Against the English Schism

When HM King Henry VIII broke away from the Western Patriarch, from that Holy
and Apostolic See wherein the sacerdotal unity of the Church is focused, from the
Roman Pontiff, a grave error was made, which endangered the soul of that nation
which was once known as the Dowry of Mary, our Queen, Mother and the Ark of the
New Covenant.

The first issue is that of jurisdiction. To quote Saint Cyprian of Carthage, writing the
Unity of the Catholic Church 4 in around A.D. 251, “If someone does not hold fast to
this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair
of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the
Church?”. It is from this unity that the English Church was voluntarily cut off, yet this
schism is made worse by the schism of jurisdiction. Not only did the Church of
England come out of communion with the Holy Roman See, but it claimed authority
and jurisdiction over the sheep as a prideful replacement of the Divinely-sanctioned
authority of the Roman See. We see the Divine-sanction of the See of Peter through
one of the Church Fathers, Saint John of Damascus, when he writes, “It is to [Peter],
as to the most faithful servant, that Jesus entrusted the rudder of all the Church, this
Church which He acquired with His blood”.

The second issue is the proposed shepherd of the English flock, that is, the Monarch.
Whilst the See of Rome has always held a certain primacy due to the position of Saint
Peter as the “the Leader of the Choir, the Mouth of all the Apostles, the Head of that
Tribe, the Ruler of the whole world, the Foundation of the Church” (Saint John
Chrysostom), the Supreme Head of the Anglican ecclesiastical community, that is,
the English Monarch, has no traditional theological position of primacy, is not a
Successor to the Apostles, nor even a priest or a deacon; the English Monarch, by
virtue of a lack of episcopal powers, has no spiritual jurisdiction over any flock
whatsoever - not even a diocese. The extent to which this error has grown is large,
and we see this manifest in a woman “leading” the Church, which is contrary to both
Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Examining the dogmas and doctrines of the Anglican Church, we see a lack of
continuity and multiple flip-flops, which may tell us that the Church is false. To name
just one such example - the founding document of Anglicanism, the Ten Articles of
1536, affirmed transubstantiation and the corporeal presence of Christ in the
Eucharist, which the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 then go on to call “repugnant to
the plain words of Scripture”. The Ten Articles also affirms the veneration of icons,
images and saints as well as the doctrine of purgatory, which the Thirty-Nine
Articles also reject. Another such example is that the Six Articles of 1539 affirms the
reasonableness of withholding the Chalice from the laity during Communion, which
the Thirty-Nine Articles also reputes. This change in doctrine leads us to conclude
that Anglicanism and its doctrines are to be rejected.
We then go onto the issue of the Orders of the Anglican Communion. Now, in the
papal bull titled Apostolicæ Curæ, we see Pope Leo XIII showing that the Anglican
(episcopalian) Church lost its possession of Apostolic Succession due to the changes
of the ordination rite in 1552. In the new ordination rite, the intention of ordination
as before had disappeared, due to the influences of Protestant reformers such as
Cranmer, among others, which brought in policies such as communion of both kinds
for the laity, sola fide, the discarding of the real presence and compulsory English-
language services. As well as this, in the actual rite of ordination, the obligation to
“offer sacrifice and celebrate mass for both the living and the dead” was removed,
ridding the priesthood of its essence. Offering Mass for these intentions was reputed
and rejected by the Thirty-Nine Articles.

According to the Council of Trent (Session XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Canon 1), the grace
and power of the sacred Ordel of Priesthood is chiefly the power of “consecrating
and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord”, meaning that the Edwardine rite
of Ordination rid the priesthood and episcopate (which constitutes the priesthood in
the highest degree)of its essence, meaning that Apostolic Succession was cut off
from the first bishops ordained by the rite, and was never restored. Furthermore, it
seems that the rite was lacking in form as well, since there was a revised rite in
1662, that added “for the office and work of a priest”, which shows that the
Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate.

Why would the Catholic position on the priesthood matter? Well, after the original
split under Henry VIII, the Church in England essentially remained a Catholic one
that denied Papal Supremacy - imagine a western-rite Orthodox Church. The
Anglican Church calls itself a "reformed Catholic", or "Protestant yet Catholic
Church". This is quite humorous, however, given its continuation of the iconoclasm
heresy, ignorance of the doctrines on Mary, the Saints, and (for most Anglicans) the
Eucharist, which contradicts all of the Early Church teachings. Regardless - the
Catholic teaching on the priesthood matters, because Henry VIII clearly wanted to
retain Catholic teachings, and the Anglican Church posits itself as returning to the
"original" Catholic teachings.

The teaching on priesthood has remained the same in all of the Apostolic Churches,
which is precisely why those schismatic Churches of the East retain their Apostolic
Succession, whereas all those who reject the traditional and Apostolic notion of the
priesthood lose the power to consecrate by way of intent.

Essentially , the rite of Ordination in the Anglican Church has and continues to be
defective in its rejection of the main ideas behind the priesthood, and such a defect
can now not be fixed, due to time, unless the Anglican Church is disestablished and
its members returned to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Because of this, as well as other heretical positions of the Church such as the
ordination of women (no Apostle held the ontological mode of being that entailed
the female sex and its associated characteristics), ordaining non-celibate
homosexual priests in the USA, and definitely not being "one" Church, given the
fractures as of late, it would seem to me that your Church, which was founded upon
the breaking from the Church of which your patron saint was head, (Matthew 16:18;
"You are Peter [Cephas, meaning rock], and upon this rock [Peter], I will found my
Church"), is not one, nor Apostolic.

The Church of England was formed in error and has remained in error since. For any
Anglican to be sure of the salvation of his soul, he must enter into communion with
Rome.

The Invalidity of Anglican Holy Orders (directed to Anglicans)

Now, in the papal bull titled Apostolicæ Curæ, we see Pope Leo XIII showing that the
Anglican (episcopalian) Church lost its possession of Apostolic Succession due to the
changes of the ordination rite in 1552. In the new ordination rite, the intention of
ordination as before had disappeared, due to the influences of Protestant reformers
such as Cranmer, among others, which brought in policies such as communion of
both kinds for the laity, sola fide, the discarding of the real presence and compulsory
English-language services. As well as this, in the actual rite of ordination, the
obligation to “offer sacrifice and celebrate mass for both the living and the dead” was
removed, ridding the priesthood of its essence.

According to the Council of Trent (Session XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Canon 1), the grace
and power of the sacred Ordel of Priesthood is chiefly the power of “consecrating
and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord”, meaning that the Edwardine rite
of Ordination rid the priesthood and episcopate (which constitutes the priesthood in
the highest degree)of its essence, meaning that Apostolic Succession was cut off
from the first bishops ordained by the rite, and was never restored. Furthermore, it
seems that the rite was lacking in form as well, since there was a revised rite in
1662, that added “for the office and work of a priest”, which shows that the
Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate.

Why would the Catholic position on the priesthood matter? Well, after the original
split under Henry VIII, the Church in England essentially remained a Catholic one
that denied Papal Supremacy - imagine a western-rite Orthodox Church. The
Anglican Church calls itself a "reformed Catholic", or "Protestant yet Catholic
Church". This is quite humorous, however, given its continuation of the iconoclasm
heresy, ignorance of the doctrines on Mary, the Saints, and (for most Anglicans) the
Eucharist, which contradicts all of the Early Church teachings. Regardless - the
Catholic teaching on the priesthood matters, because Henry VIII clearly wanted to
retain Catholic teachings, and the Anglican Church posits itself as returning to the
"original" Catholic teachings.

In conclusion, the rite of Ordination in the Anglican Church has and continues to be
defective in its rejection of the main ideas behind the priesthood, and such a defect
can now not be fixed, due to time, unless the Anglican Church is disestablished and
its members returned to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Because of this, as well as other heretical positions of the Church such as the
ordination of women (no Apostle held the ontological mode of being that entailed
the female sex and its associated characteristics), ordaining non-celibate
homosexual priests in the USA, and definitely not being "one" Church, given the
fractures as of late, it would seem to me that your Church, which was founded upon
the breaking from the Church of which your patron saint was head, (Matthew 16:18;
"You are Peter [Cephas, meaning rock], and upon this rock [Peter], I will found my
Church"), is not one, nor Apostolic.

I hope that, upon reading this, you begin to look into the rich traditions of the
Catholic faith, its Apostolic Succession, and its close teachings to the Orthodox faith,
which has also been around since Christ and His Apostles. The Anglican Church is
not close to these teachings. I hope that you take this into consideration and join the
flock - as Pope Pius XI said, "the union of Christians can only be promoted by
promoting the return to the One True Church of Christ to those who are separated
from it".