The Reformation...reforming to What?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ahs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Read “The Great Controversy” It explains all about the Churchs poping up and why. An eye opener for sure to people that dont know the history of the reformation.
 
I got to know pretty well the deacon and his wife, he among those in the beginning years of restarting the diaconate in my diocese. I remember talking to them about their conversion. They are former Episcopalians, converting to Catholicism some time in the early 70’s.

They said what made them leave was studying history, and in essence it looked to them the foundation was based on Henry’s lust.
 
Hi, Kathleen,

It sounds like they were following the example of Blessed Cardinal Newman. catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-newman-blessed-by-benedict-xvi-with-beatification/

God bless
KathleenGee said:
I got to know pretty well the deacon and his wife, he among those in the beginning years of restarting the diaconate in my diocese. I remember talking to them about their conversion. They are former Episcopalians, converting to Catholicism some time in the early 70’s.

They said what made them leave was studying history, and in essence it looked to them the foundation was based on Henry’s lust.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Tom, for the link. I also think there was just a power grab for the monasteries as well that had nothing to do with doctrine either.
 
KathleenGee said:
Thanks, Tom, for the link. I also think there was just a power grab for the monasteries as well that had nothing to do with doctrine either.
Click to expand...
What sort of books on the subject of Henry’s period in history have you read?

GKC
 
Hi, GKC,

It has been so long since I have read any material on Henry … I think it was probably in scroll form! 😃

From memory (always subject to a flaw here and there) it really just wasn’t a power grab (I mean after all, he was already King of England - where do you go from there?) but, it was a money grab. Henry had a knack for fighting expensive wars, but of having difficulty in paying for them - and - everyone who was already paying taxes thought they were simply paying too much. So, when he look around for additional revenue sources …those various Church properties would do quite nicely. :eek:

Would that be a more accurate (albeit, brief) characterization of Henry’s motivation?

God bless
GKC said:
What sort of books on the subject of Henry’s period in history have you read?

GKC
Click to expand...
 
(warning: may contain traces of sarcasm)
  • reforming to a church in which the Right People were in charge, as opposed to the Wrong People, those being the ones who would not listen to the Right People;
  • reforming to a church in which, whenever you disagree with the people currently in charge, you can run off and start your own church;
  • reforming to a church in which you can get a divorce, if you are rich enough, and your wife is not giving you the male heir whom you so desire;
  • reforming to a church in which the only book which you need to read is the Bible;
  • reforming to a church in which you do not need to go through all of those bothersome years of seminary before getting yourself appointed pastor;
  • reforming to a church in which you do not have to deal with so much throat-scratching incense;
  • reforming to a situation in which you can steal the lands and houses which belonged to the church, or to people who still adhere to the older version of the church;
  • etc
    😛
 
Hi, Mystophilus,

Yes, I would say… just a trace! 😃

God bless
Mystophilus said:
(warning: may contain traces of sarcasm)
  • reforming to a church in which the Right People were in charge, as opposed to the Wrong People, those being the ones who would not listen to the Right People;
  • reforming to a church in which, whenever you disagree with the people currently in charge, you can run off and start your own church;
  • reforming to a church in which you can get a divorce, if you are rich enough, and your wife is not giving you the male heir whom you so desire;
  • reforming to a church in which the only book which you need to read is the Bible;
  • reforming to a church in which you do not need to go through all of those bothersome years of seminary before getting yourself appointed pastor;
  • reforming to a church in which you do not have to deal with so much throat-scratching incense;
  • reforming to a situation in which you can steal the lands and houses which belonged to the church, or to people who still adhere to the older version of the church;
  • etc
    😛
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
Hi, GKC,

It has been so long since I have read any material on Henry … I think it was probably in scroll form! 😃

From memory (always subject to a flaw here and there) it really just wasn’t a power grab (I mean after all, he was already King of England - where do you go from there?) but, it was a money grab. Henry had a knack for fighting expensive wars, but of having difficulty in paying for them - and - everyone who was already paying taxes thought they were simply paying too much. So, when he look around for additional revenue sources …those various Church properties would do quite nicely. :eek:

Would that be a more accurate (albeit, brief) characterization of Henry’s motivation?

God bless
Click to expand...
Well, the question was really sort of aimed at KathleenGee, and was occasioned by a couple of her recent posts that suggested to me that a little reading would be useful to prevent reductionist theories.

Your sketch is accurate. But the grab at the monasteries had occurred before. Fisher (and I’d have to look for the exact citation) had closed some smaller ones to endow educational foundations at Cambridge during the early part of Henry’s reign, and he was not the only one. It was seen as both reform and a source of useful revenue. Wolsey closed a number of smaller houses, with Clement’s approval, to establish colleges. All this was on a very small scale, but it set a precedent. Cromwell had been involved in these closings

Henry was indeed in need of money, and the monasteries again looked to be a source, on a much grander scale. But it wasn’t Hank’s idea, originally, at the time. Cromwell thought of it. And explaining the advantage to Henry was easy. Henry always could see the money.

GKC
 
Mystophilus said:
(warning: may contain traces of sarcasm)
  • reforming to a church in which the Right People were in charge, as opposed to the Wrong People, those being the ones who would not listen to the Right People;
  • reforming to a church in which, whenever you disagree with the people currently in charge, you can run off and start your own church;
  • reforming to a church in which you can get a divorce, if you are rich enough, and your wife is not giving you the male heir whom you so desire;
  • reforming to a church in which the only book which you need to read is the Bible;
  • reforming to a church in which you do not need to go through all of those bothersome years of seminary before getting yourself appointed pastor;
  • reforming to a church in which you do not have to deal with so much throat-scratching incense;
  • reforming to a situation in which you can steal the lands and houses which belonged to the church, or to people who still adhere to the older version of the church;
  • etc
    😛
Click to expand...
Decree of nullity

GKC
 
Reductionist…perhaps…I am reading about the acquisition of monasteries…it is common practice of any nationalist country on the rise to want to liquidate ownership and assume the profit of them.

The monasteries did indeed provide a great contribution to Western Civilization, and in their support of surrounding populations, that were umpoverished when the Church was expelled. I personally saw this happen when the Frelimo Marxists took over Mozambique. For 7 years, they persecuted the Church and unfortunately, those who lived in the interior, Sofala and Tete, Protestant populations, suffered the most for their faith.

Money, power, lust, greed…can never be satisfied…you can never get enough.

King Henry’s remains were very unpleasant before his burial.

Wycliffe of England took it on his own to create a new Christianity first denying transubstantiation and Jesus as the Manna from heaven, the creation of the spin that the universal church worships Mary (he must have been one of those who got nothing out of the Mass to begin with, otherwise he would not have made such a charge regarding worship of Mary), the criticism of tithing – I don’t know details of how much was forced on the people but forcing is not in the spirit of the Church). Wycliffe divorced himself from the Church.

Many Catholics were told they had to leave the Roman Catholic Church to be part of this nationalistic movement, same happening in Germany.

Divorce and loss of faith.

The Lord’s kingdom is within.

I think there were authentic movements of the Holy Spirit for lay people to develop spiritual fellowships. Same time printing press was discovered.

But to deny the centrality of the Eucharist and the tradition of faith passed down since the beginning, it is clear to me this movement was false and indeed leading to the dismantling of Christianity, and its present ineffective voice to the world today.

The Holy Father and the Church subsequently had to put a wall up around itself with the Council of Trent to protect the faithful from loss of faith.
 
Mystophilus said:
Expression of bewilderment!

(If you are referring to #3, I did mean divorce: Henry VIII was merely the first in a long chain.)
Click to expand...
Hank was looking for what was a commonplace in his day. A decree of nullity, to state that his marriage to Catherine was sacramentally invalid, due to an undispensed (if diriment) impediment, as the Church defined it, or an undispensable impediment, resulting in the same decision. That is, he was not seeking a dissolution of a valid marriage. He was seeking the judgment that no marriage had occurred. The concept of divorce was not known then.

This is a subject I’m known for expounding on here. And known for posting decree of nullity every time I see divorce used with respect to Henry’s Great Matter.

GKC
 
Hi, GKC,

From everything I have read on the subject - your statements are correct. The Church would not recognize Henry re-marrying… he would not have had a valid marriage with Anne Boelyn anyway - and having a non-bastard male heir was his goal.

Now, I realize this is just purely speculative … but, I have always wondered why Catherine did not have a fatal ‘accicent’ and ending the marriage. And while a cry of, “Murder most foul…” would be justified - considering him executing Anne and Catherine Howard… I just do not see how he made these distinctions. Or, maybe like Macbeth he just had an ongoing downward development… " I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er"?

Can you throw a little light on this rather dark line of inquiry? 😃

God bless
GKC said:
Hank was looking for what was a commonplace in his day. A decree of nullity, to state that his marriage to Catherine was sacramentally invalid, due to an undispensed (if diriment) impediment, as the Church defined it, or an undispensable impediment, resulting in the same decision. That is, he was not seeking a dissolution of a valid marriage. He was seeking the judgment that no marriage had occurred. The concept of divorce was not known then.

This is a subject I’m known for expounding on here. And known for posting decree of nullity every time I see divorce used with respect to Henry’s Great Matter.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
Hi, GKC,

From everything I have read on the subject - your statements are correct. The Church would not recognize Henry re-marrying… he would not have had a valid marriage with Anne Boelyn anyway - and having a non-bastard male heir was his goal.

Now, I realize this is just purely speculative … but, I have always wondered why Catherine did not have a fatal ‘accicent’ and ending the marriage. And while a cry of, “Murder most foul…” would be justified - considering him executing Anne and Catherine Howard… I just do not see how he made these distinctions. Or, maybe like Macbeth he just had an ongoing downward development… " I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er"?

Can you throw a little light on this rather dark line of inquiry? 😃

God bless
Click to expand...
Or why she did not, as Campeggio tried to convince her, take the veil and allow Henry to receive a special dispensation to remarry. It was a possibility.

But not one that Catherine would countenance.

To your question: because Henry, all through the process, until the very end, expected that his* causa* would receive a favorable reply. What he was seeking was commonplace in his day. The Church was faced with a complex problem back then. How to manage the sacrament of matrimony, preserving the Church’s control over it as sacrament, and simultaneously allow for the real politic requirement of making and breaking dynastic marriages for reasons of state. Or for personal whims.Thus was developed the continually evolving system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity, that was specifically designed to permit just such a thing. It mixed theology with politics, as all things did, in the day. And got out of hand to such a degree that Trent had to reform it (Session XXIV).

Henry, in seeking a decree of nullity, expected to receive a favorable reply, forthwith. It was a commonplace, he was playing by the rules, and his case, while not as strong as it might have been presented, was easily as strong as was customary in that time (he asserted that the dispensation Julius had issued, for him to marry Catherine, was in violation of the Leventine Prohibition and was thus ultra vires, beyond the Pope’s authority to dispense. There was a better case to be made, as Wolsey told him).

Both his sisters had been involved in the same process, Margaret in particular; both of Mary’s husbands. Happened all the time; existing marriages found invalid, to permit a realignment of countries, interests, families, or for personal reasons But it was a partially political process, in origin and in execution. And Henry ran smack into the politics, in the figure of Catherine’s nephew. He kept trying.

Both Anne and Catherine H. were legally executed, for treason, involving playing around outside the marriage bed (at Henry’s insistence). Catherine was more likely guilty, of the two. But no one would have believed any such thing of Catherine of Aragon. He had nothing to give the color of legitimacy to any such thing, with respect to Catherine the original.

I think I’ve posted more on Hank and his problems than any other subject on this board. Maybe 2nd or 3rd, anyway. This is a very quick look at it.

GKC
 
Thank you GKC. History is so complicated but you write so beautifully clearly and succinctly that it is always a pleasure to read your posts on this subject.
 
liturgyluver said:
Thank you GKC. History is so complicated but you write so beautifully clearly and succinctly that it is always a pleasure to read your posts on this subject.
Click to expand...
You write very nice appreciative posts, yourself.

And you’re kind. This particular post I thought was a little poorly constructed. I was in a hurry.

Thanks again.

GKC
 
KathleenGee said:
Thank you, Kathryn Ann…

As I glean and ponder threads regarding the Reformation, it is starting to emerge that there was a movement of countries and cultures wanting to break away from Rome due to wanting their own separation, wanting their own jurisdiction…yes, nationalism, becoming their own interpreters.

These great political movements appear to be intertwined with Luther’s Revolt, a real conglomeration of a many sentiments and reaction to corrupt clergy…which really are not invalidating doctrine but their own sincerity of faith as followers of Christ. I mean, if people in these Protestant countries were centered on their faith alone, they would realize the problem more with individual clergy and undisciplining ecclesiastics…but not the Church as a whole.

Nationalism seemed to cloud many perceptions and conglomerate them into authority and doctrine as something to be rejected…it a movement of man for man in the name of Christ. I am beginning to intuit that there were not many priests at all following in the footsteps of Fr Tetzel either. But Christ does say that those who cause scandal…be dropped in the deepest ocean.

I don’t see justification to break away from the Church for a nationalized religion…afterall, His kingdom is not of this world.
Click to expand...
Well said, Katheleen Gee, and you are welcome.

The wise old saying really does sum it up nicely.

“**One must not leave Peter because of Judas.” **

This is why, at the very beginning when Christ handed the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, he spoke immediately of the Gates of Hell, which “Shall not prevail against” Holy Church.

Down through the ages, wherever men mistake human nature, politics, or human evil for the Church, they become reeds wavering in the winds of time.

Our beloved brother, St. Thomas More did not succumb to the temptation to elevate mere mortals over the Divine Continuity of Rome.

Despite challenges from within and from without, what Christ built was founded on His Divine love for all the world. There is no political, divisive flag in Heaven. There is only one pure white banner, a Holy Cross that redeem all who look to Christ’s Holy Church, founded on His Sacrifice and triumphant Resurrection.

The Church stands triumphant, and I am glad for all those of us who believe the words of Christ and “lean not to their own understanding,” but to His. You said it well, “His Kingdom is not of this world.”

Many blessings and all peace,

Kathryn Ann
 
Hi, GKC,

Thank you for an excellent reply. 🙂

God bless
GKC said:
Or why she did not, as Campeggio tried to convince her, take the veil and allow Henry to receive a special dispensation to remarry. It was a possibility.

But not one that Catherine would countenance.

To your question: because Henry, all through the process, until the very end, expected that his* causa* would receive a favorable reply. What he was seeking was commonplace in his day. The Church was faced with a complex problem back then. How to manage the sacrament of matrimony, preserving the Church’s control over it as sacrament, and simultaneously allow for the real politic requirement of making and breaking dynastic marriages for reasons of state. Or for personal whims.Thus was developed the continually evolving system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity, that was specifically designed to permit just such a thing. It mixed theology with politics, as all things did, in the day. And got out of hand to such a degree that Trent had to reform it (Session XXIV).

Henry, in seeking a decree of nullity, expected to receive a favorable reply, forthwith. It was a commonplace, he was playing by the rules, and his case, while not as strong as it might have been presented, was easily as strong as was customary in that time (he asserted that the dispensation Julius had issued, for him to marry Catherine, was in violation of the Leventine Prohibition and was thus ultra vires, beyond the Pope’s authority to dispense. There was a better case to be made, as Wolsey told him).

Both his sisters had been involved in the same process, Margaret in particular; both of Mary’s husbands. Happened all the time; existing marriages found invalid, to permit a realignment of countries, interests, families, or for personal reasons But it was a partially political process, in origin and in execution. And Henry ran smack into the politics, in the figure of Catherine’s nephew. He kept trying.

Both Anne and Catherine H. were legally executed, for treason, involving playing around outside the marriage bed (at Henry’s insistence). Catherine was more likely guilty, of the two. But no one would have believed any such thing of Catherine of Aragon. He had nothing to give the color of legitimacy to any such thing, with respect to Catherine the original.

I think I’ve posted more on Hank and his problems than any other subject on this board. Maybe 2nd or 3rd, anyway. This is a very quick look at it.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
Well, the question was really sort of aimed at KathleenGee, and was occasioned by a couple of her recent posts that suggested to me that a little reading would be useful to prevent reductionist theories.

Your sketch is accurate. But the grab at the monasteries had occurred before. Fisher (and I’d have to look for the exact citation) had closed some smaller ones to endow educational foundations at Cambridge during the early part of Henry’s reign, and he was not the only one. It was seen as both reform and a source of useful revenue. Wolsey closed a number of smaller houses, with Clement’s approval, to establish colleges. All this was on a very small scale, but it set a precedent. Cromwell had been involved in these closings

Henry was indeed in need of money, and the monasteries again looked to be a source, on a much grander scale. But it wasn’t Hank’s idea, originally, at the time. Cromwell thought of it. And explaining the advantage to Henry was easy. Henry always could see the money.

GKC
Click to expand...
A gentle note: I am not sure that stating that others are in need of further reading (to prevent them from coming to different conclusions than one’s own) is the best route to take on these forums. One might say, instead “My readings suggest this…”

Other’s scholarship and scope of reading might surprise you, although they do not announce the number of years they’ve devoted to a topic.

Interestingly, Christ seemed very content to include among His followers some who were not particularly well- known for advanced scholarship, but for their openness and instincts towards the Divine.

Just as “discretion is the better part of valor,” so is gentility to argument.

Even the brilliant Saul was momentarily quieted by lightening, (a wordless act of nature) and by Christ Jesus, Whose Sacred Heart and loving intent managed to instruct him from further error. I find that quite inspiring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top