Posted on 10/26/2009 3:22:02 PM PDT by NYer
Obviously, something has come out of Henry's legacy that Pope Benedict believes is worth retaining and will help to build the Church (JPII believed this too). That God can bring about good from sin should be no surprise to any catholic.
All good catholics should have enough faith in their leaders that such a dramatic event as this is being led by the Holy Spirit that they can take some deep breaths, wait to see what happens, and stop fighting 500 year old battles.
If you don't like the Anglicans, then you don't have to go to their churches. They're not going to be breaking down the walls of your parish. They just want to be Anglicans in communion with Rome and Rome has now said it want that too.
“Obviously, something has come out of Henry's legacy that Pope Benedict believes is worth retaining and will help to build the Church (JPII believed this too). That God can bring about good from sin should be no surprise to any catholic.”
I didn't say otherwise.
But from the post that you're citing, I merely said that Henry HAD SOMETHING TO DO with the spiritual tradition of the COFE. In fact, I've specifically said that much of the residue of Catholicism in the COFE (as a Catholic, I'd hardly consider that a BAD thing) is due to the influence of Henry VIII on the spirituality of the COFE.
It is the argument of my interlocutor that Henry had nothing to do with the spirituality of the COFE, a position that is absurd.
“All good catholics should have enough faith in their leaders that such a dramatic event as this is being led by the Holy Spirit that they can take some deep breaths, wait to see what happens, and stop fighting 500 year old battles.”
Trad_anglican, why don't you actually read the thread and read it carefully?
I've made two assertions in this thread:
1. It is understandable if some folks factor into their view of the COFE the circumstances of the life of its founder, Henry VIII (although that doesn't mean that I agree with other folks’ conclusions therefrom);
2. Henry VIII, through his founding of the COFE, and through his interest in theology and ecclesiology, helped shape the COFE, including its spirituality and theology.
Neither of these assertions have much to do with my own thoughts or beliefs concerning the COFE or the Anglican Communion. I don't think that either of these assertions are indicative of any negative feelings, views, thoughts or beliefs about the COFE or the Anglican Communion.
“If you don't like the Anglicans, then you don't have to go to their churches. They're not going to be breaking down the walls of your parish. They just want to be Anglicans in communion with Rome and Rome has now said it want that too.”
Ironically, here's what I said on another thread:
Dear sionnsar,
“To tell the truth, I do not understand why the Anglophone Roman Catholics do not adopt these,...”
I have predicted two things to my family, if there are any significant numbers of takers of what is on offer from Rome:
1. In 50 years, there will be a full-fledged Anglican Catholic Church, alongside all the other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome;
2. In 100 years, many, perhaps most Catholics in the English-speaking world will be Anglican Catholics.
I only half-jest.
sitetest
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2367790/posts?page=19#19
sitetest
You’re right. I should read more carefully before busting in. Thanks for setting me straight.
No problem. ;-)
Wonder then if Parliament will ban this archaic law.
RCs are no longer the enemy, radical Islam is (and THEY have already stated their intentions).
“Wonder then if Parliament will ban this archaic law.”
Not for a long, long time, if ever.
I read that the problem is that it's just no longer that simple. Apparently, because the monarch of the United Kingdom is also the head of state for many (all?) Commonwealth countries, these other countries have to give approval to change it.
As well, I imagine that permitting a Catholic to become the monarch would increase pressure to disestablish the Church of England. Otherwise, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England could wind up being a Catholic. I don't know if that would work too well.
That being said, the current Prime Minister, Mr. Brown, has stated that he is committed to changing the law that forbids Catholics from being in the line of succession to the British throne. Good luck on that one, Gordy.
sitetest
“That’s incorrect — read the history of this document.”
I defer to your research on this. Nonetheless, reunification of the Church has always been part of RCC thinking, I do believe.
As a cradle-Catholic, I reject the idea of anyone submitting themselves to Rome. The Anglican priests as the pope has said, will be brought into the church, either ordained once more while acknowledging the validity of their previous ordination as being from apostolic succession or brought in as-is. We should NOT denigrate orthodox anglicans re-joining us
The question of the validity of Holy Orders is one of ontology. One way to look at this is to ask the question, does the person receiving ordination actually receive the mark on the soul that comes with valid ordination?
The Catholic Church has definitively stated that Anglican orders are not valid. In other words, an Anglican or Episcopal deacon, priest or bishop, all things being equal, does not have the mark on his soul of a deacon, priest or bishop.
In individual cases, there might be exceptions. Perhaps one was ordained by a validly-consecrated bishop of the Orthodox, or perhaps one of the Oriental Churches, or perhaps a European Old Catholic bishop whose own orders are recognized as valid by the Church.
I imagine that the validity of orders of every presenting male Anglican cleric will be researched carefully to come to the proper judgment, but on a case-by-case basis.
Those who clearly establish valid orders will not be ordained to their previous rank, as no one may be re-ordained. Those who make a good case that they have valid orders, but where there is some question, will likely be conditionally ordained. Those who cannot show, in the judgment of the Church, that they were validly ordained will be ordained in the Church.
“either ordained once more while acknowledging the validity of their previous ordination as being from apostolic succession...”
No one will be “ordained once more while acknowledging the validity of their previous ordination as being from apostolic succession.” If someone shows clearly, to the satisfaction of the Church, that they have valid orders, they will not be ordained at all. They will merely be received into communion, and incardinated somewhere, likely in one of the personal ordinariates.
It is my understanding that many folks will likely be conditionally ordained, and that part of the rite of ordination will be to acknowledge the validity of their SERVICE to the Church during the time that they served as an Anglican clergyman. However, I read the rite a few days ago, and what was conspicuous in its absence was any acknowledgment of validity of previous orders.
sitetest
Good chance he'll be burning somewhere else eventually if he does not change his ways.
One could also argue that Henry didn't found the Church of England at all. He did order the Catholic Bishops of England (under pain of death) to break with Rome and the Pope, who in that age were often heavy-handed self-interested political leaders not unlike Henry.
But Henry didn't 'create' a new church with new new dogma and traditions as others did during the reformation. The Church of England from that religious standpoint, stayed the same. Henry simply changed (for his own selfish reasons) the political orientation of a Church that long predated him. He did not found a new church.
The Church of England (until very recent years) has diverged very little from the Roman Church. After five Centuries, there is still very little difference between traditional Anglican belief and practice and those of the Roman Catholic Church -- a fact that makes this unification even possible.
Today, for the traditional Anglicans, church politics (i.e. a politically correct leftist hierarchy masquerading as clergy) have forced them to make a choice, and it appears that reuniting with the Roman Church is the way they want to go. For most, it will be a relatively seamless transition and both will be better off for it.
One could also argue that Henry didn't found the Church of England at all. He did order the Catholic Bishops of England (under pain of death) to break with Rome and the Pope, who in that age were often heavy-handed self-interested political leaders not unlike Henry.
But Henry didn't 'create' a new church with new new dogma and traditions as others did during the reformation. The Church of England from that religious standpoint, stayed the same. Henry simply changed (for his own selfish reasons) the political orientation of a Church that long predated him. He did not found a new church.
The Church of England (until very recent years) has diverged very little from the Roman Church. After five Centuries, there is still very little difference between traditional Anglican belief and practice and those of the Roman Catholic Church -- a fact that makes this unification even possible.
Today, for the traditional Anglicans, church politics (i.e. a politically correct leftist hierarchy masquerading as clergy) have forced them to make a choice, and it appears that reuniting with the Roman Church is the way they want to go. For most, it will be a relatively seamless transition and both will be better off for it.
No, I don't think so. In removing the Church IN England from communion with the Catholic Church, he created the Church OF England. This was done by force of English law. Before Henry's actions, there was no Church OF England. After his actions, there was.
Those clerics that refused to go along were deposed, if fortunate, and killed if less so. They were replaced with clerics who would abide by the new law.
That's pretty much founding a new religion. It may have been done on the body of the old, but nonetheless, that's what it was - starting a new religion.
“But Henry didn't ‘create’ a new church with new new dogma and traditions as others did during the reformation.”
That's true. Henry created a schismatic church, not a heretical church. And in his time, it was still a church. But it was no longer the Catholic Church IN England. It was the Church OF England. Two different entities.
As well, having separated from the Catholic Church, the COFE was able to eventually adopt a lot of Protestant beliefs and practices. This didn't happen in Henry's time, because he was a bad, excommunicated, schismatic Catholic, not a Protestant heretic.
And if you read my posts herein, I credit the residual catholicity of the Church of England to what Henry did to shape his new church.
Nonetheless, upon his death, his son Edward (or, at least his regents and advisors) began to Protestantize the COFE. Queen Mary tried to reverse this in part, but much of the Protestantization of the COFE was confirmed by Elizabeth.
“The Church of England (until very recent years) has diverged very little from the Roman Church.”
That really isn't true. Almost from the beginning, there has been a Reformed wing of the COFE. What IS true is that there has always been a good deal of residual Catholicism, at least among some Anglicans. However, my understanding is that residual Catholicism drew to a minimum by the beginning of the 19th century, and was only renewed with the Oxford Movement and folks like Cardinal Newman.
“After five Centuries, there is still very little difference between traditional Anglican belief and practice and those of the Roman Catholic Church — a fact that makes this unification even possible.”
It depends on what part of the COFE you're talking about. The Anglo-Catholics - sure. The evangelicals - not really. The liberals, not really at all. But I don't think that the Anglo-Catholics have been the majority in the COFE, or in the Anglican Communion generally, since some time in the 16th century.
And remember, no one is talking about reunion with the Church of England or with any other national church in the Anglican Communion. Rather, the Catholic Church is arranging to permit groups of Anglicans who have become finally alienated with the Anglican Communion and who are Anglo-Catholic, and for groups of Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who had already left the AC, to potentially come into the Catholic Church.
If the Anglo-Catholics weren't a relatively modest minority in the Anglican Communion, this wouldn't be needed.
Even so, I don't know whether even a majority of Anglo-Catholics will join the Church through the Apostolic Constitution. They may be more Catholic than the rest of the Anglican Communion, but many Anglo-Catholics may be unwilling, in the final analysis, to accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I've pinged someone who knows a lot more about this, who really has lived it. If she has a few moments, perhaps she may share her views on the subject.
sitetest
My priest did not mean to infer that they would be denigrated by being ordained again. Only that succession would once again be established.
The East-West schism was ancient history by then. The Eastern dominations were not obligated to the Bishop of Rome in Henry's time, but both were loyal followers of the Word.
There was not the reverence to the Pope purely on a spiritual basis then as their has been since the Papal States disintegrated 150 years ago. The Pope then was a ruler over valuable territory and a political ruler like any other king, prince or baron, including Henry.
The very concept of a nation-state was new then. Borders could easily change or wars could be avoided or created with a marriage or as in Henry;s case, a divorce.
The Pope in that age was more often than not just another player in the European power game who also happened to have a franchise on the common religion.
Henry decided for his own benefit, to break with Rome, but it was a political break in his eyes, and frankly would have been seen as that by any honest observe then.
I have no doubt that Henry had to answer to God for his earthly sins which were indeed many. But I do doubt that his 'schism' from Rome is one that he had to answer for. What he left with the Church of England, was no better and no worse than what he was born into with the Roman Church.
In an age when state and religion were inseparable, Henry's actions were understandable even though they were morally unjustified. It would eventually take the US Constitution (and much work beyond that) to allow religion to take it's proper place in the spiritual world (at least in the West) and allow politics to deal with the ugliness of every day society. Religion is much better off without the political intrigue. By the same token, politics without the spiritual context is becoming freighting.
I think perhaps that was what Jesus preached when he said "Render unto Caesar...
Actually, your previous point was that “Henry didn't found the Church of England at all...”
That point isn't true. Henry VIII founded the Church OF England by taking the Church IN England out of the Catholic Church.
If you now want to argue that he was only a schismatic rather than a heretic, well, I sorta made that point previously.
As for whether or not the crime of schism is serious, well, actually, it is considered a rather serious sin. One of the very big ones.
But it was not my intention to argue whether or not Henry was justified in committing this mortal sin.
“What he left with the Church of England, was no better and no worse than what he was born into with the Roman Church.”
An assertion with which I disagree, but I have been conversing on this thread for some days now, and don't really wish to continue on.
I will point out in closing, however, that you seem to contradict yourself:
“I have no doubt that Henry had to answer to God for his earthly sins which were indeed many. But I do doubt that his ‘schism’ from Rome is one that he had to answer for....
“In an age when state and religion were inseparable, Henry's actions were understandable even though they were morally unjustified.”
If his actions were morally unjustified, and if his actions concerned grave matter (and formal schism is grave matter), then he had to answer for them to God.
sitetest
I'd speculate that the murder of several wives was more than enough to condemn him for eternity. That he played hardball politics with equally hardball politicians in Rome would not be necessary to make a judgment on his life. I have no doubt that among Henry's room mates at his final destination are several former Popes.
I am not defending the man, but his place in history is significant. I could even make the argument that without him, the United States would have never existed. The founding of the Church of England allowed that nation to take a different path than Catholic Europe, (in that age dominated by Spain). With that intellectual freedom afforded by that different, very independent path the English blazed, independent philosophies emerged that eventually lead to the concepts of Natural Law and the very idea of individual sovereignty. No doubt that Henry would have opposed those ideas and put them to the sword. But what he set in motion with his schism changed the world for the better, albeit, that was never his intention.
“I'd speculate that the murder of several wives was more than enough to condemn him for eternity.”
If you wish to say that schism was merely one of many damning sins, and perhaps not his worst, I'm not sure I'd agree, but I won't argue the point further. After all, you can only be damned once.
“I am not defending the man, but his place in history is significant.”
Why don't you read my posts? I'm actually the fellow who has said that he FOUNDED THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. That's pretty significant, don't you think? But others, including you, have argued that point. Others have also said that he had nothing to do with the spiritual tradition of the COFE. I'm the one that says HE DID HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH THE SPIRITUAL TRADITION of the COFE. In fact, I've credited the remaining Catholicity of the COFE in large part to him.
“I could even make the argument that without him, the United States would have never existed.”
Maybe. Tougher to say. It's hard to imagine the “what ifs” of history, because by removing one discontinuity (in this case, the creation of the COFE), one doesn't know what other discontinuities might have arisen as a result.
“...independent philosophies emerged that eventually lead to the concepts of Natural Law and the very idea of individual sovereignty.”
Sorry, but Catholic theologians and philosophers were talking about natural law and individual rights a very, very long time before Henry or any reformers came around.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.