Hi! Can you help me understand the Anglican Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I[m delighted that that is all well and good.

Nope.

But it might be we would differ on what that meant.

And I have a rather broader use of history in mind.
 
Last edited:
Do you deny that the Anglican church split from the Church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles?
 
Henry VIII was genuinely convinced he needed a male heir to succeed him, because any dispute between rival claimants to the throne could quickly trigger a renewed outbreak of war.
History showed that he was correct in this . . .

😦

hawk
 
That is how it was legally established. King Henry wanted an annulment. The Pope would not grant it. The King convenes Parliament, which then passes laws separating the Church in England from the Roman Church and ending papal control.
Note that Henry had received a dispensation from the Pope to marry his brother’s widow, swearing that the marriage to his brother had not been consummated.

A few years later, it was “whoops; it was consummated! I’ve been living in mortal sin all along.”

When Rome refused hm relief, he got the theologians at Oxford to proclaim that not even the pope could grant such a dispensation, and that therefore Henry was not married in the first place. Accordingly, there was never a divorce or formal annulment.

hawk
 
Sometimes the simple beginning of something…a divorce…a No to God…explains more than revisionistic puffery.

It…like all disasters…began with a No to God.

Call it simplistic, but doing so doesn’t provide a compelling argument, only to lightweight types.
 
Last edited:
It was Henry’s father who got the dispensation. The marriage of Arthur and Catherine was what most such at their level was, in the day, a marriage of dynasties for political reasons. Henry VII wanted to maintain that, and keep the dowry he had already spent, in the bargain. He had toyed with the idea of taking Catherine as his own wife, but settled on Henry, fils.

The dispensation was likely faulty, in that, while dispensing from the impediment of affinity, it did not take into account the the impediment the justice of public honesty, if the marriage had not been consummated. Which Katherine (and her duenna)had always said was the case. Which leads into a lot of history I will pass over. Henry based his _causa_on neither point, but on the Levintine prohibition, and that the dispensation was thus ultra vires, beyond even a Pope’s dispensation. That is, he asserted that the marriage was invalid, as you say. At the time, the rule was that if a valid marriage was contracted, and consummated, and later a dispensation was sought for some one who would have an impediment to marrying due to affinity (marrying Arthur’s widow, that is), the dispensation need only specifically state that the affinity impediment was dispensed, and the impediment of public honesty was thereby dispensed, implicitly. But, if the marriage was not consummated, as Catherine maintained all along, and as was likely true, then the justice of public honesty must be explicitly dispensed. Julius didn’t do that. And hence there was a good case for Henry. And it had the advantage of saying the original dispensation was faulty, based on inadequate information, not ultra vires. It didn’t poke the Pope in the eye.

Wolsey urged him to take that tack. Hank didn’t, and it didn’t really matter. Given the relationship between Clement and Charles, and Charles and Catherine, and the general state of the political world at the time, no way was Henry going to get a decree of nullity. An Emperor trumps a King. And an emperor controlling a Pope is stronger still. So Henry didn’t get his decree. He got a Church, instead.

Not divorce. Decree of nullity. And there was one. Henry got it from Cranmer, his very own Archbishop. So all was well. Said Henry.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Henry was schismatic.For personal and dynastic reasons, also related to the ongoing struggle of several centuries in England, over the relative power of Throne and Rome. Nationalism was rising and Henry was the perfect storm…
 
This text from GKMotley above appears to be text boosted from another author, possibly you, but with a different name.

UPDATE: GK acknowledged it was his own writing with an earlier name.
 
Last edited:
there are also Anglicans in Africa, Canada and Australia. considering the British Empire ruled over India at one time i am surprised Anglicanism is not popular there.
 
Keen eye. It’s me. When I joined this new board, from the old incarnation, the board seemed to recognize my old board name (GKC) and my password, but won’t let me post no way. So I changed it, using one of my favorite words, motley.

I save a lot of my masterpieces of knowledge, and often steal from myself. No one else is allowed to, or likely wants to.
 
Last edited:
That I react to “divorce”, in this context, reflexively, with “decree of nullity” is an ad hom?

Odd.
 
Last edited:
It likely appeared many times, in one form or another. I got one on the Leventine Prohibition (or several of them) lined up, if needed.

Sometimes spelling will differ, when I forget which is correct, or other things like that.
 
Last edited:
Yes. A reflexive reaction. See “divorce”, type “decree of nullity”. Tap patella tendon, get knee jerk response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top