Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

[Contarini]

Just to be clear…I am Catholic and it’s not my argument, but one I have heard used by Anglo-Catholics. There is a book (but I forget the title) that develops these themes quite substantially.

Yes, it is a common line of argument.

I have defended in other posts on this thread a more minimal version of the argument. I probably should have admitted that many Anglicans do try to go way beyond the minimal, defensible point that there was a Church in England with which the post-Reformation Church of England stands in historical, organizational continuity, and try to prove that the English Church was somehow particularly independent of Rome.

Maybe this is true in some way, but I’m dubious about it. Many Anglicans are really obsessed with proving that England was different. Similarly, they will argue for the English Reformation being quite different from that nasty Continental Reformation, often showing their misunderstanding of the latter in the process.

Edwin

 

[paperwight66]

.

In England, we remember the fate of the wives like this - Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.

And for fun reinforcement, google ‘Horrible Histories - The wives of Henry V111’ for a great song that really stays with you.
‘Horrible Histories’ was a children’s series on BBC, and there are many other songs to be found if you are interested in English History.

 

[Stuckinavortex]

The second part, politically. If it is due to anything other than the religious basis for annulment, then it was an abuse of pastoral power and therefore not right. Was there any recorded evidence that Pope Clement’s denial of the annulment was due to this, like he said so, or was it merely circumstantial, an assumption because of x and y and therefore it follows must be z?

Now the theological reason, one which matters actually. Regardless of how the marriage was contracted, the basis for annulment must be clearly spelt out - like there was no marriage in the first place for reasons like no consent, being forced, the couple or either one did not know what they were doing. Being not sacramental may not necessarily make the marriage illicit as the Church does recognize marriage outside of it. I am only generalizing though as there are unique circumstances for every marriage.

The question really which is still not decisively answered, what was the official reason why the petition for the annulment was rejected?

God bless.

Reuben

My canon law is very poor, but as I understand it, Henry received a papal dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon, who had been his brother’s wife. It is impossible to annul a marriage for which a dispensation had previously being granted.

 

[Reuben_J]

The argument is that there was a Church in England from early centuries, and that this Church continued after the Reformation.

How was the relationship with that Church with the Catholic Church? I am asking since Henry asked the Pope for annulment (of his marriage).

Edit:
I understand that he had also asked for a dispensation (of his marriage) from the Pope.

 

[Reuben_J]

My canon law is very poor, but as I understand it, Henry received a papal dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon, who had been his brother’s wife. It is impossible to annul a marriage for which a dispensation had previously being granted.

Thanks. If this is true and I take your word for it, then the Pope certainly could not grant the annulment. My God, the marriage was granted dispensation by the Pope! It is insane to ask the Pope to annul it.

 

[ericc]

The basis for Henry’s request was that Catherine had been married to Henry’s brother Arthur. In fact Church law did forbid such a marriage, and Henry had received a dispensation. Henry was basically asking the Pope to nullify his earlier dispensation. That’s the one sense in which what Henry was doing linked up to Protestantism. He claimed that the (first) marriage had been contrary to divine law and thus the Pope couldn’t give a dispensation covering it.

GKC can cover the details better than I, but I understand that Henry actually had a more persuasive canon-law approach available and chose not to go with it.

So the Pope had good grounds for refusing the request–he was basically being asked to say that he hadn’t had the authority to give the dispensation in the first place. But political factors were definitely at work as well–the Pope didn’t want to offend Charles V, Catherine’s nephew, whose mutinous armies had just sacked Rome.

Ediwn

In fact there is nothing against canon law marrying your dead brother’s wife. The OT is filled with instances of obligation to do that very thing. Henry just wanted to be absolutely sure the marriage will be valid in the eyes of the Church. And it was a valid marriage for decades.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Thanks. If this is true and I take your word for it, then the Pope certainly could not grant the annulment. My God, the marriage was granted dispensation by the Pope! It is insane to ask the Pope to annul it.

I think since he was the King of England and most likely usually got what he wanted, he expected the Pope to fulfill another desire of his believing perhaps since he was king, the Pope might grant him what he wanted. However, the business of the Pope is to follow teaching and doctrine of the Catholic Church and who knows what the king might want next from the Pope!

 

[Contarini]

In fact there is nothing against canon law marrying your dead brother’s wife. The OT is filled with instances of obligation to do that very thing. Henry just wanted to be absolutely sure the marriage will be valid in the eyes of the Church. And it was a valid marriage for decades.

There isn’t anything in current canon law against it, but there was at the time. See this article, which is heavily biased in favor of Catholicism (in fact I do not recommend it at all except for the discussion of canon law). As the CA article notes, since Catherine said that she was still a virgin when she married Henry, all that was necessary was a “dispensation for public decency.” I.e., the first marriage hadn’t been consummated, but since she was publicly seen to have been married a dispensation was still necessary. One of Henry’s arguments was that Catherine had been lying about the virginity thing, I believe.

Edwin

 

[Reuben_J]

In fact there is nothing against canon law marrying your dead brother’s wife. The OT is filled with instances of obligation to do that very thing. Henry just wanted to be absolutely sure the marriage will be valid in the eyes of the Church. And it was a valid marriage for decades.

There are some marriages that may not be allowed by the Church and thus one needs to get a dispensation, usually from the local Bishop. That’s about all to it. If the Bishop agrees to the dispensation, then the marriage can go ahead. It will be sacramental depending on the decision by the Bishop and it will be a valid marriage. No matter, it is unthinkable for the same Bishop to give the annulment for such marriage which he had given dispensation for, unless for some very hypothetical damning reason.

The idea is, if one goes to the Bishop for his dispensation and get it, I find it’s absurd to go back to the same Bishop and ask him to annul it.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think since he was the King of England and most likely usually got what he wanted, he expected the Pope to fulfill another desire of his believing perhaps since he was king, the Pope might grant him what he wanted. However, the business of the Pope is to follow teaching and doctrine of the Catholic Church and who knows what the king might want next from the Pope!

Then it has got nothing to do with canon law and Church belief. The Pope has to keep his ground and stick to the requirement of his role when discharging his duty regardless of whether one is a king or a simple peasant.

I was hearing suggestion that the decision of the Pope was politically motivated and I wanted to explore first of all whether the refusal of the annulment was correctly carried out. In this case it seemed the Pope’s hand was tied and he could only refused the request for annulment, whether he supported the king politically or not.

It would be wrong of the Pope to consent to the request of the king under the monarch’ pressure against his better judgment and in doing so contravening the canon law. We condemn the Pope when he was a king’s lackey but if he should stand up to the king, he really did a good job there.

 

[7_Sorrows]

There isn’t anything in current canon law against it, but there was at the time. See this article, which is heavily biased in favor of Catholicism (in fact I do not recommend it at all except for the discussion of canon law). As the CA article notes, since Catherine said that she was still a virgin when she married Henry, all that was necessary was a “dispensation for public decency.” I.e., the first marriage hadn’t been consummated, but since she was publicly seen to have been married a dispensation was still necessary. One of Henry’s arguments was that Catherine had been lying about the virginity thing, I believe.

Edwin

Thanks for that interesting article. If they only had had a crystal ball that foretold Catherine’s death and waited a little longer, maybe the Church of England would never had been created and England would have remained Catholic.
I did not know that The Book of Common Prayer and the 39 articles werr written after the king’s death.
Since I was raised in the Episcopal church I always find any discussion of Henry VIII fascinating. For someone who supposedly was headed for the priesthood if his brother had not died - declaring himself to be the head of his own church must have taken some convincing from others.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for that interesting article. If they only had had a crystal ball that foretold Catherine’s death and waited a little longer, maybe the Church of England would never had been created and England would have remained Catholic.
I did not know that The Book of Common Prayer and the 39 articles werr written after the king’s death.
Since I was raised in the Episcopal church I always find any discussion of Henry VIII fascinating. For someone who supposedly was headed for the priesthood if his brother had not died - declaring himself to be the head of his own church must have taken some convincing from others.

Well, actually I think there’s a connection. Henry had a genuine interest in theology and I think he took very readily to the idea of sacred kingship. But then the idea was in the air, with support (or apparent support) from the OT and the early days of the Christian Roman Empire.

David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Charlemagne–these were powerful models.

Edwin

 

[7_Sorrows]

Well, actually I think there’s a connection. Henry had a genuine interest in theology and I think he took very readily to the idea of sacred kingship. But then the idea was in the air, with support (or apparent support) from the OT and the early days of the Christian Roman Empire.

David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Charlemagne–these were powerful models.

Edwin

Yes he must have had a genuine interest in theology and by sacred kingship you mean he was given his authority by God?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yes he must have had a genuine interest in theology and by sacred kingship you mean he was given his authority by God?

Certainly he will have believed his kingship came from God (although the fact is that God chose a very roundabout way of bestowing the kingship on Henry’s father). Even after the “divine right of kings” business came to an end in the 17th century the idea of being chosen by God remained. The current queen, after all, was annointed in Westminster Abbey by the then archbishop of Canterbury when she was crowned during a Eucharistic service. I believe she thinks that she has been called to her rôle, and that her duty in that rôle is to serve God.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Certainly he will have believed his kingship came from God (although the fact is that God chose a very roundabout way of bestowing the kingship on Henry’s father). Even after the “divine right of kings” business came to an end in the 17th century the idea of being chosen by God remained. The current queen, after all, was annointed in Westminster Abbey by the then archbishop of Canterbury when she was crowned during a Eucharistic service. I believe she thinks that she has been called to her rôle, and that her duty in that rôle is to serve God.

To serve God and her country.

 

[Picky_Picky]

To serve God and her country.

Indeed.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The refusal to grant an annulment was not a good reason to start a new church. I would say there is perhaps never a good reason to start a new church. But because Henry was grumpy, the whole country had to separate from Peter. As Cyprian, 3rd century, says: “If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

 

[Vico]

The refusal to grant an annulment was not a good reason to start a new church. I would say there is perhaps never a good reason to start a new church. But because Henry was grumpy, the whole country had to separate from Peter. As Cyprian, 3rd century, says: “If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

King Henry had already invalidly attempted marriage to Anne Boleyn in November of 1532 having tired of awaiting an answer from Rome since 1529. And the denial to annul finally came from Rome March 25, 1534. So then, the Act of Supremacy followed quickly in 1535.

 

[Contarini]

Yes he must have had a genuine interest in theology and by sacred kingship you mean he was given his authority by God?

Yes, but more than that–the idea that kings are somehow holy by virtue of their office (as priests are, though they have a different role). For instance, there was a particular skin disease called “the king’s evil” and it was believed that the touch of royal hands would cure it.

Kings were seen as icons of God’s eternal kingship.

This could be held separately from the “Divine Right of Kings” theory if that is taken to mean absolute monarchy. Medieval monarchs were considered sacred (though there was some attempt by papal supporters, at least in the early days of the pope-monarchy conflict, to desacralize monarchy) but that didn’t mean that their vassals couldn’t resist them politically and try to limit their power. It did mean that you weren’t supposed to use physical violence against a king (though people did all the time, in fact).

In the sixteenth century, the “sacred kingship” idea was gaining in strength. It wasn’t an old, fading survival. In its more politically weighty form, the “Divine Right” absolute monarchy theory, it was a cutting-edge, modern view. In fact it hadn’t really fully been articulated in Henry VIII’s day. Jean Bodin, usually considered the classic exponent, lived in the later 16th century (he was born in 1530).

Edwin

 

[7_Sorrows]

The refusal to grant an annulment was not a good reason to start a new church. I would say there is perhaps never a good reason to start a new church. But because Henry was grumpy, the whole country had to separate from Peter. As Cyprian, 3rd century, says: “If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

I agree. I wonder who is advisers were and I wonder if Henry questioned his own actions before he died?