King Henry VIII and Great Bible question

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm not worried what he might have done to my body - it's my head I was thinking of.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Matthew 14:10 and having sent, he beheaded John in the prison,
[Revelation 17:14]

YouTube - Alice in Wonderland: Off With His Head

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Gotcha. I remember when I was in reception (for those not au fait with british education this is the first year of school, age 4-5) and we went on a school trip to some place where there was loads of spikes and being told that it was where your head went if you'd done a nasty, to warn off everyone else.
Not sure if that was Tudor or earlier though. Wouldn't put it past him mind.

Nothing more worse than a woman scorned

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

Rotherham) Judges 4:21 Then took Jael, wife of Heber, the tent-pin, and put the mallet in her hand, and went in unto him, softly, and smote the tent-pin into his temples, and it pierced through into the ground,--he being fast asleep and shrouded in darkness, and he died.
[Judges 5:1]

 

[Mr Dave]

Nothing more worse than a woman scorned

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

Rotherham) Judges 4:21 Then took Jael, wife of Heber, the tent-pin, and put the mallet in her hand, and went in unto him, softly, and smote the tent-pin into his temples, and it pierced through into the ground,--he being fast asleep and shrouded in darkness, and he died.

Hell hath no fury like one or so they say.

Don't forget the Song of Deborah immediately following on which puts it even better IMO;

She put her hand to the tent peg
and her right hand to the workman's mallet;
she struck Sisera a blow
she crushed his head
she shattered and pierced his temple
He sank, he fell,
he lay still at her feet
at her feet he sank, he fell;
where he sank, there he fell dead


Like to get the message across don't they at the end that he did in fact die.

 

[Mr Dave]

Title Page from the 1539

There seems to be (especially in the ones from the 1540s) an emphasis given on who Henry is, being chosen by God to rule as King "Henry becomes the obvious link to spiritual authority from God". Presumably in showing the prevention of Papal authority in what had recently been title an empire (so Papal authority would be seen as invasion of imperialistic nature.

Ideas and picture taken from here JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Title Page from the 1539

There seems to be (especially in the ones from the 1540s) an emphasis given on who Henry is, being chosen by God to rule as King "Henry becomes the obvious link to spiritual authority from God". Presumably in showing the prevention of Papal authority in what had recently been title an empire (so Papal authority would be seen as invasion of imperialistic nature.

Ideas and picture taken from here JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Interesting.
Sounds a lot like Pontius Pilate vs the Judean rulers at the trial of Jesus

Young) John 19:11 Jesus answered, `Thou wouldest have no authority against me, if it were not having been given thee from above;
because of this, he who is delivering me up to thee hath greater sin.'

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hell hath no fury like one or so they say.

Don't forget the Song of Deborah immediately following on which puts it even better IMO;

She put her hand to the tent peg
and her right hand to the workman's mallet;
she struck Sisera a blow
she crushed his head
she shattered and pierced his temple
He sank, he fell,
he lay still at her feet
at her feet he sank, he fell;
where he sank, there he fell dead


Like to get the message across don't they at the end that he did in fact die.

Not sure what you mean

 

[Mr Dave]

I think I was just agreeing with you that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and giving a Biblical example. Although it was a while back, anything could have been on my thought-train

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think I was just agreeing with you that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and giving a Biblical example. Although it was a while back, anything could have been on my thought-train

This woman looks likes she's been scorned

Young) Revelation 17:3 and he carried me away to a wilderness in the Spirit, and I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of evil-speaking, having seven heads and ten horns

NKJV) Revelation 17:7 But the angel said to me, "Why did you marvel?
I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

 

[MKJ]

once he denied the authority of the Pope he became protestant, the fact that he was harsh on other protestants should come as no great shock

Do you consider sedevacantists or Old Catholics Protestants? Or the East, or Indian Christians who refused to come under the Pope?

Even from the position of the Catholic Church, the English Church wasn't Protestant for some time after Henry, until Edward, when they say apostolic orders were lost.

 

[MKJ]

No, by God's standards, there is no such thing as divorce. Henry knew this and that is why he petitioned for an annulment declaring that his marriage had been invalid. The whole argument was scandalous to Catherine who was much beloved by the people.

The fact that Catherine died in a convent far away from the magisterial drama prior to his marriage to Jane Seymour does not negate in any way his guilt and his treachery. Until the day of Catherine's death, King Henry had no right to marry Anne Boleyn. Events that occurred afterwards were just as troublesome.

Though a king has every right to execute justice in his kingdom, including capital punishment, there is no doubt that he exercised this authority just like King David did when he sent Uriah to the front-lines to take his wife. You would say that David did no wrong because Bathsheba's husband had died in a perfectly legit way in battle and so they were free to marry. But God declared otherwise and judged him harshly. As far as canon law is concerned, it is an impediment to marriage that one party killed the previous spouse in order to marry someone else which thus renders the marriage to Jane Seymour also invalid.


A ruling of annulment is a finding of fact, not a dissolution. The supposed facts were undeniably false and scandalous. The people knew it, Catherine knew it, Henry knew it and God knew it. Lying to get your way doesn't make it true. The reason the pope refused the annulment was because there was no case.

Henry forced the clergy to assent to his headship of the church and to recognize the illicit and invalid annulment of his 24 year marriage with Catherine of Aragon. St. Thomas More died rather than assent to this blasphemy and treachery (even though he wouldn't attack the king for it either). Ironically, I found a children's book of saints at my Anglican parish that had the name of the parochial school scrawled on the cover and the very last saint in the book was St. Thomas More.


St. Thomas More, ora pro nobis!

You do realize that CogA died before Henry married the wives after AB? There was no impediment to his marriages to them on those grounds. And they all died before he remarried, except in the case on non-consummation.

 

[MKJ]

What proportion of churches, RCC aside, have canon laws dealing with that kind of stuff?I don't have my Canons of the CofE at work, but I can't find any reference to annullment in the Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia.You made the claim this is how it works in all churches, but you don't seem to have any basis for that claim.

I do believe it was English law, and remains law in most of the English speaking, and indeed Christian world.

Non-consummation was and is grounds for annulment, and in the CC of the time in question it was undoubtedly so.

However, IIRC today in the Catholic Church, it isn't necessarily a automatic case for annulment, but that is a change.

 

[MKJ]

I don't see that there would have been any impediment anyway, Arthur was dead by then.



Well exactly. Catherine was a true wife; her marriage to Henry was valid and legal. So why did Henry have it annulled on Scriptural grounds - that it was unlawful to marry your brother's wife?
Deuteronomy 25:5 says that if a woman's huisband dies, she must not marry outside the family, but her husband's brother should marry her and fulfil his duties as a brother-in-law.

According to Henry, his marriage to Catherine was unlawful because she was his brother's widow; according to Scripture, he had a duty to marry her. But I also fail to see the problem when the first husband had died. "Til death do us part" - death breaks the marriage contract.

Which meant that he was divorced from Catherine - whatever semantics he may have chosen to assuage his conscience.

The law of the church said that it was not allowed to marry your brothers wife. By which it means, after he is dead.

 

[Strong in Him]

The law of the church said that it was not allowed to marry your brothers wife. By which it means, after he is dead.

But if your husband is dead, he's no longer your husband, and you become a widow rather than a wife.

Even if there was any doubt about this in our law, Paul uses it as an illustration in Romans;
"if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage" (Rom 7:2-3).

Elsewhere in the OT it says that a widow should marry her husband's brother to continue the family name. It was this passage that the Sadducees were referring to when they gave Jesus an example of a woman who had been married 7 times and asked whose wife she'd be at the resurrection.

As I see it, Henry was just using part of the OT to try to justify something that he had already decided to do.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ebia

What proportion of churches, RCC aside, have canon laws dealing with that kind of stuff?I don't have my Canons of the CofE at work, but I can't find any reference to annullment in the Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia.You made the claim this is how it works in all churches, but you don't seem to have any basis for that claim.
​

I do believe it was English law, and remains law in most of the English speaking, and indeed Christian world.

Non-consummation was and is grounds for annulment, and in the CC of the time in question it was undoubtedly so.

However, IIRC today in the Catholic Church, it isn't necessarily a automatic case for annulment, but that is a change.

How has it been changed?




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ebia
What proportion of churches, RCC aside, have canon laws dealing with that kind of stuff?I don't have my Canons of the CofE at work, but I can't find any reference to annullment in the Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia.You made the claim this is how it works in all churches, but you don't seem to have any basis for that claim.

I do believe it was English law, and remains law in most of the English speaking, and indeed Christian world.

Non-consummation was and is grounds for annulment, and in the CC of the time in question it was undoubtedly so.

However, IIRC today in the Catholic Church, it isn't necessarily a automatic case for annulment, but that is a change.

Indeed!




.