A thought about Rome

[gtsecc]

When we hear that our church was started durign Henry the 8th, they are really talking about the change, which was the Mass in English. Would it be fair for us to ask if their denomination started in 1962, when they instituted the mass in English?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Gtsecc, I don't think the argument is the same. The Roman Catholics would argue we altered the Christian Faith when our bishops declared themselves independent of the Holy Father. They would also say we lost our Holy Orders due to changes in the Anglican ordinal.

Further, as time went on, altars and shrines to Our Lady were broken and the monastic life as it had existed in England was totally destroyed. Statues, images, relics, and stained glass were removed from churches and Christ was torn down from crucifixes. The Sacramental life of the church slowly eroded to to only having two Sacraments, Communion was celebrated monthly very often.

Despite these changes in the visible life of the Church, many would argue we also lost our catholicity when we became a national church, under the full authority of a temporal ruler.

[Bonifatius]

When we hear that our church was started durign Henry the 8th, they are really talking about the change, which was the Mass in English. Would it be fair for us to ask if their denomination started in 1962, when they instituted the mass in English?
Some Roman Catholics see it exactly that way - the FSSPX. They think that the NOM started a new church and since then Rome is in heresy. In fact most of the changes introduced by Vatican II were similar to those of 1549.

[pjw]

just an observation... the NO Mass is not that dissimilar to the 1549 BCP.
http://www.latinliturgy.com/nomass.html

[ContraMundum]

When we hear that our church was started durign Henry the 8th, they are really talking about the change, which was the Mass in English. Would it be fair for us to ask if their denomination started in 1962, when they instituted the mass in English?

This would be an interesting proposition if the Romans had a point to begin with- but they don't, because they're wrong.

If, on the other hand, they think our Reformation changed the faith then your logic would be applicable, because they've had their own reformation(s) ever since- we just saw the rot before them, and they've done the same subsequently.

[Fish and Bread]

The Roman Catholics would contend that their faith itself has stayed the same, it is the rituals that have changed, and that the faith is the important thing. It isn't really the changes in the mass or other services in England during the Reformation that were the problem (Aside from perhaps a few bits and pieces here and there) from the Roman Catholic perspective. The mass can and has been reformed in Roman Catholic history -- and not just at Vatican II, there had been a long history of more minor alterations prior. The problem is why the changes were made in Anglicanism at different periods of time -- for reasons such as denying or allowing for the denial of by some: the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, the doctrine of purgatory, prayer to saints, an ecumenical council ruling granting authority over a national church to a King rather than to the Church itself, the authority of the Bishop of Rome, etc.. It's not the form itself, so much as that the form stems from a change in intent, rendering both invalid in their eyes.