Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuckinavortex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
GKC said:
No conclusive historical evidence for syphilis; see Scarisbrick, HENRY VIII, p. 487, and note 2, loc. cit.

Ironically, of course, Henry did have a mistress, who did provide him with a male offspring. It didn’t help his dynastic problems.
Click to expand...
I think his wife provided him a legitimate make heir
 
GKC said:
Pick a Picky Picky post and examine it carefully. Might not be worse, but he’s no schismatic.
Click to expand...
I’ve already picked a peck of pickled Picky Picky’s postings. I wasn’t saying he is. But then, for you to understand this comment, you would have to understand first, what an “assertion” is! 😃
 
GKC said:
Assumptions, assumptions. You don’t know Picky Picky, but assumed something about him.

So I assume, anyway.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that I assumed, instead of asserting that I asserted. I am asserting that the latter is by far the less assuming.
 
JimmyG88 said:
I think his wife provided him a legitimate make heir
Click to expand...
And when his troubles started he was in possession of an illegitimate male offspring, Henry Fitzroy (clever name), Duke of Richmond, etc, etc. The story of how, before he entered into his Great Matter, he attempted to use that asset, plus his daughter Mary, to ameliorate his dynastic issues, is a fascinating one.
 
GKC said:
'…self-proclaimed, …?
Click to expand...
No, I personally think we can sometimes be a bit hard on ourselves. But our comments do give rise to logical assertions, after words are used to assert, explicitly. So this can lead to others to be tough on us. But if this helps us to question our position a bit more seriously and sincerely then one could call this process of voicing our logical assertions ‘tough love’. It might then turn out that such an initial explicit assertion was in fact mistaken and merely an assumption which needed the microscope of logical assertion magnifying it for greater inspection in order to reach a far more rewarding and peaceful conclusion.
 
The Church of England initially was the catholic Church with virtually all the Bishops agreeing to (not St. John Fisher)-Henry needed a male heir-and he kept trying till he fathered Edward the VI-all of this occurred in the time frame of the Reformation-Henry likely had no plans to start “another Church” -Politics - Power and Money were the issues of the day

The Anglican tradition retained the core teaching and liturgy of the catholic Church in Britain-we do not feel that we are a “new denomination” but the continuation of the catholic faith that was present in Britain before the mission of St. Augustine

as the Ccatholic church gave birth to many shcisms so did the Anglican Church with the Methodists and Puritans

we care about our other Christian brethren and are in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran and Old catholic and Moravian Churches-we accept that our Christian Brothers and Sisters are all sharing in the work of Redemption
 
cmodrmac said:
The Anglican tradition retained the core teaching and liturgy of the catholic Church in Britain-we do not feel that we are a “new denomination” but the continuation of the catholic faith that was present in Britain before the mission of St. Augustine
Click to expand...
Granted this is how the Anglicans feel and believe.

Just for the sake of saying, as a non-Anglican I would see differently, and which was my search here to seek clarification.

GKC’s statement (post #93) was this, *‘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’, *which made it a Catholic Church under the Papacy.

The term ‘seat in Rome’ is rather loaded (probably as a prelude to a starting point of the schism argument in mind), which is not ordinarily used by Catholics but the meaning was clear, it was the Catholic Church, for what else could it be in the sixteenth century.

Being so, Henry was a Catholic, albeit a king of his country. The Catholic Church was not fragmented into any one country unlike the Orthodox churches, for example, where they have Greek, Russian, Ukrainian Orthodox Church though with same doctrine, etc., but one, being under the Pope (in Rome).

It would be an anomaly to call it the Catholic Church of England which imply it was an autonomous church in the Orthodox fashion. What happened with all Henry’s deferments to the Pope for religious ruling made sense, as it was a very Catholic thing to do.

Reuben
 
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...
This would be another section of the discussion - what was the ground for the annulment?

I don’t have the information and from what is being presented here in the thread was this:

The annulment was refused because a dispensation was already given by a Pope for Henry’s marriage.

The petitioner request for the annulment was because the dispensation was faulty (the Pope should not have granted it as it was wrong to marry a brother’s wife) and (not clear whether this was also being used) that Catherine might be lying when she said she was virgin.

If it were for the two reasons, the annulment was rightly refused, as the dispensation was within the Pope’s jurisdiction to make - exception for Henry to marry Catherine, a former sister in law; and whether Catherine was lying about her virginity, the marriage was nevertheless valid and licit, regardless of the Pope’s political leaning.

Reuben
 
Reuben_J said:
This would be another section of the discussion - what was the ground for the annulment?

I don’t have the information and from what is being presented here in the thread was this:

The annulment was refused because a dispensation was already given by a Pope for Henry’s marriage.

The petitioner request for the annulment was because the dispensation was faulty (the Pope should not have granted it as it was wrong to marry a brother’s wife) and (not clear whether this was also being used) that Catherine might be lying when she said she was virgin.

If it were for the two reasons, the annulment was rightly refused, as the dispensation was within the Pope’s jurisdiction to make - exception for Henry to marry Catherine, a former sister in law; and whether Catherine was lying about her virginity, the marriage was nevertheless valid and licit, regardless of the Pope’s political leaning.

Reuben
Click to expand...
Henry received a dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon because the marriage of a man to his brother’s wife required a papal dispensation. Then they proceed to have seven pregnancies:
  • An initial miscarriage
  • A son who died very shortly
  • A second miscarriage
  • A second son who died soon
  • Mary
  • two more miscarriages.
He petitioned for annulment based on the grounds of male childlessness and her first marriage to his brother.
 
Vico said:
Henry received a dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon because the marriage of a man to his brother’s wife required a papal dispensation. Then they proceed to have seven pregnancies:
  • An initial miscarriage
  • A son who died very shortly
  • A second miscarriage
  • A second son who died soon
  • Mary
  • two more miscarriages.
He petitioned for annulment based on the grounds of male childlessness and her first marriage to his brother.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information, Vico.

Then the marriage was indeed valid and licit and the petition for the annulment was rightly rejected.

As an aside, Christian marriage does not differentiate whether one is a king or not. Its purpose in the sexual act is unitive and procreative, not whether the wife can give birth or not, or if she can, to a boy or not. blah, blah , …😉

Marrying a brother’s wife is not a sin per se as it is not incest. It is discouraged, frowned upon in a society maybe, but a Bishop can make exception to it and grant dispensation if there is no other impediment. blah, blah, … 😉

God bless.

Reuben
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top