Ask an Anglican Anything

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henry had two possible arguments, one stronger than the other. He used the weaker, probably because he thought of it. Wolsey urged the other, Henry didn’t follow his advice. Neither argument was an iron-clad slam dunk, but either was adequate for the situation, other things being equal. The system was designed to permit making and breaking dynastic marriages. But other things weren’t ceteris paribus.

Henry argued that the original dispensation from Julius to permit him to marry Arthur’s widow was invalid. The impediment, in this reasoning, was a collateral one, of affinity, in the first degree. Which was correct. Henry’s point was that this particular situation lay within the degrees and conditions of the Levitical prohibition, against marrying a brother’s widow, and, being scriptural and not of Church law, was divine, and thus ultra vires, beyond the power of even a Pope to dispense. There certainly are such impediments, first degree direct, of consanguinity, for example. But whether the Levitical prohibition fit that, or whether it was applicable in Henry’s case (one can cite the Levirate Obligation against it) was debatable. But given that Henry was king, and given how the system was set up, it was strong enough. Stronger than his sister Margret’s causa, for which she received her first decree of nullity, the same year Henry applied for his (he scolded her for a frivolous action) and far stronger, say, than Louis XII’s case against Jeanne de Valois. But it was how the system was supposed to work, a mix of politics and theology; these things happened every day. The system of impediments set so wide a net for a purpose, which was to permit the finding of an impediment, whenever the need (or whim) arose. Trent had to fix it a little.

His stronger case, as Cardinal Wolsey saw, lay in a class of impediments called the justice of public honesty. Without getting into technical details, this meant that if a marriage was contracted and consummated between A and B, two actual types of impediments might arise for person C later wishing to marry A or B. That is, there was the potential for an impediment of affinity, which arose from the consummation of the marriage, or of the justice of public honesty, which arose from the betrothal/marriage contract.

continued.
 
At the time, the rule was that if a valid marriage was contracted, and consummated, and later a dispensation was sought for some one who would have an impediment to marrying A or B, the dispensation need only specifically state that the affinity impediment was dispensed, and the impediment of public honesty was thereby dispensed, implicitly. But, if the marriage was not consummated, as Catherine, and her duenna, maintained all along, and as was likely true, then the justice of public honesty must be explicitly dispensed. Julius didn’t do that. And hence there was a good case for Henry. And it had the advantage of saying the original dispensation was faulty, based on inadequate information, not ultra vires. It didn’t poke the Pope in the eye.

Hank didn’t pursue that, and it didn’t really matter. Given the relationship between Clement and Charles, and Charles and Catherine, and the general state of the political world at the time, no way was Henry going to get a decree of nullity. An Emperor trumps a King. And an emperor controlling a Pope is stronger still. So Henry didn’t get his decree. He got a Church, instead.

In all this, the system actually worked. The political factor overrode the theological. But to Henry’s dismay, it overrode him, too. Hank was capable of a political reaction, himself. He made it.

The best source on the subject is Scarisbrick/Henry VIII. The linked article is not very good.

Again, this has been a hobby of mine for around 20 years. It is, in short, complicated.
 
Last edited:
So, you want to administer sacraments other than Baptism? Well, firstly you can only do so in the RCC and by taking Holy Orders as a Sacrament.
 
What drew you to Anglicanism over other Christian denominations?
 
I was interested in your comment that Anglicans can go to a priest for confession but that sincere participation in the penitential rite was sufficient for forgiveness. Is forgiveness through the penitential rite (I assume at Mass) a sacrament? Does the priest state that sins are forgiven?
 
Not my comment , but yes. The confession in the Mass is efficacious, and the sacrament. The priest pronounces the absolution.
 
But not unexpected.

I’m Anglican and bash parts of the motley mix of Anglicanism regularly.
 
FiveLinden said:
I was interested in your comment that Anglicans can go to a priest for confession but that sincere participation in the penitential rite was sufficient for forgiveness. Is forgiveness through the penitential rite (I assume at Mass) a sacrament? Does the priest state that sins are forgiven?
Click to expand...
(Please note that I was a member of the Anglican Church of Australia, while @Caritas6744 is Canadian.)

Sacramental theology among Anglican churches can be very diverse. Here’s an approximate sketch.

Generally (though there are exceptions) Anglicans recognise only two sacraments proper: the Lord’s Supper (that is, the Eucharist) and Baptism. This is in accordance with article 25 of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which are statements of doctrines for the Church of England written during the English Reformation.

Nonetheless, the priest does pronounce Absolution during the Lord’s Supper after corporate repentance. The following is from the “A Prayer Book for Australia”:
Almighty God our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy has promised forgiveness of sins to all who with hearty repentance and true faith turn to him: have mercy on you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and keep you in eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Click to expand...
A significant exception are Anglo-Catholics. That is, Anglicans who subscribe to the theology of the 19th century Catholic Revival movement in the Church of England (Cardinal Newman was a leader of this movement when he was an Anglican). They practice all seven sacraments.

From my (certainly non-authoritative) experience in Australia, Anglicans - even Anglo-Catholics - rarely avail themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation. My parish offered it, and I received it every once in a while, but it was tailored more so as private spiritual counsel.
 
If you were ever a Catholic, you’re still a Catholic, so I refuse to acknowledge you as an Anglican , I’m sorry that’s the way the Church sees it that’s the way I see it. Having said that, I’m curious if you’ve ever read this or read about ithttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm
 
Were all the bishops that stayed with the Anglican church excommunicated?
 
The bishops who stayed would have been excommunicated if done so by the Monarch.
 
po18guy said:
How come the “Church of England” is just fine, but if we formed a “Church of America” it would be condemned as separatist and nationalist?
Click to expand...
It was called the Church of England because it was the English Church. It was separatist in that it separated from the Church of Rome. It was nationalist to the extent that its separation was part of the growth of England as a nation state. And it is frequently condemned in this place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top