As with all matters religious in the 16th Century, the Elizabethan Settlement was highly political. However, among other issues, it established the use of the English service in the Book of Common Prayer (which were based on the Sarum Rite), married clergy, and Communion in both kinds. The 39 Articles were part of this. The Settlement successfully defended the historic episcopate and the sacraments against the machinations of the Puritans.
The Council of Whitby established union between the Celtic bishops of the line of St Patrick and the Roman bishops of the line of St Augustine Cantuar. On paper, the Bishop of Rome was still the senior prelate in the West, however he did not exercise real authority in England (or anywhere else outside Italy and the Holy Roman Empire). More direct Roman authority was not established until the Norman Conquest in 1066 when, in exchange for a Papal Blessing, Duke William agreed to oust the Saxon bishops and replace them with Normans beholden to Rome. This he did. The merger of the Anglican and Roman churches was effectively accomplished by force of arms.
Even after the Conquest, the Church of England functioned with a higher degree of independence than on the continent. The reason for this is that England was the only truly unified and centrally controlled state in the West. Her King was powerful enough to easily overshadow the Bishop of far-off Rome. The people of England enjoyed their Catholic Faith, but they also enjoyed their independence from the continent. When King John and King Henry III appeared to jeopardize that independence, the barons forced them to recant.
You and I would agree on the gay bishop and female bishop thing, as well as the remarriage issues. We would disagree on the episcopal celibacy rule (St. Paul the Apostle said a bishop must be the husband of one wife). But if you wish to write off Anglicanism because a minority of bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore historic church policy regarding bishops, then I could easily write off Roman Catholicism because a minority of its bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore divine policy regarding young boys. I do not do that because I can plainly see that what Cardinal Law and his ilk did in no way represents Catholic doctrine and discipline. Likewise you should be able to see that what Gene Robinson and his ilk have been doing in no way represents Anglican doctrine and discipline.
Not necessarily. A multitude of disciplinary canons changed what +Paul had to say and The Church never changed those canons. The question therefore is, by what right did the Anglicans change those disciplinary canons. If Anglicanism is in fact a particular English church, it is arguable that it could have the right to make such a change, but I suspect that if in fact that is the argument, the other particular churches would react by pointing out that the mind of The Church wasn’t there and that such innovation by one part of The Church was inappropriate, +Paul to the contrary notwithstanding. The same considerations of course apply to remarriage, open communion, women’s ordinations, etc.
“But if you wish to write off Anglicanism because a minority of bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore historic church policy regarding bishops, then I could easily write off Roman Catholicism because a minority of its bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore divine policy regarding young boys.”
But you know, to the extent that the Latin Church ignores and ignored what those priests and hierarchs did, it deserves condemnation, which it has received from Orthodoxy. This isn’t to say that Orthodox hierarchs aren’t liable to heresy. Heresy almost invariably comes from hierarchs, at least in the East and there have been cover ups of the actions of the “pink rasos” crowd in Orthodoxy too. But it isn;t widespread and in Russia where some priest celebrated a gay marriage, he was defrocked and the temple torn down so that not a stone lay on a stone. That reaction and the reaction (or non reaction) of the Latins, however, is of an entirely different order from that of, apparently, most of Anglicanism which either sits by saying nothing or actually applauds the notion that sodomy is no sin and the HS is doing a new thing. That’s what lead some Orthodox hierarchs and theologians to question whether or not Anglicanism is a valid part of The Church.
“I do not do that because I can plainly see that what Cardinal Law and his ilk did in no way represents Catholic doctrine and discipline. Likewise you should be able to see that what Gene Robinson and his ilk have been doing in no way represents Anglican doctrine and discipline.”
That’s not the point. One hopes they don’t. The point is that if substantial segments of a church publicly support sinful depravity on the one hand or cover it up on the other, without any consequences then those hierarchs who are “orthodox” must cut the heretics off. If the “orthodox” can’t or won’t do that, then they are equally responsible with the heretics for the destruction done to the Faithful and liable to the charge that the heretics do indeed represent the doctrine of the church or group.