G
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Also, if he swore the Oath, it was tacit compliance, not only in the marriage, but in the Act of Supremacy.
GKC
E
East_Anglican
Guest
I never said you did but someone else said that tanglicans cannonized Charles I.
Yes we do.
Yes he was opposed to the act that legalised lutheranism but Henry VIII dies Roman Catholic in everything but name. Whty else would he behead Thomas Cromwell for being a Protestant?
I’ll let you work that out yourself.
I doubt the anglican Church would either.
P
phil8888
Guest
So Henry VIII couldn’t marry a woman, so he started his own church, and you don’t have a problem with that origin?
V
VivienneJ
Guest
Not strictly true, although it sounds so good
. Since Henry couldn’t persuade the Pope to give him the annulment he wanted, and since he was the King, he decided to solve his probem by declaring himself head of the church in England. As far as he was concerned, this remained the Catholic Church. Of course with Reformation being the catch phrase of the day, there were others who saw this as their chance to reform the church in England, and that was how the Anglican church devoloped.In our haste to condemn King Henry for opening the door for the reformers, let’s remember that England had not long finished fighting the Wars of the Roses, a very bloody time when the key issue was who was going to reign. While I do not support his idea that if he could not get a valid, sacramental marriage annulled he could just go ahead and find a way to circumvent the Pope, certainly a part of his concern was probably to avoid plunging England into another bloody war over who was to rule.
Not the most noble beginning most likely, but really not the kind of thing Catholics should be beating Anglicans up about?
P
phil8888
Guest
thanks for your comments. were you anglican before you converted?Not strictly true, although it sounds so good
In our haste to condemn King Henry for opening the door for the reformers, let’s remember that England had not long finished fighting the Wars of the Roses, a very bloody time when the key issue was who was going to reign. While I do not support his idea that if he could not get a valid, sacramental marriage annulled he could just go ahead and find a way to circumvent the Pope, certainly a part of his concern was probably to avoid plunging England into another bloody war over who was to rule.
Not the most noble beginning most likely, but really not the kind of thing Catholics should be beating Anglicans up about?
V
VivienneJ
Guest
Now how did you guess that? Although, it was also a period of history that fascinated me, and I learned the history in a Catholic high school
P
phil8888
Guest
haha. I saw you converted and I guessed. What was the reason for your conversion?
Although, it was also a period of history that fascinated me, and I learned the history in a Catholic high school
V
VivienneJ
Guest
I’ll try to keep it short.
Obviously I’d spent a fair amount of time in and around the Catholic Church as I was growing up. I often felt quite put out that I couldn’t receive communion in the Catholic Church - transsubstantion (I’m sure I’ve spelled this wrong, but can’t see how to fix it) was always what I saw happen at the consecration.
Well, I kept my respect for things Catholic but although I attended various Catholic services I remained Anglican (a bit deaf, perhaps?).
My younger daughter met and dated a very dear Catholic man, and she attended Mass with him and his family whenever she spent a weekend at his home. She had not been confirmed in the Anglican church and she decided that the Catholic church was the place for her. She subsequently married this dear man, and when I spent weekends with them I joined them at Mass, sometimes I spent so much time with them that I was attending more Catholic than Anglican services most months. I still felt resentfull that I was excluded from communion, though.
However the real crunch came when I came out here in August 2007 (here being the United Arab Emirates). I immediately made cantact with the Anglican church, found where it was and my second weekend here hopped into a taxi to go to church. For some reason the taxi driver drove past the Anglican church and dropped me at the Catholic church, so back I walked to the Anglican church.
Now this is where the really strange things happened. it was the familiar service, I knew all the responses, but I felt SO out of place. The following week I decided to go to the Catholic church. Oh, wow, I felt as though I had come home. I did not know all the responses in the same way as I had at the Anglican church, but I knew it was the same as was used in my daughter’s church at home. The most amazing point though was when people were going up to recieve communion - I did not feel at all resentful that I could not go up with them, I knew that all I had to do was to enter RCIA and I would also be able to receive communion. Spoke to Father straight after Mass, and …
G
GKC
Guest
Henry’s executing Cromwell is a matter of some historical puzzlement, though the issue of the marriage to Anne of Cleves palyed a part in it. Mostly, it was a result of infighting within Henry’s circle of power, primarily between Cromwell and the Duke of Norfolk, who spread the word, and was believed, that Cromwell was a radical reformer and sacramentary, which he was, in a small way, and that he had threatened treason to Henry over such things, which he probably had not. Henry was always ready to believe the worst of people whom he felt at let him down, and Cromwell, in his eyes, had. Sort of like Wolsey, earlier.
GKC
R
ralphinal
Guest
I think that there has been an unfair comparison made on this thread. To say that Anglicans honoring St. Thomas More are going against the man who founded their faith, and that is the same as honoring a man who opposed Jesus is incorrect.
First, no one can claim that Henry was equal to Jesus.
Second, Jesus was perfect and all that he did was perfect, except allowing humans in his church. Had he not done that, the Church would have never needed reform.
By standing up for what he was SURE was the correct and moral act, even if it was against “King and Country,” More proved that God was the first focus in his life. A man who opposed Jesus cannot say the same thing.
There are still those in England who are anti-Catholic. Some of them are within the Anglican Church. Perhaps to them, More represents a form of blind papism that they seek to abolish.
More than likely, More is not given more thought because they do not think about it at all.
First, no one can claim that Henry was equal to Jesus.
Second, Jesus was perfect and all that he did was perfect, except allowing humans in his church. Had he not done that, the Church would have never needed reform.
By standing up for what he was SURE was the correct and moral act, even if it was against “King and Country,” More proved that God was the first focus in his life. A man who opposed Jesus cannot say the same thing.
There are still those in England who are anti-Catholic. Some of them are within the Anglican Church. Perhaps to them, More represents a form of blind papism that they seek to abolish.
More than likely, More is not given more thought because they do not think about it at all.
G
GKC
Guest
Accurate as to history, and the sort of thing I have posted here many times, over the last few years. And one could mention in more detail why a sacramental marriage, (or what it could bring, a legitimate male offspring) was so crucial as Henry saw it. And what he had done to address the problem, even before he sought a decree of nullity. And was playing by the rules, in doing so.Not strictly true, although it sounds so good
In our haste to condemn King Henry for opening the door for the reformers, let’s remember that England had not long finished fighting the Wars of the Roses, a very bloody time when the key issue was who was going to reign. While I do not support his idea that if he could not get a valid, sacramental marriage annulled he could just go ahead and find a way to circumvent the Pope, certainly a part of his concern was probably to avoid plunging England into another bloody war over who was to rule.
Not the most noble beginning most likely, but really not the kind of thing Catholics should be beating Anglicans up about?
Another point to be remembered is that from over 250 years there had been a conflict between the Crown, and Rome, over the nature and extent of authority over the Church in England, with the state seeking in various ways to expand its role. One can cite (and I have) a list of Parliamentary and Royal Acts and Declarations, since the first Statute of Westminister, and running through the 2nd Statutes of Provisor and of *Praemunire *, in which the purpose was to establish and extend authority over the Church in England and limit that of any agency outside of it. Henry’s Great Matter was what brought that process to a climax. But it had been heading that way for a long time, as an expression of growing nationalism.
GKC
P
phil8888
Guest
Wow, what a wonderful story
Thank you!
E
East_Anglican
Guest
That sums it up nicely.Not strictly true, although it sounds so good
In our haste to condemn King Henry for opening the door for the reformers, let’s remember that England had not long finished fighting the Wars of the Roses, a very bloody time when the key issue was who was going to reign. While I do not support his idea that if he could not get a valid, sacramental marriage annulled he could just go ahead and find a way to circumvent the Pope, certainly a part of his concern was probably to avoid plunging England into another bloody war over who was to rule.
Not the most noble beginning most likely, but really not the kind of thing Catholics should be beating Anglicans up about?
Thanks.
S
SIA
Guest
:bowdown:
K
KerryLouise
Guest
Hello, I am a christened anglican and also an A-level History student from London :]
I personally believe Thomas More is honored by Anglicans for many reasons.
I would firstly like to say though, ‘A Man For All Seasons’ has to be taken with a pinch of salt, it is based upon very biased tudor period books, one by William Roper, More’s own son-in-law, who wrote the book hoping his father-in-law would gain a sainthood. He was also hoping to regain favour with Mary the First, or “bloody Mary”, as he voted against her act to take away Protestant’s lands. But then with history, we will never know who is right or wrong, as another author John Foxe wrote that “he was a cruel hunter of protestants” who “wept” with joy watching Protestant’s burn (this was though during Queen Elizabeth’s reign so he would of also been VERYYYY biased). So we can’t really know the truth that I think is a reason.
Personally I respect him. I have a great deal of respect for him having enough faith, and enough conscience to die for what he believed in, though I can’t help but feel sorry for his wife and many children.
I think the fact he became a martyr is another reason he is honored.
He was also a humanist, so though he was of the Catholic faith he wanted to change it for the better, humanists wanted better educated clergymen with better morals.
Also, in 1984 his book Utopia was also re-translated, and it’s been found that though he was formally Catholic, he did hold many protestant ideals. You’ve also got to remember that the Anglican Church at the time was simply “English Catholicism” it is seperate to Protestantism, I personally am not a Protestant, and like Catholics have been confirmed and take Holy Communion. Henry VIII himself was a staunch Catholic, he just wanted I think the power and money, and when I think of Henry, I think of a contradictory man and a tyrant personally he was very cruel.
sorry this has been so long!
I personally believe Thomas More is honored by Anglicans for many reasons.
I would firstly like to say though, ‘A Man For All Seasons’ has to be taken with a pinch of salt, it is based upon very biased tudor period books, one by William Roper, More’s own son-in-law, who wrote the book hoping his father-in-law would gain a sainthood. He was also hoping to regain favour with Mary the First, or “bloody Mary”, as he voted against her act to take away Protestant’s lands. But then with history, we will never know who is right or wrong, as another author John Foxe wrote that “he was a cruel hunter of protestants” who “wept” with joy watching Protestant’s burn (this was though during Queen Elizabeth’s reign so he would of also been VERYYYY biased). So we can’t really know the truth that I think is a reason.
Personally I respect him. I have a great deal of respect for him having enough faith, and enough conscience to die for what he believed in, though I can’t help but feel sorry for his wife and many children.
I think the fact he became a martyr is another reason he is honored.
He was also a humanist, so though he was of the Catholic faith he wanted to change it for the better, humanists wanted better educated clergymen with better morals.
Also, in 1984 his book Utopia was also re-translated, and it’s been found that though he was formally Catholic, he did hold many protestant ideals. You’ve also got to remember that the Anglican Church at the time was simply “English Catholicism” it is seperate to Protestantism, I personally am not a Protestant, and like Catholics have been confirmed and take Holy Communion. Henry VIII himself was a staunch Catholic, he just wanted I think the power and money, and when I think of Henry, I think of a contradictory man and a tyrant personally he was very cruel.
sorry this has been so long!
- Status