What caused the separation between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Roman Catholic Church?
608367
The Roman Catholic Church did not allow Henry VIII to divorce Catherine of Aragon (who failed to provide him with a son), so he ordered the Archbishop of Canterbury to allow him the divorce.  This led to the breaking off with Rome and the formation of the Anglican Church.
854848
Most churches (methodist, episcopal, presbyterian), broke away from the catholic church at one time or another over traditions, ceremonies and beliefs that were added to what the Bible taught. Everybody had their on idea of how to do it. The Baptist and Congregational churches separated from them because we accept only the Bible as our guide - traditions are not as important as the Bible.  And we believe that a personal relationship with Jesus is what makes one a Christian - not being a member of a church.
799032
The reason is that during the feudal era of europe, sons inherited their father's title and posessions.  Because of this, priests' sons were assuming their father's role as priest and laying claim to the land.  This meant there were priests who had no idea what they were doing, lacking the required education, and the church was losing its lands.\n\nBy forbidding marriage, they effectively forbade legitimate heirs to priests and thus ended the theft by inheritance.\n\nHowever, there is no reason Biblically for it, and actually reason that Bishops should be REQUIRED to be married (in the Bible, Bishops are required to be married with children and in good standing in the community to prove that they could manage the house of God).\n\nSince the feudal concept of inheritance no longer applies, there is nothing that prevents the Vatican from overturning the married requirement.  Some ministers of other faiths who are in close communion with the Roman Catholic Church who convert to the RCC are given special dispensation to practice as Roman Catholic Priests despite being married.
413195
The Church of England is Anglican.\n\nIn todays society there are churches called Anglo-Catholic or Anglican Catholic and various versions that are part of the Independent Catholic Movement.  They are churches that are not true to Rome and form in simular manners.
280679
Because King Henry VIII wanted to get a marriage annulled, or get divorced (it amounts to the same thing) and the Pope refused.  Henry went ahead and dumped that queen and married another.  The Pope excommunicated him so he set up the Church of England
752506
An archbishop is a the chief bishop of a very large diocese.  It is a recognition of the size of the diocese.  A very large diocese may have several bishops, but the chief bishop is the archbishop.    Also, when the bishops of a conference get together, the archgbishop is the leader of the conference.
648178
Catholic Church (Catholicism) was first referred to in a letter in 107 A.D. by St Ignatius.\n\nThe Church of England traces its roots to 597 A.D.
884635
Christ has warned beforehand his disciples to watch out that MANY will come in his Name and he will be called Christ. And for him these are the deceivers.\nWhy are you asking now about the split in Christ's churches. don't you see how Jesus saw that two thousand plus years ago?\nFor your information too, Catholics was the first one to be divided from Jewish-Christian Orthodox, to Roman Catholic to Greek Catholic Orthodox and to Coptic to The Fundamentalist Catholics of Mel Gibson's Father. The Catholic itself is divided inside between Italian groups and other nationalities from the Fundamentalists, to Traditionalists, to Liberals. You have to wake up. The only thing they are not giving up is the election of Pope but its teaching is breaking up from the Old Testament little by little until the time will come that ultimately their only God will be Jesus or worse back to the Old Roman myth of having a the Queen Mother as God. Christ did not tell them to  put up a church in his name because he knew about the divisions  that will happen. Notice in your parish that whenever there is a new organization or movement within the church, it always end up to qualms among its members and be split into groups until it  totally disappears and till another group emerges again. That is not  a common human frailties, that is the curse Jesus has warned his followers long time ago. You are the one who needs to ponder and reflect.
1104185
A few months back its been the Pope, but now they have filled up all the vacants in jobs in UK. Great bunch, not very hard working but still make it. Catholicism in action.
544025
In a nutshell, the French wanted to take power away from Rome.  Think about what happened in England during the formation of the Anglican church. Same motives, though different strategy and different results.
575875
He was a Puritan, which basically means anti-Catholic.  Charles I was being manipulated by his blatantly Catholic wife to tolerate Catholicism in England and he also adopted a type of "High Anglicanism", refering to the Anglican (English National) Church becoming increasingly catholic (involving elaborate ceremonies, gold, latin, etc.), and the Puritans believed in living a simple life.  \n\nBasically, it was a religious War
398529
its to do with the church belonging to the community etc etc and it is seen as a good deed to donate to the repair of a church.  Not all churches are "ruled" by the Vatican though remember, since Henry VIII the Church of England has been seperate.
1085822
Henry VIII formed his own church, the Church of England, so he could annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Ann Boleyn.  Under his ruling, the king and not the pope was the head of the church; so he could annul his own marriage.\n\nAnglican priests can marry.
43191
This is quite long, I apologize.  According to The Encyclopedia Americana, regional councils instrumental in organizing Catholic churches in Spain, Britain, and elsewhere were “often called and dominated by the secular power.” General councils of religious leaders from the whole Roman empire “were unknown before the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.),” called by Emperor Constantine. British historian H. G. Wells suggested that Constantine brought politics and autocracy into an already deeply divided Christendom. Wells wrote: “Not only was the council of Nicæa assembled by Constantine the Great, but all the great councils, the two at Constantinople (381 and 553), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) were called together by the imperial power.” But how could God approve of that, since true Christians do not try to mix their religion with politics but, rather, maintain strict neutrality?—John 17:16; James 1:27.\n\n“Later general councils were frequently overshadowed by imperial church politics and the rivalry of the major patriarchal sees [areas controlled by a bishop or an archbishop],” adds The Encyclopedia Americana. Since such church councils were marked by ecclesiastical politics and rivalries, they bore no fruits of God’s spirit such as love and peace. Rather, they were marred by fleshly works that included “hostilities, bickering, jealousy, . . . selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions.” With reference to works of the flesh, the apostle Paul warned: “Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!” (Galatians 5:19-23, the Catholic New American Bible) Therefore, how can it be said that Christendom’s church councils have been approved by God?\n\nThe history of the Church under [Constantine’s] influence becomes now therefore a history of the violent struggles that were bound to follow upon his sudden and rough summons to unanimity. From him the Church acquired the disposition to be authoritative and unquestioned, to develop a centralized organization and run parallel to the empire.”\n\nThe determination to stamp out opposition led to dreadful atrocities. Most of those pronounced guilty of heresy against the popular dogma of the council were burned at the stake, suffering the agony of a slow death as a public spectacle—supposedly in the name of Christ!\n\nFor instance, the Council of Constance (1414-18) was called to end bickering over who was the legitimate pope and to deal with the heresies of Wycliffe and Hus. Thirty thousand horses are said to have carried people to Constance for this great event. During the council, John Hus was tried and condemned, then turned over to secular authorities and burned at the stake.\n\nWhat About Doctrine?\n\n. To illustrate: In 325 C.E. the Council of Nicaea introduced the doctrine of the Incarnate Christ, or God-man. This denial that Jesus was in fact a man became one of the most misleading doctrines of Christendom. (Compare 2 John 7.) Why, it has turned millions away from Jehovah God to a confusing Trinity! None of the councils held thereafter made any attempt to rectify this error. Yet the Trinity doctrine is clearly unscriptural, for Jesus said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Could God possibly approve of any council that obscured the truth about his identity and that of his Son?\n\nAs also noted in the chart, among the doctrines endorsed at Christendom’s church councils were baptism of infants, imposed and required celibacy, purgatory, and hellfire. However, the Scriptures do not support infant baptism, such celibacy, and a fiery hell, nor do they make any reference to purgatory. (Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Job 14:13) Since those desiring Jehovah’s favor must worship him “with spirit and truth,” how could he approve of councils fostering false doctrine?—John 4:23, 24.\n\nThe encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his vic
18902
The Great Schism happend in the year 1054 in Constantinople and it divided definately Chrinstians for the western Catholics with the bishoph of Rome (pope) as a head of the church and the eastern Orthodox Church with a Patriarch of Constantinople. The reason was a conflict between different roman and greek customs and "filioque"(the origin of Saint Spirit)\nThere was also a Western Great Schism (1378-1417), when there were 2 popes (one in Rome, the other in Avignon), and from the Synod in Pisa 1409 to the Synod in Constance 1414-1418 3 popes.
448069
Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics separated from one another in 1054. There are very few theological differences. The main difference is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches follow the Byzantine Rite and the Roman Catholic Church follows the Roman or Latin Rite.\n\nPope John Paul II said of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in Orientale Lumen, "A particularly close link already binds us. We have almost everything in common."
537013
Separation of church and state.  In England, the ruling monarch is also the head of the Church of England.  Sometimes different religions fall in or out of fashion, and this meant that it could suddenly be a crime to belong to a particular religion.  Throughout European history, many countries had official religions that were either Catholic or Protestant (non-Catholic), which was really a problem for the Jews who until the creation of Isreal, never had a place where they could go and not have to worry about being outlawed at some point.  If you are going to be Protestant, it's also helpful if your particular brand of religion look and sound like all the others, which became a problem for the Quakers who didn't have services and churches that looked like all the other non-Catholic types.  It was assumed that since the business of churches is the business of salvation, by not taxing the churches, you could help ensure religious freedom because you couldn't shut them through economics.  The Church of Scientology had a problem because they didn't sound or look like any type of previous notion of a religion, yet they claimed to be a church and wanted the same tax exemptions that other religions enjoyed.