Myths concerning the Church of England before Reformation

This article is a response to this Anglican cleric.

England used to have its own Easter, but they conformed to the Pope, and to this day so does the Church of England.

He omits that the English church acknowledged and accepted the jurisdiction of the Pope. He leaves out that even the Orthodox say Rome was the Patriarch over England. He takes a bunch of ideas and slaps them together as if they coherently fit together divorced from their context. Before Pope Gregory, St Patrick and others were dispatched to Britain and Ireland to suppress Pelagianism since Pelagius and some of the Celtic churches like Gaul were strongholds of the error of Pelagius.

The British church was present at the Council of Serdica which acknowledged and formally canonized the primacy of Rome.

He claims there were national churches--he assumes the present reality of the Eastern churches was true in the west. Read St Irenaeus in the 2nd century--he was bishop of Lyons in modern France and he plainly stated the See of Rome holds preeminence.

Before the Reformation, even England, the Pope allowed individual expressions of the faith to flourish, but the Trent largely required conformity with exceptions of old rites like in Toledo, Milian and some of the old orders. The Sarum rite was relatively new and was therefore suppressed, you rarely see Anglicans practicing the Sarum.

This cleric's view is actually the remniscient of the Landmark Baptist just replaced by Anglican. The Landmark Baptists claim they always existed and make absurd evidences for it.

His appeal to the immorality of the popes is a strawman, what does that have to do with the office itself? There is no obligation to accept their immorality. What the heck does the age of the earth have to do with anything?

The Joseph of Arimethea legend is incredibly weak.

As far as his appeal to Nicaea goes, Canon 6 even in the view used  that downplays the jurisdiction of Rome, this view would recognized all of western Europe as being under Rome's jurisdiction!

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.--Canon 6 of Nicea I

It is unclear if Nicaea I had representatives from Britain though the whole empire was invited, the fact is only a small fraction of bishops attended and the Pope himself only through legates. If Britain did come to Niceae, then our Anglican friend must explain Canon 6, which seems to recognize the Pope has jurisdiction over cities beyond Rome. Eastern Orthodox argue this means he only has jurisdiction over western Europe and west Africa.  So even in the Eastern Orthodox view the land of England would still fall under the Pope of Rome's domain.

We do know Britain was represented at the Council of Sardica/Serdica (AD 343/344) two decades later/  We read:

a third time in the great Council assembled at Sardica by order of the most religious Emperors Constantius and Constans, when my enemies were degraded as false accusers, and the sentence that was passed in my favour received the suffrages of more than three hundred Bishops, out of the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, Palestine, Arabia, Isauria, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, Galatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Achaia, Crete, Dalmatia, Siscia, Pannonia, Noricum, Italy, Picenum, Tuscany, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Bruttia, Sicily, the whole of Africa, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, and Britain.--St Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos (Part I), Chapter 1. c. AD 349-352

The council even explicitly acknowledged papal power to reinstate deposed bishops and be the final reviewer of their cases:

Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.--Council of Sardica, Canon IV

His complaining about Roman vs Celtic is ignorance of local custom, for instance, the Liturgy of the Council of Trent is actually a GAULIC liturgy--not even Roman! The Roman rite largely disappeared and the modern Roman Rite was an attempt to restore it before Rome conformed to the liturgy of the Gauls.

There ere still rites that under Rome to this day that have their own calendar, language, customs, liturgy. His argument is appealing to an ahistorical "reality"

Patrick was of Celtic-Roman descent--to call him English is anachronistic! There was no English people at the time, the English people did not exist for centuries later when the Vikings invaded. Prosper of Aquitaine said St Patrick was dispatched by the POPE.

The idea the Irish were not Christians yet is false, some were pagans but some were Christians, St Jerome said Pelagius was IRISH.

The cleric refers to the two Easter dates--yet he still accepts the MODERN PAPAL Easter Date! He states the Celtic Christianity was largely focus on the monastery--Anglicanism is not like this at all, barely with any monks and nuns. Henry VIII abolished and destroyed the monasteries.