I (like a lot of my fellow Catholics, I think) was long under the impression that the Lutherans don’t have valid Apostolic succession because they simply didn’t have any bishops among them to begin with.
The Lutheran bishops of Sweeden have Apostolic Succesion. Rome has never definitively made a judgement on those Lutheran Orders.
So are they in scism?
The grounds for the first requested annulment were quite on a par with the causa submitted in the average case of the sort, at the time, and Henry was quite justified in expecting it would be routinely granted. It happened all the time; see the case of his sister Margaret. In fact, Henry’s case was even stronger than Henry made it out, in that the Levetical prohibition, which Henry insisted on citing, was off set by the admonitions in Deuteronomy. But, as Wolsey noted, there was a stronger case in an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, with respect to the marriage to Catherine. It is a complicated story, but then the entire system of impediments, annulments and dispensations was constructed to be complicated, to permit both the maintainence of matrimony as a sacrament, and simultaneously permit the making and unmaking of dynastic marriages, as Henry was seeking. The system was a carefully constructed blend of theology and politics. Henry just happened to run into a more powerful politician. Bottom line: what Henry sought was commonplace at the time. Decisions rendered along real-politick lines were also common; Henry was out-gunned.
its elements had the same root causes, and the Lutheran point of view, so strongly rebutted by Henry himself in earlier days, did gain ascendance after Henry, esp. under Edward VI and Elizabeth, and there was an active Lutheran party among the nobility and bishops even before Henry’s definitive break.
To the extent that the judgment was based on the theology, or the canon law, yes. That sentence was saying that Henry presented a weaker case than he actually possessed, in the undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty. But either case would normally have sufficed to get him what he wanted; see what got his sister Margaret a decree of nullity in the same year. It’s how the system was designed to work. In truth, though, neither case, nor any other case he might have advanced, would have out-weighed Charles V.
Loosely, yes. In fact, the bio of Hank I alway recommend, Scarisbrick’s, which has a superb account of the whole affair, uses the terms like that. But the post I was responding to was making a distinction between the divorce Henry was granted, and the decree of nullity he might have been granted. Technically, he sought and received (from +Cantaur) two decrees of nullity, based on impediments of affinity (Catherine) and (IIRC) justice of public honesty (Anne of Cleves, though don’t quote me on that one)
Not schism … schism is when the split is not over theology.
Well, if you are egotistical enough to think that because you left, they would change and beg oyu to come back
Not till you mentioned it.
I agree that Luther spoke out against abuses within the church … as he should have … as any Catholic should feel obligated to do today.
Again, not to justify his actions, but in this instance he would be no different than the people around him blatantly breaking vows they took in the Latin Rite. At least he did not have a hidden mistress and illigitamate children, and at least he got married even if outside the church to a former nun.
It’s very interesting that you should say that, cazayoux, in light of a post made on another thread today:
mattkubes said:
edit
