Z
zorrox
Guest
It seems that there would not have been an Anglican Church if Henry VIII would have been a member of the Catholic Church in the US today
- Status
D
Dropper
Guest
Somewhat funny, infinitely sad, and undoubtedly true…It seems that there would not have been an Anglican Church if Henry VIII would have been a member of the Catholic Church in the US today
Z
zorrox
Guest
really makes you wonder 
K
Karin
Guest
what exactly are you saying???
do you feel that too many annulments are granted here in the US?
do you feel that too many annulments are granted here in the US?
Z
zorrox
Guest
The teaching on marriage remains the same since the apostles, and the same as during the so called reformation.
Strange thing there are so many immature people in the Catholic dioceses in the US, or could it be that that “new” clause in canon law is misused by some ecclesiastical courts?
I mean the clause on psychological ability to lead a family life, it can be very loosely interpreted.
Strange thing there are so many immature people in the Catholic dioceses in the US, or could it be that that “new” clause in canon law is misused by some ecclesiastical courts?
I mean the clause on psychological ability to lead a family life, it can be very loosely interpreted.
C
CRW
Guest
His grounds for divorce, would equally be as hard to defend today as it was then. He was legally married in the Church and that was the problem then and now concerning Church approval for his divorce and remarriage. I think most annulments today are granted because the “norms” of Catholic marriage were not instituted, to make the marriage valid.It seems that there would not have been an Anglican Church if Henry VIII would have been a member of the Catholic Church in the US today
A
az_4_faith
Guest
Overall general faith formation in the United States during my generation (born 1960) has been poor to bad to say the least.
Most who enter into the Sacrament of Matrimony are severely handicapped by this lack of basic faith formation, either by weak parish religious education programs, Catholic School formation, RCIA programs or, sorry to say, faith that should be passed/taught by immediate family - parents/grandparents teaching children, teens, etc.
Of course, this is based on my own personal experience, both as a catechist and as a marriage prep couple. But I think it rings true past my own little world. It’s surprised me how much my own friends lack the confidence they need to teach the faith to their own children. They really expect the parish/school to do it all.
This leads to poor understanding of the meaning of the Sacrament of Matrimony and it’s permanancy, and the difference between a Catholic Wedding and a secular one. Most (but definitely not all, YEAH!) of the couples that my husband and I prepare really don’t understand the difference between a Catholic Sacramental Wedding and a wedding performed anywhere else.
I think the annulments are, in most cases, probably properly granted, but nothing to be proud of. Hopefully we can all contribute to turning this trend around.
Let’s hope and pray for wiser, more confident parents and catechists.
Most who enter into the Sacrament of Matrimony are severely handicapped by this lack of basic faith formation, either by weak parish religious education programs, Catholic School formation, RCIA programs or, sorry to say, faith that should be passed/taught by immediate family - parents/grandparents teaching children, teens, etc.
Of course, this is based on my own personal experience, both as a catechist and as a marriage prep couple. But I think it rings true past my own little world. It’s surprised me how much my own friends lack the confidence they need to teach the faith to their own children. They really expect the parish/school to do it all.
This leads to poor understanding of the meaning of the Sacrament of Matrimony and it’s permanancy, and the difference between a Catholic Wedding and a secular one. Most (but definitely not all, YEAH!) of the couples that my husband and I prepare really don’t understand the difference between a Catholic Sacramental Wedding and a wedding performed anywhere else.
I think the annulments are, in most cases, probably properly granted, but nothing to be proud of. Hopefully we can all contribute to turning this trend around.
Let’s hope and pray for wiser, more confident parents and catechists.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Not so! The tribunal of that age worked no differently from the Tribunal of today. The grounds for the petition of annulment was that Henry did not have a dispensation for his marriage. However, it turns out that he did and, thus, no annulment was possible. That would still apply today.It seems that there would not have been an Anglican Church if Henry VIII would have been a member of the Catholic Church in the US today
Deacon Ed
G
gmarie21
Guest
Didn’t he receive an annulment from his first wife? Wasn’t it the second wife in which he could not receive an annulment from? The first was a relative, the second a choice?
T
txangel
Guest
No, he did not receive an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. He had been given proper dispensation to marry her. He wanted a divorce because she did not bear him a son that lived, only a daughter, Mary (later to become Queen of Scots). Anne Boleyn was sister to one of Henry’s misstresses, if I remember my history. He was frustrated with not having a male heir and thus, when Anne found herself pregnant, and the Pope refusing to dissolve Henry’s marriage to Catherine, Henry refuted the power of the Pope and demanded the Archbishop of Cantebury grant the annulment. Thus…The Church of England.
L
LRThunder
Guest
Mary, Queen of Scots? Not the same Mary born to Catherine of Aragon, I think. His daughter, Mary, was Mary Tudor and was queen between Edward’s brief reign and Elizabeth I’s reign.
I think that’s correct.
J
jmcrae
Guest
No - there were two Catholic Queen Marys. Mary Queen of Scots was Mary Stewart, but the daughter and heir of King Henry VIII (Tudor) was Mary Tudor.
They were cousins - and I don’t think they reigned at the same time, since it seems to me that Mary Stewart was eventually executed by Mary Tudor’s much younger half-sister, Elizabeth I, who was the daughter of Anne Boleyn (Anne herself was executed by King Henry, for adultery).
C
Corki
Guest
More importantly, in my own view, is that Henry’s family really pushed for the dispensation to allow him to marry his sister-in-law and then he turned around and tried to say that the dispensation was granted illicitly. He was treating the authority of the Church regarding marriage as a whimsical power that could be changed any time. It was no coincidence that this fit nicely into the budding Protestant revolt against Church (Papal) authority.
G
gelsbern
Guest
I think there is a misunderstanding of what an annulment is.
It is not, a statement saying a marriage is ended, it is a statement stating a marriage never existed in the first place.
The problem isn’t the number of annulments granted by the church. If it wasn’t a marriage, it wasn’t a marriage and the church cannot say otherwise. The true problem is the number of people living together thinking they are married when in reality they aren’t.
Don’t place the blame on the church, place the blame where it belongs, with the people ignoring the teachings of the church when it comes to marriage. If people would do things according to the teachings of the church, the number of annulments would drop drastically.
It is not, a statement saying a marriage is ended, it is a statement stating a marriage never existed in the first place.
The problem isn’t the number of annulments granted by the church. If it wasn’t a marriage, it wasn’t a marriage and the church cannot say otherwise. The true problem is the number of people living together thinking they are married when in reality they aren’t.
Don’t place the blame on the church, place the blame where it belongs, with the people ignoring the teachings of the church when it comes to marriage. If people would do things according to the teachings of the church, the number of annulments would drop drastically.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
With all due respect to Henry, he was 11 when his brother Arthur (who had married Katherine of Aragon) died. When Henry VII decided that he wanted to keep Katherine’s dowry in England, he pushed for the dispensation. Young Henry by all accounts (yes, there are contemporary accounts) was eager enough to marry Katherine–so much so that just prior to age 14 (when technically he could have married Katherine) Henry VII had him sign papers saying that he was being ‘coerced’ into the marriage, because by this time Henry was looking to other alignments, either with France or with the Holy Roman Empire (because when Queen Isabella of Castile died–Katherine’s mother, wife of Ferdinand of Aragon, the throne of Castile did not pass to Ferdinand but to Katherine’s sister Juana who had married Philip the Fair–it was, ironically, Juana’s son Charles who became Holy Roman Emperor and besieged the Pope at the time Henry was seeking to divorce Katherine!) Henry VII wanted to hedge his bets with his son, and keep him under the royal thumb. In fact, for a brief period Henry VII considered marrying Katherine himself, because his wife Elizabeth of York died in the meantime, but he was already in the throes of illness, which turned out to be probably consumption, from which he died in 1509.
Henry was just 18 when his father died–and within 8 weeks he married Katherine. He wanted to, he had the papal dispensation. One of the reasons he got the dispensation was that Catherine, married at 16 to a young man of less robust health than Henry, and only 15 to boot, did not consummate her marriage, wanting to wait until they were both older. Catherine had a brother herself who was likewise not robust, married early, and died in less than a year from that. . .so she was worried. And Catherine’s own first marriage lasted a mere 6 months. So here she was, less than 17, a virgin still, and at the time an excellent ‘catch’ for a very shaky dynasty (English was still less than 20 years out from the War of the Roses), whose dowry Henry VII had already begun to use!
Henry’s marriage to Katherine was very legal, very valid, and very sacramental. Katherine bore several children, including a son in 1511 who died at the age of 6 weeks, as well as several still born children before she bore the Princess Mary. As for the ‘giving him a son’, it is the male who determines the sex of the child–which of course was not known at that time. Henry had one acknowledged bastard son, Henry Fitzroy, and one legitimate son (since by the time of his birth, son of Jane Seymour, both Anne Boleyn and Katherine of Aragon were both dead), Edward Tudor. Between Henry and Edward came Mary and Elizabeth, both of whom were declared at given times by parliament to be illegitimate.
Henry went on after the death of Jane (within the week of giving birth to Edward, possibly from puerperal fever, known as ‘milkbed’ fever) to marry Anne of Cleves, based largely on liking her portrait (painted by Holbein). When he met Anne in person, he disliked her, but was ‘coerced’ into marrying her, did not consummate the marriage, and found a ‘precontract’ in her past. He asked her to agree to dissolve the marriage, with the promise of letting her be known as ‘The King’s Good Sister’, keeping her dowry (not to mention her head), and giving her precedence in court. She agreed. This is actually close to an annulment in that there was no sacramental marriage to begin with, Henry having determined from the start that he would not consummate the marriage.
(end of part 1)
Henry was just 18 when his father died–and within 8 weeks he married Katherine. He wanted to, he had the papal dispensation. One of the reasons he got the dispensation was that Catherine, married at 16 to a young man of less robust health than Henry, and only 15 to boot, did not consummate her marriage, wanting to wait until they were both older. Catherine had a brother herself who was likewise not robust, married early, and died in less than a year from that. . .so she was worried. And Catherine’s own first marriage lasted a mere 6 months. So here she was, less than 17, a virgin still, and at the time an excellent ‘catch’ for a very shaky dynasty (English was still less than 20 years out from the War of the Roses), whose dowry Henry VII had already begun to use!
Henry’s marriage to Katherine was very legal, very valid, and very sacramental. Katherine bore several children, including a son in 1511 who died at the age of 6 weeks, as well as several still born children before she bore the Princess Mary. As for the ‘giving him a son’, it is the male who determines the sex of the child–which of course was not known at that time. Henry had one acknowledged bastard son, Henry Fitzroy, and one legitimate son (since by the time of his birth, son of Jane Seymour, both Anne Boleyn and Katherine of Aragon were both dead), Edward Tudor. Between Henry and Edward came Mary and Elizabeth, both of whom were declared at given times by parliament to be illegitimate.
Henry went on after the death of Jane (within the week of giving birth to Edward, possibly from puerperal fever, known as ‘milkbed’ fever) to marry Anne of Cleves, based largely on liking her portrait (painted by Holbein). When he met Anne in person, he disliked her, but was ‘coerced’ into marrying her, did not consummate the marriage, and found a ‘precontract’ in her past. He asked her to agree to dissolve the marriage, with the promise of letting her be known as ‘The King’s Good Sister’, keeping her dowry (not to mention her head), and giving her precedence in court. She agreed. This is actually close to an annulment in that there was no sacramental marriage to begin with, Henry having determined from the start that he would not consummate the marriage.
(end of part 1)
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Then Henry married a cousin of Anne Boleyn’s, Catherine Howard, a pretty young girl who, due to carelessness on the part of her guardian, the dowager duchess of Norfolk, had by the age of 12 engaged in sexual intercourse with one of the courtiers, went on to have another sexual relationship with a staff member, and finally a third relationship with one of Henry’s attendants. Though this ended before the marriage, Catherine still liked the young man, by name Thomas Culpepper, so much that she and he met (most probably platonically as there was almost no chance in the crowded court for there to be any hanky panky) and hoped that the king would die quickly. Unfortunately for Catherine, as a member of the ‘Boleyn’ party she was a target, and even the appearance of scandal was enough for Henry to execute her.
Finally Henry, aging, and in pain, met at court an old friend, Katherine Parr, a matron of 30 who had had two previous marriages to elderly men; each had died, each left her well off. Katherine had become attached to Thomas Seymour, brother of the dead Jane, Lord Admiral of the Kingdom; young, virile, and intensely ambitious, without a hint of scruple. (He later attempted to seduce the Princess Elizabeth and kidnap King Edward and was executed himself by his own brother Edward Seymour, the Protector–Edward himself meeting the same fate a few years later). Times were not dull at the English court! When Henry looked at Katherine, Thomas immediately ‘got out of the way’. Katherine was a member of the ‘reformed’ faith, and made Henry an excellent nurse and wife; under Katherine’s care Henry’s children actually for the first time had a home–together! However, even Katherine had to tread lightly. She aroused the King’s temper by giving her opinion against his on a theological matter, and Henry (to the delight of his Catholic bishop I add) drew up a warrant for Katherine’s arrest. Luckily Katherine found out before it was served, went into hysterics, and Henry, on investigating, was placated by Katherine telling him that the only reason she ‘went against him’ was so that she could learn from him;–she was playing ‘devil’s advocate’ in order to showcase just how wonderful and brilliant the King was. So Henry countermanded the warrant. Lucky Katherine! She survived Henry, went on to marry the Lord Admiral, but sadly died in childbirth, the child’s fate being a mystery, as some accounts have her dying at the same time, others as a young woman, but no real facts or documentation exist for the death, burial, etc.
end of part 2)
Finally Henry, aging, and in pain, met at court an old friend, Katherine Parr, a matron of 30 who had had two previous marriages to elderly men; each had died, each left her well off. Katherine had become attached to Thomas Seymour, brother of the dead Jane, Lord Admiral of the Kingdom; young, virile, and intensely ambitious, without a hint of scruple. (He later attempted to seduce the Princess Elizabeth and kidnap King Edward and was executed himself by his own brother Edward Seymour, the Protector–Edward himself meeting the same fate a few years later). Times were not dull at the English court! When Henry looked at Katherine, Thomas immediately ‘got out of the way’. Katherine was a member of the ‘reformed’ faith, and made Henry an excellent nurse and wife; under Katherine’s care Henry’s children actually for the first time had a home–together! However, even Katherine had to tread lightly. She aroused the King’s temper by giving her opinion against his on a theological matter, and Henry (to the delight of his Catholic bishop I add) drew up a warrant for Katherine’s arrest. Luckily Katherine found out before it was served, went into hysterics, and Henry, on investigating, was placated by Katherine telling him that the only reason she ‘went against him’ was so that she could learn from him;–she was playing ‘devil’s advocate’ in order to showcase just how wonderful and brilliant the King was. So Henry countermanded the warrant. Lucky Katherine! She survived Henry, went on to marry the Lord Admiral, but sadly died in childbirth, the child’s fate being a mystery, as some accounts have her dying at the same time, others as a young woman, but no real facts or documentation exist for the death, burial, etc.
end of part 2)
- Status