More specifically what I’m looking for is folks to read it and give their “take” on it. Maybe just a reaction to it. I realize most people aren’t willing to invest the time to actually read it and if they do read it they might simply answer with flippancy. However, I think there is probably a good deal here that the “average joes” like me aren’t as likely to explore until asked.
Because it, like history in general, is far more complicated than that waving of cardboard cutouts suggests. And it’s inaccurate. The problem was not that Clement didn’t recognize Henry’s marriage to Anne. He had, in fact, authorized it, given that the marriage to Catherine was determined to be invalid. It was the failure of Henry’s request for that decree of nullity that caused the problems. What Henry was trying to achieve; a decree of nullity, with respect to his marriage to Catherine, based, in his causa, on the Levitical prohibition (not his strongest case)), and why, were commonplace events in the day. The entire system of matrimonial impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity were set up, and steadily refined, to permit two things simultaneously: maintaining the Church’s control of matrimony as a sacrament, and permiting the making and breaking of dynastic marriages, as real-politic required. It grew to be a baroque and complicated process, so much so that Trent, Session XXIV, took it in hand and reformed it a little.
It seems though (as a mere overview on the subject) that it captured the “sense” of the events though perhaps not the detail that you have amassed. I think many people would be surprised even at the “overview version” and many are likely not even aware of the “why” of the existence of the Church of England. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and broadening of the subject.
You are very welcome, though my exposition is minimalist, at best. It’s way more complex. And I can’t agree that the New Advent paragraph is even minimally accurate. It doesn’t touch on the sense, let alone the detail. If I was grading it, I’d give it a C-. To understand what went on with Henry and his woes, you have to go back in English history around 250 years prior. And you have to look closely at who Catherine’s nephew was. And other stuff. Lots of other stuff.
Belloc, Lewis, Sayers, Lunn, Williams. Golden Age mysteries. Certain points of WWII, and other, military history. Science fiction. Sherlock Holmes. Couple of other things.That and atomic bombs, Marvel comics, Tolkien, and aircraft maintenance schedules!
One of the most striking things about the article is its triumphalist tone, which obviously couldn’t have imagined Vatican II happening in a million years:
Yet all of these innovations were later copied by the Catholic Church, with the exception of the latter (although there has been an obvious emphasis on “the priesthood of the faithful”).
Ray Harryhausen had the Ymir in 20 Million Miles to Earth destroy Rome. Clearly a Protestant reference.You left out Ray Harrihausen and Hungarian cabinet-making
The Augsburg Confession? Dude, what were you smoking when you watched the 7th Voyage of Sinbad?? LOLDidn’t he also have the Kraken step on the Wittenberg Cathedral and the diaskilos monster attack and deface some Durer paintings? He had the Cyclops steal the original copy of the Augsburg Confession…Clearly Catholic LOL
I love the Ymir. And met Ray, years ago.
Okay, so it’s another train wreck, but about money this time.