Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuckinavortex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By “oddball” I mean, could have a tendency towards obvious or subtley aggressive and dangerous anti-social behaviour.

Then again, if you look at the history of the U.K, it was dominated by kings and queens with aggressive characteristics, so I guess it goes with the territory. This is how royalty came about - the survival of the fittest.
 
I always thought the episcopal service was very beautiful. it closely mirrored a Catholic Mass. I guess how the church began was history. The Vatican has approved the Anglican Use Mass for those who once again want to be under Papal authority. I have never attended one, but I understand they are beautiful.
 
Although my assertion stands, because I know what I meant by it, I deeply regret using a particular term for description. :imsorry::o
 
friardchips said:
Although my assertion stands, because I know what I meant by it, I deeply regret using a particular term for description. :imsorry::o
Click to expand...
Hi friard. 👍 🙂

I understand how you feel. Take heart that in a discussion of contrasting belief, there would be bound to be unpleasantries at some points in time, what with wrong choice of word. Sometimes we get caught in being too candid and perhaps having to speak our hearts out.

I would avoid such subject where I know there can never be an agreement in belief or if I do, and God helps me, that I would be able to bring out my argument as clearly as I can, and then leave it at that.

Not to worry, we all do that sometimes. The fact that you regret it shows your candor.

God bless.

Reuben
 
Reuben_J said:
Hi friard. 👍 🙂

I understand how you feel. Take heart that in a discussion of contrasting belief, there would be bound to be unpleasantries at some points in time, what with wrong choice of word. Sometimes we get caught in being too candid and perhaps having to speak our hearts out.

I would avoid such subject where I know there can never be an agreement in belief or if I do, and God helps me, that I would be able to bring out my argument as clearly as I can, and then leave it at that.

Not to worry, we all do that sometimes. The fact that you regret it shows your candor.

God bless.

Reuben
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind words, Reuben.

:blessyou:
 
friardchips said:
By “oddball” I mean, could have a tendency towards obvious or subtley aggressive and dangerous anti-social behaviour.

Then again, if you look at the history of the U.K, it was dominated by kings and queens with aggressive characteristics, so I guess it goes with the territory. This is how royalty came about - the survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...
Aggressive, dangerous and anti-social? But we’ve just been told:
The Anglicans are totally wish washy with no real theology to speak of.
Just sort of a mutual self help club for various causes.
Click to expand...
Perhaps wishy washy wasn’t so bad after all. Yep, I think I’ll go for wishy washy.
 
GKC said:
Amongst the motley, many choices.
Click to expand...
Indeed. In fact I suppose there is no reason why one shouldn’t be aggressive, dangerous and anti-social one minute, and part of a wishy washy self-help group the next, a bit like the villains in The Ladykillers.
 
I sometimes find it amazing when I contemplate how in the pre modern world and even the early modern world a single person (i.e. the ruler) had the power to determine an entire country’s religious persuasion. That’s an awesome power.
 
Novocastrian said:
It wouldn’t have been unique. The Kings of Hungary used the title. Blessed Charles of Austria was using the title until 1918.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But as applied to Hank, Supreme Head To Be, it would resonate oddly. To my mind, at least.
 
tomarin said:
I sometimes find it amazing when I contemplate how in the pre modern world and even the early modern world a single person (i.e. the ruler) had the power to determine an entire country’s religious persuasion. That’s an awesome power.
Click to expand...
Cuius regio, eius religio, while not exactly applicable here, sort of fits.
 
Stuckinavortex said:
It is often agreed by historians that predominate reason for Henry VIII’s formation of the Church of England was the Pope’s refusal to grant Henry an annulment for his marriage to Catherine, so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. Of course, Henry later had Anne beheaded so that he could again remarry.

For me, this makes the whole Anglican/ Episcopalian church seem slightly hypocritical, being created for political reasons. What is your opinion on the actions of Henry and what reasons do you give to support the legitimacy of your church?
Click to expand...
Henry VIII’s marriage adventures are interesting but rather irrelevant. Cardinal Pole forgave any “ecclesiastical sins” that occurred during his reign during the reign of Mary I anyway. Theologically, it was Reformation lite.
 
tomarin said:
I sometimes find it amazing when I contemplate how in the pre modern world and even the early modern world a single person (i.e. the ruler) had the power to determine an entire country’s religious persuasion. That’s an awesome power.
Click to expand...
isn’t that happening now in some countries where Islam is the only religion allowed? what about when countries were communist and no religion was allowed?
 
Reuben_J said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Pope didn’t refuse the King simply because of Canon Law but because he was terrified of King Charles V. It was political alright
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top