Why do Catholics believe that all non-Catholics hold the same beliefs?

[BiologyBrain]

No, they didn’t. Our existence as a separate Christian communion began (though there was temporary reunion later) when the king declared the Church of England autonomous so that the archbishop of Canterbury could give him an annulment (which the Pope was dragging his feet on). No “protesting” of a “rule on divorce” took place.

Edwin,
I apologize for simplifying the situation, but I still see what you say happened as dissention on the matter of divorce/annulment. Since the king wanted his annulment/divorce faster than the archbishop would give it to him, he protested & withdrew from the Church. Was it a guarantee that the king was going to be given an annullment or divorce? To my knowledge, in this day & age (I’m not 100% about historically) no annullment is guaranteed. Therefore, to be impatient & declare yourself autonomous would be an act of protest and/or dissension.

I apologize if my historical facts are not well-explained. I’m just trying to get to the gist of the matter. I’m no historian, just an average Catholic gal who likes to discuss issues as they pertain to the Church. I believe I was taught (in secular history books) that as the origin for the Church of England. King wanted divorce, Church said no (or at least not right now), king said fine then I’ll start my own church…

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,
I apologize for simplifying the situation, but I still see what you say happened as dissention on the matter of divorce/annulment. Since the king wanted his annulment/divorce faster than the archbishop would give it to him, he protested & withdrew from the Church. Was it a guarantee that the king was going to be given an annullment or divorce? To my knowledge, in this day & age (I’m not 100% about historically) no annullment is guaranteed. Therefore, to be impatient & declare yourself autonomous would be an act of protest and/or dissension.

I apologize if my historical facts are not well-explained. I’m just trying to get to the gist of the matter. I’m no historian, just an average Catholic gal who likes to discuss issues as they pertain to the Church. I believe I was taught (in secular history books) that as the origin for the Church of England. King wanted divorce, Church said no (or at least not right now), king said fine then I’ll start my own church…

It’s OK. Sorry for the distraction from your main point. But while I am happy to accept all sorts of criticisms of Anglicanism, this particular one is unfair, since the question was not over the teaching concerning divorce. It was a question of authority. That almost makes it worse in my view, because by substituting a national authority for that of the Catholic Church, Anglicans put themselves in a situation where all sorts of surrenders to the forces of the world (in the bad Biblical sense) became possible and even inevitable.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Edwin,
I apologize for simplifying the situation, but I still see what you say happened as dissention on the matter of divorce/annulment. Since the king wanted his annulment/divorce faster than the archbishop would give it to him, he protested & withdrew from the Church. Was it a guarantee that the king was going to be given an annullment or divorce? To my knowledge, in this day & age (I’m not 100% about historically) no annullment is guaranteed. Therefore, to be impatient & declare yourself autonomous would be an act of protest and/or dissension.

I apologize if my historical facts are not well-explained. I’m just trying to get to the gist of the matter. I’m no historian, just an average Catholic gal who likes to discuss issues as they pertain to the Church. I believe I was taught (in secular history books) that as the origin for the Church of England. King wanted divorce, Church said no (or at least not right now), king said fine then I’ll start my own church…

Historically, that’s the cartoon version of what was going on.

Henry was quite certain of getting his decree of nullity, and rightly so. His causa, while not as strong as it theoretically could have been, was most certainly as strong as was normal in such cases, and such cases were common-place, in the day. Details on all of this available if desired (in mind-numbing detail), but Henry ran into a political force stronger than he, and a Pope, who was famous for hedging.

One detail, though. It was not a question of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or even the Cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio, not giving Hank his decree quickly enough. When Catherine appealed to Rome, it was in the hands of the rota, and the Pope (to his dismay). And Clement was in the hands of Charles.

As I say, it is a complex subject. One of my favorite.

GKC

Added:

Ah, well. If I intrude, my apologies.