A question for Episcopalians

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWBetts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chancellare said:
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
Click to expand...
Pretty good summary. Comments:

Henry’s marriage to Arthur’s widow faced an obvious impediment; an impediment of affinity, in the first degree, collateral.

The entire impediment/annulment/dispensation sytem at the time was incredibly complicated and continually evolving. It’s primary purpose was to do 2 things simultaneously; allow the Church to maintain control of the sacrament of marriage, and also permit a systematic method by which dynastic marriages could be made and unmade, both for purposes of state, and for convenience. Henry was playing strictly by the rules when he sought (as his sister had sought, just before him) a decree of nullity. He fully expected to get it, it was done literally all the time. And in the ordinary course of events, he would have received his decree, even though the causa he submitted in his petition was not as strong as it could be (he leaned on the Levitical prohibition; a stronger case was available to him). And the sticking point was not so much that Julius II had made an error (that wasn’t necessarily a problem), as that Henry was insisting that to dispense against the Levitical Prohibition was ultra vires, beyond the authority of anyone, even the Pope. There are such impediments, that cannot be dispensed. No one, the Pope included, was considered able to dispense an impediment of consanquinity, in the first degree direct (father/daughter,mother/son), for example. But opinion on whether the impediment of the Levitical Prohibition was of positive, as opposed to Divine, law, had changed over the years. Henry made his cause all the more difficult by insisting that it was of Divine law, and thus beyond the authority of the Pope to dispense, thus poking Clement and the Papacy in the eye. Had he pursued the issue of an undispensed impediment of the public honesty, his case would have been stronger (though even as it was submitted, it normally would have been successful. But, as noted, an Emperor trumps a King. Especially an Emperor holding a Pope. No case Henry submitted would have been successful.

Again, I recommend Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII (Scarisbrick is RC, BTW). Or, for mind-numbing detail, Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.

GKC
 
ralphinal said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I often point out, history is complicated, and can sneak up on you.

GKC
 
i’ll keep those books in mind, but as it stands time is a luxury in short supply right now as I have 2 exams and a paper this week:ouch:
 
CWBetts said:
i’ll keep those books in mind, but as it stands time is a luxury in short supply right now as I have 2 exams and a paper this week:ouch:
Click to expand...
Good luck to you.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Added:

Oh, and if you want to know the whole story (all of it, that is) as to why and how Henry got the title Defensor Fidei. let me know. It’s fun.

GKC
 
GKC said:
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
Click to expand...
Although speculation is frowned upon by serious students of history, I can’t help but have this one:

Were it not for Henry’s moral choices or Henry himself, would England have remained Catholic?
 
You are right, Histoirans do not like to play the “What if?” game, but I believe there was a strong possibility in England remaining Catholic, though there would have definitely been issues with succession after Mary
 
Sure, but with the all consuming question of legitimacy and dearth of male heirs out of the way, there would have been no need for dispensations or to hear those advisers to separate from Rome.
 
Chancellare said:
Although speculation is frowned upon by serious students of history, I can’t help but have this one:

Were it not for Henry’s moral choices or Henry himself, would England have remained Catholic?
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m a serious student of history, have been for around 50 years or so. And I rarely crack a smile while doing it. Seriously, that’s me.

But I’m also a serious student of science fiction and alternate history, so this is fair game.

Another way to put it is, were it not for the political factors that detemined Clement’s final decision, and which can be traced back to the shifitng relationships and raising a falling fortunes of the major European players at the time (Charles in the ascendence, Francis and the Pope on the decline), would Henry have received his decree of nullity (almost certainly Yes) and what difference would that have made? The difference depends a little on the heirs that Anne might have produced. If it were sickly Edward, only, and he came to the throne under a regency/protectorate, I think that England would have remained in the Roman family for some time loger. Whether indefinitely, I’m not sure. But I am sure that the relationship that was evolving between the Throne and the Papacy, as reflected by those Acts I mentioned above, would have continued until there was some change in the status quo. Just how that would have worked out, I can’t say, nor can any man. But it’s something to ponder.

GKC
 
The basis of the English Reformation under Henry (or Elizabeth) was not to simply attain an annulment but rather to establish that the bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction in the English realm (similar to the claims of the eastern patriarchs). You are very naive to believe that it was all abount Henry’s marital issues.

The annulment controversy may have triggered the Reformation in England but it was hardly the driving force of it (That’s like saying WWI was all about the assasination of the Archduke Ferdinand). The monarchy, parliment, and yes even many of the commoners (due to Wycliffe) were frustrated with what they saw as religious tyranny from Rome (something the east wouldn’t tolerate from old Rome either).

The Anglican church was not founded “solely to get an annulment” but was to declare that the pope does not have universal jurisdiction.
 
Do your research. Henry was a devout Catholic before the Great Matter, and there were actually peasant revolts over the removal of the sacraments and the Latin Mass. Those supportive of the reformation were in the definite minority. The English Reformation was very much “Top-Down”
 
VARC said:
The basis of the English Reformation under Henry (or Elizabeth) was not to simply attain an annulment but rather to establish that the bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction in the English realm (similar to the claims of the eastern patriarchs). You are very naive to believe that it was all abount Henry’s marital issues.

The annulment controversy may have triggered the Reformation in England but it was hardly the driving force of it (That’s like saying WWI was all about the assasination of the Archduke Ferdinand). The monarchy, parliment, and yes even many of the commoners (due to Wycliffe) were frustrated with what they saw as religious tyranny from Rome (something the east wouldn’t tolerate from old Rome either).

The Anglican church was not founded “solely to get an annulment” but was to declare that the pope does not have universal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
When making conclusive statements, it is prudent to use factual citations from authoritative sources.
 
Chancellare said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not after 1502, it wasn’t - Alexander VI (yes, that Alexander VI) decided the question by granting to a Portuguese prince the very thing that Henry VIII later obtained; permission to marry within a degree of affinity often thought - on Biblical & canonical grounds - to be forbidden by the lex Divina.​

Henry’s scruple (assuming him to be in good faith) was that the Pope had dispensed where in fact he had no power to dispense, that therefore the failure of the Queen to bear a surviving male heir (she had born a son, still born) was a sign of Divine displeasure, & that therefore she should be put away. Which would have the welcome result of leaving him free to marry Nan Bullen (even though he had been conducting an affair with her sister).

By an interesting “coincidence”, 1502 was also the year of the death of Henry’s elder brother Arthur.

I don’t see why Henry did not apply to Rome for his bastard son to be legitimised. That could have saved some trouble - and possibly a head or two.
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.
Click to expand...

Not unreasonably, after the bloodshed in the Wars of the Roses (1455-85).​

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
Click to expand...
 
Chancellare said:
because he wanted Ann Bullen more?
Click to expand...
Anne Boleyn, common spelling.

Not a complete answer. He took the route of seeking a decree of nullity because it was an established and common method of dealing with dynastic marriage problems. He played by the accepted rules, and was quite justified in expecting the outcome he wanted. And, doing that gave him Anne as a bonus. It was a twofer.

GKC
 
VARC said:
The basis of the English Reformation under Henry (or Elizabeth) was not to simply attain an annulment but rather to establish that the bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction in the English realm (similar to the claims of the eastern patriarchs). You are very naive to believe that it was all abount Henry’s marital issues.

The annulment controversy may have triggered the Reformation in England but it was hardly the driving force of it (That’s like saying WWI was all about the assasination of the Archduke Ferdinand). The monarchy, parliment, and yes even many of the commoners (due to Wycliffe) were frustrated with what they saw as religious tyranny from Rome (something the east wouldn’t tolerate from old Rome either).

The Anglican church was not founded “solely to get an annulment” but was to declare that the pope does not have universal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
More accurately, and historically, I’d say it was the culmination of a long series of Parliamentary and Royal acts, running back 250+ years, all aimed at, not necessarily establishing that the Pope did not possess universal ordianry authority, but reducing the influence any outside authority had over the Church in England, while expanding the authority of the Throne over it, Beginning with the First Statute of Westminsiter, in 1275, as a starting point, and running through the Statute of Mortmain, the writ, *Circumspecte agatis * of Carlise, the response to the Bull Clericos laicos and the two Statutes (each) of Provisors and of Praemunire, you can trace this process. Had it not been for Henry. something else would have caused something, during this era of emerging nationalism. Henry was the proximate cause, and his situation dictated the form the climax took

But your point is valid. It was not merely Henry’s dynastic issue that was in action, but history.

GKC
 
Chancellare said:
When making conclusive statements, it is prudent to use factual citations from authoritative sources.
Click to expand...
Though not addressed to me, I agree with the point. Any good history of the period will rehearse the relationship between the EnglishThrone and Rome, during the 300 years or so before Henry. The one to hand (given that almost all my library is in another place) is Moormans’s HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND, esp. pp 112-116. This is the background to Henry’s acts. VARC’s post is accurate, in essence.

GKC
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Not after 1502, it wasn’t - Alexander VI (yes, that Alexander VI) decided the question by granting to a Portuguese prince the very thing that Henry VIII later obtained; permission to marry within a degree of affinity often thought - on Biblical & canonical grounds - to be forbidden by the lex Divina.​

Henry’s scruple (assuming him to be in good faith) was that the Pope had dispensed where in fact he had no power to dispense, that therefore the failure of the Queen to bear a surviving male heir (she had born a son, still born) was a sign of Divine displeasure, & that therefore she should be put away. Which would have the welcome result of leaving him free to marry Nan Bullen (even though he had been conducting an affair with her sister).

By an interesting “coincidence”, 1502 was also the year of the death of Henry’s elder brother Arthur.

I don’t see why Henry did not apply to Rome for his bastard son to be legitimised. That could have saved some trouble - and possibly a head or two.

Not unreasonably, after the bloodshed in the Wars of the Roses (1455-85).​

Click to expand...
I agree with the essence of the post. Though it must be remembered that the issue of whether the Levitical Prohibition was of positive or Divine law had changed, more than once (for details, I’d have to find Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII). The rules on impediments/dispensations changed regularly, an interesting history in itself. In fact, the first recorded instance in which a dispensation was given to marry within what Henry maintained was the Divine law of the Levitical Prohibition, had a family connection to him. Ironic, in view of his hanging his hat on that later dispensation from Julius being ultra vires.

GKC
 
Hello:

Still a guardian of history I see!

What a rare thing to find and old friend on such a big Internet!!!

Are we still a defender of Halflings as well?

Victor
GKC said:
I agree with the essence of the post. Though it must be remembered that the issue of whether the Levitical Prohibition was of positive or Divine law had changed, more than once (for details, I’d have to find Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII). The rules on impediments/dispensations changed regularly, an interesting history in itself. In fact, the first recorded instance in which a dispensation was given to marry within what Henry maintained was the Divine law of the Levitical Prohibition, had a family connection to him. Ironic, in view of his hanging his hat on that later dispensation from Julius being ultra vires.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top