Lutherans...closest to Catholics?

[7_Sorrows]

I said the story was not false. Henry had been pursuing Anne sexually. She would not have him unless he married her. He became obsessed with her and sent two emissaries to Rome, Wolsley, being one, to get an annulment. I just read some of this again in Warren Carrol’s book, Cleaving of Christendom. It is well referenced. Belloc also writes about Anne. The story is pretty amazing. Henry wrote to Anne and called her his mistress, but she was not. He introduced her in public, while he was married to Catherine. He did have concerns about a male heir. They were overshadowed by his lust for Anne. She was about 23 and he about 34 at the time of the romance. He had already had an illegitimate son with Elizabeth Blount. If he really wanted a woman to give him a son, he already had both. Henry also had Anne’s younger sister Mary as a mistress and left her. Anne was engaged to a wealthy man named Percy. She saw a fatter catch in Henry when Henry became interested in her after dumping her sister… Henry ordered the engagement broken, while he was married. She became pregnant and Cranmer made a statement that she was Henry’s legitimate wife. She bore daughter Mary. He grew tired of her and then grew to hate her. A second pregnancy ended with miscarriage which she attributed to his brutality to her. Henry began to loathe her and was convinced she bewitched him and became determined to be rid of her his second wife. He accused her of several adulteries, including one with her brother. Henry already had his next babe in his sites, Jane Seymor. Henry, Cromwell and Cranmer conspired to do her in and had her beheaded. None of this, not a shred of it had a thing to do with her inability to have a son, if that was his supposed interest. If this were not bad enough he was only getting started. This is the man who began the Anglican Church, its first head, a madman. Yet when we hear his apologists tell the story, of which the above is a fraction, it was all about wanting a male heir and the pope should have gone along with him.

i don’t disagree with you that henry was bewitched by ann and smitten by her. he did feel that he had to have her, but i believe he also wanted to be married to her and have a legitimate male child with her to be heir to the throne. you said the reason he wanted to marry her in order to produce a male heir was false. he wanted both. to be with her and to have a male heir.
unfortunately, for henry, his life continued in a downward spiral until his death. i am sure he was a miserable man inside and he treated others miserably. as i said before, i am not a henry apologist.
however, i still believe the Book of Common Prayer is one of the most beautiful prayerbooks to come out of all of this and the Pope still cares about the dialogue between Rome and the Anglican communion despite how the Anglican church began.

 

[GKC]

Henry was a teenager at the time of the death of Queen Isabel. Catherine of Aragon, his first wife was her daughter. The precedent fo a female ruler could not have been stronger. In fact he ended up with a female successor.

It could have been much stronger. But Isabella, wed to Ferdinand, who ruled as the Spanish Monarchs, was an exception. In England, and generally, the rule, for a safe dynasty, was a male heir. Royal daughters, such as Catherine (Ferdinand and Isabella youngest), were marraige fodder, for dynastic purposes. Which was why Catherine was hooked to Arthur, in the first place, just as her sisters were married off to provide a ring of alliances around Spain. Her brother was left to sit on the throne.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I said the story was not false. Henry had been pursuing Anne sexually. She would not have him unless he married her. He became obsessed with her and sent two emissaries to Rome, Wolsley, being one, to get an annulment. I just read some of this again in Warren Carrol’s book, Cleaving of Christendom. It is well referenced. Belloc also writes about Anne. The story is pretty amazing. Henry wrote to Anne and called her his mistress, but she was not. He introduced her in public, while he was married to Catherine. He did have concerns about a male heir. They were overshadowed by his lust for Anne. She was about 23 and he about 34 at the time of the romance. He had already had an illegitimate son with Elizabeth Blount. If he really wanted a woman to give him a son, he already had both. Henry also had Anne’s younger sister Mary as a mistress and left her. Anne was engaged to a wealthy man named Percy. She saw a fatter catch in Henry when Henry became interested in her after dumping her sister… Henry ordered the engagement broken, while he was married. She became pregnant and Cranmer made a statement that she was Henry’s legitimate wife. She bore daughter Mary. He grew tired of her and then grew to hate her. A second pregnancy ended with miscarriage which she attributed to his brutality to her. Henry began to loathe her and was convinced she bewitched him and became determined to be rid of her his second wife. He accused her of several adulteries, including one with her brother. Henry already had his next babe in his sites, Jane Seymor. Henry, Cromwell and Cranmer conspired to do her in and had her beheaded. None of this, not a shred of it had a thing to do with her inability to have a son, if that was his supposed interest. If this were not bad enough he was only getting started. This is the man who began the Anglican Church, its first head, a madman. Yet when we hear his apologists tell the story, of which the above is a fraction, it was all about wanting a male heir and the pope should have gone along with him.

Much of this is accurate. Much is not. I’m not sure what you mean by ordering the engagement broken, while he was married. Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury, issued the decree of nullity Henry was looking for. Wolsey’s trip to Rome, in July 1527, included addressing Henry’s request for a decree of nullity, but much more, besides. What he was after was authority to handle, not only Henry’s problem, but many other things, while Clement was not free to act, after Pavia. Henry wanted to deal with the decree in house, in England, not in Rome, and had started a secret court, with Warham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Wolsey, as Papal Legate, in May of that year,to hear his case. Wolsey was looking for Papal approval to deal with it, himself. It was Catherine who made appeal to Rome, as was her right.

We are agreed that he was concerned about a male heir. It was why, in 1525, he took steps to use both Fitzroy, and Mary, his children, as possible solutons. Neither of whom was perfect for the solution: Fitzroy being illegitimate, Mary being female. Perhaps a suitable marriage could be obtained for Mary, perhaps Fitzroy could be rendered acceptable as an heir. Details of what he tried (which I’ll type, if needed) are in Scarisbrick. Which is, really and truly, the best place to find out what was going on. When he was smitten with Anne, it changed his approach, to the use of the resort the Church provided for rulers in his position: a decree of nullity. It happened all the time.

Had Elizabeth been a male, Anne likely would have seen more wedding anniversaries.

Do not mistake a knowledge of and interest in history, per se, as being an apologist for Henry. The story, which indeed is far more than what you have posted, is pretty amazing, as you say. The canonical laws and precedents related to annulments, dispensations and impediments, in particular.

Henry wanted a male heir. And he (as of 1527) wanted Anne. There was a method to get these things, set up by the Church. He tried to use it. Didn’t work.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Queen Matilda reigned in England in the 12th century.

I did find some source in Warren Carroll’s, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, on Elizabeth’s death, similar to, but not the one from my recollection. He cites, Theodore Maynard, Queen Elizabeth, (Milwaukee, 1940) Handover, Second Cecil, Edwrd Cheney, “From the defeat of the Armada to the Death of Queen Elizabeth” (London, 1926; Glouster, Mass, 1967), G.B. Harrison, ed., *The Elizabethan Journals, Being a Record of Those Things Most Talked of during the Years *1591-1603 (London 1938).

While I was searching I also found some other very interesting quotes from the historical figures of the day.

That’s the Maud I mentioned. Her story was not a happy one, of civil war, and wouldn’t incline any Briton to see a female try to ascend the throne.

And I found two more books, Neale’s QUEEN ELIZABETH I, and Weir’s THE LIFE OF ELIZABETH I. Neale gives no such details, Weir, who has the most details of anything in my collection, agrees with some points, not with others. and doesn’t have the general flavor that WIlliamson did. What Belloc, and Weir and many other of my sources are saying is that Elizabeth, in the last month or so or her life, feared her death (and esp. after the death of her cousin and close friend, the Countess of Nottingham. Incidentally, it was her widower, Lord Nottingham, who eventually got her to return to her bed). She felt that if she got into bed, it would be her death-bed. Of course, it was.

All agree she was comforted by her friend Archbishop Whitgift, through the ordeal. No hedge-priests, in these.

Sources provide a variety of facts, confirming, or denying, or expanding the story each can tell. They provide the tesserae that form the mosaic of history. You can’t stop with just one, esp. if you think it must be true, because it supports you.

GKC

 

[GKC]

i don’t disagree with you that henry was bewitched by ann and smitten by her. he did feel that he had to have her, but i believe he also wanted to be married to her and have a legitimate male child with her to be heir to the throne. you said the reason he wanted to marry her in order to produce a male heir was false. he wanted both. to be with her and to have a male heir.
unfortunately, for henry, his life continued in a downward spiral until his death. i am sure he was a miserable man inside and he treated others miserably. as i said before, i am not a henry apologist.
however, i still believe the Book of Common Prayer is one of the most beautiful prayerbooks to come out of all of this and the Pope still cares about the dialogue between Rome and the Anglican communion despite how the Anglican church began.

I agree.

GKC

 

[CWBetts]

That’s the Maud I mentioned. Her story was not a happy one, of civil war, and wouldn’t incline any Briton to see a female try to ascend the throne.

And I found two more books, Neale’s QUEEN ELIZABETH I, and Weir’s THE LIFE OF ELIZABETH I. Neale gives no such details, Weir, who has the most details of anything in my collection, agrees with some points, not with others. and doesn’t have the general flavor that WIlliamson did. What Belloc, and Weir and many other of my sources are saying is that Elizabeth, in the last month or so or her life, feared her death (and esp. after the death of her cousin and close friend, the Countess of Nottingham. Incidentally, it was her widower, Lord Nottingham, who eventually got her to return to her bed). She felt that if she got into bed, it would be her death-bed. Of course, it was.

All agree she was comforted by her friend Archbishop Whitgift, through the ordeal. No hedge-priests, in these.

Sources provide a variety of facts, confirming, or denying, or expanding the story each can tell. They provide the tesserae that form the mosaic of history. You can’t stop with just one, esp. if you think it must be true, because it supports you.

GKC

If you are talking about “historian” (and I use that term loosely) Allison Weir, I wouldn’t use her books for much more than a paperweight

 

[GKC]

If you are talking about “historian” (and I use that term loosely) Allison Weir, I wouldn’t use her books for much more than a paperweight

Mileage varies, to be sure. I don’t think as poorly of Williamson as all that, myself.

But I use a wide range of sources, which permits a comparison. In this instance, Weir comports well with the consensus.

GKC

 

[CWBetts]

Mileage varies, to be sure. I don’t think as poorly of Williamson as all that, myself.

But I use a wide range of sources, which permits a comparison. In this instance, Weir comports well with the consensus.

GKC

I had to read one of her books in a histriography class. It was awful.

 

[GKC]

I thought it might have been Belloc, but just looked and it is not. He touches on her death, but barely. I will look a bit more.

Missed this. Belloc in his ELIZABETH, CREATURE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, has a chapter (XIX) on her death. Actually, to call it a chapter is a little misleading, the book being a collection of independent essays; the British title, ELIZABETHAN COMMENTARIES makes that a little clearer. He doen’t use any of these details at all, but neither does he draw any great conclusions from the manner of her death, save that all of us might come to such an end.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I had to read one of her books in a histriography class. It was awful.

I might agree; parts of Williamson, as well as the overall partisan slant, struck me similarly. What found you to be awful?

GKC

 

[CWBetts]

I might agree; parts of Williamson, as well as the overall partisan slant, struck me similarly. What found you to be awful?

GKC

The book was “The Princes in the Tower” aboout Richard III. She would make a claim, fail to provide evidence, and thet treat the claim as undisputed fact. My personal favorite was the fact that she claims that James Tyrell made a confession, but no record or copy of said confession exists anywhere, except in the biopgraphy written by More. She fails to mention that More’s bigraphy of Richard was published posthumously, and I tend to think it is because More may have had some doubts about some of his sources.

 

[GKC]

The book was “The Princes in the Tower” aboout Richard III. She would make a claim, fail to provide evidence, and thet treat the claim as undisputed fact. My personal favorite was the fact that she claims that James Tyrell made a confession, but no record or copy of said confession exists anywhere, except in the biopgraphy written by More. She fails to mention that More’s bigraphy of Richard was published posthumously, and I tend to think it is because More may have had some doubts about some of his sources.

I have her book on the Princes, (along with some others, ditto) somewhere; never read it… And I agree that is the sort of thing that would make one raise an eyebrow.

Which is why, for the subjects that interest me I buy (as far as possible) anything I can find on the topics. And then I compare. Sometimes one is found wanting in little, sometimes in much.

If I had time, I’d look into the More question (Marius has some interesting thoughts on THE HISTORY OF RICHARD III), but I don’t.

GKC

 

[grandfather]

i don’t disagree with you that henry was bewitched by ann and smitten by her. he did feel that he had to have her, but i believe he also wanted to be married to her and have a legitimate male child with her to be heir to the throne. you said the reason he wanted to marry her in order to produce a male heir was false. he wanted both. to be with her and to have a male heir.
unfortunately, for henry, his life continued in a downward spiral until his death. i am sure he was a miserable man inside and he treated others miserably. as i said before, i am not a henry apologist.
however, i still believe the Book of Common Prayer is one of the most beautiful prayerbooks to come out of all of this and the Pope still cares about the dialogue between Rome and the Anglican communion despite how the Anglican church began.

I did not say Henry was bewitched by Anne. I said he believed he was. It was part of his mental state. He first attempted to have her as a lover, one of his lovers, while he was married. Why do you think he wanted to marry her, what historical evidence do you have to the contrary of what historians have presented?

Henry wanted a male heir. That is true. That had nothing to do with his relations with women, or Anne. She played him, his desire to have her, for her political objectives, to become queen. This is an historical fact. At some level he knew it and this probably figured into his notion that she bewitched him. She used him to gain her ends. Henry needed a reason to legitimize his desire to dump Catherine and have Anne. He was driven more by lust than the need to have a male heir. It was a convenient excuse, not entirely false, but somewhat of a ruse. What does any of this have to do with a prayer book?

 

[7_Sorrows]

I did not say Henry was bewitched by Anne. I said he believed he was. It was part of his mental state. He first attempted to have her as a lover, one of his lovers, while he was married. Why do you think he wanted to marry her, what historical evidence do you have to the contrary of what historians have presented?

Henry wanted a male heir. That is true. That had nothing to do with his relations with women, or Anne. She played him, his desire to have her, for her political objectives, to become queen. This is an historical fact. At some level he knew it and this probably figured into his notion that she bewitched him. She used him to gain her ends. Henry needed a reason to legitimize his desire to dump Catherine and have Anne. He was driven more by lust than the need to have a male heir. It was a convenient excuse, not entirely false, but somewhat of a ruse. What does any of this have to do with a prayer book?

of course, anne played him. i do not disagree with that. whether henry was bewitched by anne or believed he was makes no difference to me. she used him to gain her own ends and he probably planned to use her as well. you stated that the Anglican church was started by a madman. no matter how the church started, the Book of Common Prayer came out of it and the Anglican communion is 2nd behind the Catholic communion. i don’t agree with some of the things in the Episcopal church now or with the archbishop of Canterbury, but there are good things that can come out of bad.
since you want to argue about everything i post, i don’t plan on responding to anymore of your posts. GKC did an excellent job of putting things into proper perspective. have a nice day!

 

[GKC]

I did not say Henry was bewitched by Anne. I said he believed he was. It was part of his mental state. He first attempted to have her as a lover, one of his lovers, while he was married. Why do you think he wanted to marry her, what historical evidence do you have to the contrary of what historians have presented?

Henry wanted a male heir. That is true. That had nothing to do with his relations with women, or Anne. She played him, his desire to have her, for her political objectives, to become queen. This is an historical fact. At some level he knew it and this probably figured into his notion that she bewitched him. She used him to gain her ends. Henry needed a reason to legitimize his desire to dump Catherine and have Anne. He was driven more by lust than the need to have a male heir. It was a convenient excuse, not entirely false, but somewhat of a ruse. What does any of this have to do with a prayer book?

He wanted a legitimate male heir. He already had an illegitimate one. An Illegitimate heir is a good way to start a civil war. And certainly Anne played him, skillfully, too. And of course, Henry used Anne, in return. Neither got what they were hoping for.

Most historians, including Scarisbrick, disagree with your estimate of Henry’s actions. I say again, look into what Henry was doing with respect to Fitzroy and Mary, in 1525 (And there are differring opinions about what was going on, there, too). But then he got a better idea. He’d use the established method of a decree of nullity, which would solve all the problems. And it probably would have, as far as his marriage went. If not for Charles. Certainly his causa, even as he stated it, was far and away as strong as the typical case, such as his sister Margaret’s.

Male heir issue came first, Anne came second. Henry made one package deal out of them.

GKC

 

[GKC]

of course, anne played him. i do not disagree with that. whether henry was bewitched by anne or believed he was makes no difference to me. she used him to gain her own ends and he probably planned to use her as well. you stated that the Anglican church was started by a madman. no matter how the church started, the Book of Common Prayer came out of it and the Anglican communion is 2nd behind the Catholic communion. i don’t agree with some of the things in the Episcopal church now or with the archbishop of Canterbury, but there are good things that can come out of bad.
since you want to argue about everything i post, i don’t plan on responding to anymore of your posts. GKC did an excellent job of putting things into proper perspective. have a nice day!

Your asessment of what Henry was doing is correct.

GKC

 

[7_Sorrows]

Your asessment of what Henry was doing is correct.

GKC

:tiphat: thank you GKC. have a great day!

 

[GKC]

:tiphat: thank you GKC. have a great day!

You too.

GKC

 

[Sunflower15]

Perhaps so, with a couple of caveats.

1. There are some branches of Anglican - TAC comes to mind - that are probably closer.
2. Depends on which Lutherans one is talking about.

Not just because it is first generation - Zwingli was first generation, as were anabaptists - but also because, as Augsburg says, there was never an intention on the part of Luther, et al, to split with the Church.
And today there has probably been more progress in dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics, than Catholics and any of the others. Someone correctly me if I’m wrong.

Jon

I was thinking of making these comments and found that Jon had already done so!

*Note:
I have found that in terms of any other Christians, [other than Catholics], one will find various “strains” that are slightly different among ANY denomination in the West or churches in the East…
I may be wrong, but as soon as I get a response from one member of a denomination/church, another member says something different, and I’m not talking about misinformation, [as could happen among Catholics regardless of the Catechism], but actual bona fide variations.

Having said that,

Yes, High Church Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans seem the closest…depending on which one? And, there is where I get lost…

I struggle understanding what it means to be Lutheran or Anglican or Baptist IF each congregation of each of these denominations differs on their beliefs … AND, conversely, if so many variations are allowed to a denomination, then why are there so many denominations?

God Bless All and Happy Pascua until Pentecost!

 

[Newbie2]

I’m coming late to this discussion – amazing since almost anything with “Luther” or “Lutheran” in the subject line usually draws me right in. (I can’t find a hook, line, and sinker smiley, but that would express it.)

From my perspective, as a Lutheran I find Catholicism to be closer Lutheranism than any other traditions. Perhaps, I should have worded that the other way around. In any case, we share all the pre-Reformation history, we have a common understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism; we share in many – if not all – respects an understanding that in the Eucharist we receive the true body and blood of our Lord; and we both confess the three ecumenical creeds.

To be sure, there are subjects on which we have not come to agreement, but work is being done to overcome some of those as well. As I have said on occasion, if Lutheranism was not an option for me, I would have to seriously consider becoming Catholic.

Yeah, Catholics were here first. LOL