A question for Episcopalians

[CWBetts]

Most Protestant religions were founded on theology, mistaken thology perhaps, but still theology. However the Episcopal Church is the Americanized version of the Anglican Church, which was founded not on theology, but for entirely personal reasons. So my question is this: How does an Episcopalian defend his faith, when it is faith in a church founded solely because the Pope would not grant an annulment for Henry VIII’s marraige to Catherine of Aragon on the basis that she failed to produce a mle heir?

 

[GKC]

Most Protestant religions were founded on theology, mistaken thology perhaps, but still theology. However the Episcopal Church is the Americanized version of the Anglican Church, which was founded not on theology, but for entirely personal reasons. So my question is this: How does an Episcopalian defend his faith, when it is faith in a church founded solely because the Pope would not grant an annulment for Henry VIII’s marraige to Catherine of Aragon on the basis that she failed to produce a mle heir?

Contarini, please call your office.

GKC

 

[CWBetts]

 

[jesusluv]

Most Protestant religions were founded on theology, mistaken thology perhaps, but still theology. However the Episcopal Church is the Americanized version of the Anglican Church, which was founded not on theology, but for entirely personal reasons. So my question is this: How does an Episcopalian defend his faith, when it is faith in a church founded solely because the Pope would not grant an annulment for Henry VIII’s marraige to Catherine of Aragon on the basis that she failed to produce a mle heir?

Please learn more history before posting something like this.

 

[GKC]

No doubt.

Contarini is the learned and erudite Episcopalian who posts here often. I’m another sort of Anglican. When this type question is posed, based upon a certain historical supposition, it seems to have usually fallen out that Contarini answers it. I’ve come to think of it as his province.

OTOH, when the issues of Apostolicae Curae, or of the historical details of Hank’s search of a decree of nullity, and the prevailing system of impediments, decrees of nullity and dispensations, filtered through the power politics of the day, arise, I often take a whack at those myself.

Therefore, paging Contarini.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[CWBetts]

Please learn more history before posting something like this.

Ummm, actually I am enrolled in a Tudor-Stuart England class as we speak. Before 1529, Henry VIII was a devout Catholic, in fact he wrote a tretise extremely critical of Luther and the Reformation, that is until the Pope would not reverse a special dispensation that had been granted to marry his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon. Catherine hade failed to produce a male heir, and Henry had fallen in love with Anne Bolyn. Henry required an annulment to make a marraige to Anne valid. Without the annulment, any heris produced through Anne would be bastards, and thereby ineligible to become king. When the pope (Clement V, I believe) would not grant an annulment, England broke with Rome, establishing the Anglican Church with Henry VIII as its head. The Episcopelian Church was the name given to the Anglican Church in the United States after the American Revolution. Those are the facts, and they are indeputible.

 

[Chancellare]

Ummm, actually I am enrolled in a Tudor-Stuart England class as we speak. Before 1529, Henry VIII was a devout Catholic, in fact he wrote a tretise extremely critical of Luther and the Reformation, that is until the Pope would not reverse a special dispensation that had been granted to marry his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon. Catherine hade failed to produce a male heir, and Henry had fallen in love with Anne Bolyn. Henry required an annulment to make a marraige to Anne valid. Without the annulment, any heris produced through Anne would be bastards, and thereby ineligible to become king. When the pope (Clement V, I believe) would not grant an annulment, England broke with Rome, establishing the Anglican Church with Henry VIII as its head. The Episcopelian Church was the name given to the Anglican Church in the United States after the American Revolution. Those are the facts, and they are indeputible.

I like to follow posts that clarify historical singularities, particularly on matters concerning denials.

The last one who answered a similar post I made:
“To me, Anglicans were actually Catholics who were told by Henry VIII to separate from Rome on account of a botched annulment.”

to which he answered like this:
quote
Your comment on Anglicans being Catholics commanded by King Henry III is totally false as well. I am a devout Anglican who knows that Henry III and the English Reformers had much more to be concerned about than his annulment denial and all of the politics of the RCC.
unquote.

So this is an interesting thread to me.

 

[CWBetts]

I like to follow posts that clarify historical singularities, particularly on matters concerning denials.

The last one who answered a similar post I made:
“To me, Anglicans were actually Catholics who were told by Henry VIII to separate from Rome on account of a botched annulment.”

to which he answered like this:
quote
Your comment on Anglicans being Catholics commanded by King Henry III is totally false as well. I am a devout Anglican who knows that Henry III and the English Reformers had much more to be concerned about than his annulment denial and all of the politics of the RCC.
unquote.

So this is an interesting thread to me.

Henry only cared about the divorce. Anglicanism under him was like “Catholicism without the pope.” His successor, Edward VI, pushed significant reforms through parliament via his regents, as Edward was too young to rule. These reforms were undone by Mary I and her advisor Cardinal Reginald Pole. The pendulum swang back the other way under Queen Elizabeth I where the Anglican Church “looked” Catholic, but utilized Protestant doctrine. The important thing to remember, is that politics was the driving force. The people of England wished to remain Catholic. Protestantism was forced on them from above for political reasons.

 

[SIA]

Henry only cared about the divorce. Anglicanism under him was like “Catholicism without the pope.” His successor, Edward VI, pushed significant reforms through parliament via his regents, as Edward was too young to rule. These reforms were undone by Mary I and her advisor Cardinal Reginald Pole. The pendulum swang back the other way under Queen Elizabeth I where the Anglican Church “looked” Catholic, but utilized Protestant doctrine. The important thing to remember, is that politics was the driving force. The people of England wished to remain Catholic. Protestantism was forced on them from above for political reasons.

You are way off. Henry’s reasons for his requested annulment were admittingly selfish, but the beginning of the Anglican church was really very removed from the notion of the denied annlment. It had everything to do with the corruption of the Catholic church, the abuse of power by corrupt popes, the Scriptures vs. Catholic doctrine and just plain truth vs. fabrications.

 

[CWBetts]

I am afraid it is you who are mistaken, Parliament merely took advantage of growing anti-clericalism, but the people actually took up arms because of the Book of Common Prayer and Act of Uniformity.

 

[Chancellare]

You are way off. Henry’s reasons for his requested annulment were admittingly selfish, but the beginning of the Anglican church was really very removed from the notion of the denied annlment. It had everything to do with the corruption of the Catholic church, the abuse of power by corrupt popes, the Scriptures vs. Catholic doctrine and just plain truth vs. fabrications.

It’s an interesting claim. Which factual citation do you think supports this claim?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Henry only cared about the divorce. Anglicanism under him was like “Catholicism without the pope.” His successor, Edward VI, pushed significant reforms through parliament via his regents, as Edward was too young to rule. These reforms were undone by Mary I and her advisor Cardinal Reginald Pole. The pendulum swang back the other way under Queen Elizabeth I where the Anglican Church “looked” Catholic, but utilized Protestant doctrine. The important thing to remember, is that politics was the driving force. The people of England wished to remain Catholic. Protestantism was forced on them from above for political reasons.

If it had only been that simple, Christian History from
the Renaissance thru the Enlightenment would have been a much, much shorter class…

 

[CWBetts]

youre right it wasn’t easy due to the Catholic citizenry rebelling…but the executiond for “treason” under Elizabeth forced the people to accept the Reformation

 

[adstrinity]

I am glad the OP question was asked. I’ve wanted to know the answer for a while.

 

[Chancellare]

You are way off. Henry’s reasons for his requested annulment were admittingly selfish, but the beginning of the Anglican church was really very removed from the notion of the denied annlment. It had everything to do with the corruption of the Catholic church, the abuse of power by corrupt popes, the Scriptures vs. Catholic doctrine and just plain truth vs. fabrications.

The adoption of Protestantism, however, was a political rather than a religious move. King Henry VIII had originally married Catherine of Aragon; since she had been previously married to his brother, though, Henry had to get special papal dispensation for the marriage. Marrying the wife of one’s brother was incest; it was almost equivalent to marrying one’s sister. The marriage, however, produced no male children to occupy the throne at Henry’s death. Henry began to doubt both of the marriage and the spiritual validity of the marriage. In the mid-1520’s, he met and fell in love with Ann Boleyn, a lady in waiting to Catherine. He wished to annul his marriage to Catherine and marry Ann; not only did he love Ann, he feared leaving the throne of England without a male heir.

In order to marry Ann, the marriage with Catherine had to be annulled by the pope. Circumstances, however, were working against him. First, in order to marry Catherine, he needed special papal dispensation. Annulling the marriage would imply that the first papal dispensation was in error, something the pope was not willing to admit. Second, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, had recently invaded Rome and captured the pope. While the pope was allowed to stay pope, he was the virtual prisoner of Charles. The answer to Henry’s request, then, was no and no again.

When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. Rather than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment.

• World Civilizations by Richard Hooker

 

[ralphinal]

I have trouble lumping Anglicans and how they formed with Southern Baptists.

Here is what I mean. Southern Baptists formed during the days prior to the Civil War when they broke from the larger Baptist convention because they felt that it was a white man’s God-given, Biblical right to own slaves. This has a theological bent to it, but it was political.

The Anglican issue was not just about Hank having the hot pants for someone else. Or wanting a son so badly he could taste it. Although both were the case.

It would be easier to defend the Anglican/Episcopal postion than the Southern Baptist one.

 

[GKC]

Ummm, actually I am enrolled in a Tudor-Stuart England class as we speak. Before 1529, Henry VIII was a devout Catholic, in fact he wrote a tretise extremely critical of Luther and the Reformation, that is until the Pope would not reverse a special dispensation that had been granted to marry his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon. Catherine hade failed to produce a male heir, and Henry had fallen in love with Anne Bolyn. Henry required an annulment to make a marraige to Anne valid. Without the annulment, any heris produced through Anne would be bastards, and thereby ineligible to become king. When the pope (Clement V, I believe) would not grant an annulment, England broke with Rome, establishing the Anglican Church with Henry VIII as its head. The Episcopelian Church was the name given to the Anglican Church in the United States after the American Revolution. Those are the facts, and they are indeputible.

Interesting. Mostly, yes, they are facts.

But Henry was not the sole author of the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, though he probably was the major author of the first two sections of it.

And the Pope was Clement VII. The one, that is, who refused, for a number of reasons we could discuss, to grant the decree of nullity Henry was after (the original dispensation, probably faulty, in that it overlooked a probable undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, which allowed Henry to be wed to Catherine in the first place, was from Julius II).

And an illegitimate heir wasn’t necessarily barred from the throne. It was just much, much more difficult to get one such there. Henry was strongly considering naming hs own illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, as his heir, at the same time he also toyed with the idea of letting Mary, his daughter by Catherine, take the seat. It was a toss-up. Until he got yet another bright idea.

I congratulate you one taking a Tudor-Stuart class. The era, and the issue of the impediments/decree of nullity involved, and, indeed, that entire system, as it exisited until Trent reformed it, a little, is one of my minor historical hobbies (I also have major ones). Been studying and collecting books on it all for a little over 10 years. I recommend, if you haven’t done so, reading J. J. Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII. It is not only the standard life of Hank, it is superb.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I like to follow posts that clarify historical singularities, particularly on matters concerning denials.

The last one who answered a similar post I made:
“To me, Anglicans were actually Catholics who were told by Henry VIII to separate from Rome on account of a botched annulment.”

to which he answered like this:
quote
Your comment on Anglicans being Catholics commanded by King Henry III is totally false as well. I am a devout Anglican who knows that Henry III and the English Reformers had much more to be concerned about than his annulment denial and all of the politics of the RCC.
unquote.

So this is an interesting thread to me.

It’s an interesting thread to me, too. I’m an Anglican who doesn’t talk like that.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Henry only cared about the divorce. Anglicanism under him was like “Catholicism without the pope.” His successor, Edward VI, pushed significant reforms through parliament via his regents, as Edward was too young to rule. These reforms were undone by Mary I and her advisor Cardinal Reginald Pole. The pendulum swang back the other way under Queen Elizabeth I where the Anglican Church “looked” Catholic, but utilized Protestant doctrine. The important thing to remember, is that politics was the driving force. The people of England wished to remain Catholic. Protestantism was forced on them from above for political reasons.

Much of this is historically accurate.

Elizabeth and the Elizabethan compromise really did split the extremes that was forming in the Church of England. And the break with Rome was popular some places, not so in others. The north remained much more RC, London much less so.

But that politics was the driving force is spot on.

GKC

 

[GKC]

You are way off. Henry’s reasons for his requested annulment were admittingly selfish, but the beginning of the Anglican church was really very removed from the notion of the denied annlment. It had everything to do with the corruption of the Catholic church, the abuse of power by corrupt popes, the Scriptures vs. Catholic doctrine and just plain truth vs. fabrications.

Off base here, SIA. The issue over the annulment, Henry’s Great Matter, was the impetus to what followed. That there was dissatisfaction with much in the exisiting system is certainly true. For around 300 years, say back to the time of the first Statute of Westminister or so, there had been a succession of Parliamentary and Royal Acts, all aimed, incrementally, at reducing the authority of any agency (i.e. Rome) outside the kingdom, over the Church in England, and increasing the authority of the Throne of the Church in England. It was politically and financially driven. And would likely have continued, as nationalism grew all over Europe, in a form unknowable. But the form that the split actually took, the timing of it, and the proximate cause, was Henry, his heirs and his hormones, and the fact that Catherine had a very influential nephew.

GKC