Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

[JimmyG88]

Considering that the author was literary editor of The Spectator (!), one of his books won the Guardian Fiction Prize, he is an author well known for magnifying dark sides in personalities in his books, and that his books are themes of people linked with London; you couldn’t have picked a more transparently subversive writer.

As I said, now for the third time, St. Thomas More has been defended by men in positions of authority in the Church. And I would rush to their accounts before picking up one written by someone so likely to try and write to sell.

I wouldn’t read it if it was there in front of me.

And yes, I believe that saints are saints for true, noble and holy reasons.

The fact that you are not prepared to read around a subject using a variety of sources in a dispassionate is quite odd frankly. You do not have to agree with the position of an author but it is useful to understand the contrary position no one says you have to agree with it. But I suspect that is the reason that while you appear to be a very intelligent individual you will remain undereducated

 

[friardchips]

Politic and religion cannot really mix and when they do, one will usurp the other.

Anglicans would believe that Henry thought he did what was right, as he believed. They probably need to believe this, but obviously he was wrong, whether he was properly catechized or not, notwithstanding.

Yes, he should just obey the Pope’s ruling on the rejection of the annulment and continue to be a believer. The rest, what happened, was purely political maneuvering to achieve Henry’s ambition for his dynasty, and nothing to do with religion anymore. As a Catholic, he should know that he could not do what he did.

Sadly this is the course of action that some Catholics still do today - being not allowed to remarry, they would just leave the Church.

Well balanced post (schism is schism).

 

[friardchips]

The fact that you are not prepared to read around a subject using a variety of sources in a dispassionate is quite odd frankly. You do not have to agree with the position of an author but it is useful to understand the contrary position no one says you have to agree with it. But I suspect that is the reason that while you appear to be a very intelligent individual you will remain undereducated

I don’t have to waste my time reading invented history written by political satirists / fiction writers to understand an historical subject properly. Rather, I would prefer to read reliable content. It would be more beneficial to read stuff St. Thomas More wrote himself and make your own mind up. This will be more reliable than the unreliable source material you just put forward. Sensationalist writing is not evidence.

This nonsense could have been conjured up by royalist historians at the time with intent to denigrate St. Thomas More’s position, as a saint, after he was martyred.

Also, if it had been true, More might have kept some people in his house in order that the prisoners were looked after properly, knowing full well that Henry would execute them whether More protested over their death or not.

The type of prisoner he would have kept, if it had been true, would have been people such as heretics. And no doubt, knowing that they were due to be sentenced to death, might have wished to keep them there in order to convert them. He also would have wished them to not die as people who have renounced their faith - which is understandable for that time; nevertheless, how can this sort of thing be proved to be true unless More said it himself. If it was true then these people would have died in worse conditions if they were kept in the tower. It might have even been the case that the cells were full in the Tower - I imagine they always were. Henry could have even ordered them to be at More’s place even. More would not have argued. So there are so many possibilities before one starts repainting the image of St. Thomas More with the use of trash material.

You cannot rely on false witnesses. If you are going to read sensationalist material then you will never get off the starting blocks.

 

[JimmyG88]

I don’t have to waste my time reading invented history written by political satirists / fiction writers to understand an historical subject properly. Rather, I would prefer to read reliable content. It would be more beneficial to read stuff St. Thomas More wrote himself and make your own mind up. This will be more reliable than the unreliable source material you just put forward. Sensationalist writing is not evidence.

This nonsense could have been conjured up by royalist historians at the time with intent to denigrate St. Thomas More’s position, as a saint, after he was martyred.

Also, if it had been true, More might have kept some people in his house in order that the prisoners were looked after properly, knowing full well that Henry would execute them whether More protested over their death or not.

The type of prisoner he would have kept, if it had been true, would have been people such as heretics. And no doubt, knowing that they were due to be sentenced to death, might have wished to keep them there in order to convert them. He also would have wished them to not die as people who have renounced their faith - which is understandable for that time; nevertheless, how can this sort of thing be proved to be true unless More said it himself. And they would have died in worse conditions no doubt if they were kept in the tower. It might have even been the case that the cells were full in the tower. I imagine they were always were. Henry could have even ordered it. So there are so many possibilities before one starts repainting the image of St. Thomas More with the use of trash material.

You cannot rely on false witnesses. If you are going to read sensationalist material then you will never get off the starting blocks.

Well you have conjured up more supposition and fiction in a couple of paragraphs than Ackroyd could have done in his whole literary career. Fondly imagining as you do that the Tower was full as a rationale for taking heretics home is odd to say the least. I imagine you think that the tower was a miserable dungeon when in fact many prisoners lived there in comfort (not least Sir Walter Raleigh whose wife actually moved in with him). Your unwillingness to balance or inform your beliefs with evidence from both sides simply weakens your position. Any theory or belief always has a counterpoint. Knowing the other side of an argument is absolutely essential if you wish to defend your standpoint adequately. Simply ignoring the other side of the argument is puerile. Ackroyd cannot claim to be infallible but he is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and an honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. If nothing else he paints a vivid picture of Tudor London. I think you will find in his Apoligia he writes of the prisoners at home issue admitting he whipped one or had one whipped I can’t remember off hand

 

[GKC]

Well you have conjured up more supposition and fiction in a couple of paragraphs than Ackroyd could have done in his whole literary career. Fondly imagining as you do that the Tower was full as a rationale for taking heretics home is odd to say the least. I imagine you think that the tower was a miserable dungeon when in fact many prisoners lived there in comfort (not least Sir Walter Raleigh whose wife actually moved in with him). Your unwillingness to balance or inform your beliefs with evidence from both sides simply weakens your position. Any theory or belief always has a counterpoint. Knowing the other side of an argument is absolutely essential if you wish to defend your standpoint adequately. Simply ignoring the other side of the argument is puerile. Ackroyd cannot claim to be infallible but he is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and an honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. If nothing else he paints a vivid picture of Tudor London. I think you will find in his Apoligia he writes of the prisoners at home issue admitting he whipped one or had one whipped I can’t remember off hand

Or, one might read Guy, or Marius. Or, on the subject of the prisoners, one might read More himself. Or Reynolds/ THE FIELD IS WON, a book that treats More as basically blameless and traduced. And indeed, you would read there of how More would sometimes invite heretics to his house, to discuss their new-fangled theological ideas, with an eye to talking them around to orthodoxy, and then read on the next page of him putting George Constantine in the stocks, while thus reasoning with him.

In the Apologia, More discusses the prisoners at Chelsea, who were held for his preliminary investigation, to determine if they were to be sent on to the Tower, not because the inn was already full. He denies the accusations of beatings, save for two trivial incidents, none of them the ones later claimed against him (Reynolds mentions both these cases). And as far as is known, in what I have read, that is likely true.

You express well a point I have posted often. Read well around a subject, from all sides, if you think it particularly important. But there are people who know what they want to know, in advance, as well as people who merely want to know what they can discover. The former read, if they read at all, narrowly. And have a narrow understanding, at best.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Or, one might read Guy, or Marius. Or, on the subject of the prisoners, one might read More himself. Or Reynolds/ THE FIELD IS WON, a book that treats More as basically blameless and traduced. And indeed, you would read there of how More would sometimes invite heretics to his house, to discuss their new-fangled theological ideas, with an eye to talking them around to orthodoxy, and then read on the next page of him putting George Constantine in the stocks, while thus reasoning with him.

In the Apologia, More discusses the prisoners at Chelsea, who were held for his preliminary investigation, to determine if they were to be sent on to the Tower, not because the inn was already full. He denies the accusations of beatings, save for two trivial incidents, none of them the ones later claimed against him (Reynolds mentions both these cases). And as far as is known, in what I have read, that is likely true.

You express well a point I have posted often. Read well around a subject, from all sides, if you think it particularly important. But there are people who know what they want to know, in advance, as well as people who merely want to know what they can discover. The former read, if they read at all, narrowly. And have a narrow understanding, at best.

Yes indeed, read copiously. My favourite work of history sums up Henry VIII succinctly:

Henry wanted the Pope to give him a divorce from his first wife, Katherine. He wanted this because

(a) she was Arrogant.
(b) he had married her a very long time ago.
(c) when she had a baby it turned out to be Broody Mary, and Henry wanted a boy.
(d) he thought it would be a Good Thing.

The Pope, however, refused, and seceded with all his followers from the Church of England, This was called the Restoration.

 

[JimmyG88]

Yes indeed, read copiously. My favourite work of history sums up Henry VIII succinctly:

Ha ha! That must be ‘1066 and all that’

 

[Contarini]

I need to add 5 sacraments, myself.

Sorry–I intended that to be implicit in mentioning apostolic succession, but should have spelled it out explicitly: “apostolic succession and thus seven valid sacraments exactly as in the other churches of apostolic origin.”

I was emphasizing the more minimal approach rather than the Anglo-Catholic one, because my point was that there’s very little that Anglicans, simply by virtue of being Anglicans, can be expected to “need to believe.”

Edwin

 

[JimmyG88]

Sorry–I intended that to be implicit in mentioning apostolic succession, but should have spelled it out explicitly: “apostolic succession and thus seven valid sacraments exactly as in the other churches of apostolic origin.”

I was emphasizing the more minimal approach rather than the Anglo-Catholic one, because my point was that there’s very little that Anglicans, simply by virtue of being Anglicans, can be expected to “need to believe.”

Edwin

I think it’s interesting that there are schools of thought within Anglicanism that recognise two sacraments some that recognise seven and some that regard coronation as s sacrament. Which is an interesting thought if you do indeed see a monarch as chosen by God and a coronation as 'an outward sign of inward grace (perhaps in this case not ordained by Jesus Christ) by which grace is given to our souls

 

[Contarini]

I don’t have to waste my time reading invented history written by political satirists / fiction writers to understand an historical subject properly.

the fact that Ackroyd has also written fiction does not mean that all his writing is fiction.

As GKC says, the best approach is to read widely, including books from many different perspectives.

Rather, I would prefer to read reliable content.

But “reliable” in your mind seems to mean “guaranteed beforehand not to tell me anything I don’t want to hear.”

It would be more beneficial to read stuff St. Thomas More wrote himself

and make your own mind up. This will be more reliable than the unreliable source material you just put forward. Sensationalist writing is not evidence.
This nonsense could have been conjured up by royalist historians at the time with intent to denigrate St. Thomas More’s position, as a saint, after he was martyred.

And speculations about what could have been made up aren’t evidence either. More admitted to keeping prisoners in his house. He denied whipping them, except for two cases, which as GKC says were not the ones he was accused of (one was one of his own dependents who was teaching other boys to speak against the Sacrament, and the other was a mentally ill man who was pulling women’s skirts up).

Also, if it had been true, More might have kept some people in his house in order that the prisoners were looked after properly, knowing full well that Henry would execute them whether More protested over their death or not.

All kinds of things “might” have happened. but you don’t seem to care about evidence, only about coming up with some sort of fancy that will allow you to regard More as beyond reproach.

The type of prisoner he would have kept, if it had been true, would have been people such as heretics. And no doubt, knowing that they were due to be sentenced to death, might have wished to keep them there in order to convert them. He also would have wished them to not die as people who have renounced their faith - which is understandable for that time; nevertheless, how can this sort of thing be proved to be true unless More said it himself.

Well, there are other kinds of evidence, but in fact he did admit it himself.

And of course his motivation was to convert them. No one is disputing that.

If it was true then these people would have died in worse conditions if they were kept in the tower. It might have even been the case that the cells were full in the Tower - I imagine they always were. Henry could have even ordered them to be at More’s place even. More would not have argued.

You imagine a lot. Imagination is good, but not a substitute for evidence.

Edwin

 

[Picky_Picky]

Ha ha! That must be ‘1066 and all that’

You’re right.

 

[Contarini]

I think it’s interesting that there are schools of thought within Anglicanism that recognise two sacraments some that recognise seven and some that regard coronation as s sacrament. Which is an interesting thought if you do indeed see a monarch as chosen by God and a coronation as 'an outward sign of inward grace (perhaps in this case not ordained by Jesus Christ) by which grace is given to our souls

What Anglican authors regard coronation as a sacrament?

I found some claims (but no solid documentation) online to the effect that medieval Catholics often regarded coronation as the “eighth sacrament,” and that certainly makes sense. It would not surprise me if there were Anglicans who held this view, but if so, they derived it from the Middle Ages.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

but Henry did not start the Church of England because he wanted to follow in the footsteps of Luther. I agree with Reuben that it was ambition for his dynasty. he did not abandon the Catholic way of worship. he abandoned Papal authority and we can see what transpired the following 400+ years.

What one believes about papal authority does have something to do with religion. Otherwise you get the view of Lee Wandel that St. Thomas More wasn’t really a martyr because he died for the “political” question of papal supremacy.

Agreed that he didn’t want to follow in Luther’s footsteps, although that doesn’t mean he was unaffected by Luther.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Yes indeed, read copiously. My favourite work of history sums up Henry VIII succinctly:

That about sums it up, and all that.

 

[GKC]

Sorry–I intended that to be implicit in mentioning apostolic succession, but should have spelled it out explicitly: “apostolic succession and thus seven valid sacraments exactly as in the other churches of apostolic origin.”

I was emphasizing the more minimal approach rather than the Anglo-Catholic one, because my point was that there’s very little that Anglicans, simply by virtue of being Anglicans, can be expected to “need to believe.”

Edwin

Yeah, I was just being a smart-mouth there. Your point was accurate.

 

[Picky_Picky]

What Anglican authors regard coronation as a sacrament?

I found some claims (but no solid documentation) online to the effect that medieval Catholics often regarded coronation as the “eighth sacrament,” and that certainly makes sense. It would not surprise me if there were Anglicans who held this view, but if so, they derived it from the Middle Ages.

Edwin

I don’t know if Bishop Nazir-Ali counts, but I recall that he described the British (English?) coronation service as “sacramental throughout”. Throughout, but with specific emphasis on the anointing, I think. Would you say that “sacramental throughout” is quite different from “a sacrament”? (I ask because I don’t know).

 

[GKC]

I don’t know if Bishop Nazir-Ali counts, but I recall that he described the British (English?) coronation service as “sacramental throughout”. Throughout, but with specific emphasis on the anointing, I think. Would you say that “sacramental throughout” is quite different from “a sacrament”? (I ask because I don’t know).

Adding little to the subject, I recall that there is a interrupted communion service as part of the coronation, but yes, emphasis on the anointing must be what is meant. And yes, sacramental throughout doesn’t equate to sacramental per se.

Never heard it expressed this way, but then I live over here.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Adding little to the subject, I recall that there is a interrupted communion service as part of the coronation, but yes, emphasis on the anointing must be what is meant. And yes, sacramental throughout doesn’t equate to sacramental per se.

Never heard it expressed this way, but then I live over here.

Bishop Nazir-Ali tends to be his own man.

Yes, the monarch takes Communion as part of the coronation.

 

[Yeoman]

I think it’s interesting that there are schools of thought within Anglicanism that recognise two sacraments some that recognise seven and some that regard coronation as s sacrament. Which is an interesting thought if you do indeed see a monarch as chosen by God and a coronation as 'an outward sign of inward grace (perhaps in this case not ordained by Jesus Christ) by which grace is given to our souls

While way, way, way outside of this time frame, it’s interesting to note that the importance of coronation by the Archbishop of Canterbury was starting to pop up prior to the reign of Alfred the Great, when England had kingdoms, rather than it being a kingdom. Indeed, I think the words used now may have arisen in part way back then.

 

[Yeoman]

Given the last few entries here (and my apologies if it’s addressed above, which it may be) how strong do we feel the attachment of the current monarch, and her extended family, actually is to the Church of England.

I guess I probably ought to ask that same question about the royal families of Norway, Sweden and Denmark in regards to the Lutheran Church while I’m at it.