He might not have seen himself as doing so, but nevertheless that’s what he was doing. It was not possible for him to change the constitution of the old one, as that was founded by Christ and belongs to the Pope. A monarch cannot change that churches constitution, he can only start his own man made church with its own constitution. Henry was not even a member of the Church any more in fact, so there’s no way he could change anything about it.But Harry didn’t see himself as starting a new church, just changing the constitution of the old one. He considered himself to be a Catholic until he died
They should consider the fact that Augustine of Canterbury would disagree if he was alive today.if the CofE is asked for the date of its foundation it will give the date of Augustine of Canterbury’s mission
I don’t think that Augustine of Canterbury would be positively impressed by Pope Clement VII in 1527, when Henry petitioned for an annulment. No one else was. He was no Pope Gregory I, that’s for sure. It was one of the major low points for the papacy, for Rome, and for the Church as a whole.They should consider the fact that Augustine of Canterbury would disagree if he was alive today.
So you think he would’ve thought there was grounds for annulment? Or just that this Pope did other things that weren’t perfect?I don’t think that Augustine of Canterbury would be positively impressed by Pope Clement VII in 1527, when Henry petitioned for an annulment.
I didn’t say it would. The causes of the English Reformation were a lot more complicated that just the annulment. And granting the annulment would have at best bought a little time, in my opinion.But if that annullment would have been granted, what about the one to Anne if Cleves? Nit at all apparent from subsequent history that granting Henry VIII’s first annullment would have kept England in the Church.
So where do we draw the line? Should there have been an annulment for all six wives? For only one or for half of them? That’s the problem. Once we stop standing our ground there is no limit and we become a subjective church.granting the annulment would have at best bought a little time, in my opinion.
You do realize that Pope Clement really, really, really did not want to make a decision in this case, and hoped it would just disappear and somehow resolve itself magically? Even when he was eventually forced to make the decision, he dragged his feet for as long as he could. And he was definitely not happy about it. At all.This is why the Pope was right to deny the annulment
Just to be clear, in the comment you quoted I was referring to regular parish churches, the accusation being that somehow these churches were stolen from the people who actually worshiped in them when in reality the vast majority of people continued to worship in the same churches they always had.I grew up in the town of Reading, where you can visit the ruins of the abbey there. In fact the parish church I attended for many years was built on abbey land and using abbey stones.
Not necessary. One died naturally, two were executed for treasonable acts, one survived him. Just the two annulments.So where do we draw the line? Should there have been an annulment for all six wives?
In normal times, the Pope would have probably given Henry VIII the annulment. Henry’s argument (he was married to his brother’s widow) wasn’t half bad. The Pope denied it not only for theological reasons but also for political ones. Catherine’s nephew was the Holy Roman Emperor, who had already sacked the city of Rome once and could do it again. Catherine’s family metaphorically held a gun to the Pope’s head.f this annulment has been granted only for the sake of peace and without real grounds for it, then it would have been a fake. This would’ve meant Henry was living a whole life in adultery and mortal sin with the next five wives aswell as them women also, and the Pope would’ve been responsible for this and therefore not keeping his mission to Our Lord. This is why the Pope was right to deny the annulment
I’m sure if the first annulment had been a lot easier he would’ve just done the same to the other ones rather than behead them. I’m sure many of his supporters would argue that this would’ve made him less bitter. Not that this would make it justified of coursetwo were executed for treasonable acts
It is legitimate to sacramentally marry your brothers widow as awful as it sounds to modern society, but even today this would still be aloud in a church, as long as the brother is dead. If the brother was alive however that would be a different matter. Scripture was actually quoted back then to back up the idea that it is a legitimate marriage. So I don’t think it would’ve been granted in other timesHenry’s argument (he was married to his brother’s widow) wasn’t half bad.