Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuckinavortex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mjwise said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that in those early years - during the lifetime of Henry - people across England continued to go to Mass, say their prayers, and life went on. There wasn’t a change in day to day beliefs or practices. The Church was still the Church.
 
Reuben_J said:
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:
  1. 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.
  2. He got the dispensation and married the woman.
  3. 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.”
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. He divorce Catherine and was freed to remarry. He married the woman he really loved, Anne Boleyn.
  7. By this time, Henry left Catholicism and joined the ancient Christian religion of England which was founded sometime in the fourth century.
Please fill in, if something is being missed.

Reuben
Click to expand...
I’m very puzzled by Paragraph 7
 
ComplineSanFran said:
I believe that in those early years - during the lifetime of Henry - people across England continued to go to Mass, say their prayers, and life went on. There wasn’t a change in day to day beliefs or practices. The Church was still the Church.
Click to expand...
Henry believed himself a Catholic. The Reformation per se took place under Edward and then Elizabeth (with a side order of Catholic atrocities courtesy of Mary in between)
 
JimmyG88 said:
Henry believed himself a Catholic. The Reformation per se took place under Edward and then Elizabeth (with a side order of Catholic atrocities courtesy of Mary in between)
Click to expand...
A schism is a schism whatever someone believes. It seems as if relativism existed even back then!
 
Picky_Picky said:
1054
Click to expand...
Had to Google that one. Apparently the East do not believe the Holy Spirit is equal to the first two Persons of the Holy Trinity?! Or am I wrong here? Hopefully, they have now changed their minds, if this is their understanding.
 
JimmyG88 said:
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
Click to expand...
It was, as was many things in the day, a combination of theology and politics.
 
friardchips said:
Had to Google that one. Apparently the East do not believe the Holy Spirit is equal to the first two Persons of the Holy Trinity?! Or am I wrong here? Hopefully, they have now changed their minds, if this is their understanding.
Click to expand...
I think the East would be horrified by that explanation: quite the contrary, I think they would say. No, I was thinking of the concept that a schism is a schism, no matter what someone believes.
 
Picky_Picky said:
I think the East would be horrified by that explanation: quite the contrary, I think they would say. No, I was thinking of the concept that a schism is a schism, no matter what someone believes.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to cause offence, but someone said this to me recently, so I am asking here because I’d like to know if it is true (without having to start a thread)?!

Your seconding of ‘a schism being a schism’, is acknowledged.
 
friardchips said:
I didn’t mean to cause offence, but someone said this to me recently, so I am asking here because I’d like to know if it is true (without having to start a thread)?!

Your seconding of ‘a schism being a schism’, is acknowledged.
Click to expand...
I am in no position of expertise to explicate the Filioque controversy, but I suspect your Eastern brothers would say the introduction of the Filioque into the creed was not only unauthorised, but diminished the rôles both of the Father and the Spirit. But, as I say, get information on that from one of the Orthodox rather than from me.

As to schism, my point was that in castigating schisms Catholics seem often to forget their own schism from the East.
 
Picky_Picky said:
I am in no position of expertise to explicate the Filioque controversy, but I suspect your Eastern brothers would say the introduction of the Filioque into the creed was not only unauthorised, but diminished the rôles both of the Father and the Spirit. But, as I say, get information on that from one of the Orthodox rather than from me.

As to schism, my point was that in castigating schisms Catholics seem often to forget their own schism from the East.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn’t realise that you were a schismatic , or I would have avoided responding for the sake of my own patience.
 
GKC said:
That is certainly a problem, yes.
Click to expand...
👍 Thank goodness for Pope Francis, that he is trying so much to heal the wounds made over so many centuries, to draw both East and West closer. 🙂
 
friardchips said:
Sorry, I didn’t realise that you were a schismatic , or I would have avoided responding for the sake of my own patience.
Click to expand...
No, no, my friend. I am not a schismatic: far worse than that. But if I tried your patience I apologise,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top