The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1919-01-18
HISTORICAL CAMoUFLAGE.

Because we said that the present
Anglican Church could not take credit
for the Magma Charta some of our
Episcopalian friends have started
again the preposterous claim that the
reformation in England did not mark
a change of church but only reform
of the old church. 1t is prudent to
let sleeping dogs lie.
If changing the fundamental and es-
sential principles of faith and govern
ment be only reforming and purging,
we are willing to admit the claims of
the Episcopal Church. For sixteen
centuries the Church of Christ was a
visible organization of Christians who
prOfesSed a common faith and pledged
obedience to the Bishop of Rome as
the Vicar of Christ and divinely APP
pointed Chief Shepherd. In that
Church the belief from the days of
the Apostles was that Christ instituted
seven Sacraments as channels of grace
and established priesthood whose
chief function was to offer true sac
rifice-the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
This was the faith of the Church of
Christ at the beginning of the reign
of Henry VIII. 1t was the faith of
Henry and because he was an obedient
son of the See of Rome, acknowledged
its supremacy and wrote a defense of
the Seven Sacraments, and particular
ly of the Sacrifice of the Mass, he
was honored by the Pope with the
title of Defender of the Faith title
which the present King of England,
by a singular paradox, attaches to
himself.
In the reign of Henry VIII a strange
ecclesiastical transformation took
place in England. There was set up
church which completely eliminated
five of the Sacraments, held that one
of the other two was not what had
been taught and believed for fifteen
hundred years, and by an act of British
Parliament in November, 1924, de
clared that it's supreme head was not
the Bishop of Rome but the King of
England. If this be only reforming
and purging, we would hesitate to de-
fine complete and essential change.
If England was at any time under the
jurisdiction of Rome, which jurisdic-
ton, as it admitted, was of Divine Or
igin, no power of king or parliament
could absolve it. If the original Chris
tian Church of England believed in
seven SacramentS and in the Sacrifice
of the New Law and gave full obedi-
ence to the See of Rome, Church
which rejects those Sacramento and
Sacrifice, which refuses obedience to
Rome, is not reformation Of that
original Church, but is new and dis
tinct organization.
In the year 1776 the American colon
les, by public proclamation, declared
that they would no longer acknowl-
edge the King of England as their
lawful sovereign and would in the
future legislate for the colonies
through their own house of congress.
They retained the language of Eng
land and founded their law upon COM
mon law of England. Their houses
of congress we're fashioned to a great
extent after the English houses of par
lament. As soon as possible they es-
tablished friendly diplomatic relations
with England. The separation be-
tween the American colonies and Eng
land was not marked as the separation
between England and Rome during the
reign of Henry VIII. The colonies re-
tanned more of English law and GUS
toms than England did of Rome. The
difference between the ideals of the
colonies and the ideals of England, be-
tween the avoWed purposes of govern
ment not as marked as between Can.
terbury and Rome. One might more
truthfully say that the republic of the
United States is a continuation of
the kingdom of England than that the
Anglican Church is a continuation of
the pre-Reformation Christian Church
of England.
If the work of Henry and Elizabeth
and Edward was reform it is strange
that the Church of England is trying
SO hard to get back to the Sacramento
and practices of the English Church
before the Reformation. The appeal
to the Pope for recognition of the
validity of Anglican Orders is a con
fession In itself. There is nothing sc
80 a.