Anglican side of the story?


#1

What is it? Did Anglicanism spread out of the desire to take Catholic Church power, property, and money as Calvinism and the rest of the reformation did?


#2

Whoa!!!

The Reformation is much more complicated than that. It did not spring up out of a simple Power Battle.

In fact, Luther, (if you read his actual letters and notes, not just commentaries edited by Catholic apologists) was not interested in dividing the Church. He was pointing out that it needed Reform. He wanted to reform the church from its internal abuses, but of course he was kicked out and the church only later adopted some credence to some of his complaints and thus the counter-reformation.

The Anglicans considered themselves Reformed Catholics. Many Anglicans today (my husband is an Anglican priest) vouched not to throw the baby out with the bath water, as did many other denominations. Many Anglicans respect and confirm many Catholic doctrines, except they can’t quite concede to the Pope’s supposed authority and many don’t believe in transubstantiation. Other than that, and maybe Purgatory, Anglicans are quite fond of Catholics.

I, myself, have no problem with the Roman Catholic church as it is today. My husband is an Anglican who considers himself a “reformed catholic.” He reads A LOT. He points out to staunch Presbyterians that Calvin actually had a high view of Mary, for instance.

I am not Roman Catholic for only one reason. I support my husband first…a great marriage adhesive. We both have Catholic tendencies (if I could just get him to take the final plunge!)

Blessings,
K


#3

kallen,

If you know the Catholic Church is the true church and you still don’t enter into it, you can’t be saved. What is more important, your soul or your husbands feelings? How many more divisions are nessesary before you realize that without the authority of the Pope, there never can unity among the churches?


#4

[quote=Catholic_Girl 9]If you know the Catholic Church is the true church and you still don’t enter into it, you can’t be saved.
[/quote]

Catholic_Girl, I understand where you are coming from, but as far as I know Catholic teaching also does not claim to know the mind of God completely. God can do whatever God wants for whatever reasons God has. In other words the “saving” is left up to God and God alone for His own reasons. I don’t know that it is fair to make a blanket statement about being saved without knowing the true heart-felt intentions of an individual.

I would say knowing the Catholic Church is the true chuch, but not entering it, would be not being true to yourself, but if you are remaining faithful to God, and for specific reasons do not enter the Church (keeping your marriage together, for example), would God understand that and consider that justifiable? I do not claim to know the answer. I believe Catholic teaching does say that God also judges on a person’s true desire. For example, if you desire to live a perfect life, and try to do so, but certain things thru the course of your life keep you from living an absolutely perfect life (we all have those reasons), you still had the desire does God not see that and take your true desire into consideration? :confused:

I may be taking a relatively innocent point to its extremes, but this idea intrigues me. I hope going off the original topic of the thread is ok. If not, please ignore or start a new thread with this topic if appropriate.

Also, I am certainly not advocating everyone just not joining the Catholic Church when they know it is the true church just because it may be a difficult action to take for whatever reason. That is not at all what I am saying. In most cases that would probably be a poor decision. I am focusing on the aspect of God’s mercy in His final judgment of a person’s life.

Regards,
Mark


#5

Long topic for 3,000 characters but here is the short and skinny.

The King of England, Henry VIII, wanted a woman other then his wife - adultery. The Pope said no divorce!:tsktsk: (Pope supports the 10 Commandments) The protestants were ‘re/DE’-forming the Catholic Church on the mainland and taking the authority away from the “Pope” (St. Peters true valid successor) and giving it to their princes and kings or whoever:whacky: (study the peasants revolt for a start). The King said fine, I’ll just make myself the “Pope” (illegitimate) so to speak and start my own church. So the King started his church with the Kings and Queens as the head of it. (Why would he want to give the leadership away?) He started murdering his wives, I mean divorcing his wives, I mean lobbing of the heads of his next future EX-wife, I mean breaking the 10 commandments by murdering his wives. You get the idea?:rolleyes: He liked women more then he liked his Church and Gods commandments so he just started his own. Its good to be King!:yup: It’s not so good to be a Queen though.:nope: This led to great bloodshed between Catholics and protestants over the following years:crying: (Anglicans may not technically be protestant but they started with the schismatic role model of Luther and his church(s).)

See this link for more:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm

My wife and I were non-denominational mostly Baptist sect. I decided it was more important to support GOD first then my wife so I followed Him home. My wife is now second fiddle but, isn’t second fiddle to God a really good spot to be!:love: God is now first and foremost in my life and non other - period. Because of God being first, everyone else is just where they should be. I finally got the pecking order right. When I was a protestant God was not always first, my secular “buffet line” desires were.

A prisoner of Christ

PS, I might point out that Catholics now outnumber Anglicans in England. See:

vexen.co.uk/religion/rib.html#2001


#6

I am not Roman Catholic for only one reason. I support my husband first…a great marriage adhesive. We both have Catholic tendencies (if I could just get him to take the final plunge!)

Kallen,

Your situation is not so uncommon, and I have been there, too. For reasons only God understands, He sometimes brings spouses to an understanding of the faith at different rates.

When my husband and I ‘parted ways’ on this subject a few years ago, I also tried to convince myself that family unity trumped the issue. And then I found this passage in the Catechism:

CCC 846
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; He is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and therby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

The dilemma you face is real, and the road has been travelled by many before you. It may be helpful for you to read the conversion story of Scott Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, to hear the details of a situation similar to your own. Rest assured that the Lord will not abandon you, and does not wish to destroy your marriage. But He may be asking you to pick up this cross and carry it.


#7

Mplamann,

Although I can’t judge someones interior motives, I can objectivley say what the Church has always teached about salvation is only through the Church, weather the visible or invisible.

CCC 846 “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

“…hence they could not be saved who, knowing tht the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter ii or to remain in it”

The CCC explains the conceqences of mortal sin this way: 1033 “…although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”

the question here is would not entering the Catholic Church knowing it was founded necessary by God through Christ be forgiveable? I think totally refusing God’s grace is the only way you can go to hell. What is the point of the Church if you don’t need to be part of it to be saved? (I’m not talking about people who don’t know better, only those who do).


#8

Malachi4u,

You are right about one thing. The story of Henry and his search for a decree of nullity is hard to cover in 3000 characters. It’s even harder if you actually include real history.

Hank didn’t want a diviroce. He wanted an annulment, based on his desperate need for a legitimate male heir to strengthen his dynasty. And based on his understanding of the Levitical prohibition against marrying a brother’s widow. (This was opposed, of course, by the levirate admonition in Deuteronomy. Actually, his strongest case would have been based on claiming an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, resulting from a faulty dispensation from Pope Julius II, but Wolsey couldn’t convince him of that. And it was a tricky point, turning on whether Arthur and Catherine had actually consummated their brief marriage). And, as he started the whole process, based on his growing infatuation for Anne Boleyn.

Annulments such as Henry sought were a commmonplace at the time. It’s how dynastic marriages were managed, and happened all the time. Henry’s sister received one, on a far weaker causa, 2 months before Henry submitted his appeal. He had every expectation his own annulement would sail through as easily. Reason it didn’t? Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, nephew of Catherine of Aragon, and recent sacker of Rome (sort of accidentally, that was). Clement just wanted the whole thing to go away.

It’s possible to discuss what actually happened with Hank and company, but it takes delving into history (remember Newman’s comment), not dealing in cartoon cutouts. I’ve done a little reading in this subject myself; further info on the above available, if desired. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, not a pro-Henry book, is very good on the canonical situation re:annulments, impediments and dispensations; how the whole system worked back then. History is complicated.

GKC


#9

[quote=GKC]It’s possible to discuss what actually happened with Hank and company, but it takes delving into history (remember Newman’s comment), not dealing in cartoon cutouts. I’ve done a little reading in this subject myself; further info on the above available, if desired. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, not a pro-Henry book, is very good on the canonical situation re:annulments, impediments and dispensations; how the whole system worked back then. History is complicated.
GKC
[/quote]

GKC - I think your point is well made, and an important one at that. It is ALL too easy to make caricatures out of historical figures and situations. Oversimplification, while perhaps expedient in certain situations (such as 3000 word posting limitations), does NOT lend itself to an accurate or helpful understanding of what went on with Henry et al in those days.

As ONE example - the discussion, as limited to a discussion of Henry’s dilemmas regarding marriage and the Church, do not even TOUCH on another historical fact of the era. That fact being that it was NOT a new thing within British ecclesial circles for bishops on the Green Island to take an attitude questioning the immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in their dioceses. Their frequent cry was that in ordinary diocesan operations, he should have no more immediate authority in their dioceses than they would in his. That’s not something Henry invented. Yet it is often ignored in caricatured discussions of the issues surrounding these events. Now, before someone roundly jumps on me about the Primacy of Peter, let me say I did not address whether or not the British bishops should have had that question in their minds - I simply stated it was there. There’s a difference :wink:

Keep up the good work! :thumbsup:


#10

Greeetings, Servant1,

I thank you. There is no comment I make in these situations more often than that history is complex. And we do no favor to either side if we ignore the complexities.

As to your point re: the growing restlessness of the Church (and the Crown) in England, with respect to the Papal perogatives, you are correct. It can be seen as far back as 400 years prior to Henry, and that ignores the even older Celtic/Roman issue, and the Synod of Whitby. I need go no further back (and I can) than to mention the 2 *Statutes of Praemunire * and the ditto Statutes of Provisors to make the point. Emerging nationalism in England didn’t start with Henry.

As to your reservation, point taken, But it is a thing that can be discussed, within the historical context, not a caricature thereof.

Thanks again.

GKC


#11

This isn’t rocket science. The Church still teaches that marriage is indissoluble. An annulment only recognizes officially that a marriage was never valid. If the pope didn’t have any authority in granting the annulment, why did they ask for his permission? It comes down to obedience. Henry the VIII ended up combining the state and church-destroying monasteries, sacred art, and the priesthood. Protestantism, the Orthodox churches, and Anglicanism are all founded upon errors, namely obedience and pride. Don’t try to make this more complicated than it has to be.


#12

Greetings Catholic_Girl 9,

It’s a lot closer to rocket science than you might think. I’m pressed for time, and will make this short, but if you want details, just ask.

The Chuch had, by necessity, a vastly complicated canonical system to address the issue of the sacrament of marriage, and that from 2 major perspectives: protecting averages citizens from forced or otherwise invalid marriages, and (much the more important) permitting dynastic marriags to be annulled, as required for reasons of state. It was how the political system interacted with the sacramental, as far as ruling countries and similar things. And the system was designed to be as complicated as possible, with impediments, of affinity and consanquinity (the 2 major reasons for annulments) out to the 8th degree. The reason was to enable the Church to always find a canonical impediment to a given dynastic marriage, if statecraft required it. And statecraft required it all the time. A contemporary Scottish bishop once remarked that it was almost impossible to find any 2 people of quality who could marry without some impediment being found. England in Henry’s time had 26 diocesan courts that handled the traffic, and that fed the Rota in Rome, if appeal was made. It was how business was done (ask me about Henry’s sister’s annulment; the casusa was a hoot). That’s one reason why Trent (24th Session) reformed the whole process,

Yes, that is what an annulment does, and the system was designed to make sure that was possible, whenever needed. In Hank’s case, he should have pursued the undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty route. Not that it would have prevailed over Charles V, nothing would. But it would have looked neater. Avoided the whole *ultra vires * issue, and put the problem on the backs of those who originally requested the dispensation.

Of course the Pope had the authority (I think you are referring to Julius 's dispensation, not Clement and the annulment). Problem was, the dispensation was incomplete. That all turned on whether Catherine and Arthur had actually consummated their marriage (and the reason is not what you probably think). But in any case, as the system worked at the time, Henry’s quest for an decree of nullity was business as usual for the Church.

It’s complicated, believe me. You want more, I got more.

GKC


#13

[quote=GKC]As to your reservation, point taken, But it is a thing that can be discussed, within the historical context, not a caricature thereof.
[/quote]

Absolutely right, sir! :thumbsup:


#14

Catholic_Girl 9,

I beg your pardon. I was in such haste to finish my last post (see many typos) that I started a paragraph incorrectly (meant to say something else there) and left out several points.

With respect to the issue of whether a Pope had authority to dispense an impediment (what I think you were saying), the question is one that agitated the canon lawyers a great deal in the 1300s-1500s (and the decision, in theory, not in particular cases usually was made by the canonists). Opinions and rulings came and went, often contradicting each other (details available). Generally, the position was that the Papal authority was limited by the nature of the impediment. An impediment based on Divine sanction/scripture was not dispensable, was ultra vires, beyond the power of the Church to remove. The best example of that would be an impediment of consanguinity in the first degree, direct; that is, the impediment that exists between a parent and a child. No Pope was considered to have the authority to dispense such a natural law impediment to marriage. The question of an impediment of consanguinity in the second degree, direct (a brother/sister) was not so clear cut and canonists had ruled that such was dispensable (I believe Aquinas was of that opinion). And thence on down the degrees, which, being based on Church, or positive law, were certainly dispensable. So the question of whether a Pope had the authority to dispense a given case depended on the origin of the impediment, and its degree.

Henry took the hard way, asserting that the dispensation he had received from Julius II, to marry Catherine, violated the Levitical prohibition ( an impedimentof affinity in the first ddegree, collateral, brother in law and sister in law) and was thus scriptural and ultra vires. This was not a very strong case, but a legitimate one, and would have been strong enough, had Charles V not been who he was. The actual best case he could have made (which still wasn’t as strong as Charles’ army) turned on a complicated question relating both to the type of impediment referred to as the justice of public honesty, and whether Julius had been correctly informed on the point of whether Arthur and Catherine had consummated their marriage (Surprise. If the answer was “No”, Henry’s case was much stronger). This would have made a strong case that there was an undispensed impediment between him and Catherine.

Sorry for the brevity, more info available if required. It is, as we say, a complicated issue. History is like that.

GKC.


#15

Thank you for all of that information. I know it was complicated but the issue here is one of authority and obedience. Henry the 8th was wrong because he didn’t obey the pope.

We have obedience to the pope and magesterium even if we think they are wrong. It takes humility and it isn’t easy. Look at the fruits of his disobedience. The Anglican church is a total mess right now. The head of the church is advocating a new translation of the bible that condones fornication.

We don’t have to swallow a camel and strain at a gnat to understand what is fundamentally wrong with Anglicanism.


#16

[quote=Catholic_Girl 9]Thank you for all of that information. I know it was complicated but the issue here is one of authority and obedience. Henry the 8th was wrong because he didn’t obey the pope.
[/quote]

You are very welcome. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. As to the comment on obedience, that’s a logical position for a RC to take.

We have obedience to the pope and magesterium even if we think they are wrong. It takes humility and it isn’t easy. Look at the fruits of his disobedience. The Anglican church is a total mess right now. The head of the church is advocating a new translation of the bible that condones fornication.

As to the current state of the official Anglican Communion, in the developed world, you are certainly right.

We don’t have to swallow a camel and strain at a gnat to understand what is fundamentally wrong with Anglicanism.

No. But to understand, historically, what went on 475 years ago does take a little effort. And the stereotypical “Horny Hank and His Homicidal Hormones” isn’t it.

GKC


#17

[quote=Catholic_Girl 9The Anglican church is a total mess right now. The head of the church is advocating a new translation of the bible that condones fornication.
[/QUOTE]

I am not aware of this. Please advise where I may find documentation of exactly what this is. Thanks!
[/quote]


#18

If I can find it, I will, though I’m not Catholic_Girl 9, to be sure. It was all over the web a few days ago. Without any of the details, like proper names. there is a whacko group in England (no, not the CoE) that has produced a doozy of an exercise in triviality, a really with-it translation of Holy Scripture, the like of which must be read to be sneered at. On first reading most folk assumed it was a parody. Alas, no. I think there is a thread on it in this forum on it, I’ll go see, if no one beats me to it.

The group that produced this jewel showed it to ++WIlliams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who, ever on the lookout for new ways to achieve apostasy, said it looked pretty nifty to him, and hoped for great things from it.

One reason why many Anglicans are not in communion with Canterbury.

GKC
[/quote]


#19

Here’s the thread, with a link to the BBC. It’s even worse than that article suggests. Be sure and read the 2nd post, for more samples.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=4816

Added:

Here’s another thread:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=4786

GKC


#20

Maybe I haven’t “left my husband” for the Catholic church at this point because I’m not so sure God’s plan involves me splitting from my husband who is doing His work.

God works in His own timing…I trust that. And I’m not sure I believe I will “lose” my salvation by remaining with my husband in the Anglican church at this time. In fact, I’m not so sure I really do believe the Roman Catholic church is the one true church right now. (my point earlier was I was open)

It is easy for someone to casually say to me “just leave” and forget about your husband’s role in all this. I did listen to Scott Hahn’s story and it was not an overnight ordeal. It was a long and prayerful struggle. Maybe that is where I am???

I am in prayer and seeking discernment. I don’t think anyone should enter the Church lightly and without a deep commitment. I am not at that point.

For the record, I never stated I believed the Church to be the One, True Church I must join to be “saved.” I stated I have “no problem” with the church today that most of my Protestant pals do. I simply am not there yet.

And regardless, unless you’ve been in my shoes, you can’t possibly comprehend the struggle involved. Just read Thomas Merton’s story.

I really just need to know I am not alone. If my husband was an Atheist, then that would not stop me from a life with Christ because I broke up with my first love and fiance over that. But we are talking about two people growing up in a particular church with a particular doctrine for over thirty years. It doesn’t happen overnight for everyone.

Blessings.

K

P.S. Malachi4U wrote:

***My wife and I were non-denominational mostly Baptist sect. I decided it was more important to support GOD first then my wife so I followed Him home. My wife is now second fiddle but, isn’t second fiddle to God a really good spot to be!:love: God is now first and foremost in my life and non other - period. Because of God being first, everyone else is just where they should be. I finally got the pecking order right. When I was a protestant God was not always first, my secular “buffet line” desires were. ***
**

I am happy for you. Thing is, at this point, I do feel I am supporting and living for God first. That has never depended upon me joining a particular denomination. I live for Christ regardless. God is first; the thing is, I am trying to discern if He is calling me to a certain place. Let Him do it in His time and don’t make rash judgments about other Christians. We’re not talking about me being secular or putting God last. We’re talking about me joining a new church to serve Him in a different context, which I am open to doing if that is where He ultimately takes me. Peace


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.