Hmmm…I don’t think Luther’s convictions would have been different. His motives were theological…not political or ecclesiastical, as notsmart pointed out (she really needs to change her username).
That is what I think as well. Changing the rite would not matter, as there are other rites in union and out of union with Rome. It could have become German Orthodox or something.
Didn’t the Anglicans changing the rite of the orders invalidate theirs?
I don’t think it matters in terms of what was being revealed to Luther. He did what he had to do period. The truth shall set you free.
:yup:
Part of what hurt the Anglicans was the oath of loyalty. We really need Edwin on that.
The oath of loyalty was, IMO, a sham. I know Catholics have deep admiration for St. More (he wasn’t much better than the people who axed him; when it comes to persecution that is); He clearly did the right thing under the circumstances, though. In submitting to the king or the Pope, I would prefer a Pope who errs in theology to a king who errs in Christianity. As Luther said about Henry and his “reforms;” “The Pope errs in articles of faith, Henry creates whole new articles of faith.” or something to that effect.
I agree with Triune. Henry was a real piece of work. But I also can’t fault some of those folks who just went along with him for fear of death and persecution. Those were dark times and we’re fallen people. Thomas Cranmer was a very confusing and strange reformer. Of all the reformers and characters in the history of Christianity, he’s a bit of an enigma and fascination to me. He was an undercover Calvinist and yet married a Lutheran girl in Germany while still a RC Priest, he capitulated to Henry’s dirty deals and got him divorced so many times it’d make one’s head spin like in “The Exorcist.” Cranmer and his black rubrics episodes shows an excessive iconoclasm and yet sometimes he seems a bit Catholic. He’s very political and cunniving. He thrives during Edward’s years and then under Mary is definitely on the outs and knows he has little time left. He writes a recantation of all his beliefs then contradicts it. He dies a martyr yet he himself martyred so many Catholics brutally. It’s never apparent if he does things for a deep faith and personal belief or because it’s politically expedient. I tend to think the former. He seemed a committed calvinist. He and Bucer collaborated on the book of common prayer and it sounded very calvinistic one moment but the later modifies it making it more catholic. He’s a fascinating guy.
uh how about all except two of the English bishops
The whole Tudor era is a fascination to me!
Technically, Henry VIII was only divorced twice, the second of which (Anne of Cleves) could have been annulled had Henry cared to place himself back under the authority of the Church.
In my opinion, Cranmer said and did whatever was necessary to keep his own head. While I obviously can’t know for sure, I don’t believe he had “deep faith” because it seems he was blown around with every new wind of doctrine, or rather, he outwardly conformed to whatever his Sovereign of the day wanted him to believe.
Not to mention all the Sweedish bishops as well. And technically the English Reformation occured under Edward and Elizabeth not Henry. There were no “reforms” under Henry.
Hank wasn’t divorced at all. Cranmer granted him decrees of nullity.The whole Tudor era is a fascination to me!
Technically, Henry VIII was only divorced twice, the second of which (Anne of Cleves) could have been annulled had Henry cared to place himself back under the authority of the Church.
In my opinion, Cranmer said and did whatever was necessary to keep his own head. While I obviously can’t know for sure, I don’t believe he had “deep faith” because it seems he was blown around with every new wind of doctrine, or rather, he outwardly conformed to whatever his Sovereign of the day wanted him to believe.
In answer to the OP, I really don’t think it would have mattered if Luther was a bishop, the end result would have been the same. Either way he broke his vows and created a big mess, something he even admitted to when he saw all the divisions that his “Sola Scriptura” heresy was responsible for.
That the form of the Rite of consecration/ordination in the Edwardine Ordinal was invalid was part of the judgement of Apostolicae Curae. This always has to be paired with the accompanying judgement of invalid intent, on the part of those who constructed the Ordinal, or used it, in the consecration of Archbisop Parker in 1559, since it is easy to find Rites which have the same defect of form, which the RCC does recognise as conveying the valid sacrament.
Which why I though that Leo’s argument was weak. The entire ceremony declares the intention to ordain a bishop to “be to the flocke of Christ a shepeheard”. The form itself cites the scriptural words that conveyed orders by Christ “TAKE the holy gost” and to this is added the words of Paul to Timothy “remember that thou stirre up the grace of god, whiche is in thee, by imposicion of handes: for god hath not geven us the spirite of feare, but of power, and love, and of sobernesse” referring to the latter’s ordination. Leo was reaching on that one. But all this is moot because of the union of Utrect. Now Rome has to admit the validity of most Anglican orders.
Hmm. I seem to have added an odd signature to my previous post.