Catholics set to pass Anglicans as leading UK church

[Quiddity]

The RC and EO separated on the basis of differeing doctrine, differing polity, etc. Remember the fight over the Filioque Clause?

Do you hear me and James denying there is real disagreements between us? I'd be surprised if you did. So I have no idea why you felt to mention this.

Again, pointing fingers and saying that one isn't as valid or as good as another gets us nowhere. Remember, the Pope had just as much a hand in the separation of the Church of England as Henry did. The Pope stood to lose political power, as well as personal income. That's the reason why he dawdled so over Henry's dispensation -- not because he had a moral problem with the divorce.

Holy chicken little batman!
Please tell me you don't believe the RC or the Pope for that matter was ok with that divorce?

I'm not running down the RCC...I'm pointing out that we all have a hand in divisiveness. We either sink...or swim...together.

Read my post to Laurie above soj.

 

[kateyes]

I suppose the good people at the time (1400's to early 1500's) must have had some negativereaction of the unprecedented move on the part of the King - but it seems absurd that he got away with "changing the rules" so absurdly, for personal gain.

I wonder what would happen if the Queen tried to do a similar thing now..........not that I can think of any example.

1st keeping in mind that Henry VIII was an absolute monarch--he got away with pretty much anything he wanted--in addition people who did voice thier opposition tended to end up headless (ie--Sir Thomas More)--also I think it is important to remember this happened at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation--so while Henry certainly had a personal agenda (divorcing Catherine of Aragon plus claiming all the wealth of the RCC in England at the time--remember he also disolved and claimed all the property of the Church at the same time)--in some ways he was acting according to the will of the growing Protestant movement of the times. What always struck me as a bit over the top--was keeping the title of "Defender of the Faith" bestowed on him by the Pope earlier in his reign. In fact I think the Monarchy still uses the title.

 

[sojourner]

Please tell me you don't believe the RC or the Pope for that matter was ok with that divorce?

"Since canon law prohibited a man's marriage with his brother's widow, the English representatives in Rome obtained a papal dispensation, and as soon as young Henry was old enough he was married to Catherine...

[Henry's] own solution was to request that Rome annul his own union with Catherine, thus leaving him free to marry another queen who could give him the needed heir. Such annulments were not uncommon, and the pope would grant them for various reasons. In this particular case, the argument was that, in spite of the papal dispensation, themarriage between Henry and his brother's widow was not licit, and that therefore it had never been a true marriage. But other factors completely unrelated to canon law were much more weighty.

The main consideration was that Catherine was the aunt of Charles V, who at that time had the pope practically under his thumb, and who had received a plea from his aunt to save her from dishonor. The pope, Clement VII, could not invalidate Henry's marriage to Catherine without alienating Charles V. He therefore prolonged the matter as much as possible, and his representatives even suggested that Henry, instead of repudiating his first wife, secretly take a second one."

(The Story of Christianity, Vol 2, Justo Gonzalez, Harper Collins 1985. Pp. 71-72.

The pope was as much to blame as Henry.

 

[Quiddity]

"Since canon law prohibited a man's marriage with his brother's widow, the English representatives in Rome obtained a papal dispensation, and as soon as young Henry was old enough he was married to Catherine...

[Henry's] own solution was to request that Rome annul his own union with Catherine, thus leaving him free to marry another queen who could give him the needed heir. Such annulments were not uncommon, and the pope would grant them for various reasons. In this particular case, the argument was that, in spite of the papal dispensation, themarriage between Henry and his brother's widow was not licit, and that therefore it had never been a true marriage. But other factors completely unrelated to canon law were much more weighty.

The main consideration was that Catherine was the aunt of Charles V, who at that time had the pope practically under his thumb, and who had received a plea from his aunt to save her from dishonor. The pope, Clement VII, could not invalidate Henry's marriage to Catherine without alienating Charles V. He therefore prolonged the matter as much as possible, and his representatives even suggested that Henry, instead of repudiating his first wife, secretly take a second one."

(The Story of Christianity, Vol 2, Justo Gonzalez, Harper Collins 1985. Pp. 71-72.

The pope was as much to blame as Henry.

How far you want to take this Soj? You are either missing the point or equally trying to hold us accountable for peace of mind on your part. The fact that the Pope may have made a bad disciplinary error (and that's exactly what this is) only shows that the Pope was being political (if that is indeed the case). To which I have admitted to in previous posts. But where the Church stood on marriage is absolutely undeniable. Either Henry violated this, or he didn't. If you want to lurk deeper into whether he did or didn't then I'm game.

 

[sojourner]

How far you want to take this Soj? You are either missing the point or equally trying to hold us accountable for peace of mind on your part. The fact that the Pope may have made a bad disciplinary error (and that's exactly what this is) only shows that the Pope was being political (if that is indeed the case). To which I have admitted to in previous posts. But where the Church stood on marriage is absolutely undeniable. Either Henry violated this, or he didn't. If you want to lurk deeper into whether he did or didn't then I'm game.

I'm not missing the point. The point is that Henry may have violated marriage, and the pope may have, himself, on a couple of points: First, by granting Henry a dispensation for marrying against canon law, and second, by suggesting that he engage in bigamy. I didn't make this stuff up -- it's documented.

I bring this up only to show that it does no good to point fingers at each other. There was blame on both sides. That's no reason to defame a very worthy branch of the catholic faith. One can't judge the entire Anglican Church morally bankrupt because of Henry's actions, without pronouncing the same judgment on the entire Roman Church because of Clement's actions.

Just because the leaders were engaging in shady deals doesn't condemn either branch in total.

 

[James the Persian]

Hi James, Well naturally I beg to differ. Besides the below comments being primariy just your opinion of things as you see it, and being woefully (and hopefully not intentionally) misinformed, saying that our communion is just a 'weird social club' is not exactly what I'd call conducive to interfaith understanding and tolerance.

I firstly must apologise for upsetting you. It wasn't my intention to do so, and I was actually only criticising the Church of England, not all of Anglicanism, and the institution, not the individuals, based on my experiences. I'd have to say, that I've even known Anglicans criticise the Church of England for being more social club than church, so I'm quite surprised you have taken this so badly. Are you actually familiar with Anglicanism over here? If you were you might understand better what I mean. I was showing no intolerance to your faith (certainly not yours) but you can hardly expect me to say that the CofE is the Church, can you? Our ecclesiology simply won't allow that.

We are united by our litergy, our worship, and Communion. What could be more important than that?

Maybe you are but the CofE isn't. The High Church segment here could claim this but as they share a church with low church groups and evangelicals who often have no appreciable liturgy at all and where I've even seen open communion practiced, forgive me when I say that I don't se what you do. And there is one more thing that is necessary, which is profession of a common faith. Believe me, I know many people in the CofE who make Lutheranism look like the RCC and others who are practically RCs themselves. They do not ahare a common faith (one group would reject the 7th Ecumenical cCouncil and the other embrace it, for instance).

Also, you might want to check out my thread here, our Catechism. It's not exactly 'nothing.' In fact I think a lot of it will ring quite familiar to you.

And yet I know many Anglicans who couldn't adhere to it and have heard comments from heirarchs in the CofE which have actively opposed it, and hese men have remained uncensured. So what is that catechism actually worth in practice?

Well, gee, thanks. :sarcastic But as I said, please check out our Catechism. Our doctrines are those that were found in the united Catholic Church, before you all and Rome split

No, they aren't. The majority may be but not all, and you have added things that directly oppose our beliefs.

(also for political reasons, I might add).

I don't dispute that politics played a part, but the triadological and ecclesiological disputes were far, far more important. It's not comparable to the situation in Tudor England at all.

Rome like Original Sin, you don't, we can choose for ourselves. Please don't lecture me on rejecting doctrine. Sheesh.

Actually, Rome doesn't seem to like it much these days either (at least not the understanding of it that we find heretical), and having freedom to choose doctrine is not something that's going to convince me of the unity of the CofE, seeing as such is pretty much what I was getting at when I said I saw no doctrinal unity.

Every church, yours included, was created and moulded through politics. Don't fool yourself.

I don't doubt that politics have played a part, and you'll see that I often offer up understandings of the political millieu when talking to Victor about our differences, but the Church of England is directly interfered with by the British parliament which is a situation which has only one period where anything similar happened in Orthodox history, and it's not a period we look back on with joy - that was Peter the Great's abolition of the Patriarchate in Moscow. No other church has ever been so directly controlled by politics as the CofE. I'm not fooling myself at all, but the diference between the situations is quite great (and again, I'm referring to the CofE, not all of the Anglican communion).

That's certainly not my experience. My core beliefs are very very clear and dear to me. Things which have been found to divide over the centuries are easier for a broad church to absorb...and thus makes it a much more inclusive and welcoming place to be.

I don't agree at all. We most certainly are not broad church in any way and I have always felt very welcomed, even when I had a lot of things to work on. When, however, I see Anglicans saying that they don't feel a need to go to church because 'you can believe anything', I can't help but think that the Broad Church idea is to blame. And this, at least in England, is a very common occurrence.

Harsh. And rather strange considering that most of things you believe, we believe as well.

Look you may believe them, and a few Anglicans do here as well, but I've known many, many Anglicans here who don't even come close and have heard heirarchs here who would be anathematised for heresy if they were Orthodox. Remember the episode with the Bishop of Durham and the fire at York Minster?

Anyway, shocked and sorry to hear you have such little respect for the AC.

Again, I'm sorry to have upset you and I'm genuinely surprised that you have taken my comments so to heart. I can't emphasise enough, though, that I wrote CofE rather than Anglican for a reason. What is true here in England is not necessarily the case elsewhere in the communion.

James

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not missing the point. The point is that Henry may have violated marriage, and the pope may have, himself, on a couple of points: First, by granting Henry a dispensation for marrying against canon law, and second, by suggesting that he engage in bigamy. I didn't make this stuff up -- it's documented.

I bring this up only to show that it does no good to point fingers at each other. There was blame on both sides. That's no reason to defame a very worthy branch of the catholic faith. One can't judge the entire Anglican Church morally bankrupt because of Henry's actions, without pronouncing the same judgment on the entire Roman Church because of Clement's actions.

Just because the leaders were engaging in shady deals doesn't condemn either branch in total.

Do you really believe that we are seperated to this day simply because of "shady deals"?

This isn't an attempt to point fingers, I really want to know what you think.

 

[*Paul*]

I know many anglicans are converting to our church(Catholic Church) because of the lack of moral and doctrinal orthodoxy in the anglican communion.

This is my view too, Rome has stayed constant or at least given the appearance of constancy while the church of England has become a cesspool of relativism, liberalism and compromise or at least gives that appearance. One acts as though it posses the truth and the other as though there is no absolute truth. Where will people go when they need answers?
I attended an evangelical - anglican church for 2 -3 months last year as I am having such a tough time finding as church I can be comfortable in and really need fellowship as the vicar is well known for his evangelical views. He is in a small minority and is constantly getting into trouble for His fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.