Anglo-Catholic

[Bluegoat]

As I said, I realize my view is overly simplistic, but my point remains the same regardless of the details between Henry VIII and the Pope. What was once a political situation, it seems, has now grown into issues concerning doctrine, but it could not have been so at the origination of the Church of England. This had to have been a development over time as to doctrinal issues and was not the reason for the split originally. Hope I’m making sense.

I think to put it another way: the issues that caused the problem between Henry and Rome were aspects of a larger problem - the way the papacy understood its authority. So the idea was that the papacy was claiming authority that was in some way illegitimate. And that is a doctrinal issue - it is just that as so often happens, it spurs people to action or change when it relates to a practical issue.

Although at the time there were a lot of hard feelings, and today many don’t care, lots of Anglicans would say that yes, reunion with Rome is an ideal. However, by most Anglicans who feel this way it would also be seen as impossible as long as the papacy continues to make illegitimate claims (which I think everyone realizes are not nearly as bad as they were in Henry’s day.) I don’t see that change coming any time in the near future though.

 

[Anna_Scott]

IMO, it’s a losing battle.

GKC

Perhaps, but it’s worth fighting to prevent more splits and divisions.

Anna

 

[GKC]

Perhaps, but it’s worth fighting to prevent more splits and divisions.

Anna

That depends, ISTM, on what you have before you split. What TEC has, and has become, and is fashioning itself into, I could not abide.

It is not the splits that are crucial. It is what might occasion the splits.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

I think to put it another way: the issues that caused the problem between Henry and Rome were aspects of a larger problem - the way the papacy understood its authority. So the idea was that the papacy was claiming authority that was in some way illegitimate. And that is a doctrinal issue - it is just that as so often happens, it spurs people to action or change when it relates to a practical issue.

Although at the time there were a lot of hard feelings, and today many don’t care, lots of Anglicans would say that yes, reunion with Rome is an ideal. However, by most Anglicans who feel this way it would also be seen as impossible as long as the papacy continues to make illegitimate claims (which I think everyone realizes are not nearly as bad as they were in Henry’s day.) I don’t see that change coming any time in the near future though.

Interesting. And what purported illigitimate claims would the Anglicans hold against the Pope today? Even in Henry’s time, are you claiming that the Pope’s refusal to nullify Henry’s marriage (so that he could marry another in order to have a male heir) was illigitimate?

 

[GKC]

Interesting. And what purported illigitimate claims would the Anglicans hold against the Pope today? Even in Henry’s time, are you claiming that the Pope’s refusal to nullify Henry’s marriage (so that he could marry another in order to have a male heir) was illigitimate?

Addressing only the last question, something like that was alleged, but not quite as you stated it. In Henry’s causa, seeking the decree of nullity, Henry presented the case that Julius’ dispensation, which originally allowed him to marry Catherine, against the impediment of affinity that would apply to marrying his sister in law, was beyond the power of even a Pope to grant. His case was that his situation was an example of the Leventine prohibition, and thus was an impediment arising from Divine law, not Church law, and was ultra vires, beyond the power of a Pope to dispense. It was an arguable case, but not a strong one (there was a stronger one). Like all history , it is complicated. But it is true that the Church recognized there were limits to Papal authority in such cases, though such limits were constantly redefined. Politics set other limits, too.

What Clement finally did, with respect to Henry’s case, represented a very common example of what happens when theology and politics are mixed. Henry took a rather unusual course, in reaction. Again, it has long historical roots.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Interesting. And what purported illigitimate claims would the Anglicans hold against the Pope today? Even in Henry’s time, are you claiming that the Pope’s refusal to nullify Henry’s marriage (so that he could marry another in order to have a male heir) was illigitimate?

They are essentially the same claims that the East makes – that the type of primacy Rome claims is outside what is meant to exist. In the case of England (as well as other political states at that time) it was evident in the way that Rome tried to control secular states. Henry’s situation came out of that - the Church had been using theology for political ends, and trying to have it both ways, and Henry rebelled. But that was the end of a few hundred years of this type of political conflict, not the beginning. GKC I’m sure could fill you in on that aspect if you are interested.

Today Catholics, and Anglicans too, have a much better arrangement of Church and state and that is not particularly an issue. However, we would still say that the universal primacy Rome claims for itself is incorrect - the bishop of Rome, for example, should have no right to appoint and depose bishops of other Sees.

 

[gmcbroom]

Ahh yes Primacy. The Orthodox do indeed seem to have a issue with that though Thank God for Benedict, he seems to take an earlier view of the Pope concerning the role of Bishops. An ancient argument. Later I think he went further and showed it by his reception of an Arch Bishop who wanted to be received as a Patriarch. He didn’t address him as such probably due the sensitivities of the Russian Orthodox Church with whom he was trying to form a dialogue. Though it did ruffle some feathers on the catholic side. Sacrifices.

Another issue, I think being the words of consecration. The,“Dutch Touched Bishops,” of old could certainly make a legitament claim of validity. Since the words of consecration were done by an Old Catholic Bishop the orders would be (il)lict though valid (I think I wrote that right). Now if those words were ever reinstated for the whole of the Anglican Communion as they came from the Old Catholic Bishop then the Catholic Church would probably receive the Anglican Communion as a whole as a legitament Church ie cementing the 3 branch theory instead of its view as an ecclesial community. That being said those not already ordained by those with the dutch touch would likely have to be reordained and i don’t think many would welcome that . But female ordination would have to cease and thats an issue thats too hot to touch as well.

Peace be with you

 

[SteveVH]

They are essentially the same claims that the East makes – that the type of primacy Rome claims is outside what is meant to exist. In the case of England (as well as other political states at that time) it was evident in the way that Rome tried to control secular states. Henry’s situation came out of that - the Church had been using theology for political ends, and trying to have it both ways, and Henry rebelled. But that was the end of a few hundred years of this type of political conflict, not the beginning. GKC I’m sure could fill you in on that aspect if you are interested.

Today Catholics, and Anglicans too, have a much better arrangement of Church and state and that is not particularly an issue. However, we would still say that the universal primacy Rome claims for itself is incorrect - the bishop of Rome, for example, should have no right to appoint and depose bishops of other Sees.

I truly appreciate your answers. I might have an argument as to what primacy means (as I disagree with the Orthodox on this issue) but at least I know where you’re coming from.

Thanks.

 

[SteveVH]

Addressing only the last question, something like that was alleged, but not quite as you stated it. In Henry’s causa, seeking the decree of nullity, Henry presented the case that Julius’ dispensation, which originally allowed him to marry Catherine, against the impediment of affinity that would apply to marrying his sister in law, was beyond the power of even a Pope to grant. His case was that his situation was an example of the Leventine prohibition, and thus was an impediment arising from Divine law, not Church law, and was ultra vires, beyond the power of a Pope to dispense. It was an arguable case, but not a strong one (there was a stronger one). Like all history , it is complicated. But it is true that the Church recognized there were limits to Papal authority in such cases, though such limits were constantly redefined. Politics set other limits, too.

What Clement finally did, with respect to Henry’s case, represented a very common example of what happens when theology and politics are mixed. Henry took a rather unusual course, in reaction. Again, it has long historical roots.

GKC

Thanks GKC, sounds like you know your stuff. As I had anticipated, there are no easy answers and no simple history, especially considering the time frame in which this occurred.

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC, sounds like you know your stuff. As I had anticipated, there are no easy answers and no simple history, especially considering the time frame in which this occurred.

IMO, you are correct. History is complicated. It’s full of people, and things.

GKC.

 

[GKC]

Ahh yes Primacy. The Orthodox do indeed seem to have a issue with that though Thank God for Benedict, he seems to take an earlier view of the Pope concerning the role of Bishops. An ancient argument. Later I think he went further and showed it by his reception of an Arch Bishop who wanted to be received as a Patriarch. He didn’t address him as such probably due the sensitivities of the Russian Orthodox Church with whom he was trying to form a dialogue. Though it did ruffle some feathers on the catholic side. Sacrifices.

Another issue, I think being the words of consecration. The,“Dutch Touched Bishops,” of old could certainly make a legitament claim of validity. Since the words of consecration were done by an Old Catholic Bishop the orders would be (il)lict though valid (I think I wrote that right). Now if those words were ever reinstated for the whole of the Anglican Communion as they came from the Old Catholic Bishop then the Catholic Church would probably receive the Anglican Communion as a whole as a legitament Church ie cementing the 3 branch theory instead of its view as an ecclesial community. That being said those not already ordained by those with the dutch touch would likely have to be reordained and i don’t think many would welcome that . But female ordination would have to cease and thats an issue thats too hot to touch as well.

Peace be with you

Yes, valid but illicit. Logically, I think what you said about the impact of OC/PNCC bishops jointly consecrating Anglican bishops, since 1932/1946, would be correct. And the form of consecration is the same, since it was changed in 1662. But officially the RCC has not commented on it.

GKC

 

[gmcbroom]

GKC,
I don’t think Rome will coment on it further than what was said with the null and utterly void designation which happened before the,“Dutch Touch,” ocurred. you never know though with Rome.
Peace be with you

 

[GKC]

GKC,
I don’t think Rome will coment on it further than what was said with the null and utterly void designation which happened before the,“Dutch Touch,” ocurred. you never know though with Rome.
Peace be with you

You never do.

Evidence suggests that it played a part in Graham Leonard’s sub conditione ordination, but if so, or if it also did the same in the * sub conditione* ordination of John Hughes, those were individual situations, and no general conclusion can be drawn. But, logically, it fits the situation that Ott describes, re: the ability of schismatic bishops to validly ordain.

GKC