To Anglicans/Episcopalians

[brotherhrolf]

Indeed rjs1, indeed. Catherine was a woman of great faith and Henry was just plain wrong. It all comes back to the politics of the era. Right or wrong, if the couple had had a viable male offspring, history might be radically different. So, given that Henry’s decision was political, the ensuing turmoil was not the result of a grievance against the faith of HMC. Why then is the English church not in communion with Rome?

I suspect that even had Clement granted Henry’s request, it would have been the same thing with Anne Boleyn.

 

[GKC]

rjs1:

Perhaps I am “old fashioned”, perhaps I am naive, or perhaps it is my orthodox Catholic faith but I believe God guided the Pope to make exactly the right decision regarding Henry’s request for nulity. The more you study Catherine of Aragon’s life and letters the more you realise what a magnificent woman of faith she was. To have granted the nulity, to have declared her a “non wife” and her daughter illigitimate, would have been a crime against humanity. The cynics who keep arguing that Clement acted merely out of political fear are, as usual, leaving God completely out of the picture.

Anne Boleyn was a young, immature, scheming girl, used by powerful, ambitious and despotic relatives to gain a power base at the top of the kingdom. Conjecturing on some supposed ideal had the Pope decided for annulment flies in the face of the subsequent reality. Once Henry replaced Catherine with Anne that did not end his longings or his ruthlessness to which four more wives give witness. Historians now recognise that Henry’s last wife, Catherine Parr, as well as surviving a very “close call” with Henry, later continued to come under increasing danger, and had he lived much longer she too may have ended on the block.

Possibly, though none of my reading on Parr suggests that. Of all his wifes, she had him most under control. And led him gently toward the reformed side, too. But then history is full of possiblies. But of a certainty Henry was doing nothing out of the ordinary, when he submitted his causa. It was how the system worked in those days, to permit the Church to simultaneously maintain the sacrament of matrimony, and to allow for the accomodation of the ruling classes, as to how kingdoms were united, and divided, by marriages and decrees of nullity. Henry was originally paired with Catherine for just such real-politick reasons. That’s why I mentioned the 2 decrees Margaret got. They were a real hoot. And for far flimsier reasons. It was how the game was played. Henry’s case was not a slam dunk, but it was certainly the sort of thing that was granted every day. However, the Holy Roman Emperor was not a nephew in such cases, every day. Clement wished devoutly that the whole thing would go away.

Henry had a fair chance of making a case for a decree of nullity, other things being equal. based on an undispensed direment impediment from the justice of public honesty, in the first degree direct. As at least Wolsey saw, if no one else. But Charles had the bigger battalions. And control of Rome.

And to be sure hormones grew to be a major factor in Henry’s actions. But his original legitimate dynastic worries preceded his besotment (I wonder if I made that up) with the Boleyn, as his actions with his daughter Mary, and his illegitimate son the Duke of Richmond show.

I have no idea how history might have played out, otherwise. But I know history is a complicated affair, rarely adequately understood in terms of cardboard cutouts.

GKC

 

[rjs1]

GKC:

Possibly, though none of my reading on Parr suggests that. Of all his wifes, she had him most under control. And led him gently toward the reformed side, too. But then history is full of possiblies. But of a certainty Henry was doing nothing out of the ordinary, when he submitted his causa. It was how the system worked in those days, to permit the Church to simultaneously maintain the sacrament of matrimony, and to allow for the accomodation of the ruling classes, as to how kingdoms were united, and divided, by marriages and decrees of nullity. Henry was originally paired with Catherine for just such real-politick reasons. That’s why I mentioned the 2 decrees Margaret got. They were a real hoot. And for far flimsier reasons. It was how the game was played. Henry’s case was not a slam dunk, but it was certainly the sort of thing that was granted every day. However, the Holy Roman Emperor was not a nephew in such cases, every day. Clement wished devoutly that the whole thing would go away.

Henry had a fair chance of making a case for a decree of nullity, other things being equal. based on an undispensed direment impediment from the justice of public honesty, in the first degree direct. As at least Wolsey saw, if no one else. But Charles had the bigger battalions. And control of Rome.

And to be sure hormones grew to be a major factor in Henry’s actions. But his original legitimate dynastic worries preceded his besotment (I wonder if I made that up) with the Boleyn, as his actions with his daughter Mary, and his illegitimate son the Duke of Richmond show.

I have no idea how history might have played out, otherwise. But I know history is a complicated affair, rarely adequately understood in terms of cardboard cutouts.

GKC

I grant that there is truth in all that you have said. My comment about Catherine Parr being in danger is based on the fact that a warrant was issued for her arrest which was “cancelled” only at the last minute ( the soldiers actually arrived to arrest her) by Henry, after she dissolved into tears, totally submitted to his will and promised never to debate religion with him again. I still can’t help wondering that if Henry had lived longer than he did whether Catherine would not have eventually shown one or two more indiscreet religious views and, given Henry’s record, been replaced with someone else - paying the usual price.

I also reiterate my point that Catherine of Aragon was a totally ethical, devout and honourable queen and that Henry’s pretext for annulment was indefensible. To argue that such annulments were common then does not mean that this one should have been granted. I still believe that there was divine guidance involved.

I also strongly believe that even had the annulment been granted, given Henry’s character, as shown by his totally despotic behaviour, a breach with Rome may have occurred for any number of reasons. Henry was not one to share power or to yield to another on any matter.

Regardless of the reasons given concerning his request for an annulment, Henry’s treatment of lifelong friends like St Thomas More and St John Fisher, his destruction of the monasteries and confiscation of their property and his treatment of his wives and children, especially his daughter Mary, was appalling and an indication of his true nature.

 

[GKC]

rjs1:

I grant that there is truth in all that you have said. My comment about Catherine Parr being in danger is based on the fact that a warrant was issued for her arrest which was “cancelled” only at the last minute ( the soldiers actually arrived to arrest her) by Henry, after she dissolved into tears, totally submitted to his will and promised never to debate religion with him again. I still can’t help wondering that if Henry had lived longer than he did whether Catherine would not have eventually shown one or two more indiscreet religious views and, given Henry’s record, been replaced with someone else - paying the usual price.

You are correct, in reminding me of something I had forgotten - the plot against the Queen, as reported by Foxe. But Henry and Catherine had kissed and made up, when she shrewdly told him that she had only disputed religion with him to take his mind off his ulcerated leg and the pain thereof, and to learn from his replies. And when Wriothesley and the detachement of the Guard arrived, Henry sent them packing, as you imply. I think Catherine was a match for the plotters. What might have happened had Henry lived longer, I can’t say

I also reiterate my point that Catherine of Aragon was a totally ethical, devout and honourable queen and that Henry’s pretext for annulment was indefensible. To argue that such annulments were common then does not mean that this one should have been granted. I still believe that there was divine guidance involved.

Henry’s causa was perfectly defensible (though not, as I said, a slam dunk), though he did a lousy job of it. Defensible as to the logic of a possible undispensed impediment (not the Levitical prohibition he asserted) in the dispensation granted to marry Arthur’s widow. Certainly defensible as to the amount of proof required by custom in such an incident.

I say nothing against Catherine of Aragorn. Surely she was all that. But she was also a political counter, married to Arthur by Ferdinand and Isabella, to close the circle around France with family connections. It’s how the system worked. And when Catherine could not produce the legitimate male heir Henry’s shaky, one generation dynasty required (and how she got on Henry’s arm is another complicated issue), the system was accustomed to doing precisely what Henry asked. But the system rarely had to confront the Holy Roman Emperor, at the height of his powers, and in posssession of Rome. I believe there was *force majeure * involved.

I also strongly believe that even had the annulment been granted, given Henry’s character, as shown by his totally despotic behaviour, a breach with Rome may have occurred for any number of reasons. Henry was not one to share power or to yield to another on any matter.

You may be right. Certainly the Church in England was gradually being removed from much of the direct control of Rome, and more subservient to the temporal powers, and had been for several centuries, back to Statute of Westminister, at least. Given the continental situation, I can’t say what Henry might have done. Or might not have done.

Regardless of the reasons given concerning his request for an annulment, Henry’s treatment of lifelong friends like St Thomas More and St John Fisher, his destruction of the monasteries and confiscation of their property and his treatment of his wives and children, especially his daughter Mary, was appalling and an indication of his true nature.

I agree, in general, though there was a point at which Mary played a role in his plannning for his dynasty… But none of that addresses the issue of Henry’s search for a decree of nullity, and why it was refused. History is complex, as I have said. My point is that more than slogans are needed to comprehend it.

GKC

 

[QuicumqueVult]

It was driven by a totally autocratic king whom most people were terrified of disobeying, because the penalty was a hideous death. By making himself the head of the church in England Henry made objection to the new religion the same as treason and the penalty for treason was hanging, drawing, quartering. Only the courageous few had the courage to oppose this. Many suffered torture and death for doing so. The majority however gave in. The powerful landowners and nobility sided with Henry because they were given the confiscated Church lands and buildings.
The whole event was a sordid, sorry time in British history.

When you investigate the real spiritual health of Britain BEFORE Henry, it is a far more glorious story than the Protestant rewriters of history would have us believe. The monastries were the hospitals, universities, schools and social welfare agents of society. Henry’s cynical destruction of them on flimsy pretexts caused incredible suffering to the ordinary people which historians have not yet been really honest about.

I could say much more but I suggest you start reading the historical, political background to why Henry did what he did and take time to consider the number of his own friends and colleagues he had executed, simply because they would not agree that he was now head of the Church, after 1500 years, instead of the Pope.

A close look at Henry VIII shows a despotic, lustful, vicious man - not the sort I would have thought to be able to proclaim himself the head of the church!

Indeed I cannot fathom justification for Anglicanism as such given these historical facts. Most loyal Anglicans I know are either closet congregationalists who can’t be bothered about who is the head of the Church apart from Christ alone, or they are cynical and say, ‘We can’t change the past so we must jolly well get on with it and make the best of what and where we are.’

Notice that completely avoids the option of repudiating what seems almost unavoidably one of the worst mistakes in Church History. At least Luther and Calvin had theological objections to perceived Roman errors. Henry’s rationality and justification were the imposition of mortal fear, bred by his narcissistic, psychopathic personality.

Funny how these days the thing that is destroying the so-called Anglican Communion is the legitimacy of alternatives to life-long monogamous heterosexual marriage. Anglicanism began as a religion that said, ‘I’ll bed whomever I please’. It’s little different today.

 

[GKC]

Indeed I cannot fathom justification for Anglicanism as such given these historical facts. Most loyal Anglicans I know are either closet congregationalists who can’t be bothered about who is the head of the Church apart from Christ alone, or they are cynical and say, ‘We can’t change the past so we must jolly well get on with it and make the best of what and where we are.’

Notice that completely avoids the option of repudiating what seems almost unavoidably one of the worst mistakes in Church History. At least Luther and Calvin had theological objections to perceived Roman errors. Henry’s rationality and justification were the imposition of mortal fear, bred by his narcissistic, psychopathic personality.

Funny how these days the thing that is destroying the so-called Anglican Communion is the legitimacy of alternatives to life-long monogamous heterosexual marriage. Anglicanism began as a religion that said, ‘I’ll bed whomever I please’. It’s little different today.

At Henry’s level, it was the same back then, too. What he did was commonplace, seeking decrees of nullity for political/personal reasons; in Henry’ case a mixture of dynastic instability and growing lust. It was how the system was designed to work.

I’m glad I can stand by my previous posts in this thread (q. v.), since I don’t have the time for historical detail anymore (moving those books, and households I mentioned; today packing a box of *outre *historical items, from Gould’s ODDITIES to the Tichbourne claimant)). And that likely won’t change for months. But Hank was a fascinating train wreck, one f my reading foci, and I always recommend J. J. Scaribrick’s bio, for a good understanding. It’s not, as I said often, pro-Henry. It’s pro-history. And is not the standard cardboard cutout that is often waved about.

For mind-boggling detail on Henry and the idea of marriage, see Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.

History is complicated.

GKC

 

[kaygee]

Most of the Episcpal laity I know are interested in socal relationships but are concerned with the moral turn the church has taken. They just want to get along, without being forced to accept loose moral teaching.

The Episcopalian clergy I know and work with daily, are quite interested in getting alternative pastoral oversight for their diocese from the African Anglicans because of how ECUSA/ PECUSA has changed the moral leaning of the ecclesial organization. Although they admire the strong stand the Catholic Church has taken on moral issues, they are at heart, low church evangelical Episcopalians and they still cling to the 39 Articles of Religion, especially these:

XIX. Of the Church.
…As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrenty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

XXV. Of the Sacraments.
… Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Chrsit; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper of the Lord is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

 

[QuicumqueVult]

Ah the Articles of Religion. Today is the ‘feast’ of John Calvin in the Church of England calendar. (I failed to mention him at Evening Prayer earlier, preferring instead to honour St Augustine of Canterbury and St Philip Neri, founder of the Oratorians). We have frere Cauvin to thank for the often heretical Articles.

I’ve never understood how the claim ‘Rome hath erred’ necessitates breaking Communion with her. Seems a bit of an over-reaction really. By the same bloody-minded logic I could rightly divorce my wife because she hath unintentionally but nevertheless erroneously believed a false doctrine (say, from an Articles-compliant Anglican perspective, she believes in the objective Real Presence of Christ the Eucharistic Species). But then, Anglicanism was founded on the principle that divorce is a matter of private judgement.

And everyone can also see how early Anglicanism was, originally at least, receptionist in its Eucharistic theology. (And since Anglicans in Holy Orders take vows to defend them, one wonders if one perjures oneself if one believes in the real presence.) No objective presence. We receive the Body and Blood only by our faith. Gosh! Aren’t we important! Our disposition regarding faith renders Christ either absent or present in the bread and wine. Talk about a New Age human potential movement. Anglicanism is its prototype!

 

[Techno2000]

Ah the Articles of Religion. Today is the ‘feast’ of John Calvin in the Church of England calendar. (I failed to mention him at Evening Prayer earlier, preferring instead to honour St Augustine of Canterbury and St Philip Neri, founder of the Oratorians). We have frere Cauvin to thank for the often heretical Articles.

I’ve never understood how the claim ‘Rome hath erred’ necessitates breaking Communion with her. Seems a bit of an over-reaction really. By the same bloody-minded logic I could rightly divorce my wife because she hath unintentionally but nevertheless erroneously believed a false doctrine (say, from an Articles-compliant Anglican perspective, she believes in the objective Real Presence of Christ the Eucharistic Species). But then, Anglicanism was founded on the principle that divorce is a matter of private judgement.

And everyone can also see how Anglicanism is essentially receptionist in its Eucharistic theology. No objective presence. We receive the Body and Blood only by our faith. Gosh! Aren’t we important! Our disposition regarding faith renders Christ either absent or present in the bread and wine. Talk about a New Age human potential movement. Anglicanism is its prototype!

(We receive the Body and Blood only by our faith)

Right, that’s neither here, nor there, you can just about say this about anything !

 

[QuicumqueVult]

Congratulation new Senior Member. You are quite prolific. Well done.

What do you mean by ‘you can say that about anything’? Do you agree that the subjectivist tone of the Articles is deficient or that it is obvious all theological claims are necessarily subjective? Maybe we agree.

Sorry if I’m being a bit daft mate.

 

[QuicumqueVult]

And by the way, Techno2000, I hope you never take for granted the awesome gift of your residence in New Orleans.

Muffalettas and red beans and rice at Maspero’s cafe. Oysters at the Acme… I’m salivating at the thought ((I was there on holiday in 2002).

 

[Techno2000]

Congratulation new Senior Member. You are quite prolific. Well done.

What do you mean by ‘you can say that about anything’? Do you agree that the subjectivist tone of the Articles is deficient or that it is obvious all theological claims are necessarily subjective? Maybe we agree.

Sorry if I’m being a bit daft mate.

I mean like if you want to believe the 7 Sacrament are true using
“faith” then they are true to just “you” and nobody else.If you
have “faith” that the earth is flat , that is a personal truth in your
own Mind.These Anglicans teachings seem to wishy-washy to me
nothing concrete.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Henry was certainly a mixed bag. In some ways a rather renaisance man in terms of education and his artistic ability, etc. However, capable of brutality, lustful and so on. One of the interesting things I remember from a History Channel production was a historian noting that Henry was actually tall (not as often portrayed - short and round). He was 6 ft 2 inches tall. The historian noted that the misconception comes from the fact that tourists see his boyhood armour and assume it was adult armour. Being 6 ft 2 in tall and King probably explains why he did so well at wrestling

In terms of Anglicans there are now likely two many problems to overcome for union to ever take place. Anglicanism sees itself as the third branch of the church (RCC and Orthodox being the other two). With women Bishops, priests and so on it is over in terms of Union.

Another thing is that I have encountered among some Anglicans/Episcoplians an almost arrogant sense of superiority to Catholics. Of course this was unfortunately perceived again when Bishop Schori made her infamous comments about Epsicoplians being better educated and more aware of global enviromental stewardship issues, etc than Catholics. There is a sense of intellectual superiority and rationalism that pervades some attitudes and bascially amounts to the fact that Catholicism is too much stuck in a superstitious, backwards, anti intellectual/anti rational mode. On the other hand there are many Anglicans who would welcome union with Rome as long as Anglican distinctives could be maintained.

Some of this was played out in the series Bless Me Father where Fr. Duddleswell (crusty old priest) had a number of run ins with the local vicar (Church of England) who was young, smug, liberal and smoked. Great show!

I had an Episcopal woman friend who used to joke that the difference between Catholics and Episcopalians was that for Catholics the Pope is the head of their church and they think he is it where Episcopalians have Christ as the head of their church and know He is it.

North

 

[jonnyws]

The problem from my experence of the anglican church is that it’s doctrines are so wishy washy that no-one can speak for the whole communion.

With the Anglo-Catholics all it would need would be an acceptance of the primacy of Rome, which I can forsee happening when the larger anglican communion clapses.

The Liberals will never come back because they wouldn’t be able to teach things like no physical ressurrection or no virgin birth which are all to commonplace in the anglican church.

The Evangelicals completely deny the papalcy, All sacraments accept baptism and the Saints. They’d litrally rather commite ritual suacide than rejoin Rome.

After those three you’ve still got your run of the mill anglicans that sit somewhere between all three camps and there just too confused to do anything. If the Arch-Bishops came back so would they but I can’t see that happening either as, last I heard, Rohan Williams wasn’t entirely sure about the real presence himself.

Personally I think it’s a mess, the communion will break up. The Evangelicals will become non-denominational, your adverage joe in England (that’s the only one I can really comment on) will stick with the Arch-Bishops in a much smaller church. The Liberals will probably run off as a result of arguments between themselves and the evangelicals destroying the communion and the Anglo-Catholics will, over many many years, drift back to Rome.

Oh, also just so you know I started an evangelical, ended up in an Anglican Church and then worked by way through all four of the groups I’ve listed before finally coming back to the Church Jesus built.

 

[GKC]

There are Anglicans for whom the Articles are theroretically binding; i. e., ordinands of the CoE, a situation that can arise from the Erastian nature of that Church. And there are Anglicans who affirm the Articles by choice. And there are those who cut them from the Prayer Book, and use them to kindle the New Fire at Easter. I’m with the last, though certainly, taken individually, there are some of them that no Christian can take exception to.

The Articles are not an Anglican confession, *a la *Augsburg, they are how Elizabeth I choose to govern her fractious Church; statecraft as religion. The best thing about the 1979 prayer book issued by ECUSA was that the Articles were placed in the “historical” section.

I have a feeling that this is not news to all who will read it here.

GKC

 

[Techno2000]

And by the way, Techno2000, I hope you never take for granted the awesome gift of your residence in New Orleans.

Muffalettas and red beans and rice at Maspero’s cafe. Oysters at the Acme… I’m salivating at the thought ((I was there on holiday in 2002).

Hey, you picked 3 of the best foods I like you know
now with the internet one can get a New Orleans recipe for red
beans and rice (with smoked sausage of course)its hard to believe
this was at one time, the food for Slaves.

 

[GKC]

“Being 6 ft 2 in tall and King probably explains why he did so well at wrestling”

Though Francis I pinned him, once. The “King” advantage was nullified, there, of course.

GKC

 

[QuicumqueVult]

The problem from my experence of the anglican church is that it’s doctrines are so wishy washy that no-one can speak for the whole communion.

You’ve hit the nail on the head and driven it in with one strike of the hammer.

I was at the Moehler Institute in Paderborn recently. They are a Vatican thinktank on ecumenics. They’re at the cutting edge of Roman Catholic relations with other Christian bodies (they operate under the direct supervision of the Vatican). One of the profs and I discussed the various Anglican practices regarding handling unconsumed Eucharistic Species after consecration at Mass. For the record, the lowest of the low Anglicans will chuck them in the bin; alternatively, the highest of the high will reserve them, even occasionally placing them in the lunette of a monstrance for adoration at Solemn Benediction. You doubtless detect my affinity.

The prof, a peritus in Anglican theology, said that’s why it’s so difficult for Rome to have dialog with Anglicans. We have no official doctrines on anything. The Articles of Religion are rubbish, deserving to be burned. But we have nothing else.

It’s rather an unenviable place to be if you believe truth is definable and articulable. If you believe experience is everything you aren’t bothered I guess.

Anglicanism really is a religion whose essence is the principle of compromise, ie saying nothing with conviction.

 

[GKC]

“You doubtless detect my affinity.”

You would be comfortable in my parish.

GKC

 

[QuicumqueVult]

Moreso than the nearest Latin Rite Roman parish as well, I should think…