Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic?

[luckyfredsdad]

That’s your opinion then? Well, I never!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I did include the Continental Reformers in my post. As for the Pope, when he misused Church funds, it would be similar to a seneschal misusing the Crown’s funds. When a King forcibly takes property from the Church, that’s despoiling and theft. Not to mention sacrilege.

**If the Papacy, or the Roman Bishop takes Church money, or misuses church funds that’s one thing! When a Monarch does it, that’s another?

Not in my book I’m afraid, they are both thieves and the clerical one is betraying the greater trust.**

 

[josie_L]

Wow. Devastating reply there. Let me limp away to lick my wounds and I’ll return with an equivalent biting rejoinder shortly.

Told he/she was rude.

 

[josie_L]

chris molter;4961136:

I did include the Continental Reformers in my post. As for the Pope, when he misused Church funds, it would be similar to a seneschal misusing the Crown’s funds. When a King forcibly takes property from the Church, that’s despoiling and theft. Not to mention sacrilege.

**If the Papacy, or the Roman Bishop takes Church money, or misuses church funds that’s one thing! When a Monarch does it, that’s another?

Not in my book I’m afraid, they are both thieves and the clerical one is betraying the greater trust.**

Both were wrong, however, the effects of those Kings who despoiled Church property affected so many people, thousands were booted out of their monasteries and abbeys, killed or tortured if they refused to leave; the poor suffered as the Catholic Religious could not help to alleviate their plight. The peasants who were tenants on church lands could no longer pay their rent once the nobility took over the lands. Universities were taken, Churches and Cathedrals, invaluable items that were destroyed and/or taken - priceless relics, statues (that had been around for centuries before the reformation), artwork, jewels, and you dare to compare this with what Leo did. Not to mention the aftermath of their greed which led to the persecution of Catholic religious and laity. I cannot fathom in terms of value (material and human) how much the CC lost during the Reformation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I can’t and won’t respond to what the Anglicans of today believe. I am of English ancestry and I would suggest to you that you read about St. Thomas More and the English martyrs. Our Anglican brethren were not Protestants in the sense of their continental cousins. The people of England followed their King or Queen. History is both bloody and nasty. English history during and after Henry VIII was not about so much about religion so much as it was about politics…a vast difference between what was happening on the Continent.

The English were the most Catholic of the Catholics before the protestant reformation and, of the protestants, they retained catholicism (note small c). Shakespeare was Catholic.

I’m Irish too. God knows what we Irish suffered at the hands of the English.

Anglicans think that they are catholic because they are catholic. Many Anglicans are far more orthodox Roman Catholics than far too many of our local RC parishes.

I would welcome my Anglican brothers and sisters home.

Gabriel of 12;
From a Historical standpoint I would say Ditto, and “Amen” to you brotherhrolf. In fact the Pope labeled King Henry the VIII as “Defender of the Catholic Faith”, until politics and the King’s personal unmentionables got in the way. Had these things been dealt with reason and Morally, we may have a different world today? As I see it, these two can still be reconciled if pride does not take presidence.

 

[chris_molter]

Told he/she was rude.

Hey, I like to give new folks the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, true colors come shining through in due time, don’t they?

Ah well.

 

[GKC]

Gabriel of 12;
From a Historical standpoint I would say Ditto, and “Amen” to you brotherhrolf. In fact the Pope labeled King Henry the VIII as “Defender of the Catholic Faith”, until politics and the King’s personal unmentionables got in the way. Had these things been dealt with reason and Morally, we may have a different world today? As I see it, these two can still be reconciled if pride does not take presidence.

I’ll sign up to this. And the full story of how and why Henry got the Defensor Fidei title in 1521, is fun, and more complicated than merely the result of the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, as usually thought.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’ll sign up to this. And the full story of how and why Henry got the Defensor Fidei title in 1521, is fun, and more complicated than merely the result of the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, as usually thought.

GKC

Gabriel of 12;

How does one return to this date of 1521 today when England was Catholic and “Defender of the Catholic faith”? and in full communion with the Pope. Can you entertain us and give us a glimpse of when England was in full communion with the Pope? To live those days again today would be a world changing event;

Peace

 

[GKC]

Gabriel of 12;

How does one return to this date of 1521 today when England was Catholic and “Defender of the Catholic faith”? and in full communion with the Pope. Can you entertain us and give us a glimpse of when England was in full communion with the Pope? To live those days again today would be a world changing event;

Peace

Unlikely. But I can tell the tale of how Henry got the title, if that is the request.

Otherwise, I fear I must pass.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Unlikely. But I can tell the tale of how Henry got the title, if that is the request.

Otherwise, I fear I must pass.

GKC

Gabriel of 12;

Sure indulge us here, give us your perspective of how King Henry got the title of “Defender of the Catholic faith” from the Pope?

 

[GKC]

Gabriel of 12;

Sure indulge us here, give us your perspective of how King Henry got the title of “Defender of the Catholic faith” from the Pope?

Ok. It’s a C&P, from one of my favorite people.

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to help defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume; another title. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, was forwarded to Rome, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals, at a Consistory in June. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (that last lacked imagination).

When the Cardinals considering the matter inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And he was standing against Luther. There was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the idea of a title for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to consider
was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably clinched the deal. About the time it was presented to Leo, (one of 28 presentation copies sent, the Pope’s with a handwritten dedicatory verse, and bound in cloth of gold) Henry asked for the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: Defensor Fidei . Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, or, more strictly, by Leo’s reception of it, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus to Henry’s suggestion, but Leo vetoed the idea.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, in her 2nd Act of Repeal, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

History is interesting. But note that the title isn’t, and never was, “Defender of the Catholic Faith”.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ok. It’s a C&P, from one of my favorite people.

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to help defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume; another title. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, was forwarded to Rome, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals, at a Consistory in June. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (that last lacked imagination).

When the Cardinals considering the matter inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And he was standing against Luther. There was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the idea of a title for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to consider
was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably clinched the deal. About the time it was presented to Leo, (one of 28 presentation copies sent, the Pope’s with a handwritten dedicatory verse, and bound in cloth of gold) Henry asked for the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: Defensor Fidei . Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, or, more strictly, by Leo’s reception of it, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus to Henry’s suggestion, but Leo vetoed the idea.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, in her 2nd Act of Repeal, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

History is interesting. But note that the title isn’t, and never was, “Defender of the Catholic Faith”.

GKC

Gabriel of 12;

Interesting, thank you; Did not King Henry VIII write some documents pertaining to defending the Catholic faith, and was acknowledged for his writings? Or was this part of the “Assertio” you mentioned?

 

[GKC]

Gabriel of 12;

Interesting, thank you; Did not King Henry VIII write some documents pertaining to defending the Catholic faith, and was acknowledged for his writings? Or was this part of the “Assertio” you mentioned?

Henry wrote a couple of things, some music included, but the Assertio was no doubt what you are thinking of. It was a reply to Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica/1520, and touched on a number of points, basically, as the title said, the sacraments. So it was certainly a defense of the faith. But the title wasn’t “Defender of the Catholic Faith”, just the Faith. And the issue of just how much of the Assertio was from Henry’s own hand, and how much he got a little help on, is another subject that is interesting, But I’ll pass over that.

So, yes, it was writing the Assertio that one hears of as the reason Henry got his title, but that’s not the full story. Henry wasn’t simply rewarded for the book, He’d been pestering Rome for a title for around six years, before he wrote it.

History is complicated.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Henry wrote a couple of things, some music included, but the Assertio was no doubt what you are thinking of. It was a reply to Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica/1520, and touched on a number of points, basically, as the title said, the sacraments. So it was certainly a defense of the faith. But the title wasn’t “Defender of the Catholic Faith”, just the Faith. And the issue of just how much of the Assertio was from Henry’s own hand, and how much he got a little help on, is another subject that is interesting, But I’ll pass over that.

So, yes, it was writing the Assertio that one hears of as the reason Henry got his title, but that’s not the full story. Henry wasn’t simply rewarded for the book, He’d been pestering Rome for a title for around six years, before he wrote it.

History is complicated.

GKC

Gabriel of 12;

Hi GKC; not to change too much of this subject; What of the Roman Catholic English King Richard the Lion Hearted of England? Iam familiar with his crusades and how he was feared by the Muslims; but what of his faith to the Roman Pontiff at this time? Do you have any insights that history books may have overlooked about his loyalty to the Pope and the Catholic church?

 

[GKC]

Gabriel of 12;

Hi GKC; not to change too much of this subject; What of the Roman Catholic English King Richard the Lion Hearted of England? Iam familiar with his crusades and how he was feared by the Muslims; but what of his faith to the Roman Pontiff at this time? Do you have any insights that history books may have overlooked about his loyalty to the Pope and the Catholic church?

Nope. Nothing that history books might have overlooked, not having known Coeur de Lion personally.

GKC.

 

[Sunflower15]

why are they allowing gay people to become priests?

Because they are sinners like the rest of us.

Just a note:
Roman Catholics ALSO allow homosexuals to become priests…it’s a moot point since ALL priests must be celibate… What does it matter?
The issue among Anglicans /Episcopalians comes regarding homosexuality comes about because the priests do marry. So, if a homosexual [male or female] becomes ordained, and can marry…then…there is the “issue”…

 

[Sunflower15]

… Shakespeare was Catholic.

…

I had NO idea! Amazing really, since I went to Catholic schools from 1st grade through college. I can’t believe no one mentioned that.

 

[Contarini]

I had NO idea! Amazing really, since I went to Catholic schools from 1st grade through college. I can’t believe no one mentioned that.

It’s not that simple. Certain Catholics like to claim this on the basis of fairly thin evidence. I would say that there’s reason to think his family had Catholic sympathies, and that Shakespeare may have inherited those sympathies. But there is no reason to believe that Shakespeare himself was a “recusant” (i.e., a faithful adherent of the Roman Communion, willing to undergo the legal penalties imposed upon such adherents). And the whole question of what makes Elizabethan literature “Catholic” or “Protestant” is very much up for debate. (The unquestionably Protestant Edmund Spenser, for instance, has a lot of Catholic imagery in his work.) One of my colleagues is actually working on this topic.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I had NO idea! Amazing really, since I went to Catholic schools from 1st grade through college. I can’t believe no one mentioned that.

The point is a debatable one, but it’s certainly possible he was.

GKC