British Monarch's role in Anglicanism/Episcopalianism

  • Thread starter Thread starter JesuXPIPassio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anna_Scott said:
GKC,

Just how much did Henry’s d-i-v-o-r-c-e have to do with the break from authority in Rome? I’m getting mixed versions of history, even within my own Parish.

Thanks,
Anna
Click to expand...
Henry’s quest for a d-e-c-r-e-e o-f n-u-l-l-i-t-y (and his case was at least as strong as normally was required to prevail in those days), and his failure to achieve same, was the precipitating factor in his taking the Church in England private. And was the culmination of a lengthy history of conflict between the monarchy and Rome, which had been tending in that direction for over 250 years, as far back as the First Statute of Westminster.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Henry’s quest for a d-e-c-r-e-e o-f n-u-l-l-i-t-y (and his case was at least as strong as normally was required to prevail in those days), and his failure to achieve same, was the precipitating factor in his taking the Church in England private. And was the culmination of a lengthy history of conflict between the monarchy and Rome, which had been tending in that direction for over 250 years, as far back as the First Statute of Westminster.

GKC
Click to expand...
Thanks, GKC.

I’m taking an “Anglicanism” class at my Parish. Nothing was said at all about the divorce. The conflicts over authority were discussed, with a lot of interesting information.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Thanks, GKC.

I’m taking an “Anglicanism” class at my Parish. Nothing was said at all about the divorce. The conflicts over authority were discussed, with a lot of interesting information.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting subject.

Henry, for a couple of reasons, wanted to receive a decree of nullity (under the prevailing system and rules of impediments/dispensations and decrees of nullity that were operative in the time). with respect to his marriage to Catherine, and to allow him to marry Anne Boleyn. Though he had a fair case (and there was an even stronger case than the one he made), in the end, that was not granted him. For that reason, as well as in consideration of his dynastic problems, in requiring a legitimate male heir, and with regard to the growing nationalism common in the period, and traceable, in England, back for several hundred years, the failure to receive that decree of nullity was the lit fuse.

For all that, both Clement and Henry were, to some small extent, bluffing, and expected the other side to blink. Nope.

History is complicated and interesting.

GKC
 
GKC said:
It’s an interesting subject.

Henry, for a couple of reasons, wanted to receive a decree of nullity (under the prevailing system and rules of impediments/dispensations and decrees of nullity that were operative in the time). with respect to his marriage to Catherine, and to allow him to marry Anne Boleyn. Though he had a fair case (and there was an even stronger case than the one he made), in the end, that was not granted him. For that reason, as well as in consideration of his dynastic problems, in requiring a legitimate male heir, and with regard to the growing nationalism common in the period, and traceable, in England, back for several hundred years, the failure to receive that decree of nullity was the lit fuse.

For all that, both Clement and Henry were, to some small extent, bluffing, and expected the other side to blink. Nope.

History is complicated and interesting.

GKC
Click to expand...
Thanks GKC. I can always count on you for history. I wish you were teaching our Anglicanism class.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Thanks GKC. I can always count on you for history. I wish you were teaching our Anglicanism class.
Click to expand...
You are very kind. If you have other questions about Hank, I’ll try again.

This is a class in church? Which church?

GKC
 
GKC said:
You are very kind. If you have other questions about Hank, I’ll try again.

This is a class in church? Which church?

GKC
Click to expand...
“Hank” was indeed a colorful character.

The Anglicanism class is being taught by one of the assisting priests in the Episcopal Church I’m attending.
 
Anna_Scott said:
“Hank” was indeed a colorful character.

The Anglicanism class is being taught by one of the assisting priests in the Episcopal Church I’m attending.
Click to expand...
Colorful, and a fascinating train wreck.

Good luck with the class.

GKC
 
Hi GKC,

When you talk about Henry getting a decree of nullity, what he really got was divorce. A degree of nullity was what he wanted from the pope. When the pope didn’t give it to him, all he could have would be a divorce, from a Catholic standpoint, right? The archbishop of canterbury didn’t have the authority to override a pope from the Catholic standpoint so whatever Cranmer could do would be just a civil divorce. Are you saying that a decree of nullity is what he wanted or actually got? I’m confused here…

And I know that I’ll be straightened out in seconds by the professor! Professor Von Jim!
GKC said:
Colorful, and a fascinating train wreck.

Good luck with the class.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Hi GKC,

When you talk about Henry getting a decree of nullity, what he really got was divorce. A degree of nullity was what he wanted from the pope. When the pope didn’t give it to him, all he could have would be a divorce, from a Catholic standpoint, right? The archbishop of canterbury didn’t have the authority to override a pope from the Catholic standpoint so whatever Cranmer could do would be just a civil divorce. Are you saying that a decree of nullity is what he wanted or actually got? I’m confused here…

And I know that I’ll be straightened out in seconds by the professor! Professor Von Jim!
Click to expand...
Of course.

Depends on whom you ask.

He got a decree of nullity.

From the RC standpoint, he got nothing at all, and his marriage to Anne was not valid. To Rome, he remained the husband of Catherine until her death, and his subsequent marriages (Jane Seymour et seq, [in fact, Cranmer even tidied that up a little, too]) were all invalid due to the impediments he encurred in his ( as Rome saw it) dalliance with Anne.

From the standpoint of the CoE, and Henry, he got a decree of nullity, based on his original causa and (as Cranmer agreed) the fact that the Leventine prohibition was of Divine origin and beyond the power (ultra vires) of a Pope to dispense; hence there was an undispensed impediment of affinity in the second degree, collateral, in his original marriage to Catherine.

Neither Hank nor the Silver-Tongued Schismatic, nor Rome knew anything of a civil divorce. Which didn’t appear in England for something like (IIRC) 150 years.

GKC
 
This reads like a prescription at Walgreens here. High falootin’ vocab coupled with too much Latin on a Friday night for a guy who has been around hormonal twelve-year-olds all day is bad news! I’m going to translate and hope I get this right:

Cranmer gave him a decree of nullity which is a fancy word for an annulment because there was no such thing as a divorce in those days. Catholics reject it. Anglicans think he got it.

I’m going to take the ultra vires, et seq, causas and thees and thys out of here and put them in a penalty box for the sake of my comprehension! 😃
GKC said:
Of course.

Depends on whom you ask.

He got a decree of nullity.

From the RC standpoint, he got nothing at all, and his marriage to Anne was not valid. To Rome, he remained the husband of Catherine until her death, and his subsequent marriages (Jane Seymour et seq, in fact, Cranmer even tidied that up a little, too) were all invalid due to the impediments he encurred in his ( as Rome saw it) dalliance with Anne.

From the standpoint of the CoE, and Henry, he got a decree of nullity, based on his original causa and (as Cranmer agreed) the fact that the Leventine prohibition was of Divine origin and beyond the power (ultra vires) of a Pope to dispense; hence there was an undispensed impediment of affinity in the second degree, collateral, in his original marriage to Catherine.

Neither Hank nor the Silver-Tongued Schismatic, nor Rome knew anything of a civil divorce. Which didn’t appear in England for something like (IIRC) 150 years.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
This reads like a prescription at Walgreens here. High falootin’ vocab coupled with too much Latin on a Friday night for a guy who has been around hormonal twelve-year-olds all day is bad news! I’m going to translate and hope I get this right:

Cranmer gave him a decree of nullity which is a fancy word for an annulment because there was no such thing as a divorce in those days. Catholics reject it. Anglicans think he got it.

I’m going to take the ultra vires, et seq, causas and thees and thys out of here and put them in a penalty box for the sake of my comprehension! 😃
Click to expand...
How’d you like my internal brackets? I love internal brackets.

Decree of nullity is the accurate term. No one “gives” an annulment. One declares the marriage null (never happened, validly).

Sure RCs reject it. Reject the Supreme Head Act, too, they do.

Still no email, eh?

GKC
 
Geez Louise you’re picky tonight. You know exactly what I mean you semantical picky-puss. Give an annulment, proclaim it, announce it, make it known, declare it, whatever…yeesh.

No, no email. Maybe my email pickypuss spam filter is on high! LOL :rolleyes::cool:
GKC said:
How’d you like my internal brackets? I love internal brackets.

Decree of nullity is the accurate term. No one “gives” an annulment. One declares the marriage null (never happened, validly).

Sure RCs reject it. Reject the Supreme Head Act, too, they do.

Still no email, eh?

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Geez Louise you’re picky tonight. You know exactly what I mean you semantical picky-puss. Give an annulment, proclaim it, announce it, make it known, declare it, whatever…yeesh.

No, no email. Maybe my email pickypuss spam filter is on high! LOL :rolleyes::cool:
Click to expand...
No, no. No one can give an annulment. One can only declare a marriage was null. Vital distinction.

GKC
 
JesuXPIPassio said:
So Henry VIII broke from Rome and made himself the head of the the Church of England. As I understand it, Episcopalianism is just the US version of that, it just didn’t want to be called Anglicanism because of the anti-British sentiment at the time.

Then, why isn’t the Queen considered the head of Episcopalianism?
Click to expand...
The American Revolution.
 
That’d all be well and good if Cranmer and company actually believed and taught that marriage was a sacrament! 😛
GKC said:
Sure enough. Because of the nature of a sacramental marriage.

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