That is exactly what Pope Clement VII did to Henry VIII. That is a story with extra chapters. A ballgame with extra innings. England's history will change forever, religiously. So will Western civilization...in time.
That will draw the unsuspecting Cranmer right into the thickening plot. As indicated earlier, our sympathies are with Catherine and Mary in terms of Biblical family law. Henry was lawfully married to Catherine of Aragon, end of story. Ah, but not so fast.
We return to the wonderful volume by Mr. Pollard. It's recommended.
Pollard, Albert Frederick. Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906.
We pick up where we left off. You may want to play Beethoven's "Funeral Dirge" as you read this. Henry is not going to be amused by the Papal intrigues and double-dealing. In the future, heads will roll. If inclined, here's Beethoven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmm2k4fRUO4
There was a sense of “injustice to Catherine” that Henry’s actions were “flagrant and unredeemed.”
Henry’s marriage to Catherine: June 11, 1509. It lasted until May 23, 1533. 23 years, 11 months, 19 days. Annulled?
We call it the “divorce that never was.” So does the Elizabethan Romanist writer, Nicholas Harpsfield. On his view (and our's) Ann Boleyn and the others were adulteresses and Henry a serial adulterer with a hardened heart.
That makes Elizabeth a “bastard” out and out in the legal sense of it: English common law. North Carolina still calls them "bastardy hearings" for paternity suits.
A “bastard” ruled England from 1559-1603. And out of this mess came a Reformation? What are we to make of Mr. Cranmer in all of this? That decision is pending.
Henry had good reason for hopes in his direction. But, watch how he gets "hosed over." Here we go.
"Dispensations" had been given in other circumstances; it had been given in the first place; technically and assuming canonical authority, Harry should never have been married in 1509, but a “dispensation” had been granted. On the basis of canon law, he was not allowed to marry. But oh, that was "disposed of" by a "dispensation."
24 years after the first dispensation and if Clement granted the “denial” of the “original” Papal dispensation from canon law, or a revocation of the first one, then the marriage would have been “null and void” from the beginning. Presto, fixed.
Never mind the 24 years of marriage to Mary and their 5 stillborn infants with 1 survivor, Mary…all these were immaculately conceived of course.
But, willy nilly, Henry had reason for hope. Watch the Papal tap dances to other tunes in other keys at other times.
His younger sister, Mary Tudor, was twice married to two chaps: Louis XII of France and the Duke of Suffolk.
Drink this in slowly: both of Henry's brothers-in-law got convenient “divorces” from their earlier wives so they could, by turns, marry Mary Tudor.
This is better than the HBO show: “Sex in the City.” Or, "Housewives of Orange County." No wonder Shakespeare wrote Henry VIII. Ya' need a scorecard though.
Louis XII sent his first wife to a nunnery because he wanted to marry the Duchess of Brittany. That was before upping the ante and marrying Mary Tudor...and needing a dispensation for that. So, with all this Papal ease of dispensing “this and that,” what’s the big deal? A little give-and-take here from the Pope. Henry was hopeful.
Mary Tudor's second husband, the Duke of Suffolk, was similarly successful on the precisely the same ground as Henry was claiming. He obtained a “retraction” of a “previous dispensation” making his old marriage “null” so he could marry Mary Tudor. Hah!?! What’s to worry about old Catherine of Aragon (Pollard, 35)?
Old Henry thought putting the Non-breeding Mare in the stable would be easy.
Even this...Pope Clement thought Henry’s request was “reasonable.” He--Clement VII-even put his willingness “in writing”—that is, to "retract" the "initial dispensation."
Henry is aware of Clement's favorable disposition towards him.
All looked pretty good for Mr. Henry VIII. "What's to worry, old boy?"
Now, the plot thickens. Watch the timeline.
 |
| Pope Clement VII |
Pollard puts it this way. The Pope was in the “grip of the Imperialists who had pillaged his capital and kept him in ignominious confinement in the caste of S. Angelo” (Pollard, 36). We put some photos at the bottom (I've had the chance to visit here several times, but never took photos).
That old Spanish Emperor, Charles V, had no compunction about “shutting” him in either. Charles said that this was "God's judgment" on Clement. Charles told Clement VII that this was the “just judgment of God” and that he “should forfeit his fiefs as the root of all evil” (Pollard, 28). He invaded Italy and the Pope was bottled up and shut in at the Castle of S. Angelo. (Tour guides quickly show one his quarters.) Clement hoped for French deliverance. Ultimately, the French marched on Naples and defeated and boxed the Spanish in the south.
In the meanwhile, Clement VII had authorized Cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio to travel to England and “try the case.” Their decision, on his word of promise, would be final. There would be no appeal. In essence, this was tantamount to a favorable verdict for Henry. Clement was also hoping Henry VIII would reinforce French efforts at restraining the Spanish aggression.
But and this is a big “BUT.” But, the war changed everything. The French pulled out. Henry wasn't going to get involved. Charles V regained his pre-dominance and pre-eminence. Clement feared a repeat of his earlier situation. Clement was set to write the instructions “granting Henry’s divorce” but his closest advisors said “this would mean the utter ruin of the Church as it is entirely within the power of the Emperor’s servants.” Crossing Charles V and the Romano-Germanic Imperialists could have other ugly consequences.
Clement awaited the outcome of the Spanish-French conflict in the Italian theatre of operations. A decisive battle for Charles V came about on 21 June 1529. That spelled doom for old Henry, but what did he know?
Clement “got religion.” He stated that he would become “an Imperialist” and “would live and die as such” (Pollard, 37).
Clement VII reversed himself. A quid pro quo was available. A deal was at hand. Can anyone spell Machiavelli?
Clement VII gave assurances to Charles V regarding his aunt, Catherine of Aragon.
Watch the timeline.
21 Jun 1529 above.
By early July 1529, a concordat was drawn up between Clement VII and Charles V and ratified. Henry who? Forget him.
Here was the quid pro quo: Clement VII’s nephew and the bastard daughter of Charles V would marry, assume residency and command in Florence, and “all towns wrested from the Papal estates were to be restored” to Clement VII” (Pollard, 38).
It was a land grab, taxes, and more. Again, Machiavelli would approve.
But, Charles V required that Clement VII “quash the proceedings against Catherine of Aragon.” Hahaha!
Old Henry was thrown under the bus by the Spanish Emperor and the Pope. But, he was none the wiser and was "entirely unaware" of the backroom deal.
Again, watch the timeline.
By 23 July 1529, the Cardinals—Wolsey and Campeggio—arrive in England. Henry is expecting a favorable verdict. But, the Cardinals had the backstory. The courtly crowd showed up for the hearings that were allegedly predetermined in Henry’s favor. All were expectant.
Instead of the hearings and proceedings, Cardinal Campeggio curtly declared a "dismissal" to everyone’s surprise. That's that.
Old Harry held his temper. However, Suffolk pounded the table with his fist and shouted, “By the Mass, now I see that the old saw is true, that there never was a legate or cardinal that did good in England.”
Fury and furor became thematic for Henry’s supporters.
By the way, old Cranmer was not an insider to all this...insofar as we can see. That is, he was not a bishop, archbishop or courtier. He was a Cambridge don.
However, he’ll get recruited in a "happenstance meal" at Waltham on 9 Aug 1529—“it just sorta” happened, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. (Waltham is about 15 miles NNE of London, a day's ride by horse.)
Old Henry heads off for his “progress,” or, “tour.” He spends time in and around Waltham Abbey and city. He knows he's been double-crossed. We may infer that Mr. Harry was not pleased.
Henry’s fellow-travellers, Dr. Edward Fox and Stephen Gardiner, are in Waltham with him and the entourage.
These two are Cambridge men. They know Cranmer. They all go back to Cambridge days. Fox was from King’s College and Gardiner was the Master of Trinity Hall. They were old friends with Mr. Cranmer. They had dinner together in Waltham.
Henry’s situation was discussed at the “fateful meeting.” Chance or fate? God or chance? We are Calvinists. God was in the middle of the chaos, disorder, wickedness, sin, consultations, deliberations and more. But, we do marvel that "some good" would ultimately comes from the national meltdown.
What did Cranmer know? He was just attempting to stay away from congested areas, e.g. London, where an illness had taken ground.
The upshot of Cranmer’s input. “Look, I’m not a canon lawyer.” As a graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge, only theology was allowed as a subject for study and canon law was forbidden—Jesus College, for some reason, was prejudiced against canon law; these prohibitions were written into the statutes at the founding of Jesus College in 1497ish. No canon law, just theological studies.
Cranmer had been at Jesus College since 1503. This was 1529. He had been a student, Cambridge don, Doctor of Divinity and Fellow for near-wise 26 years. He was an academic...a studious one. Cranmer was 40 years old at this point.
Cranmer had “little patience with the law’s delays” (Pollard, 40). He recommended that the issue be remanded to the theologians on the Continent and taken entirely out of the hands of the ecclesiastical canon lawyers. Also, notably, this was a “back-handed whack” from Cranmer and by Cranmer to, at and upon the Cardinals' and the Pope's heads. Whatever Mr. Cranmer's tone, voice and approach, it was an "upside-the-head-whack!"
Whether Cranmer intended that "upside-the-head" whack is not known. Whether intended or not, that was the effect. Clement and the Cardinals? In essence, "Too bad, let the theologians decide it, not them. What authority do they have in the matter?"
We know that Cranmer had been privately praying for the cessation of Papal regnancy over England since 1525, but, at this point, we are not sure if that is theologically based. The jury is out.
But, Cranmer's quiet days at Cambridge are about to end. Cranmer would soon get new responsibilities. Poor chap. And he could have had the "quiet" life of scholarship, reading, leisurely strolls, books, and collaboration with fellow dons. That's over.
As an aside, notably, Conciliarism (authority of Councils) versus Papal infallibility roiled in the background; several Councils had battled the issue following the disastrous Papal split and the Avignon Papacy. But, that is another important subject for another time. Independence, if not anarchy, was in the air.
Fox and Gardiner informed Henry of the discussion. Allegedly, Henry is reported to have said of Cranmer, "He has the sow by the right ear..." Henry ordered Cranmer to Greenwich. We will have to defer that story to a later time.
The plot thickened. Henry was “hosed over” in a backroom deal between Clement VII and Charles V. Theology and morals to the side. This was a land deal, towns, taxes, governance, nepotism, and a wedding. A quid pro quo.
The Pope got what he wanted. Charles V got what he wanted. Henry got nothing. And he was sore and he was determined.
Soon enough, Henry will turn the Church of England from Papal Romanism (Anglicanism 1.0 in the 16th century) to Non-Papal Romanism (Anglicanism 2.0, orthodox Roman doctrine, but without the Pope, like Tractarians, Anglo-Catholics and some modern ACNA bishops today like Misters Iker, Ackerman and Sutton to name a few).
The Church of England will become a national, autonomous and autocephalous Church...retaining all the traditional Roman doctrines while throwing off Papal sovereignty.
 |
| Castle S. Angelo, just up the street from St. Peter's |
No comments:
Post a Comment