- Status
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Being not British, less so English, this is an interesting subject.
So from the bits and pieces so far in this thread, the journal narrative goes like this:
Reuben
So from the bits and pieces so far in this thread, the journal narrative goes like this:
- Henry asked for dispensation from the Pope (Julius) to marry because Catherine, the would-be bride had married his brother. Henry was still Catholic at this point in time, considering that he deferred to the Pope.
- He got the dispensation and married the woman.
- Then Henry wanted to divorce Catherine, went to the Pope again, this time Clement, the new Pope, and asked for the annulment. “No, Julius was wrong, he should not give the dispensation even though I asked. The marriage was invalid and illicit and now I want an annulment.”
- New Pope Clement, a no nonsense man, refuse the annulment as the ground for the dispensation was in accordance to the canon law, so no dice. But there was a twist to this, it seemed Clement, after all, had an interest in this and his decision in refusing the annulment was not so objective in the first place.
- Anyway, Henry thought he was right. He was king, he did not need the annulment anyway. Besides a king needed an heir which the wife could not bear one for him. And who knew, Catherine might be lying when she said she was a virgin. She was a disgrace and the dignity of the king must be upheld.
- He divorce Catherine and was freed to remarry. He married the woman he really loved, Anne Boleyn.
- By this time, Henry left Catholicism and joined the ancient Christian religion of England which was founded sometime in the fourth century.
Reuben
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Apparently Henry was excommunicated.
Henry and Anne married on 25 January 1533. On 23 May 1533, Thomas Cranmer declared Henry and Catherine’s marriage null and void; five days later, he declared Henry and Anne’s marriage valid. Shortly afterwards, the Pope decreed sentences of excommunication against Henry and Cranmer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn
Henry and Anne married on 25 January 1533. On 23 May 1533, Thomas Cranmer declared Henry and Catherine’s marriage null and void; five days later, he declared Henry and Anne’s marriage valid. Shortly afterwards, the Pope decreed sentences of excommunication against Henry and Cranmer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I suppose he really loved Catherine of Aragon at one time and his real love for Anne Boleyn was short lived when he set eyes on Jane Seymour. I am not sure Hank knew what it was to be in love or to be faithful.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
And now there was another girl, again. Jane Seymour.
I am more interested in how he could become the head of the other Church in England that he joined after leaving the Catholic Church due to being excommunicated. Any pointer?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Because he was the king.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Sigh.
You are not kidding, are you?
Never mind. Who was the head of that Church before him (his immediate predecessor)?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I don’t understand your question. He was the first head of the Church of England. That is why they nullified his marriage so he could marry Anne. Before the Church of England was established England was Catholic.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Now I’m sure you understand really that there wasn’t some other English church at the time, and that Anglicans don’t claim that Henry left the catholic church and joined the other. They believe that the English church continued, but no longer under the authority of the Pope. The English church continues to this day to claim to be catholic.
That, of course, reads like nonsense under your ecclesiology, but doesn’t seem like nonsense to Anglicans.
It may be worth mentioning, too, that this was all happening during a period when a new phenomenon, the nation state, was emerging out of the medieval world. All over the west these states were trying to throw off the authority of supra-national rulers, whether the Emperor or the Pope. For hundreds of years arguments had gone on between Rome on the one hand and the kings and princes on the other over such matters as control of senior church appointments, taxation of church people and property, and the scope of secular court jurisdiction. At various times various concordats were agreed between Rome and, for instance, England or France, adjusting the boundaries of these powers.
England was perhaps the first of these nation states and since she was a little separate from the continent, and with a church which had experienced some degree of autonomy, and since she was only notionally subject to the Emperor, it is not surprising perhaps that she led the way in wresting independence from papal control.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
"Picky Picky:
Picky Picky:
Below are some of the quotes and one was unanswered:
Antegin:
Contarini:
Picky Picky:
I am more interested in how the Anglican Church came about and the title of the thread is a good one for me to pursue it.
I would like particularly to know from the theological/doctrinal aspect of it. Well, King Henry made interesting reading but it did not nullify the fact that the Anglican was indeed formed. How was it formed, how did it started?
Picky Picky:
Yes, the Popes could be politically motivated and there is no denying that but if they were right doctrinally, then they should be followed.
As for King Henry, if you ask me, he was indeed a bad Catholic boy, mixing religion with politic.
As a Catholic, he should at least respect the decision of his priest, in this case, my goodness, the Pope himself. The dispensation given was right as it is within the Bishop jurisdiction to give. Marrying a brother’s wife might be discouraged but it is not totally wrong; it was not incest and thus not a sin per se, and the Bishop can decide on the dispensation.
If he wanted to divorce his wife and remarry, he should live with the excommunication, attended church but did not receive Holy Communion.
He wouldn’t do that, and like it is said here, the price was too high. He was a king. Perhaps that necessitated the founding of the new religion, the Anglican or the Church of England rather, if you insist that Henry was a Catholic in communion with Rome.
Reuben
When you are neither English nor Anglican, you would like to listen to their side of the story. Yes, I sure do understand, but it will be my own opinion which certainly I do have, no denying that, but as they say, hear it from the horse’s mouth first. Is that okay with you?
Picky Picky:
No, not really, at least according to some of the posts here, unless my understanding was wrong and it could be wrong, thus the reason why I continue and perhaps to get a clearer picture.
Below are some of the quotes and one was unanswered:
Actually you can research the Council of Arles in 314 AD where 3 English Bishops were in attendance.
Reuben J:
Certainly. And you are quite right it is rather nonsense to me thus the very reason I asked. Surely there must be an answer to everything, let alone a church, the Anglican, which has been around for many centuries. I like to know those, my private opinion of what I think of them notwithstanding.
I am more interested in how the Anglican Church came about and the title of the thread is a good one for me to pursue it.
I would like particularly to know from the theological/doctrinal aspect of it. Well, King Henry made interesting reading but it did not nullify the fact that the Anglican was indeed formed. How was it formed, how did it started?
Picky Picky:
This is interesting but as I said I would I would like to see it from a purely religious aspect. By narrating the political/social situation of their days, though an important aspect of history, we would be unconsciously trying to justify their action and thus watering down the religious reality and doctrine.
Yes, the Popes could be politically motivated and there is no denying that but if they were right doctrinally, then they should be followed.
As for King Henry, if you ask me, he was indeed a bad Catholic boy, mixing religion with politic.
As a Catholic, he should at least respect the decision of his priest, in this case, my goodness, the Pope himself. The dispensation given was right as it is within the Bishop jurisdiction to give. Marrying a brother’s wife might be discouraged but it is not totally wrong; it was not incest and thus not a sin per se, and the Bishop can decide on the dispensation.
If he wanted to divorce his wife and remarry, he should live with the excommunication, attended church but did not receive Holy Communion.
He wouldn’t do that, and like it is said here, the price was too high. He was a king. Perhaps that necessitated the founding of the new religion, the Anglican or the Church of England rather, if you insist that Henry was a Catholic in communion with Rome.
Reuben
G
GKC
Guest
The subject is one that a knowledge of history assists in understanding. Lots of things are like that, history being complicated and full of stuff. Reading is usually my recommendation for gaining some understanding of things like this and that means books, not snippets on the internet. In this particular case, I always suggest J. J. Scarisbrick’s biography HENRY VIII as a start. It’s the best one I know of, certainly the best of the dozen or so bios of Henry I own, for a full picture of what was going on.
OTOH, sometimes boards like this can provide some insight. Sometimes. I’m a little pressed with real life business at this time, but I do have some experience in discussing this, based on years of collecting and reading books in the subject area. Doesn’t make me right, but makes me informed.
Pick one question, I’ll try to give you the results of my readings, over the years. If that works, I’ll try another question.
And Picky and Contarini have been doing fairly well, themselves.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Sure history assists in understanding but it does not justify doctrinal decision. My understanding so far seems to point that way - that King Henry was justified in forming the Church of England due to the circumstances of the time which was narrated here. Maybe yes, maybe no, of course.
There are conflicting statements as to the formation of the Anglican Church.
So thanks, here would be my fundamental questions:
What was this church in England which was founded somewhere in the fourth century? Was it a patriarch ala the Eastern Churches?
If it was, why did Henry go to the Pope for religious ruling (eg dispensation)?
If that church was a Catholic Church (under the Pope’s jurisdiction) then it was not an independent church but just a Catholic Church albeit located in England for the Catholics there. There is nothing therefore for it to continue as the present COE. The Catholic Church still exist then as it is now. The question is, how was a Catholic Church in England of which Henry was a member could now be known as the Church of England? I am not sure the premise of my question is right but for now that’s how I see it.
You may notice I did not ask about the Pope’s dealing with Henry because that would distract from the main questions.
Thanks in anticipation.
Reuben
G
GKC
Guest
Taking this as one question. And ignoring some historical trivia that occasionally comes up, re this subject.
There was no church founded in England in the 4th century. There is some discussion about precisely when the RCC came to England, but that it was the church that was established there, and organized into dioceses, sending representatives to various Councils, by the 2nd century, is historical. A reasonably good and concise overview of this may be found in the first part of Moorman’s A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND.
The church that existed in England, from at least around the start of the 2nd century, likely earlier, was part of, in communion with, the Pope and Rome. This was strengthened by the Papal mission of St. Augustine to the island, in 597, but that, the question of the Celtic Church in the islands, the Synod of Whitby, and such details are not pertinent to the main issue, though you are encouraged to delve into them yourself. The point is, the Church in England, from its earliest days (which are a little lost in history), to the conflict in Henry’s day, was the same church. And that was the one with its seat in Rome. Henry did not start a new church, ab initio, or join some other, preexisting church in England. He broke that portion of the church that was in communion with Rome, and located in his territory, off from Rome, from submission to the Papacy, and declared it a separate and equal church. It was a schism. And it was formalized in Henry’s realm by a series of Parliamentary Acts (known as the Henrician Acts) in 1534. One of which declared Henry, by law, the supreme head of the church (officially proclaimed as the Church of England). This make the CoE what is known as an erastian, an established church. But its origin was in the church that Henry split it off of, that is, the RCC. Henry declared it to be Catholic, merely not subject to the authority of Rome. On that matter, Anglicans differ, these days. Anglicans differ on almost everything, which results in a lot of my posts.
Henry, when seeking a decree of nullity (an established and commonplace action, under the established and constantly evolving system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity, which the church used to manage the intertwined issues of the sacrament of matrimony, and the issue of dynastic marriages) with respect to his marriage to Catherine (not a divorce), did what anyone in his position did in the days before the schism. He took his causa to the church, in this case to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Eventually it was appealed to the rota in Rome, starting a long and complicated story.
The history of the relations between the church and the monarchy in England, as in other areas of Europe through this period of history, is complex and complicated. I will not comment on that here (though I certainly have, in the past).
That’s an answer to a question. During the composition of which I’ve had to deal with two business issues. Busy, like I said. What might be your next question? One at a time.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
This is a side-issue no doubt, but Henry’s belief in the separated church’s Catholicism may be gauged by the continuing burnings of those with Protestant-like leanings almost to the end of his reign
R
Reuben_J
Guest
My apology if my questions appeared multiple, that was not my intention. It was rather the subject matter – mainly how the Church of England was formed, and seek to clarify the implication given by other posters that it was not formed but a continuation of itself which exist long before Henry.
The highlighted part: How amazing it is that an awfully candid answer, perhaps to a fault, settles a very simple straight forward question.
That was all that I wanted to know – that the Church of England was a new Church, set up as a result of differences with Rome. And if not, why not. I was made to believe, at least my impression, from the Anglicans, that it was not from the Catholic Church (of Rome).
I will not comment whether it is a schism on par with the Eastern Orthodox as that would be my personal opinion and I know there would be disagreement but that’s another subject.
So, of course, then it makes sense as to why King Henry eventually appealed to the Pope. It was a very Catholic thing for a Catholic Henry to do. His response was not, however, though he was obviously not alone. Many Catholics have behaved similarly.
I was mostly interested on the religious /doctrinal part. The history is good to hear though but I won’t ask for a comment and save us the time.
Probably the question that follows would be the doctrinal issue, whether it was a right decision or not. And then the basic Catholic belief regarding the necessity of the Pope. I am not asking these here because there would be two different thoughts, so it does not matter. I know what I believe that the Anglicans would have to differ.
I guess I am done. I will pop up again if I have something in mind.
Thanks.
Reuben
G
GKC
Guest
You are very welcome. Remember , that is a bare-bones explanation. Much history, of theological and related political points, lies behind it.
And in the interim, I had to deal with another business issue. For a retired individual, I don’t get much rest.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
A new church? A question of definition, no doubt, and the definition following from a point of view. The OP was about the attitude of Anglicans to these matters. Anglicans do not think the Church of England was “a new church” but that it was the existing church, separated from papal control. There was no “setting up” of a separate body. The church remained, but no longer subject to Rome, or so say the Anglicans — of course Rome sees things differently, to the extent of “setting up” a rival schismatic hierarchy in the nineteenth century (don’t take me seriously on that, I’m merely intending to illustrate how allegedly simple straightforward statements can be soaked in presuppositions).
G
GKC
Guest
Verily.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Henry was once a good Catholic boy given the title Defender of the Fait when he supported the Pope to condemn Luther and his writings. He was in communion with Rome until he persisted in wanting to nullify his marriage to Catherine. He did wait 5 years.
As to how the Church was created and the 39 Articles etc. I cannot answer those kind of questions. I admire you for wanting to learn about the history and form your opinion.
- Status