutest girl I ever met next to me. I was mortified. To their credit, Anglican bishops and theologians from around the world said nothing. 😂
This is what I needed, I am a cradle Anglican so it's good to know your roots, I would also like to learn about the history of The Book Of Common Prayer.
Check out Alan Jacob's book, "The Book of Common Prayer: A Biography." It is fantastic. www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691191786/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=book+of+common+prayer+a+biography&qid=1620999038&sr=8-3
I really enjoyed this documentary. You answered so many questions I've been searching for many years. Thank you. I copied most of it by writing it down.
@@clivejames5058 the traditional Arch Bishop Crammer 16th Century myth of attempting to craft "the middle way." It's Lutheran in design in attempting to break away from the Catholic line. Of course there is the Bishop problem. Claiming there was an independent line of Bishops as early as the 4th Century. It's similar to what Mormans make up in invented North America history.
The apostle Paul converted the Celts of Galatia and Gaul to Christianity around 40/50 AD and they brought Christianity to the British Isles along with Christians in the deserts of North Africa. Around AD 390 Martin in Gaul and his apprentice, Ninian in Whithorn, Galloway founded mission communities and just a little later, a century of Christian evangelism begins by Patrick, Brigid, Brendan and Columba. The latter created missions in Iona and Scotland. For any Catholics out there, The Roman Church was nowhere to be seen until they invaded our shores in AD 597 and eventually imposed total Papal authority in England in AD 664, In Ireland in AD 696, in Scotland in AD 716 and in Wales by AD 755. So, you're right, the Anglican Church was not started by Henry VIIIth - it had been suppressed and thankfully, the Reformation allowed us to retrieve our Biblical faith, away from the corrupted powers of the Roman Rite.
I know you were summarizing here, but it might have been nice to clarify that before the Great Schism of1054 (although issues started earlier) there was no "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" church per se, and the Bishop of Rome was "first among equals" in the Church rather than Supreme Pontiff. In fact, there are Eastern Orthodox now who are trying to resurrect a Western rite of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as would have been practiced pre-Great Schism. Of course, this all gets rather confusing as there are both "Eastern" Catholics and "Western" Eastern Orthodox.
I learned the beginning of the English Church a little differently. Anglicanism as we know it today is from Henry VIII. The Celtic Church traces itself back to the first century and very likely went to England in the second century. This was in the time when the Churches were more like what the Orthodox Church is today - separate Churches but in communion with one another and holding to the same teachings. The Nicene Creed, as was originally written in Greek, does not contain the "Filioque" (or "...and the Son") when mentioning the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the Anglican Church today, it does. (There is another item in the English version only of the Creed where Christ rose "again". The word "again" doesn't appear in the Greek or Latin versions and I have not found it in German, French, Spanish, or Portuguese. I don't know the Middle East and Far East languages, so I don't know about the versions there.) The Celtic and English Churches existed prior to the 1054 split, when the Pope decided to enforce the "Supreme Pontiff" on the rest of the Christian Churches. There were other issues leading up to the split as well. Somewhere in the eighth or ninth centuries we see the Popes beginning to exert the title of "First among Equals" to "First, Supreme, and Head of the Church". In the Orthodox Churches (or jurisdictions) Jesus is the Head of the Church and no man. Henry made himself Head of the English Church, hence departing from the original English or Anglican Church. I don't think it is right to equate the original English Church with Anglicanism today - that's my opinion based on my understand and studies. Thank you for the video. I am happy someone has presented the fact that Christianity did exist in England and Ireland long before the Pope declared the Roman Church to be the only Christian Church.
It isbn't called the Roman Church.The pope is head of the whole Catholic Church,not just the Roman Rite.There's the Byzantine Catholic church,Armenian Catholic Church,Coptic Catholic Church,Syro-Malabar Cathiolic Church and 21 other Easter Catholic Churches all in union with the Bishop of Rome.The Catholic Church was in England for centuries like it was in other countries.The Church of England is 100% a product of King Henry VIII who was a heretic and excommunicated.the only authentic version of Anglican Christianity is the Anglican Ordinariate of the Catholic Church which is in union with Rome
@@richlopez4466 Where did I write Roman RITE Church? I didn't. I am quite aware of all the different rites within the Church or Rome, if you wish. The Roman Church or the Church in Rome and all her adherents are in schism of the True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Roman Church is used mostly to convey the Western Church in schism and all who hold that the Pope, and not Jesus Christ, is the head of the Church.
@@BpGregor Jesus Christ established His Catholic Church in 33 A.D and is head of it.The Bishop of Rome("Pope") is merely the earthly head of it as St. Peter the apostle was,not the excommunicated and heretic monarch of England like the Anglicans believe.Anybody not in union with Rome is in a state of schism. "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas{'Rock']--of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all." - St. Optatus,bishop of Milevus (The schism of the Donatists 2;2) A.D. 367
@@richlopez4466 Please don't try to teach me Christian or Church History. I have been studying it longer than you have been alive, unless you're older than 63. The Pope separated himself from the true Church when he declared himself "Supreme Pontiff". That title was never put before an Ecumenical Council. He became a heretic when he allowed a "local" council to declare him infallible. Only the Church is infallible not one man, who then became the dictator of the Church. The visible head of the Church is seen in her Councils when the Holy Spirit is sent to guide those in council. That's why a council must be unanimous in its decisions - because the Holy Spirit cannot be divided. Or was the Holy Spirit on Pentecost sent as a joke? You have your opinions and I have correct Theology. So, for me, this conversation is ended. God bless you abundantly. (Oh, by the way, I am a retired Orthodox Bishop. I came to Orthodoxy from the Roman Church by two Byzantine - Roman Catholic - priests, who taught me much of my Theology. And, the Orthodox Church also has several different rites, including a Western Rite, which was developed and approved under Patriarch Tikon, of blessed memory, long before either of us were born.). Again, may you be blessed abundantly.
@@BpGregor It was an excommunicated Patriarch and bishops who side with him who left the Catholic Church in 1054 and are still in a state of schism.That was certainly not the first time Constantinople acted up btw.ALL of the Early Church Fathers were Catholic and recognized Rome as the head btw.The Bible was created at the Council of Rome in 382 headed by Pope Damasus I and in order for a Council to be considered Ecumenical it had to be ratified by a Pope.it was alos the Pope who excommunicated heretics.it was also the pope who set the date for easter in 189 A.D. and Christmas in 350 A.D.It was also the Pope that defended Icon use while the Patriarch of Constantinople was in favor of iconoclasm.The first 1,000 years of Christianity are Catholic. "The Lord says to Peter: ' I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,and the gates of hell will not overcome it...On him{Peter} he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles,yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity...If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter,can he imagine that he still holds the faith? Can he still be confident he is in the Church?" - St. Cyprian,bishop of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4) A.D. 251
Catholic Church Origin? What do you mean? Do you read the Anglican Creeds? The Nicene, the Athanasius and the Apostles Creeds? Don't they all indicate that Anglicanism is part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? May be you wanted to mean Roman Origin! But unfortunately, the Church of Rome, is not known as part of the Catholic Church by the XXXIX Articles of Religion! Her practices and Doctrine are neither Apostolic nor Catholic. The Anglican is according to me the best representative of the true Catholic and Apostolic Church, though Rome has always contended to keep in its name the word Catholic! Besides, St Peter being burried in Rome does not make Rome Peter's Church, but it's faithfulness to his teaching of the Lord's Gospel!
1536 all monasteries abolished. This is just mentioned in passing. This was a big event. What was the motivation for this? Were these assets seized by the King?
I'm thankful for this informative breakdown of what's what. Currently, I'm not affiliated with any religion. I'm seeking out the group which most closely adheres to the teachings and practices of the early church of the apostles. I'm in Albuquerque. I'll Google ACNA to see if there's a congregation in New Mexico.
Kelly: Hint: The Church of the early Apostles was Catholic. It was already known as the Catholic Church by the year 107 A.D. ( St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8)
@@alhilford2345 that is such a silly argument for Catholicism. The Roman Catholic church has quite clearly become apostate and does not at all resemble the early church/Biblical Christianity.
You should add a segment on Henry II, who argued that the historically separate origin of the English Church should all him to have priests and bishops tried in the King's courts rather than in ecclesiastical courts. The threat of excommunication and unrest within his kingdom made him recant.
and at least note that Elizabeth burned as many Catholics as the Protestants who died while Mary was queen: www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zrpcwmn/revision/6#:~:text=There%20were%20plots%20and%20rebellions,Catholics%20as%20Mary%20burned%20Protestants.
@@jeffcronin1994 Well, Mary Tudor only reigned for 5 years and in that short time brought the foreign Spanish Inquisition to England to round up and execute Protestants. Elizabeth reigned for 45 and there was also that nasty business of the Vatican instigating to have her assassinated! Moreover, a good number of nonconformist Puritans also lost their heads under Elizabeth as well.
It is true about St Joseph of Arimathea! Archaeologist recently found the foundations of an 8 sided church built exactly like one in Jerusalem and that both buildings were well documented. This 8 sided church foundation was under the Lady Chapel foundation at Glastonbury. Also, you forgot to mention the 3 mysterious bishops that showed up at one of the early Church Councils in Europe. This shocked the Council which asked these 3 bishops where did they come from, they replied that a Churches have been in Briton since Roman times and that St Joseph of Arimathea established the first church in Glastonbury.
Very interesting it's good to no how the Anglican church started. To my understanding wasn't it the Anglican church in Japan who first started the ordination of women priest in the Anglican Communion. I'd love to if it is so.
Jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome should not be confused with being 'in communion with' that same See. I think this point was not clarified, and should have been done so in relation to the status of missions, churches and dioceses in the first 5 centuries of European Christianity, especially because of the Imperial office up to the time of the Byzantines. Also, even if the Synod of Whitby (regional council) took place in the 7th Century, it can't be assumed that the English church itself was an independent church from Rome for 'six hundred years' as you said. There were many other regions in Europe and Africa where ecclesiastical jurisdictions varied over time, but all remained in communion with the See of Peter in Rome. Also, the fact that on 4th December 1154 Nicholas Breakspear was elected as Pope Adrian IV, the only Englishman to have served on the papal throne, was omitted in your chronology but that proved that there was a strong ecclesiastical communion, and it would have helped to explain how a church may operate at 'arms length' exactly, in terms of its adoption of canons etc. I don't think there is any evidence that the ancient Anaphora (Eucharistic canon) used by Christians in Greek in the West in the first centuries was retained by the early pre/Celtic Churches. The documents suggest they were already using the Latin rite in some form, and this indicates it cannot have been an independent rite from the first century Christians that located themselves in Britain or the isles. The existence of Christians, Christian communities in a territory prior to the establishment of a formal diocese does not mean it is an 'independent' church with its own rites, canons etc. There are many instances of missions established in territories which later became formalised, and technically, they remain under some clerical chain of authority. This is true of the establishment of formal diocese in Korea, Japan, as well. At 33:00 you said that 'at this time there was two versions of the bible' in use, presumably you meant in 'English'. Yet we know that by the early 1600s there were many English vernacular translations circulating for private use, as opposed to ecclesiastical use. 📚
“The Anglican Church was a church independent of Rome” Fine…. Independent in its own Rite, but still in communion with Rome- so still Catholic. To say the early church in England was “Anglican” -as in its own denomination, before Henry VIII is hugely disingenuous. I watched this video in hopes to understand the roots Anglicanism better, but it really does sound revisionist and a case of powerful figures revising their history to fit their choices.
43:23. There was "pushback" before 2000 starting with the Affirmation of St. Louis in 1974 which led to the formation of the Continuing Anglican denominations. WHY DID YOU OMIT THIS MAJOR MILESTONE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? You most probably did so on purpose!!!!!!!!!
"The end of the Episcopal Church." As a new Christian who is Episcopalian, i hate to hear this. Women clergy. How dreadful. We believe the same creed you do. I really did enjoy this history, tho. Well done.
Why have most Anglican tries to eradicate catholicsm in their histories with all these nonsense Celtic claim , when if u look at Anglicanism in one would say they are catholic why ? Cos Anglicanism is from afar is more catholic..... Pls if Celtic is what u claim , identify ur today retained Celtic ideas .
Unfortunately Rome is not Catholic, Anglicanism is well part of the true Catholic and Apostolic Church, In fact by far, the most representative thereof. If St. Peter would come now, which prayer book would he choose to use? Which Bishop would he consider spiritually valid and superior? Scripture can answer these! The BCP 1662 and the Bishop who uses it would be his Choice! So I think!
@@alhilford2345 Well, no. IF - and it is a big if - IF he ordained anyone, it was when he commissioned the apostles to bind and loose on earth (with this promise that what they bound and loosed would be honoured in heaven). Christ himself instituted only two sacraments - baptism and communion (a.k.a. eucharist, lord's supper). The other five sacraments (including ordination) find their origin and legitimacy in Scripture, certainly, but none of these five were instituted by Christ.
@@alhilford2345I think you mean Pentecost. And it happened earlier than that too I believe. He sent them out to cast out demons and heal the sick - at the time only to the Jewish community.
At last. !!!! Someone talking about Christianity around 50 ad. Many many thanks. Warren
I've enjoyed this understanding of Anglicanism in the US. As an Episcopalian, I’ve come to get a better understanding of the divisions.
For the people arguing in the comments. My dad was in the second graduating class at Trinity School for Ministry. Dr Rodgers used to invite seminarians and their families to dinners, especially when there were visiting dishops from other nations. So there I was, laying on the floor watching tv after dinner , a preteen in a room full of important people, when during a pause in the program, I accidentally passed gas. I trumpeted out a loud long blast, guaranteed to have registered on seismic equipment. The cutest girl I ever met next to me. I was mortified. To their credit, Anglican bishops and theologians from around the world said nothing. 😂
This is what I needed, I am a cradle Anglican so it's good to know your roots, I would also like to learn about the history of The Book Of Common Prayer.
Check out Alan Jacob's book, "The Book of Common Prayer: A Biography." It is fantastic. www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691191786/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=book+of+common+prayer+a+biography&qid=1620999038&sr=8-3
i found this doing a project on Anglicanism - this has been a really big help, sending my thanks :)))
Thank you, Fr. Eric, for a very informative "short course" on where Anglicanism started and where, in the USA, Anglicanism is today.
I really enjoyed this documentary. You answered so many questions I've been searching for many years. Thank you. I copied most of it by writing it down.
Good morning beauty
Its propaganda not a documentary, utterly not historical.
@@captainmarvel76927 What aspects are not historical?
@@clivejames5058 the traditional Arch Bishop Crammer 16th Century myth of attempting to craft "the middle way." It's Lutheran in design in attempting to break away from the Catholic line. Of course there is the Bishop problem. Claiming there was an independent line of Bishops as early as the 4th Century. It's similar to what Mormans make up in invented North America history.
The apostle Paul converted the Celts of Galatia and Gaul to Christianity around 40/50 AD and they brought Christianity to the British Isles along with Christians in the deserts of North Africa. Around AD 390 Martin in Gaul and his apprentice, Ninian in Whithorn, Galloway founded mission communities and just a little later, a century of Christian evangelism begins by Patrick, Brigid, Brendan and Columba. The latter created missions in Iona and Scotland. For any Catholics out there, The Roman Church was nowhere to be seen until they invaded our shores in AD 597 and eventually imposed total Papal authority in England in AD 664, In Ireland in AD 696, in Scotland in AD 716 and in Wales by AD 755. So, you're right, the Anglican Church was not started by Henry VIIIth - it had been suppressed and thankfully, the Reformation allowed us to retrieve our Biblical faith, away from the corrupted powers of the Roman Rite.
This is fascinating! Thank you for sharing.
I know you were summarizing here, but it might have been nice to clarify that before the Great Schism of1054 (although issues started earlier) there was no "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" church per se, and the Bishop of Rome was "first among equals" in the Church rather than Supreme Pontiff. In fact, there are Eastern Orthodox now who are trying to resurrect a Western rite of Eastern Orthodoxy, such as would have been practiced pre-Great Schism. Of course, this all gets rather confusing as there are both "Eastern" Catholics and "Western" Eastern Orthodox.
Fascinating stuff, thanks for this.
I learned the beginning of the English Church a little differently. Anglicanism as we know it today is from Henry VIII. The Celtic Church traces itself back to the first century and very likely went to England in the second century. This was in the time when the Churches were more like what the Orthodox Church is today - separate Churches but in communion with one another and holding to the same teachings. The Nicene Creed, as was originally written in Greek, does not contain the "Filioque" (or "...and the Son") when mentioning the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the Anglican Church today, it does. (There is another item in the English version only of the Creed where Christ rose "again". The word "again" doesn't appear in the Greek or Latin versions and I have not found it in German, French, Spanish, or Portuguese. I don't know the Middle East and Far East languages, so I don't know about the versions there.) The Celtic and English Churches existed prior to the 1054 split, when the Pope decided to enforce the "Supreme Pontiff" on the rest of the Christian Churches. There were other issues leading up to the split as well. Somewhere in the eighth or ninth centuries we see the Popes beginning to exert the title of "First among Equals" to "First, Supreme, and Head of the Church". In the Orthodox Churches (or jurisdictions) Jesus is the Head of the Church and no man. Henry made himself Head of the English Church, hence departing from the original English or Anglican Church. I don't think it is right to equate the original English Church with Anglicanism today - that's my opinion based on my understand and studies. Thank you for the video. I am happy someone has presented the fact that Christianity did exist in England and Ireland long before the Pope declared the Roman Church to be the only Christian Church.
It isbn't called the Roman Church.The pope is head of the whole Catholic Church,not just the Roman Rite.There's the Byzantine Catholic church,Armenian Catholic Church,Coptic Catholic Church,Syro-Malabar Cathiolic Church and 21 other Easter Catholic Churches all in union with the Bishop of Rome.The Catholic Church was in England for centuries like it was in other countries.The Church of England is 100% a product of King Henry VIII who was a heretic and excommunicated.the only authentic version of Anglican Christianity is the Anglican Ordinariate of the Catholic Church which is in union with Rome
@@richlopez4466 Where did I write Roman RITE Church? I didn't. I am quite aware of all the different rites within the Church or Rome, if you wish. The Roman Church or the Church in Rome and all her adherents are in schism of the True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Roman Church is used mostly to convey the Western Church in schism and all who hold that the Pope, and not Jesus Christ, is the head of the Church.
@@BpGregor Jesus Christ established His Catholic Church in 33 A.D and is head of it.The Bishop of Rome("Pope") is merely the earthly head of it as St. Peter the apostle was,not the excommunicated and heretic monarch of England like the Anglicans believe.Anybody not in union with Rome is in a state of schism.
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas{'Rock']--of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all."
- St. Optatus,bishop of Milevus
(The schism of the Donatists 2;2) A.D. 367
@@richlopez4466 Please don't try to teach me Christian or Church History. I have been studying it longer than you have been alive, unless you're older than 63. The Pope separated himself from the true Church when he declared himself "Supreme Pontiff". That title was never put before an Ecumenical Council. He became a heretic when he allowed a "local" council to declare him infallible. Only the Church is infallible not one man, who then became the dictator of the Church. The visible head of the Church is seen in her Councils when the Holy Spirit is sent to guide those in council. That's why a council must be unanimous in its decisions - because the Holy Spirit cannot be divided. Or was the Holy Spirit on Pentecost sent as a joke?
You have your opinions and I have correct Theology. So, for me, this conversation is ended. God bless you abundantly. (Oh, by the way, I am a retired Orthodox Bishop. I came to Orthodoxy from the Roman Church by two Byzantine - Roman Catholic - priests, who taught me much of my Theology. And, the Orthodox Church also has several different rites, including a Western Rite, which was developed and approved under Patriarch Tikon, of blessed memory, long before either of us were born.). Again, may you be blessed abundantly.
@@BpGregor It was an excommunicated Patriarch and bishops who side with him who left the Catholic Church in 1054 and are still in a state of schism.That was certainly not the first time Constantinople acted up btw.ALL of the Early Church Fathers were Catholic and recognized Rome as the head btw.The Bible was created at the Council of Rome in 382 headed by Pope Damasus I and in order for a Council to be considered Ecumenical it had to be ratified by a Pope.it was alos the Pope who excommunicated heretics.it was also the pope who set the date for easter in 189 A.D. and Christmas in 350 A.D.It was also the Pope that defended Icon use while the Patriarch of Constantinople was in favor of iconoclasm.The first 1,000 years of Christianity are Catholic.
"The Lord says to Peter: ' I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,and the gates of hell will not overcome it...On him{Peter} he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles,yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity...If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter,can he imagine that he still holds the faith? Can he still be confident he is in the Church?"
- St. Cyprian,bishop of Carthage
(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4) A.D. 251
It seems that it pains most Anglican when u try to tell them their catholic church origen
this is hilariously true
Catholic Church Origin? What do you mean? Do you read the Anglican Creeds? The Nicene, the Athanasius and the Apostles Creeds? Don't they all indicate that Anglicanism is part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
May be you wanted to mean Roman Origin! But unfortunately, the Church of Rome, is not known as part of the Catholic Church by the XXXIX Articles of Religion! Her practices and Doctrine are neither Apostolic nor Catholic. The Anglican is according to me the best representative of the true Catholic and Apostolic Church, though Rome has always contended to keep in its name the word Catholic! Besides, St Peter being burried in Rome does not make Rome Peter's Church, but it's faithfulness to his teaching of the Lord's Gospel!
@@therealteacher8630 Schizoprenia
1536 all monasteries abolished. This is just mentioned in passing. This was a big event. What was the motivation for this? Were these assets seized by the King?
I'm thankful for this informative breakdown of what's what. Currently, I'm not affiliated with any religion. I'm seeking out the group which most closely adheres to the teachings and practices of the early church of the apostles. I'm in Albuquerque. I'll Google ACNA to see if there's a congregation in New Mexico.
Here is a good one: www.ctkabq.org
Kelly:
Hint:
The Church of the early Apostles was Catholic.
It was already known as the Catholic Church by the year 107 A.D.
( St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8)
@@alhilford2345 that is such a silly argument for Catholicism. The Roman Catholic church has quite clearly become apostate and does not at all resemble the early church/Biblical Christianity.
@@ninerocks :
Brush up on your history.
I am not wrong!
Good morning beauty
Every country has a long history of religion before the official religion
You should add a segment on Henry II, who argued that the historically separate origin of the English Church should all him to have priests and bishops tried in the King's courts rather than in ecclesiastical courts. The threat of excommunication and unrest within his kingdom made him recant.
and at least note that Elizabeth burned as many Catholics as the Protestants who died while Mary was queen: www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zrpcwmn/revision/6#:~:text=There%20were%20plots%20and%20rebellions,Catholics%20as%20Mary%20burned%20Protestants.
@@jeffcronin1994 Well, Mary Tudor only reigned for 5 years and in that short time brought the foreign Spanish Inquisition to England to round up and execute Protestants. Elizabeth reigned for 45 and there was also that nasty business of the Vatican instigating to have her assassinated! Moreover, a good number of nonconformist Puritans also lost their heads under Elizabeth as well.
It is true about St Joseph of Arimathea! Archaeologist recently found the foundations of an 8 sided church built exactly like one in Jerusalem and that both buildings were well documented. This 8 sided church foundation was under the Lady Chapel foundation at Glastonbury. Also, you forgot to mention the 3 mysterious bishops that showed up at one of the early Church Councils in Europe. This shocked the Council which asked these 3 bishops where did they come from, they replied that a Churches have been in Briton since Roman times and that St Joseph of Arimathea established the first church in Glastonbury.
You forgot to mention the ACC and the ACA which came way before the ACNA.
Would this series apply to the Australian Anglican Church, do they hold th same doctrines?
Yes they do
oh my.
Very interesting it's good to no how the Anglican church started. To my understanding wasn't it the Anglican church in Japan who first started the ordination of women priest in the Anglican Communion. I'd love to if it is so.
Jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome should not be confused with being 'in communion with' that same See. I think this point was not clarified, and should have been done so in relation to the status of missions, churches and dioceses in the first 5 centuries of European Christianity, especially because of the Imperial office up to the time of the Byzantines. Also, even if the Synod of Whitby (regional council) took place in the 7th Century, it can't be assumed that the English church itself was an independent church from Rome for 'six hundred years' as you said. There were many other regions in Europe and Africa where ecclesiastical jurisdictions varied over time, but all remained in communion with the See of Peter in Rome. Also, the fact that on 4th December 1154 Nicholas Breakspear was elected as Pope Adrian IV, the only Englishman to have served on the papal throne, was omitted in your chronology but that proved that there was a strong ecclesiastical communion, and it would have helped to explain how a church may operate at 'arms length' exactly, in terms of its adoption of canons etc. I don't think there is any evidence that the ancient Anaphora (Eucharistic canon) used by Christians in Greek in the West in the first centuries was retained by the early pre/Celtic Churches. The documents suggest they were already using the Latin rite in some form, and this indicates it cannot have been an independent rite from the first century Christians that located themselves in Britain or the isles.
The existence of Christians, Christian communities in a territory prior to the establishment of a formal diocese does not mean it is an 'independent' church with its own rites, canons etc. There are many instances of missions established in territories which later became formalised, and technically, they remain under some clerical chain of authority. This is true of the establishment of formal diocese in Korea, Japan, as well.
At 33:00 you said that 'at this time there was two versions of the bible' in use, presumably you meant in 'English'. Yet we know that by the early 1600s there were many English vernacular translations circulating for private use, as opposed to ecclesiastical use. 📚
What ever it may be, the Roman Church erred and that could at no point fail to bring in the reformation!
When did the church start?
In acts of the apostles
“The Anglican Church was a church independent of Rome”
Fine…. Independent in its own Rite, but still in communion with Rome- so still Catholic. To say the early church in England was “Anglican” -as in its own denomination, before Henry VIII is hugely disingenuous.
I watched this video in hopes to understand the roots Anglicanism better, but it really does sound revisionist and a case of powerful figures revising their history to fit their choices.
43:23. There was "pushback" before 2000 starting with the Affirmation of St. Louis in 1974 which led to the formation of the Continuing Anglican denominations. WHY DID YOU OMIT THIS MAJOR MILESTONE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? You most probably did so on purpose!!!!!!!!!
St. THOMAS BECKETT and Henry II well that's all u need.
PLS TELL ME , WOULD U BE HEAR RANTING THESE ERRORS , IF THE POPE HAD HEADED YO THE MADNESS OF UR KING ...?
Magna Carta 1215 A. D. the English Church shall remain free.
"The end of the Episcopal Church." As a new Christian who is Episcopalian, i hate to hear this. Women clergy. How dreadful. We believe the same creed you do. I really did enjoy this history, tho. Well done.
318 Arles
Everything was a story written and non written so I'm believing the story of Joseph and Jesus established the Anglican Church
Why have most Anglican tries to eradicate catholicsm in their histories with all these nonsense Celtic claim , when if u look at Anglicanism in one would say they are catholic why ? Cos Anglicanism is from afar is more catholic..... Pls if Celtic is what u claim , identify ur today retained Celtic ideas .
Unfortunately Rome is not Catholic, Anglicanism is well part of the true Catholic and Apostolic Church, In fact by far, the most representative thereof. If St. Peter would come now, which prayer book would he choose to use? Which Bishop would he consider spiritually valid and superior? Scripture can answer these! The BCP 1662 and the Bishop who uses it would be his Choice! So I think!
Ridiculously no female preists and bishops pls. Christ never ordain female apostle....
Come to that, Christ never ORDAINED anyone.
@@franzfleischer3476 :
Yes He did.
At the Last Supper.
@@alhilford2345 Well, no. IF - and it is a big if - IF he ordained anyone, it was when he commissioned the apostles to bind and loose on earth (with this promise that what they bound and loosed would be honoured in heaven). Christ himself instituted only two sacraments - baptism and communion (a.k.a. eucharist, lord's supper). The other five sacraments (including ordination) find their origin and legitimacy in Scripture, certainly, but none of these five were instituted by Christ.
True. Even the BCP 1662 and the reformation do not know females priests and Bishops
@@alhilford2345I think you mean Pentecost. And it happened earlier than that too I believe. He sent them out to cast out demons and heal the sick - at the time only to the Jewish community.