Has the Catholic Church ever received compensation from the Church of England?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krisdun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul_Edwards said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it was legitimate at the time, then the Pope would not have needed to grant a dispensation at the time of the marriage. That was Henry’s point–the Pope cannot dispense with divine law (Henry’s interpretation of divine law was Leviticus 20:21).
 
True. And I’m getting dragged into this, am I not?.

Julius issued a dispensation for the presumed impediment of affinity, for Henry to marry Katherine, ab initio.

And after that, it got complicated. Best treatment is Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.
 
Last edited:
But…but…I haven’t mentioned Scarisbrick’s name. And the justice of public honesty. And ultra vires.

Well, if it stays quiet, I’ll go smoke a pipe.
 
ltwin said:
If it was legitimate at the time, then the Pope would not have needed to grant a dispensation at the time of the marriage. That was Henry’s point–the Pope cannot dispense with divine law (Henry’s interpretation of divine law was Leviticus 20:21).
Click to expand...
Henry quoted Leviticus 20:21 but at the same time forgot to consider Deuteronomy 25:5. Scripture does not contradict itself, so Henry should’ve realized that Leviticus was referring to the concept of marrying your brothers wife whilst he is still alive. It might have been against Canon Law, but it is not against divine law.

Hence Bishop Fisher stated: “ I am now thoroughly convinced that it can by no means be proved to be to be prohibited by any Divine law that is now in force, that a brother marry the wife of his brother deceased without children. If this is true, and I have no doubt that it is most certainly true, who can deny, considering the plenitude of power which Christ has conferred on the Sovereign Pontiff; that the pope may dispense, for some very grave reason, for such a marriage.”

Because it is not against divine law, there is no reason not to allow it. It was aloud in Deuteronomy 25:5 and it was aloud for Henry VIII and many others in history.
 
Last edited:
True. Though Church rulings on whether the Levitical prohibition was natural or Divine law had varied over the years. See Kelly, op.cit.

And Henry resting his case on Leviticus was not a strong position. As Wolsey told him. And Henry ignored.

And for historical reasons that I pass over, the ruling was against Henry (hint: Charles V). But there was actually a stronger case lurking in Henry’s history (not that either case would have gotten him the decree of nullity; politics and military power trump canonical law). His stronger case, as Cardinal Wolsey saw, lay in a class of impediments called the justice of public honesty. Without getting into too many 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.

At the time, the rule was that if a valid marriage was contracted, and consummated, and later a dispensation was sought for someone 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 Katherine and Arthur’s marriage was not consummated, as Katherine 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 reasonable case for Henry in an undispensed impediment. Precisely the sort of crack the system was designed to allow.

He didn’t pursue that, and it didn’t really matter. Given the relationship between Clement and Charles, and Charles and Katherine, 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.

Politics/theology intertwined.
 
Last edited:
Paul_Edwards said:
Henry quoted Leviticus 20:21 but at the same time forgot to consider Deuteronomy 25:5.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is an argument that goes against Henry. It still doesn’t erase the fact that marrying your brothers widow was against church law at the time and required a special dispensation from the Pope. The lawfulness of this dispensation was what Henry was challenging.
Paul_Edwards said:
Scripture does not contradict itself, so Henry should’ve realized that Leviticus was referring to the concept of marrying your brothers wife whilst he is still alive. It might have been against Canon Law, but it is not against divine law.
Click to expand...
First, Deuteronomy 25:5 (Levirate marriage) is only scripturally lawful when your brother died without children (this applied to Henry since his brother had no children, so it wasn’t good for his argument).

And second, I’m not sure I buy your interpretation of Leviticus 20:21. The biblical punishment for adultery is death, so that would make Leviticus 20:21 redundant. Even Bishop Fisher makes clear he is talking about Levirate marriage here: " that a brother marry the wife of his brother deceased without children." The point is that Leviticus 20:21 does forbid a man from marrying his brothers widow, unless the brother died without children. Then the brother has an obligation to marry the widow.
 
Last edited:
The Church has never demanded material compensation from those who have acted against her.
 
I wish we did, but no, we didn’t receive any compensation from the C of E.
 
Alex5 said:
Prior to the reformation who funded the building of churches (catholic) in England?
Click to expand...
Your question has been answered well, but I will just add that some buildings, like the largest cathedrals, were constructed using several methods. Subscription was one, where a wealthy land owner would agree to provide regular donations; tourism was another, which is why relics became very important as an attraction for pilgrims who would pay to see them; and sometimes special taxes were levied, such as in St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. A tax on coal raised all the revenue needed to complete it. I should note that at this time St. Paul’s was an Anglican edifice but the same methods had been used prior to the Reformation.

If anyone is interested, an excellent book on the topic of medieval church construction is Guided by a Stonemason by Thomas Maude.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Adam and Eve were atheists?
Click to expand...
If they were not, their ancestors were. Only humans are religious, And all babies start out that way. They need to be taught about religion which is why different parts of the world have different god(s), in my opinion.
 
GKMotley said:
Well, if it stays quiet, I’ll go smoke a pipe.
Click to expand...
Do they still make Borkum Riff or something like that? Vaguely (or maybe succintly) remember that during a short phase of sophistication in smoking in teen years.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Only humans are religious,
Click to expand...
Lol, and only humans can choose to be atheists.
FiveLinden said:
And all babies start out that way (atheists). They need to be taught about religion which is why different parts of the world have different god(s), in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I am thinking we are innately built to be religiously conscious. That is, if no one ever taught us a word about the spiritual realm or it’s inhabitants, we could become aware of such as we grew up. Kind of like how we can leave a shadow from a radition blast. The person might be gone but not his shadow against any backdrop. Eventually a person could recognize the shadow of the Creator.

But otherwise agree. The bible even says for God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching men might be saved. Faith comes by hearing.
 
Last edited:
Borkum Riff is still around but I haven’'t seen it in years. It, along with stuff like Captain Black or Sail, was what I often bought, what I would call drug store tobacco, as opposed to the more pricey stuff in tobacco shops. And places selling any pipe tobacco are fading away. I frequent a tobacco shop about 8-10 miles away (or did so in normal times) and the selection there was not as wide as one would have expected in years past.

Currently I have to buy at the only venue locally, a super market. Which has such old familiars as Sir Walter Raleigh, in two blends, and Captain Black, in two blends. Would be happy to see Borkum Riff.
 
Lol…thanks…my memory then is still better than my forgetter on this ( such a name for a brand)
 
You’ll find Sherlock Holmes smoking a variety of pipes, if you look.

As to a spliff, not in my house.
 
It’s referring to a German lightship, long stationed in the Heligoland Bight area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top