I'm going out on a limb here... (the contrarian argument)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Were they martyred, ie killed, because King Henry wanted to force them to give him that nullity and they refused? Yes or no.
 
¡
“GKMotley said:
Sacramental intent inheres in the minister or recipient of the sacrament.
Click to expand...

And that is the main message. At the time the Edwardine rite was in use, no valid ordinations were accomplished. The panel of investigators had determined that sacramental intent was lacking. No orders, no apostolic succession. CofE and CC parted ways.
 
Last edited:
I do recommend ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID/Hughes, for the history (inter alia) of the “investigators”, eight of them, up from the original 6, and a detailed accounting of what they did and didn’t do. But that would assume an interest in the detailed history, which you don’t necessarily have, or need to have.

That what you say is the basic position of the RCC as expressed in Apostolicae Curae, I wouldn’t deny. And affirm it, you should, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.
 
JohnStrachan said:
In my church - the Anglican church - we recite the same creeds as the RC’s, we have eucharist, sacraments, devotions, theologians and great writers, we gather in a church and say prayers and our worship looks pretty much the same.
Click to expand...
The Anglican denomination does not have the Eucharist because they do not have a valid priesthood. The Apostolic succession was broken with the death of St. John Fisher and the Catholic hierarchy was reestablished 100+ years later.

Our Lord Himself founded the Catholic Church; Henry VIII started Anglicanism and Queen Elizabeth II is the present head of the C of E.
 
History helps.

Neither More or Fisher could have given Henry the decree of nullity.

Fisher and More were both beheaded, for treason, in that they refused to take the Oath of Succession, in accordance with the Act of Supremacy (1534). At which point, Henry already had his decree of nullity, via Cranmer and the CoE.

Both were thus beheaded for treason, in accordance with the definition of the Act.

Curiously, both men are remembered in the CoE Calendar of Saints, and other Anglican jurisdictions, similarly. Feast day is 6 July.

Both Fisher and More are treated in Scarisbrick’s book, previously mentioned, and in my favorite book on More, THOMAS MORE/John Guy.
 
Last edited:
No, that bit about the Succession and St. John Fisher, is wrong. See Apostolicae Curae for the story.

The bit about Queen Elizabeth II is closer, but the title is Supreme Governor.
 
Last edited:
That directly contradicts Catholic history.

On April 13, 1534, More was ordered to take an oath, acknowledging the legitimicies of Anne’s position as queen, of Henry’s self-granted annulment from Catherine, and the superior position of the King as head of the church. More accepted Henry’s marriage to Anne, but refused to acknowledge Henry as head of the church, or his annulment from Catherine. This led to his arrest and imprisonment. He was locked away in the Tower of London.


This is closer to what I remember.
 
This exactly what I posted. With more detail. The Oath of Supremacy, which he would not swear to, was required by the Act of Supremacy. More detail on More can be found in the books I mentioned. They have more room for more detail. Which is an advantage of books.

What do you think was contradictory?

Added: I think I know, after rereading the link. What say you?
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
This exactly what I posted. With more detail. The Oath of Supremacy, which he would not swear to, was required by the Act of Supremacy. More detail on More can be found in the books I mentioned. They have more room for more detail. Which is an advantage of books.

What do you think was contradictory?

Added: I think I know, after rereading the link. What say you?
Click to expand...
King Henry was trying to force him to approve of his self-approved decree of nullity. Since he didn’t, KH had him decapitated. You said no force was involved. Obviously, there was.
 
I said that Henry didn’t try to force Fisher or More to give him the decree of nullity, because neither were in a position to do so, at any time. After Katherine had appealed her case to the Rota in Rome, it was in Rome’s hands. What Henry wanted was universal acquiescence to the new situation, via the Oath. Force, in that sense, yes. To get the decree of nullity, no.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
I said that Henry didn’t try to force Fisher or More to give him the decree of nullity, because neither were in a position to do so, at any time. After Katherine had appealed her case to the Rota in Rome, it was in Rome’s hands. What Henry wanted was universal acquiescence to the new situation, via the Oath. Force, in that sense, yes. To get the decree of nullity, no.
Click to expand...
And yet, you seem to agree with Henry and his overturning the Catholic Church in England merely to grant himself the decree of nullity. Am I correct?
 
I understand it. It was nascent nationalism, and reflective of a long history of conflicts in England, between the throne and Rome, dating back, at least to Henry II and the Council of Westminster, running up to the Henrician Acts of 1534.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
I’m guessing it’s because they never received Holy Orders from someone with the power to do so. I heard that King Henry took things into his own hands when it came to ordaining bishops, but I don’t know for certain.
Click to expand...
Maybe just fruits of leaven of church ordaining kings.
 
JohnStrachan said:
In my church - the Anglican church - we recite the same creeds as the RC’s, we have eucharist, sacraments, devotions, theologians and great writers, we gather in a church and say prayers and our worship looks pretty much the same. We even invoke the Holy Spirit for guidance. So why would the Holy Spirit be any less of an authority in my church then the RC church.
Click to expand...
And there is now an Anglican Rite in the Western Church, formed to welcome those Episcopalian Dioceses and Parishes that asked to come into union with the Catholic Church.

Those Episcopalian who remain outside do so out of choice, and cannot legitimately claim to be Catholic.
 
No so much.It was the same business of the intertwining of religion and politics it had always been. Henry got a say in who was consecrated. Henry did no consecrating himself.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
No so much.It was the same business of the intertwining of religion and politics it had always been. Henry got a say in who was consecrated. Henry did no consecrating himself.
Click to expand...
Well point was just that, same old business as you say, except for as it always had been. I mean Peter nor Paul ordained kings, as successors would come to do. So to me a Christian king then meddling in Church affairs is a bit tit for tat unfortunately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top