Episcopal Priest Divorces for Younger Man

[Albion]

4) As for the Church of England thing, I hate when we have to choose between two extreme narratives about anything. Henry VIII was a dastardly maverick who told Rome to shove it, or he was a harmless lamb whom Rome just misunderstood. Like most things in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Fair enough. But I never hear anyone take the 'harmless lamb' approach.

 

[Cloture]

Fair enough. But I never hear anyone take the 'harmless lamb' approach.

I think a lot of that comes because of the many bad things he did later on. History books tend to look at a leader's ultimate/defining behavior and, for the sake of simplicity, portray the person as having been that way all along.

 

[Albion]

I think a lot of that comes because of the many bad things he did later on. History books tend to look at a leader's ultimate/defining behavior and, for the sake of simplicity, portray the person as having been that way all along.

I'm not sure what you mean there, but I just have never heard anyone describe Henry as a harmless lamb, period. Maybe there's someone who has. He be quite mistaken if that's the case, but I'm just saying that this came a surprise to me to read since I've never encountered anyone who holds that view.

Among Anglicans, Henry is not admired, but neither do people think he was a "harmless lamb," either before or after the Reformation began.

 

[kit]

I believe her name is usually spelled differently, but that was not the point of my comment.

The church in England was about 1400+ years old at the time of Henry's dispute with the Papacy. No new church was created. But you'll say he wanted a divorce and so broke with the Catholic Church over it, but the long history of the Church in Britain shows that it had been independent of Rome for most of its history. For the first several centuries, historians say, it had almost no contact with the Roman church, and even the Magna Carta, 300 years before Henry, declared the church to be free. What Henry did was reassert its historic autonomy.

So then you might say that he changed its beliefs (which is why I mentioned Vatican II when your church changed ITS beliefs)...except that he did not do that. Henry was a dedicated Catholic, doctrinally speaking, and opposed any move in that direction. He was never, by the way, declared to be a heretic by the Roman Church.

Finally, the Pope ordered his followers to leave the church in England and set up their own Roman Catholic chapels, meaning that if anyone left anyone else, the Roman Catholic Church broke from the Church of England! In short, your jab was wrong in almost every way possible.

When the headship of the church is taken to be the King instead of a Bishop that is a new Church. The Church in England didn't acquiesce to the Roman Church on Easter for no reason. Henry may not have precisely intended to create a new Church but it happened nonetheless. By the time his daughter Elizabeth headed it, it was a new entity.

 

[Albion]

When the headship of the church is taken to be the King instead of a Bishop that is a new Church.

No, and that requires some understanding too. To be the "head," as Queen Elizabeth is, is hardly any different from the role the Eastern Emperor occupied for centuries as patron and protector of the church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the church for all intents and purposes; and the episcopal system, with Apostolic Succession, is hardly any different from any of the other historic churches. Of course also, neither the queen nor the Archbishop has any jurisdiction over The Episcopal Church or the other Anglican church bodies in the USA.

 

[SuperCloud]

They are agents of the Vatican and, ultimately, the Pope. You don't even get to BE an archbishop except for being tapped for the job by the Vatican....and if you suppose that, once in office, that man has complete discretion as to what to teach or how to run the archdiocese, recent history shows otherwise.

LOL. I wouldn't call them "agents." If they are in the USA and born here... then most of them are first and foremost American.

And becoming an Archbishop is not unlike how Obama became President. He was not a plumber (lay Catholic) he was a politician (Catholic clergy). Obama went to Harvard and traveled in the social circles that create Kings/Presidents. Kind of like if you're Catholic clergy then going to certain schools in Rome or the Vatican boosts your "upward mobility" chances. Milwaukee Area Technical College--nor UW-Milwaukee--are going to create a US President. But Harvard and the Ivy Leagues will and put you in elite social circles.

 

[Albion]

LOL. I wouldn't call them "agents." If they are in the USA and born here... then most of them are first and foremost American.

You may think the word agents to be too secular a word, but nationality has nothing to do with it. They are chosen by the Vatican and are expected to function according to the rules and principles of the Catholic Church. These clergy are NOT free agents. And if they get out of line, they can and have been disciplined.