St. Thomas More, King Henry VIII, and English History/Ecclesiology

(This thread is continued from here.)

- @highchurchman

I disagree with your first sentence, but the status of it as objectionable depends on the rest of this discussion.

I would need to look at the context to be sure, but he might just be saying that a pope can not overturn past universal Councils. He seems to have recognized a higher-than-average view of papal primacy (the juxtaposition would indicate this -- notice the build-up in the first half of the last sentence and the "yet" lowering in the second half).

But anyway, because the dogma of papal infallibility was not yet defined, he can not be blamed for not recognizing it.

That last sentence is debatable ("Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"), but I'll set it aside for now.

Doctrinal loyalty to the Pope, since at least the missionary efforts of St. Augustine of Canterbury, has always been present in England.

There was a Christian community prior to St. Augustine's efforts, but it was small, not very influential, and somewhat disconnected from the rest of the world -- England is an interesting case, definitely. But should you not look to the example of the first archbishop of Canterbury, the primus inter pares of your religion?

(Remember that the Synod of Whitby, an early synod, looked to the Papacy, too.)

I fail to see how the heinous actions of Henry II (the man who caused the death of St. Thomas Becket, an archbishop of Canterbury) and other kings justify the heinous actions of Henry VIII. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The First Vatican Council would seem to fit these requirements.

On the addition of the Filioque: http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...dition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration-

How, exactly, did the Pope bribe the clergy into participating? Also, how would such bribery negate their Conciliar decisions?

Nothing in the first of these paragraphs disproves the fact that they all met with the approval of the Papacy, which is the historical standard-bearer of orthodoxy.

The second is opinion-based. While it's true that everything that the Church teaches is taught (whether explicitly or implicitly) in Scripture, God's revelations to us surely do not end there (I mean, where exactly in Scripture is the Trinity spelled out?). God, through His Church, is constantly giving us insight. You seem to down-play the importance of the Councils. Universal Councils do not gain in superiority over the years; they are perpetually orthodox.

(More on the Pope-Council relationship here: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-robber-council-establishes-papacy.html)

 

Coercion invalidates free will in Thomism, as I am sure you know. Any actions done under coercion cannot be said to be done freely and have no validity.

Why not the most recent, the Second Vatican Council?

Insofar as the Popes have often erred and practiced heresy, the approval of the "Papacy" is not a historical standard-bearer of orthodoxy, and never has been for Catholics prior to 1870. European countries often have, and did, forbid the publication of Papal edicts without ceasing to be Roman Catholics. Charles V sacked Rome and imprisoned the Pope in his little palace, whether the Pope disapproved it or not.

 

- @Spherelink

Does bribery constitute negating coercion, though? I don't think that it does.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the "necessity of coercion" is that in which "a thing must be, when someone is forced by some agent, so that he is not able to do the contrary" [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. Bribery does not force anyone to do anything, though it does incentivize behavior.

Still, I know of no evidence that there even was bribery.

Because @highchurchman referred to the 1870 Council (the First Vatican Council), not the 1965 Council (the Second Vatican Council). If you would like to discuss the latter, though, we can.

Read the following, from Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Solovyov's "Russia and the Universal Church" (p. 15-17) [LINK]:

I urge that you continue reading -- he had great insight -- but this passage alone is, I think, enough to defend my point.

 

I do not think that that mess of propaganda filled with charged words and unsubstantiated opinions has any great insight at all.
Moreover you did not address my point. You asserted that Rome's opinion had been a standard-bearer of orthodoxy but as Charles V's troops rummaged and looted through Rome they did not think so. Prior to the ultramontanist triumph in 1870, what constitutes the Catholic church was hotly disputed in your church's camp. Just ask the Gallicans and those like Thomas More as quoted by the @highchurchman. Holding the Pope to be subject to the Councils, and all that.

 

- @Spherelink

How, exactly, does a military operation disprove religious doctrine?

I've addressed this. Prior to the definition of a doctrine, when it is held by the conscience of the Church as a mere theory, it can be disputed.

 

It disproves a doctrine that Rome and the Pope are inviolate and their approval is the standard-bearer of ortodoxy, even to a Roman Catholic.

Then we agree, for that is what I am saying as well. Papal supremacy was disputed throughout the history of your church.

 

This is, essentially, just a repeat of your previous statement. You're offering the equivalent of "because" in response to my equivalent of "why".

An entity physically attacking another entity has absolutely no necessary bearing on the merit for either side.

It was also supported throughout the history of the Church.

 

You don't attack an entity which has merit in your eyes. That's all I meant to say.

Here is where the seminary education comes in useful, as, sure the Pope's supremacy was defended, but it was also questioned. To summarize both views, his supremacy was debated and one could reject his supremacy and still be a Catholic. This became impossible after 1870. So Thomas More rejected the Popes supremacy in just this way. We argue that many in the Church of England of the Middle Ages doubted him (far more often than on the Continent. See Anselm of Canterbury.) we were in union with him even despite often questioning his preposterous claims, because the errors and heresies were not yet clearly apparent. When those errors were brought to light at the Reformation, and rather than fixed were turned into heretical teachings at Trent, Rome departed from the Catholic church.

 

Well, I don't think many in the CofE would go along with that. In spite of rejections reinforced by the last two Popes we still consider the RC Church to be our beloved sister church. We recognise Roman orders, confirmation and baptism and welcome RCs to communion. And although they're not allowed to by their church, some do take it.

 

What else is new? Rome and the Lutherans signed a joint declaration in 2000 saying that they had no substantial differences on Justification after all. Does that mean they didn't? it's the disease of ecumenism.

 

True. Lutherans are "faith alone" that's literally their slogan. How can yhat possibly gel with RC teaching? Who moved?

 

- @Spherelink

A person's disbelief -- whether temporary or permanent -- has no bearing on the truth of a theology. The Church is above, not subordinate or equal to, temporal authorities. Christ's Bride submits to no other man.

I'm still waiting for definitive evidence that he rejected it. Like I said (at the very beginning of this thread) about the quote from him: "I would need to look at the context to be sure, but he might just be saying that a pope can not overturn past universal Councils. He seems to have recognized a higher-than-average view of papal primacy (the juxtaposition would indicate this -- notice the build-up in the first half of the last sentence and the "yet" lowering in the second half)."

What "errors" and "heresies" did the Church teach? On Her supposed apostasy: When was it?

 

"Disease"? I'm rather in favour of ecumenism myself.

 

Referring to the above, which in turn referred to the assertion that there is "no Protestant Church of England", as an Anglican I regard myself as being both catholic and Protestant.

 

We are wasting time, the question should be, who defines?
We say it is the Bishops through the seven Councils, who define Revelation brought to us by Scripture!
In this Scripture there's no mention of The papacy, or indeed the Bishop of Rome. Neither was there much talk about the Papacy or Roman Bishop's authority for about 350 years. He was there of course, but the authority held by the Roman Bishop was no more than any other bishops . He was limited by the Catholic Canons ,especially those of three Councils, Niceae, Chalcedon and Constantinople. These canons curtailed the authority of predatory bishops limiting them first to their own see ,or to sees,where they had customary rights or authority!

Authority for the Bishop Rome came from first of all from his position as the Roman Emperor's parish priest. When the Emperor of the Romans was pestered by bishops from all over the Empire he used the Bishop of the Roman's for a foil. It might have been hard work being a civil dept., of state and a trifle demeaning, a descendant of the Apostles being used to reclaim houses that had been stolen by sect's, but the prestige of being a Servant of the great Emperor paid off. Eventually, I think it was one of the Valentinians ,gave the Pope permission to use the State Polis, 'The Stasi,' for their own use. The fact that the Empire abandoned Rome for Constantinople didn't hurt the Roman Church either and we find as late as Justinian, the Imperial police doing arrests at the behest of the pope. Leo the Great actually sent his,' Stasi,' over the Alps to arrest a Doctor of the Church resident at Lerins. (S. Basil ).They even fiddled Canons of the Council of Sardis). All through the Sixth & Seventh Century, indeed all through the early Church till the Will of Constantine there were constant accusations of Roman Forgeries, usually Niceaen Canons being forged for the benefit of the Roman Court. Both S.Cyprian and S.Augustine were victims of this. Then came the biggest and best forgery, The Donation of Constantine!
The Roman Court might not have laboured with their own hands at this latter and the Forged Decretals which were to follow a few years later. The Donation was a forged will supposedly written by Constantine giving practically the whole world to the Pope, the Decretals were letters and Commands purportedly from Emperors giving immense power and authority to various Bishops of Rome.It took 800 yrs before these were found to be forged. 800 years of custom and practice it was Christ's Mass all the way!

Regarding the Pope's endevours in England? They were a failure all the way! First of all he had no right, according to the Canons, to interfere, there were already Catholic bishops here, A Bishop of London and a bishop of York as well as a bishop of Caerlon who was the Primate of Britain or possibly the Britons..
According to our Catholic Traditions a statement was given Augustine from the British Bishops, we are told from S.Dinooth, then Abbot of Bangor Iscoed, a Celtic Abbey just past Chester. It read, " Be it known to you without any ambiguity, that we are all obedient to the Bishop of Rome and to every christian, to love each in his own order with perfect charity and to aid each one of them to become Sons of God in thought word and deed. And I know not of any other than this due to him whom ye style pope, nor that he has a claim to be styled father of Fathers. The aforesaid obedience we are ready to yield to him and every Christian. Further we are under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon who is appointed to oversee us and make us keep to the spiritual path."

Regarding the Church of England leaving the Catholic Church, that is just not true, you've been misled! It was the Bishop of Rome who fell out with Henry when the King realised that the Bishop of Rome and his court had sold the English King a pup, not delivered the goods and then kept the money!

The Roman Cleric in a fit of picque made the separation and that against Henry only, it was not till 1572, that the Pope called his supporters out of the English Church and prior to then we are told that most likely Elizabeth would have give the Trentists their own bishops, it was the Pope's call for Eliza's asassination and Rome's call for the War against England that ruined a quiet life for the sectarians.

 

Matthew Olson.


Interestingly for about five hundred years there was a struggle regarding where the magisterium lay in the Catholic Church , about five councils were held with this as the first subject. Two Popes were sacked ,at least one was imprisoned and one did a runner! It was decided that the authority lay with the Bishops in Council. (See Thomas More.) The unfortunate thing was, the Church couldn't enforce its views because it had no militia. It relied on the Kings,Emperors and N0bles to wield the strong arm! Sadly the Bishop of Rome was also King/or?Ruler of most of Northern Italy and the Continental Monarchs were not ready to reduce one of their own.Interestingly for about five hundred years there was a struggle regarding where the magisterium lay in the Catholic Church , about five councils were held with this as the first subject. Two Popes were sacked ,at least one was imprisoned and one did a runner! It was decided that the authority lay with the Bishops in Council. (See Thomas More.) The unfortunate thing was, the Church couldn't enforce its views because it had no militia. It relied on the Kings,Emperors and N0bles to wield the strong arm! Sadly the Bishop of Rome was also King/or?Ruler of most of Northern Italy and the Continental Monarchs were not ready to reduce one of their own.

If you are not prepared to seek out truth, there's not much we can do about it. Study the original reports of the Latin Councils of the Middle Ages and understand the wider implication of Thom More's letter! This by the way probably the premier Historical society within the British Isles. What is your explanation of two popes being dethroned and one running away?

History. Vol.L111 No.177. Feb., 1698. D.Hay!

 

The Church below where I live, thought as you did , most of the Clergy went to Rome and have been followed by the more devout of the laity, but they still cannot lay ch., & verse for their move, still cannot explain why they were in a Church that didn't believe in Jurisdiction or Infallibility? Or indeed they didn't know that the Church in England was as old as the Church of Rome and in its beliefs still sticks to the Old Belifs of their fathers, rather than of Trent as many of the English ANGLO Papalists still do. One of the English Papalists actually, admitted that he believed in neither Jurisdiction, or Infallibility nor Transubstantiation.
I told him that I thought that He and the Bishop of Rome deserved one another.

 

Yet again my reply mechanism has been playing up, but I think I've sorted out the problem.

Anyhow, I was intrigued by your phrase, "thought as you did". Most mainstream CofE people I know think as I do about the RC Church. We are both parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To the best of my knowledge none is thinking of moving to Rome. And the wretched "Personal Ordinariate" turns out to be a damp squib.

If you want me to list my reasons for not wanting to move to Rome, please let me know. Meantime, in our town, we enjoy cordial relations with both the local RC and Methodist churches. Thank God.