Thomas Cranmer resigned his celibate Cambridge fellowship, and left to marry . His first wife died in child birth and so he was able to be subsequently ordained. a Catholic priest, having taken a vow of celibacy.

The Kings great matter

Catherine of Aragon always maintained that her marriage to Prince Arthur had never been consummated...however Henry had carnal knowedge of Anne Boleyn’s sister.

Given the character of the two parties, I would go for the virteous Queen’s testimony. The only bishop who stood by the Queen was the Godly and exceptional Bishop of Rochester, a no nonsense Yorkshire man, St John Fisher....he paid for this ultimately with his life. As did Sir Thomas More, the chief lawyer in England...and some Carthusian friars. when More saw them being taken off to execution, he remarked they were like grooms on their wedding day.

Cranmer took an oath of fidelity to the Papacy , so he could receive the Pallium from Rome.  (the pallium is the Y shaped woollen stole which is laid on the tomb of St Peter before being sent from Rome....it is still on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s coat of arms). Prior to taking the oath, he took an oath before lawyers, which he felt could get him out of the implications of the Papal oath.

In the papal oath , Cranmer swore to “uphold the Roman Papacy,and the prerogatives of St Peter. I will be their helper to keep and defend against all men...”

In early 1533 Cranmer headed an annulment tribunal in the provincial town of Dunstable and declared the marriage null...Henry had already married Anne Boleyn and she was with child. The tribunal was made to look legal by the passing of an act to restrain appeals to Rome, who had oerdered that the case was exclusively handled by them.The formal split with Rome would occur in 1535.

Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury for the rest of Henry’s reign , and during that period lived an outward life of celibacy, whilst maintaining a wife in secret., who legend says he smuggled into the country in a coffin. He knew his Royal Master, hated clerical marriage and prosecutions of Clergy were made for breaking celibacy, especially when the Act ofsix articles was passed.One of which re-asserted celibacy. The Catholic sacramental system continued unchallenged. Protestants were also persecuted during the same period.

Wo to a land where a boy is King ...

The first action he did on the accession of the child king Edward the sixth in 1547 was to allow clerical marriage and introduce general absolution. Interestingly these are the two chief demands of modern liberal dissenting Catholics.

He abolished the Roman Mass with his production of a Book of Common Prayer . the Mass had been the worship of the Catholic church in England for over 900 years.  Indeed the Mass pre-dated England which did not emerge until the ninth century. In wales and Ireland , the Latin Mass had been the liturgy of the church for centuries prior to that

He had helped replace in 1535 the ultimate authority of the Pope with the authority of the English crown. A fact that has caused the crisis of authority within Anglicanism in the 21 st century. The power of the Sovereign and Parliamant being replaced in reality ( although the fiction of Royal appointments continues, as does the authority of Parliament)by a democartic General Synod....as are all the other churches that have sprung from Anglicanism.

The Protestant reformation in England did not in the main bubble up from the people, it was imposed by Parliament., with coercive measures, which involved fines, imprisonment and ultimate death. The veiw of modern historical research, shows the inate conservatism of the English people on the eve of the Reformation.There were actual rebellions in Cornwall and Devon 1549 and the northern counties ( 1536 and 1569).,and a faithful remnant of the Catholics kept the Catholic Faith..which would be persecuted in varying degrees for nearly 300 years, until 1829. In fact some anti Cathloic legisaltion still remains on the Statue books.

As for the Pope I refuse him as anti-Christ...Thomas Cranmer

Thankfully ,Bishop Forsyth welcomed Pope Benedict as his Christian brother

Robert is responding my article posted here (scroll down to #2)

What a lot of garbage. Its like the 1950s and Dr Rumbold on 2SM and the split in the ALP all over again. The half truths remind me again of why Rome is wrong. Lets deal firstly with the ‘saintly’ John Fisher and in so doing we will see that the people of England groaned under the Roman oppression.

In 1513 Dr Colet was chosen by Archbishop Warham (of Canturbury) to preach a sermon to Convocation. His sermon told the clergy to reform their lives he preached against moral laxity and concubinage, against their trade and business activities and against the “filth and uncleanliness’ of the ecclesiastical courts.

One example of these courts was Richard Hunne who brought an action (Praemunire) in the Kings Bench as a response to an action brought againt him by the Rector of his parish because Hunne wouldn’t give the Rector the winding sheet in which Hunnes infant child was wrapped at his funeral.

Hunne was then arrested, heretical books were found in his possession and this London merchant of previous good character was examined under torture by Cuthbert Tunstall (the Archbishop of Canterbury’s chancellor) and then strangled while in an ecclesiastical prison A grand jury found a case of willful murder against leading Roman churchmen. The Abp of Canterbury prevented the trial from proceeding. Instead his creatures declared Hunne a contumacious heretic and burnt his strangled body. That meant (among other things) his estate was forfeit. So the church of rome profited from this strange legal action (strange because Hunne had never been tried for heresy)

The Commons raised this matter, the Kings preacher Dr Standish tried to deal with the proof text “touch not my anointed” in a proper manner (by looking at it in the context of the Psalm) and was then threatened by another ecclesiastic “Sir (addressing Mr Speaker) I warrant you Dr Standish will not abide by his opinion at his peril.”

The matter again came before parliament where the Commons raised the traditional issues of plural beneficies, of the church courts of clergy running businesses instead of attending to the Gospel. Saintly Dr Fisher said “My Lords you see daily what bills have come hither (the House of Lords) from the Commons and all to the destruction of the Church. For Gods sake see what a realm the kingdom of Bohemia was and when the Church went down then fell the glory of the kingdom” This was a clear reference to Huss and the invasion and devestation of Bohemia by the Empire to suppress the Hussite ‘heresy’. So that the saintly Dr Fisher was saying
Firstly that to suggest the church needed to amend its living was heresy
Secondly that he saw such heresy being put down by foreign armies

Sources A G Dickens The English Reformation pp 131 -9

I will return to this shortly.

Robert ian Williams - 21 July 2008 07:17 AM

Wo to a land where a boy is King ...

Just wondering when you’re planning to cite that against Josiah, with whom Edward VI has so often been compared.

I don’t think physical age has much to do with it.  Here’s the no-nonsense no-flattery Latimer:

“Blessed is the land, where there is a noble king; where kings be no banqueters, no players, and where they spend not their time in hunting and hawking....

“And yet there be some wicked people that will say (and there are still some wicked Pelagians who continue to say), Tush, this gear will not tarry; it is but my Lord Protector’s and my Lord of Canterbury’s doing:  the King is a child, and he knoweth not of it....

“I will tell you this, and speak it even as I think; his Majesty hath more godly wit and understanding, more learning and knowledge, at this age, than twenty of his progenitors, that I could name, had at any time of their life.”

(Sermons, vol. i. p. 89, 90, 1758 edn.)

Mr kirsop..thank you for your response.

Please could you kindly show which facts are inaccurate in my blog.....I have never said that the Catholic Church on the eve of the Reformation in England was perfect, but for every Hunne case you bring up, I can bring other equally shocking ones which occured under the Protestant regimes....such as St Margaret Clitheroe, York housewife, indited for harbouring a Catholic priest, crushed to death under a wooden door on the race course. She was pregnant at the time.

However that would get us nowhere.

You do not answer my central charge that Cranmer for fifteen years lived ostensibly as a celibate and at the same time was married.  Is that the action of Godly man.... I think not. That is to bear false witbness..it is a fundamental of Catholic theology that you never do evil to bring about good.

As for Daniel, I think it is beyond question that the position of a child as King was exploited by the Regency Council....look at Somerset’s looting.

But would you say such things never happen under adult monarchs?

Your paraphrase of Ecclesiastes was in the context of Cranmer’s replacement of the Mass and other religious changes.  Do you seriously doubt that Edward knew exactly what they were about and approved what the ABC did?

If you’d like this thread to continue “live”, it would be better not to refer to your OP as a “blog” - the rules under the “Dead Horses” section say that when posts become pseudo-blogs the thread is liable to be sent thither....

On reviewing your OP I feel that you’d like to revise the following wording:

“He abolished the Roman Mass with his production of a Book of Common Prayer which had been the worship of the Catholic church in England for over 900 years.”

BTW Dan isn’t short for Daniel ;)

My inclination is that child cannot have the maturity to change the religion of his countryman...especially a very sickly one.

No proper Mother ( sadly deceased)..a psychopathic debauched dictator for a Father. What chance did the poor boy have? Plus a shady Uncle who was looting the coffers of the Church to build a magnificent mansion on the Strand.

Mr Williams, give me time, I will get to Cranmer, so far I have started to deal with your comments that the Reformation was imposed from the top and with the saintly John Fisher. Believe me I have not yet started to fight. Watch this space.

So it looks like this thread is destined to become an epic.

While we’re all watching this space, then,

Robert ian Williams - 22 July 2008 07:35 AM

No proper Mother ( sadly deceased)..a psychopathic debauched dictator for a Father. What chance did the poor boy have?

Actually, common experience suggests to me that where a child with an existing academic bent is early deprived of one or both parents by death or divorce, this tends to drive them more deeply into studies, in which they find some sort of compensatory solace.  C S Lewis rather comes to mind.  Add the royal advantages of the best tutors then procurable, and much is explained.

PS I’m intrigued by the suggestion on Wikipedia that not only was Edward probably not generally “sickly”, but also that his death could have been by arsenic.  Given the repeated assassination attempts on Elizabeth, the possibility of foul play in his own case deserves some inspection.

Morning Gentlemen :)

My historical knowledge of these matters runs about as deep as The Other Boleyn Girl, so I won’t comment on those.  I did however want to respond to a comment made in Robert’s OP:

Robert ian Williams - 21 July 2008 07:17 AM

Thankfully ,Bishop Forsyth welcomed Pope Benedict as his Christian brother

I just thought it should be pointed out that (regardless of the warmth of his welcome), Bishop Bob also made a point of rebuking the pope and his office for claiming to be the ‘Vicar of Christ’ and the leader of the world’s Christians…

Not all tea and scones, then.

Pax

Nicole

Dear Nicole,

If Bishop Forsyth ( a man of obvious integrity)belived the Papal claims , he would be of necessity a Roman Catholic...my optimism was grounded in his acknowledgement of a Christian brother and I respect his honesty as regards his theological position.

Sydney Anglicanism is the Protestant conscience of Anglicanism. Give me a Bishop Forsyth any day, to a Rowan Willliams who calls the Pope Holy Father, but has no intentions of hearing his pleas on important issues.

Robert ian Williams - 22 July 2008 07:35 AM

My inclination is that child cannot have the maturity to change the religion of his countryman . . . especially a very sickly one.

Robert
On your “inclination” (as Dan pointed out) Josiah was an unfit king and did not have the maturity to change the religion (or reform it radically, at least) of his countrymen.  Care to comment?
Regards,
Bob

Nic Jameson - 22 July 2008 12:48 PM

I just thought it should be pointed out that (regardless of the warmth of his welcome), Bishop Bob also made a point of rebuking the pope and his office for claiming to be the ‘Vicar of Christ’ and the leader of the world’s Christians.

Hi Nic
Just wondered, is “Bishop Bob” a St Barnabas’ nickname for Robert?  I’ve only ever heard him called Rob (although it’s amazing how often people to whom I introduce myself as Bob persistently call me Rob!)
Bob

Well with three Roberts now involved in this thread, we need an agreed system of distinction!

Hi Robert W

Robert ian Williams - 22 July 2008 04:55 PM

Give me a Bishop Forsyth any day, to a Rowan Willliams who calls the Pope Holy Father, but has no intentions of hearing his pleas on important issues.

Fair call!

Bob C,

Just wondered, is “Bishop Bob” a St Barnabas’ nickname for Robert?

I’m not sure, it could just be me and my husband, we’re irreverent types ;)

And now, back to questions of history and men who wore puffy sleeves.

Nicole

Josiah became a King at the age of eight, but began his reformation at 26. I hardly think there is room for analogy....

Dear Mr Kirsop I don’t want to fight you… I just want to discuss this issue in an historical and charitable manner...However I do think you have not handled St John Fisher well. he was a very Holy and devout man, and stood by a noble Queen, who had put up with a dreadful husband, who had wronged her in so many different ways. I think only the meanest spirited of persons could not have respect for Catherine.