A Story of Spiritual Warfare: a Franciscan Priest in an Earlier Century Rebukes King Henry VIII as He is about to Divest England of the Catholic Faith

[mdgspencer]

This account focuses on a fearless Franciscan priest who rebuked Henry VIII at mass for the king’s personal evil doing, and the fulfillment of this priest’s dire prediction that Henry VIII would be dishonored at death.
see areluctantsinner.blogspot.com/2012/01/dead-king-and-thirsty-dogs-interesting.html

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Interesting account. I had heard before that some foul smelling liquid had escaped from his coffin, but I’d never bothered to find out any details.

I also remember seeing on some TV show that when Anne Boleyn was executed, all the candles in one church or monastery spontaneously ignited.

Anyone know the story and where this was supposed to have happened?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I question that Henry By placed " his wanton lust before the welfare of his people". My English History professor noted that Henry had, and took, ample opportunity to satisfy his wanton lust without tearing his country apart.

His father, Henry VII, had just reunited the country after a long civil war. The Tudor claim to the throne was rather tenuous. Henry VIII feared a resumption of the war if he did not provide a legitimate male heir to the throne. Catherine had not provided this [probably due to Henry’s diseased condition condition due to his wanton lust]. Anne was pregnant and nearing delivery. Henry needed a marriage to legitimize her child, which he hoped was male. He felt the break was necessary to spare the country another civil war.

In the end God showed the fallacy of his fears. His only male heir died early and his daughters successfully ascended the throne in order. They had no heirs and the throne successfully passed to other lines without any war.

 

[KathleenGee]

This thread now makes me understand more why people in the past did not like dogs.

 

[JustaServant]

This thread now makes me understand more why people in the past did not like dogs.

Definately not something you want to read during lunch.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I question that Henry By placed " his wanton lust before the welfare of his people". My English History professor noted that Henry had, and took, ample opportunity to satisfy his wanton lust without tearing his country apart.

His father, Henry VII, had just reunited the country after a long civil war. The Tudor claim to the throne was rather tenuous. Henry VIII feared a resumption of the war if he did not provide a legitimate male heir to the throne. Catherine had not provided this [probably due to Henry’s diseased condition condition due to his wanton lust]. Anne was pregnant and nearing delivery. Henry needed a marriage to legitimize her child, which he hoped was male. He felt the break was necessary to spare the country another civil war.

In the end God showed the fallacy of his fears. His only male heir died early and his daughters successfully ascended the throne in order. They had no heirs and the throne successfully passed to other lines without any war.

Elizabeth I eventually consolidated Protestantism in the country.

But yes---------his fears were unfounded.

Tragic, sinful error, he made.

 

[KathleenGee]

I read that it was two of his knights in the court who heard him speak a hyperbole of St. Thomas More…and the two interpreted it to kill him…When the King found out he was in great shock and shut himself in his room for several days…filled with grief…

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I read that it was two of his knights in the court who heard him speak a hyperbole of St. Thomas More…and the two interpreted it to kill him…When the King found out he was in great shock and shut himself in his room for several days…filled with grief…

I think that that is St Thomas Becket and Henry II.

 

[KathleenGee]

Joe…

Oh I see about it being Henry II…there was this cultural magazine on England…and its tone was different…never saw it before…through client…who travelled…I missed which Henry…Thanks.

 

[cmodrmac]

It is amazing how inaccurate some of the comments are-Henry clearly wanted an anullment -the Pope would not give one (as was his right) - he thus took the English Catholic Church out from under the authority of Rome-he did not per se reject any specific doctrines -so this would be a schism such as the Old catholics and Polish National catholic Church-his daughter Mary brought te english Church back under Rome and then the next Virgin Queen (elizabeth) created the via media

Some doctrines were ultimately rejected such as Purgatory

Stop beating up on the Anglicans they are as legitimate as the Orthodox (who the RC considers schismatics) as well

 

[manualman]

1. Stop beating up on the Anglicans,
2. they are as legitimate as the Orthodox (who the RC considers schismatics) as well

1. Agreed. It’s easy to be smug when claiming religious purity one has not earned. Catholics do need to watch the 'tude.
2. Ah, well quibble. The Catholic Church disagrees. The great schism with the East is a true schism that remained in that status with the EO retaining their bishops and subsequently the ability to ordain new bishops validly. But the Anglican Church very quickly, under Edward in name and Cromwell in effect, very quickly repudiated the catholic idea of Holy Orders as a Sacrament passed from one bishop to the next and held on to that erroneous notion long enough for all the valid bishops to die off. The doctrinal problem was corrected, but with no validly ordained bishops remaining, the “branch” (so to speak) was cut off. I terribly simplify, of course, and you can read the Vatican document Apostolicae Curae for the tedious details. Or poster GKC might be along shortly to give the charitably Anglican explanation of catholic teaching on the matter better than I can!

Maybe its my Irish side, but given the profound influence Cromwell had on the early Anglican Church I wish more Anglicans would read about the man. Shudders.

 

[GKC]

1. Agreed. It’s easy to be smug when claiming religious purity one has not earned. Catholics do need to watch the 'tude.
2. Ah, well quibble. The Catholic Church disagrees. The great schism with the East is a true schism that remained in that status with the EO retaining their bishops and subsequently the ability to ordain new bishops validly. But the Anglican Church very quickly, under Edward in name and Cromwell in effect, very quickly repudiated the catholic idea of Holy Orders as a Sacrament passed from one bishop to the next and held on to that erroneous notion long enough for all the valid bishops to die off. The doctrinal problem was corrected, but with no validly ordained bishops remaining, the “branch” (so to speak) was cut off. I terribly simplify, of course, and you can read the Vatican document Apostolicae Curae for the tedious details. Or poster GKC might be along shortly to give the charitably Anglican explanation of catholic teaching on the matter better than I can!

Maybe its my Irish side, but given the profound influence Cromwell had on the early Anglican Church I wish more Anglicans would read about the man. Shudders.

t’s very kind of you to suggest it. But lately I’ve been less obsessive/compulsive in posting on all my hobby horses at the same time. Looking over this thread I had visions of doing the whole Horny Hank and his Hormones thing, the impediment/dispensation/decree of nullity system, as it was, diriment impediments of affinity, or the justice of public honesty, the Duke of Richmond and Somerset, the battle of Pavia, Catherine’s nephew, and then the whole* Apostolicae Curae* affair, from Halifax and Portal to the Malines Conversations and intent and form, Agreement of Bonn, and on and on. But then I remembered that I had been doing precisely that, on a different subject, in the Social Justice sub-forum, for something approximating forever, and I was tired. And somehow, it seems pointless.

I’m gonna take a rest, on these.

Edward VI? Cromwell, Oliver?

GKC

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It is amazing how inaccurate some of the comments are-Henry clearly wanted an anullment -the Pope would not give one (as was his right) - he thus took the English Catholic Church out from under the authority of Rome…

According to my English history professor, Henry requested an annulment on the grounds that the dispensation allowing him to marry his brother’s widow was invalid. At the same time he was requesting an identical annulment in order to marry Anne. He had been messing around with her sister, which constituted an impediment to his marrying Anne.

 

[GKC]

According to my English history professor, Henry requested an annulment on the grounds that the dispensation allowing him to marry his brother’s widow was invalid. At the same time he was requesting an identical annulment in order to marry Anne. He had been messing around with her sister, which constituted an impediment to his marrying Anne.

Henry requested a decree of nullity. The distinction is important. The Church did not annul a valid marriage, it declared marriages (in certain cases) to be invalid, and issued a decree of nullity.

Henry’s causa, seeking a decree of nullity, was based on the Levitical Prohibition, forbidding marrying a brother’s widow. Henry’s position was that this was based on Divine, not Church law, hence was ultra vires, beyond the power of even a Pope to dispense, hence Julius’ original dispensation for him to marry Catherine was invalid. There are certain such impediments (ultra vires) and the Church had been mulling over whether the Levitical Prohibition was such, over the years.

Henry’s causa was not totally without merit, but it was flawed and not as strong as it might have been. He had a better case in an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, lurking in Julius’ dispensation, as Wolsey tried to show him, but, in the end, it likely would have failed, too. This was a case of real-politic, as much as Church law. dispensation for any impediments of affinity that might lie against his marriage to Anne. This would not have involved the Levitical Prohibition and would have been a straight forward case of dispensing a diriment impediment of affinity in the second degree.

He never admitted to a liaison with Catherine’s sister, but he did request a generic dispensation against any impediments of affinity that might lie against his marrying Anne. The Levitical Prohibition was not involved, and that would have been a simple dispensation of an impediment of affinity in the second degree.

So much for resolutions.

GKC

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Henry requested a decree of nullity. The distinction is important. The Church did not annul a valid marriage, it declared marriages (in certain cases) to be invalid, and issued a decree of nullity.

Henry’s causa, seeking a decree of nullity, was based on the Levitical Prohibition, forbidding marrying a brother’s widow. Henry’s position was that this was based on Divine, not Church law, hence was ultra vires, beyond the power of even a Pope to dispense, hence Julius’ original dispensation for him to marry Catherine was invalid. There are certain such impediments (ultra vires) and the Church had been mulling over whether the Levitical Prohibition was such, over the years.

Henry’s causa was not totally without merit, but it was flawed and not as strong as it might have been. He had a better case in an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, lurking in Julius’ dispensation, as Wolsey tried to show him, but, in the end, it likely would have failed, too. This was a case of real-politic, as much as Church law. dispensation for any impediments of affinity that might lie against his marriage to Anne. This would not have involved the Levitical Prohibition and would have been a straight forward case of dispensing a diriment impediment of affinity in the second degree.

He never admitted to a liaison with Catherine’s sister, but he did request a generic dispensation against any impediments of affinity that might lie against his marrying Anne. The Levitical Prohibition was not involved, and that would have been a simple dispensation of an impediment of affinity in the second degree.

So much for resolutions.

GKC

What Levitical prohibition?

"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

Deuteronomy 25:5

 

[Leegal]

I think that that is St Thomas Becket and Henry II.

Yes that was St. Thomas Becket and Henry II – a somewhat similar story though, except that Becket was made priest and Archbishop and took his job seriously – something Henry II did not think would happen. So when he wanted to be ridded of the troublesome priest, 4 men took it up themselves to do the deed. It’s not certain that Henry was just speaking out of frustration with Thomas or he really wanted someone to take matters into their own hands. His grief seems to indicate they he was not serious but he neither pursued them nor helped them, and all 4 were excommunicated.

St. Thomas More refused to acknowlege Henry as Supreme Head of the Church – that was his crime. He did accept Parliament’s declaration as Anne Boleyn as Queen – but could not bring himself to accept the annulment from Catherine - thought he deferred to Parliament to have Anne declared Queen. More was a lawyer or judge – before becoming Chancellor to Henry VIII.

He was tried and executed, but given the dignity of beheading unlike other nobles who were hanged, drawn and quartered.

Two Henrys and two Thomases. History repeating itself. It was not easy being friend to a King.

 

[Leegal]

Henry VIII’s body was long putrifying before his death. He had a wound in 1536 that never healed and continued to fester and smell from pus.

 

[GKC]

What Levitical prohibition? Deuteronomy 25:5

Absolutely. That is known as the Levirate Admonition. Look back up in my post and note I said that Henry’s own* causa* was flawed. That’s the flaw…

The Levitical Prohibition is found in Leviticus XVIII:16 and XX:21. Wolsey tried to get Henry to understand that the Prohibition was a weak reed to base his causa on, and it might or might not be interpreted in his favor (it had been interpreted various ways over the years). There was a stronger case in an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty in Julius’ dispensation. Henry would not listen.

In fact, even weak as the causa was, it was as strong as was usual in such cases, at Henry’s level of society, and Henry assumed he would obtain his decree in due course. It was a common occurrence, at the time, and the complex and unwieldy system of impediments/dispensations/decrees of nullity was structured and was constantly re-structured to accommodate the making and breaking of dynastic marriages, while keeping the sacramental nature of marriage, under Church control. Eventually, the entire system had to be reformed, and was taken in hand at Trent (Session XXIV).

Henry’s plea was certainly as strong as the causa his sister had submitted shortly before Henry submitted his. She received her decree of nullity. Henry faced a stickier wicket. For a number of reasons.

The entire story of Henry’s Great Matter, is complicated, like much of history. It has been a hobby of mine for around 12 years. I must have posted a small volume on it here, over the years. Wearying, it is.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Henry VIII’s body was long putrifying before his death. He had a wound in 1536 that never healed and continued to fester and smell from pus.

J. J. Scarisbrick, in the best bio of Henry that I know of, says the problem probably dated from 1528, eventually spread to both legs (by 1537), and was most likely ulcerated varicose veins, or possibly osteomylitis.

GKC

 

[liturgyluver]

Henry requested a decree of nullity. The distinction is important. The Church did not annul a valid marriage, it declared marriages (in certain cases) to be invalid, and issued a decree of nullity.

Henry’s causa, seeking a decree of nullity, was based on the Levitical Prohibition, forbidding marrying a brother’s widow. Henry’s position was that this was based on Divine, not Church law, hence was ultra vires, beyond the power of even a Pope to dispense, hence Julius’ original dispensation for him to marry Catherine was invalid. There are certain such impediments (ultra vires) and the Church had been mulling over whether the Levitical Prohibition was such, over the years.

Henry’s causa was not totally without merit, but it was flawed and not as strong as it might have been. He had a better case in an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, lurking in Julius’ dispensation, as Wolsey tried to show him, but, in the end, it likely would have failed, too. This was a case of real-politic, as much as Church law. dispensation for any impediments of affinity that might lie against his marriage to Anne. This would not have involved the Levitical Prohibition and would have been a straight forward case of dispensing a diriment impediment of affinity in the second degree.

He never admitted to a liaison with Catherine’s sister, but he did request a generic dispensation against any impediments of affinity that might lie against his marrying Anne. The Levitical Prohibition was not involved, and that would have been a simple dispensation of an impediment of affinity in the second degree.

So much for resolutions.

GKC

Thank you GKC. I love reading your posts and am amazed by your in-depth knowledge on these issues. I always learn something new when I read what you write - thank you so much.