Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuckinavortex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Picky_Picky said:
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).
Click to expand...
What does it mean by separated from papal control? It is no more a Catholic Church because a Catholic Church would be under papal control. Yes, all the former Catholics of England left en mass from papal control and what does it means? It is not the Catholic Church by definition but a new church. What about the Catholics that did not leave with King Henry? These are the continuation of the Catholic Church.

That is why I asked - what was that church from the fourth century? Unless that church was not the Catholic Church, then you are right, that the COE was indeed a continuation of that Church.

Of course Anglicans can say they were not a new Church. They are entitled to how they define themselves. But certainly one cannot change the Catholic Church and said it is still the same except now under new name with different authority. Well, in simple word, you are not what you were when you separated from the Pope who was your Pope before that.
 
7_Sorrows said:
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.
Click to expand...
Certainly. It just did not seem right to me. Once one changes side, one is no more the same but on the side that one gives one allegiance to.
 
Reuben_J said:
What does it mean by separated from papal control? It is no more a Catholic Church because a Catholic Church would be under papal control. Yes, all the former Catholics of England left en mass from papal control and what does it means? It is not the Catholic Church by definition but a new church. What about the Catholics that did not leave with King Henry? These are the continuation of the Catholic Church.

That is why I asked - what was that church from the fourth century? Unless that church was not the Catholic Church, then you are right, that the COE was indeed a continuation of that Church.

Of course Anglicans can say they were not a new Church. They are entitled to how they define themselves. But certainly one cannot change the Catholic Church and said it is still the same except now under new name with different authority. Well, in simple word, you are not what you were when you separated from the Pope who was your Pope before that.
Click to expand...
But of course whether or not a church can be catholic while not under papal control is one of the great dividing issues of Christianity, not just of the English Christian experience,

And one might say if there was a new church formed under Henry, was there another after 1547, and another after 1553, and another after 1558?
 
One thing I couldn’t quite get a grip on is how did they justify grabbing the assets of the Catholic Church. Even if they killed off the priests and bishops, but if you did not justly acquire them, their hands are still stained by the act of stealing. Passing a law to allow one to acquire those assets unjustly still does not make it right. If I understand the history correctly, the COE assumed ownership, directly or indirectly, of those assets that used to belong to the CC? So hypothetically, if a COE church were to rejoin the CC, would those assets go together with the church?
 
ericc said:
One thing I couldn’t quite get a grip on is how did they justify grabbing the assets of the Catholic Church. Even if they killed off the priests and bishops, but if you did not justly acquire them, their hands are still stained by the act of stealing. Passing a law to allow one to acquire those assets unjustly still does not make it right. If I understand the history correctly, the COE assumed ownership, directly or indirectly, of those assets that used to belong to the CC? So hypothetically, if a COE church were to rejoin the CC, would those assets go together with the church?
Click to expand...
Because they considered them the assets of the Church in England, not the assets of the Church based in Rome, from which the CoE had schismed.

As to the last question, it would take a judicial judgement. The CoE being erastian, its assets are in fact assets of the nation, by act of Parliament.
 
7_Sorrows said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can, possibly.

And you remember the full story of how Henry got the Defensor Fidei title, yes?
 
Reuben_J said:
What does it mean by separated from papal control? It is no more a Catholic Church because a Catholic Church would be under papal control. Yes, all the former Catholics of England left en mass from papal control and what does it means? It is not the Catholic Church by definition but a new church. What about the Catholics that did not leave with King Henry? These are the continuation of the Catholic Church.

That is why I asked - what was that church from the fourth century? Unless that church was not the Catholic Church, then you are right, that the COE was indeed a continuation of that Church.

Of course Anglicans can say they were not a new Church. They are entitled to how they define themselves. But certainly one cannot change the Catholic Church and said it is still the same except now under new name with different authority. Well, in simple word, you are not what you were when you separated from the Pope who was your Pope before that.
Click to expand...
But, as Henry believed, not the less Catholic for not being under Papal authority. As the Old Catholics of Utrecht so thought themselves, and as many Anglicans continue to think.

No one expects you to agree. But so it was.
 
Picky_Picky said:
But of course whether or not a church can be catholic while not under papal control is one of the great dividing issues of Christianity, not just of the English Christian experience,
Click to expand...
I am not talking about Catholic in that manner. I was just using the term Catholic Church by way of differentiation in my posts, as the one under Pope control. I understand Anglicans also know themselves as Catholics. It was not that. And I am not contesting their authenticity as catholic too, well, not here yet.

It is just that if the church that existed where Henry was a member was a Catholic Church under the control of the Pope, then that Church had not changed. If it is changed, that is, not under the control of the Pope anymore, it would therefore cease to be a Catholic Church under the Pope control, and it will be an another church. If that church did not exist before that, then it will be a new church from that point in time, albeit with the same people.
Picky_Picky said:
And one might say if there was a new church formed under Henry, was there another after 1547, and another after 1553, and another after 1558?
Click to expand...
I would not know as I don’t know the detail. Seen from my post above, then it will be new churches. There were many new churches being formed the last few centuries. I don’t know. Once you changes, you might be the same person but the belief is not, the authority is not. In church language you would cease from being the old church because what would that makes those who do not change with you? Would they be the new church? Certainly not.
 
ericc said:
One thing I couldn’t quite get a grip on is how did they justify grabbing the assets of the Catholic Church. Even if they killed off the priests and bishops, but if you did not justly acquire them, their hands are still stained by the act of stealing. Passing a law to allow one to acquire those assets unjustly still does not make it right. If I understand the history correctly, the COE assumed ownership, directly or indirectly, of those assets that used to belong to the CC? So hypothetically, if a COE church were to rejoin the CC, would those assets go together with the church?
Click to expand...
Henry did not, of course “kill off the priests and bishops”. The bulk of the ordained ministry remained in place.

What should happen to those assets was one of the questions raised when Mary I came to the throne and Cardinal Pole arrived to sort things out. He and Mary didn’t dismiss all those priests who had been ordained under Henry VIII and Edward VI; they did start something of a bonfire of Protestant people; but they didn’t undo the sale of church assets. Whether the assets were “stolen” in the first place is dependant on the point we have been discussing – whether the church was a continuation. That what started out as a move to close down those monastic establishments that were in a scandalous state turned quickly into a smash and grab raid for the money is, I think, indisputable.
 
GKC said:
But, as Henry believed, not the less Catholic for not being under Papal authority. As the Old Catholics of Utrecht so thought themselves, and as many Anglicans continue to think.

No one expects you to agree. But so it was.
Click to expand...
That was not my point. I am sorry if I seem to challenge his catholicity. It was just the Catholic Church under the Pope would be a new church once separated from the Pope. I did not contest whether he was right or the theology was right or wrong.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Henry did not, of course “kill off the priests and bishops”. The bulk of the ordained ministry remained in place.

What should happen to those assets was one of the questions raised when Mary I came to the throne and Cardinal Pole arrived to sort things out. He and Mary didn’t dismiss all those priests who had been ordained under Henry VIII and Edward VI; they did start something of a bonfire of Protestant people; but they didn’t undo the sale of church assets. Whether the assets were “stolen” in the first place is dependant on the point we have been discussing – whether the church was a continuation. That what started out as a move to close down those monastic establishments that were in a scandalous state turned quickly into a smash and grab raid for the money is, I think, indisputable.
Click to expand...
You do this well, with the Mary/Pole observation. Me, I just got a gutter hung…

Closing decrepit or decayed monasteries, etc, was common before Henry. Freed up monies for other stuff, made for a reform tone. Bishop Fisher, of sainted memory, had done so.

Henry took it to excess…
 
GKC said:
But, as Henry believed, not the less Catholic for not being under Papal authority. As the Old Catholics of Utrecht so thought themselves, and as many Anglicans continue to think.

No one expects you to agree. But so it was.
Click to expand...
Okay. As Henry believed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top