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

@Matthew. I love the quote from Tertullian, "A]ll the powers and dignities [e.g. kings and queens] of this world are not only alien to, but enemies of, God..."
It's so refreshing after seeing recent (not on this forum) quotes from Augustinian Calvinists who say that all rulers are put in power by God.

 

That's a bit silly. St. Constantine convened and presided over the Council of Nicea. And peter surely you are aware of the state/church intertwining in the Greek Orthodoxy going as far as revering the Emperor of the Roman (sic) Empire as the vicar of God.

 

Interesting Perspective Matthew. I would respectfully offer some responses.

You may want to reread what I wrote. I would argue (and did ) that the only way that a foreign bishop's doctrinal opinions may be binding on a jurisdiction outside of his own is because it appeals to the authority in that jurisdiction, either based upon the universal authority of God's Word or based upon the support or at least acquiescence local temporal and/or spiritual authorities (kings and bishops). The distinction here is key. What is definitive is this, not that kings enforced the decisions of popes, but that they may enforce but are always free not to enforce them. Many kings in England did enforce the decisions of popes but, many, especially those starting with Henry VIII chose not to. As St Peter, the first so-called Pope, commands us in God's Word, we must "Fear God. Honour the King." And as for the Popes, well, I suppose it depends on what they stand on a given issue.

No, I don't find it endearing at all, nor did my ancestors, which is why they rebelled and founded a new nation where the power of the Prince resided with the People. One reason why I consider myself an Anglo-Catholic is because it is the only perspective that Anglicanism makes sense in a disestablished, non-monarchical nation such as the US. But that is beside the point, as dangerous as the idea of a King making such a claim, the danger is just as real for those who adhere to a Pope who pretends to speak infallibley with universal, magesterial, ordinary jurisdiction. The same scenario may be just as likely with Pope Francis as it is QE2.

Got it.

 

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with the establishment and the Crown as the governor of the church. Many times in Christian history this has been the case. Can it be explained what's wrong with it?

 

Niether do I. I see nothing "necessarily wrong" with having a king or a church that is attached to the state per se. I suppose it depends in who the king is. Sort of a Saul vs. David thing. Although, I think the Prophet Samuel had some interesting things to say about kings

 

see here: 1 Samuel 8
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8&version=KJV

 

[/QUOTE]

Does this include the various popes when they were the Kings of Northern Italy,from the disappearance of the last Emperor to 1870 when the Italian People got rid of them? Although were allowed to keep the Vatican State?

Where does it mention either pope or Bishop of Rome in scripture or Holy Tradition? Certainly not in the list above.!
If it were honestly mentioned in scripture or tradition, would the papacy have been so desperate as to resort to forgeries and half truths as Rome did in its quarrel with Carthage and Africa? Or in the arguments later when they produced a forged copy of Sardica and tried to pass it off as Niceae?

 

+Recognised the Pope as their spiritual 'boss.'?
Not it!. AS I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, HE WAS PRIMATE OF THE WEST, no more and he was given that position as a political gesture to the Emperor Constantine, whose civil servant he was. According to three ecumenical councils he had no right to interfere in other bishop's sees without their permission.
His spiritual rights were not touched as you can see if you read the history of the Church in England. He was a bishop and given all due as such.

But the real argument isn't about being a ,'spiritual boss,' is it? It is about building empires within the Church, the Body of Christ! Claiming to have a Jurisdiction over all Christianity and have Infallibility over the Church.
As Leo XIII, is reported to have said"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." Or Pius X , 'The pope is not only representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Him self, hidden under the veil of flesh. Does the pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who speaks."
What happened when Pope Honorius committed his utterance to the world ,"We confess one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ" and supported the Monothelite Heresy! (Mansi.) Further, he did this in the capacity of the Bishop of Rome!

What was it the sixth General Council shouted in unison? 'We have judged that Honorious who was pope of Elder Rome that ....he should be cast out of the Holy Church of God and be anathematised.' Also, "Anathema to the heretic Sergius ! Anathema to the Heretic Honorious.
The Conciliar Decree was signed by the by the papal legates and all the bishops. Honorious had his second letter burnt as impious and hurtful to the soul.

Chapman . The Condemnation of Pope Honoriuos.P.51.

 

Cardinal Pope was the Anglican Papist, Archbishop of Canterbury . He died out of favour with the Pope, being suspected of Lutheran tendencies.

 

Is "Cardinal Pope" yet another typo, or an attempt at irony?

 

Typo! Don't worry, I've reprimanded the dog!

The information came from

Dixon's History of the Church of England Vol., II. pg, 369.

Pole. Liber Concilia.

 

@Lowly Layman

I disagree. In some matters (though not necessarily all - see the principle of "collegiality"), the Pope does have superseding authority.

Jerome said to Pope St. Damasus I: "I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the Church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth."

That doesn't necessarily defend your view. According to John Wesley's commentary on it, the verse (1 Peter 2:17) just means: "Honour all men - As being made in the image of God, bought by his Son, and designed for his kingdom. Honour the king - Pay him all that regard both in affection and action which the laws of God and man require."

"I am the King's good servant, but God's first." - St. Thomas More

I think not. The Pope has a limited spiritual jurisdiction; the King has a potentially-unlimited spiritual AND temporal jurisdiction.

 

- @Spherelink

- @Lowly Layman

Again, I disagree. The Pope has a limited spiritual jurisdiction; the King has a potentially-unlimited spiritual AND temporal jurisdiction. Plus, the Pope is bound to rule by God (his authority depends on it), while the King is not, which brings me to one of my favorite quotes:

"I would rather be ruled by people who think they're gonna fry in Hell forever if they rule me poorly, than by people for whom I'm merely a convenient economic siphon who can be milked like a cow." - Charles A. Coulombe

1 Samuel 8 warned against monarchy (only in a particular case, of course) and reveals that God worked with the wishes of His people and allowed them to have a king, leading them to the expanded covenant.

 

- @highchurchman

It could, in their temporal authority. Popes do not have the gift of infallibility in non-doctrinal matters.

Scripture (here, only referring to Scripture in the Biblical canon), of course, does not refer to the "pope" or the "Bishop of Rome" explicitly -- neither does it refer explicitly to the "Trinity"! Tradition (including other orthodox Scripture, Councils, etc.), on the other hand, does. Again, see the link provided.

History is littered with forged documents (see the Donation of Constantine, for example), but none of these disprove the doctrinal infallibility of the Pope.

The Pope is, indeed, the Vicar of Christ, and many popes have pointed this out, sometimes aggressively.

Ah, Honorius. See this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Excerpt:

Pope Honorius I failed in that he didn't condemn Monothelitism as heresy; he made a mistake. But he did not adopt it himself or impose it on the Church. The ex cathedra authority of the Papacy was not impacted by him.

 

Of course you would feel that way.The real question is: why? I need more than a statement of opinion.

 

The Anglican Catholic Church presents a very salient discussion on Anglicanism's views of the Papacy (albeit from an anglo-catholic perspective). It can be found here: http://www.anglicancatholic.org/anglicanism-and-papacy?class=greenlink

 

Matthew Olson.

There's nothing in Our Lord's Revelation , or Gospel regarding either the Holy Roman Church or the Dogma of Infallibility.

If there is you've missed it out signally!

The doctrine states roughly that ,'it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff is possessed of that infallibilty which the Divine Redeemer willed for His Church.' Vatican Council.

Proclaimed by Pope Pius IX. July 18. 1870.

A dogma to be Catholic, I was taught ,must have three essential notes,

1 . A truth positively and definitely stated.

2. It must have directly or by necessary inference, the sure warrant of scripture.

3. It must be a truth which has been duly attested by the undivided Church speaking through an Ecumenical Council and subsequently accepted everywhere and by all in Christendom.

R.Rev., A.N. Littlejohn , Bishop of New York.

The Vatican I ,'Dogma,' mentioned above declared in 1870, was chiefly based on 3 Scriptural References but the main one to my mind is Matthew 16, vs.16/18."Thou art Peter! Well known as the Rock verse!

Bishop Butler , of Down & Dromore, in his classic ,' Handbook ,'tells us that in the Creed of Pius IV, which was and still is,obligatory on all Roman Clerics and those who promise to swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome" , it is professed , concerning Holy Scripture , "nor will I ever understand or interpret it, except according to the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers."

Now, it would be thought highly likely that in appointing a Vice regent , other than the 'Holy Ghost the Comforter," Christ would have told His Body the Church? Preferably within the first three centuries, not towards the end of the 19th, Century!

As for ,Direct Warrant of Scripture,!

Scripture at that place 16/18 is taken by the Fathers to deal with S.Peter certainly, but many, more than not, believe it is Christ bringing the unfortunate man back in to the apostolic fold after his betrayal of Christ and his terrible blunder in contradicting Our Lord, on the matter of His approaching death. As for the,' Rock,' most of the Fathers that it is the Confession,”Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,”that is the important part, and there fore that Christ was referring the Rock to S. Peter's Confession! Interestingly this is the position after an honest look at scripture & tradition . Maldonatus an eminent Jesuit, of the Reformation era, who'se work the Catholic Encyclopaedia pronounced as,”One of the best ever published,' writes.”There are amongst the ancient authors some who interpret ,”on this rock, that is on”on this faith,” or on this confession of faith,”.He follows Gregory of Nyssen, S. Hilary, Chrysostom, and S. Cyril of Alexandria. S. Augustine interprets the Rock as Christ Himself. Whilst Origen, believes that the Rock is all men who hold the Catholic Faith. Interestingly , Archbishop Kenrick, in a speech prepared for the Vatican I ,summarised the case as, “From this it follows either no argument at all, or only a very feeble on , can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words,' on this rock will I build my Church'. Launoy, a Roman writer, enquired and found that there are seventeen fathers in favour of S. Peter being the rock, forty ffour for it meaning the faith S. Peter confessed; and sixteen for it being Christ Himself. Eight being all the apostles.

There is very little to support the Roman case.
And we should remember, even if there were, there is no sign of it being passed on to the Roman Court!