Henry VIII and Anglicanism

[NPC]

I’m sure most of us have learned in our history lessons that Pope Leo X in 1521 gave King Henry VIII of England the title Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Faith. He was granted this title following his book in defence of the sacraments and the supremacy of the Pope. Almost half a millennium later, Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Church of England, has the title Defender of the Faith. Now, we know that the faith which she defends is completely different to the faith which her infamous ancestor defended.

So my question is, if Henry’s complaint against the Church which he had so staunchly defended was that it wouldn’t grant him an annulment to allow him marry Anne Boleyn, he presumably still accepted at the time of his break from Rome, that Christ was truly present at Holy Communion for example. At what stage(s) were the beliefs of Henry VIII altered- to the point that Christ is no longer truly present at Holy Communion, one must not confess their sins to a priest, and the numerous ways in which the Anglican Church is now separated from the Catholic Church? I mean, if Henry’s faith (especially defence of the sacraments) was so strong, how would he have become so influenced by other heresies in Europe at the time? Or was it simply that all Protestants formed a united-front against the Pope and all he stood for?

 

[LRThunder]

When Henry VIII broke England away from the Church, not much about the doctrines or practices changed. They didn’t really begin to change until Edward and Elizabeth I.

 

[GKC]

When Henry VIII broke England away from the Church, not much about the doctrines or practices changed. They didn’t really begin to change until Edward and Elizabeth I.

Correct. Henry considered himself a good Catholic, all his life. Just not subject to Rome. No reformed doctrines were adopted in his lifetime. In fact, the Six Articles are a good sample of what Henry thought was essential to the Church. And he enforced them.

And a little more history on how Henry came to have the Defensor Fidei title. History is often complex. It wasn’t just a case of the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry.

Henry gave up, until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for him. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “*Anglicus” *

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: *Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliment thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

History is fascinating.

GKC

 

[Harpazo]

I’m sure most of us have learned in our history lessons that Pope Leo X in 1521 gave King Henry VIII of England the title Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Faith. He was granted this title following his book in defence of the sacraments and the supremacy of the Pope. Almost half a millennium later, Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Church of England, has the title Defender of the Faith. Now, we know that the faith which she defends is completely different to the faith which her infamous ancestor defended.

So my question is, if Henry’s complaint against the Church which he had so staunchly defended was that it wouldn’t grant him an annulment to allow him marry Anne Boleyn, he presumably still accepted at the time of his break from Rome, that Christ was truly present at Holy Communion for example. At what stage(s) were the beliefs of Henry VIII altered- to the point that Christ is no longer truly present at Holy Communion, one must not confess their sins to a priest, and the numerous ways in which the Anglican Church is now separated from the Catholic Church? I mean, if Henry’s faith (especially defence of the sacraments) was so strong, how would he have become so influenced by other heresies in Europe at the time? Or was it simply that all Protestants formed a united-front against the Pope and all he stood for?

Some Anglicans do confess their sins, some don’t. If I remember correctly, it isn’t necessary for them to do so. And the same with the Eucharist, there are some Anglicans that believe as Catholics do, and try to be exactly Catholic, except for submitting to the Pope.

Also, watch out for those that will claim the split between Anglican and Catholics was purely political. It wasn’t. Divorce is an ecclesial matter, and forbidden.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[GKC]

Some Anglicans do confess their sins, some don’t. If I remember correctly, it isn’t necessary for them to do so. And the same with the Eucharist, there are some Anglicans that believe as Catholics do, and try to be exactly Catholic, except for submitting to the Pope.

Also, watch out for those that will claim the split between Anglican and Catholics was purely political. It wasn’t. Divorce is an ecclesial matter, and forbidden.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

It wasn’t a matter of a divorce. It was an annulment Henry requested, and it happened, literally, all the time (the details of which, with respect to the system of annulments/impediments and dispensastions then practiced I have posted here, more than a few times). And almost always, such a process was both political and ecclesiastical.

Your other points are correct. As Anglicans say with respect to private auricular confession, “All may, some should, none must”. Corporate confession, OTOH, is a part of the liturgy of the Mass.

GKC

 

[NPC]

Some Anglicans do confess their sins, some don’t. If I remember correctly, it isn’t necessary for them to do so. And the same with the Eucharist, there are some Anglicans that believe as Catholics do, and try to be exactly Catholic, except for submitting to the Pope.

Also, watch out for those that will claim the split between Anglican and Catholics was purely political. It wasn’t. Divorce is an ecclesial matter, and forbidden.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

Is this the Oxford Movement of Anglo-Catholicism that you’re talking about? If so, this didn’t really begin until the 1830’s and I don’t really know how it is viewed by mainstream Anglicanism. It is a case of members of the Anglican Church almost coming 'full-circle- ie. almost back to Catholicism except without accepting the authority of the Pope, as you said. Of course there were some who did take the full leap of faith, such as Cardinal Newman and Gerard Manley Hopkins. And this movement was considered at the time to be too focused on ritual as Anglicans thought the Catholic Church was. I know of one Anglo-Catholic church and you wouldn’t think it was Anglican at all- it’s full of artwork (especially mosaics in Byzantine style), there is a tabernacle… they use plenty of incense and as far as I know they ring the sanctus bell, which is not ordinary Anglican practice. In fact I think the bigges giveaway is the fact that they have weekly Evensong!

Feel free to discuss this topic further too in this thread, but I am most interested in seeing how Anglicanism developed it’s beliefs following Henry VIII, indeed up to the present day (which includes discussion of the Oxford Movement if you so wish!!).

 

[EDKidd]

I do not claim to be any kind of expert but my University course (admittedly taken a while back) covered the reformation in Europe. Of course, this may all be completely wrong and as this is largely from memory, feel free to disregard.

I was informed that England’s fate regarding her religion was due largely to the ammount of time each Monarch reigned for, particularly between c1553 & c1558 during which time, England experienced 5 Kings/Queens.

After the death of Henry VIII, his 9 year old son Edward VI (1547-1553 AD) took the throne. Obviously he was too young to rule and so was ‘advised’ initially by Lord Somerset (who whilst Protestant, was fairly relaxed and incompassing of Catholics) and Lord Northumberland (who wasn’t). Thus Edward’s very short reign was divided into two regimes. Nevertheless for his reign, England was Protestant.

Lord Northumberland’s quest for power saw the installation of Lady Jane Grey who was installed as ruler for only 9 days, before Mary I (1553-1558 AD) took the throne and began her quest to bring England back under the authority of the Pope. Unfortuntely for Mary, 5 years is not a very long time and so, following her death, her sister Elizabeth I (1558-1603 AD) took over. Nevertheless whilst Mary I reigned, England was largely Catholic again.

Elizabeth ruled for almost 50 years and so had time to asert her own brand of Protestantism on England and although (I think) the church was once again altered under both Charles I & II, (my course on the reformation ended naturally with Elizabeth) my understanding is that the Church of England that we see today is loosely based on the one that Elizabeth saw designed.

As I said before writing this, much of what I have written comes from memory alone. However, I was led to believe that the religious condition of England was due largely to how long the reigning King, Queen, or Lady lived.

 

[GKC]

Is this the Oxford Movement of Anglo-Catholicism that you’re talking about? If so, this didn’t really begin until the 1830’s and I don’t really know how it is viewed by mainstream Anglicanism. It is a case of members of the Anglican Church almost coming 'full-circle- ie. almost back to Catholicism except without accepting the authority of the Pope, as you said. Of course there were some who did take the full leap of faith, such as Cardinal Newman and Gerard Manley Hopkins. And this movement was considered at the time to be too focused on ritual as Anglicans thought the Catholic Church was. I know of one Anglo-Catholic church and you wouldn’t think it was Anglican at all- it’s full of artwork (especially mosaics in Byzantine style), there is a tabernacle… they use plenty of incense and as far as I know they ring the sanctus bell, which is not ordinary Anglican practice. In fact I think the bigges giveaway is the fact that they have weekly Evensong!

Feel free to discuss this topic further too in this thread, but I am most interested in seeing how Anglicanism developed it’s beliefs following Henry VIII, indeed up to the present day (which includes discussion of the Oxford Movement if you so wish!!).

Anglo-Catholicism/Tractarianism was focused on doctrine, not ritual. The Ritualist movment, starting about 40 years after the Tractarians, added the pomp amd ceremony. The two strands together represent Anglo-Catholicism. Which, for a time in the early 20th century, probably was mainstream Anglicanism.

From the time of the Elizabethan Compromise, Anglicanism has been a mixed bag, a more reformed wing and a more Catholic side, under the umbrella of the established church. Difficult to tell the players without a program. In my parish you’d find the incense, chanted Mass, the Angelus, Tabernacle, reverence to the altar, kneelers, genuflection at the appropriate moments, Mary Shrine (our Lady of Walsingham), auricular confession (all may), celebration ad orientum, the occasional Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, etc. And we are not a totally Anglo-Catholic parish.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

I do not claim to be any kind of expert but my University course (admittedly taken a while back) covered the reformation in Europe. Of course, this may all be completely wrong and as this is largely from memory, feel free to disregard.

I was informed that England’s fate regarding her religion was due largely to the ammount of time each Monarch reigned for, particularly between c1553 & c1558 during which time, England experienced 5 Kings/Queens.

After the death of Henry VIII, his 9 year old son Edward VI (1547-1553 AD) took the throne. Obviously he was too young to rule and so was ‘advised’ initially by Lord Somerset (who whilst Protestant, was fairly relaxed and incompassing of Catholics) and Lord Northumberland (who wasn’t). Thus Edward’s very short reign was divided into two regimes. Nevertheless for his reign, England was Protestant.

Lord Northumberland’s quest for power saw the installation of Lady Jane Grey who was installed as ruler for only 9 days, before Mary I (1553-1558 AD) took the throne and began her quest to bring England back under the authority of the Pope. Unfortuntely for Mary, 5 years is not a very long time and so, following her death, her sister Elizabeth I (1558-1603 AD) took over. Nevertheless whilst Mary I reigned, England was largely Catholic again.

Elizabeth ruled for almost 50 years and so had time to asert her own brand of Protestantism on England and although (I think) the church was once again altered under both Charles I & II, (my course on the reformation ended naturally with Elizabeth) my understanding is that the Church of England that we see today is loosely based on the one that Elizabeth saw designed.

As I said before writing this, much of what I have written comes from memory alone. However, I was led to believe that the religious condition of England was due largely to how long the reigning King, Queen, or Lady lived.

Pretty good summary

GCK

 

[HannahLisa]

At what stage(s) were the beliefs of Henry VIII altered- to the point that Christ is no longer truly present at Holy Communion, one must not confess their sins to a priest, and the numerous ways in which the Anglican Church is now separated from the Catholic Church? I mean, if Henry’s faith (especially defence of the sacraments) was so strong, how would he have become so influenced by other heresies in Europe at the time? Or was it simply that all Protestants formed a united-front against the Pope and all he stood for?

Henry VIII did not, as far as I know, do anything except break away from the Pope so he could separate from his wife. I believe it was mostly Elizabeth I who caused doctrines to be changed. Also, the Episcopal Church does believe in the Real Presence, but they do not define how it gets there (so they do not have transubstantiation as a doctrine).

 

[JEANNIEMAC]

Do Anglican priests have the power to consecrate the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?

 

[SyCarl]

Some Anglicans do confess their sins, some don’t. If I remember correctly, it isn’t necessary for them to do so. And the same with the Eucharist, there are some Anglicans that believe as Catholics do, and try to be exactly Catholic, except for submitting to the Pope.

Also, watch out for those that will claim the split between Anglican and Catholics was purely political. It wasn’t. Divorce is an ecclesial matter, and forbidden.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

It did have a fairly political aspect to it. Henry had originally been given a dispensation to marry his brother’s widow. When she failed to produce a son, Henry asked for an annulment on the basis that the original dispensation should not have been given. In normal circumstances the annulment probably would have been given. However Catherine’s nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. At that time Charles was occupying Rome and the Pope was more afraid of offending Charles by annulling his aunt’s marriage than he was of offending Henry. So no annulment was given and the rest is history.

 

[GKC]

It did have a fairly political aspect to it. Henry had originally been given a dispensation to marry his brother’s widow. When she failed to produce a son, Henry asked for an annulment on the basis that the original dispensation should not have been given. In normal circumstances the annulment probably would have been given. However Catherine’s nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. At that time Charles was occupying Rome and the Pope was more afraid of offending Charles by annulling his aunt’s marriage than he was of offending Henry. So no annulment was given and the rest is history.

I usually do it with a lot more detail, but, in essence, you’re right.

GKC

 

[NMJenny]

Do Anglican priests have the power to consecrate the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?

In 1896, Pope Leo XIII issued the *Apostolicae Curae, *which determined that Anglican orders were not valid–therefore Anglican priests cannot confect the Sacrament. There are a few cases of priests who have been ordained by bishops from Old Catholic or Polish National Catholic Churches, in which case they would have valid orders, but this is quite rare…

 

[YADA]

It did have a fairly political aspect to it. Henry had originally been given a dispensation to marry his brother’s widow. When she failed to produce a son, Henry asked for an annulment on the basis that the original dispensation should not have been given. In normal circumstances the annulment probably would have been given. However Catherine’s nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. At that time Charles was occupying Rome and the Pope was more afraid of offending Charles by annulling his aunt’s marriage than he was of offending Henry. So no annulment was given and the rest is history.

Henry VIII had already received anullment or his first arranged marriage, based upon the fact that he did not make an informed consent in a catholic sacramental way … like others I am going mostly from memory here …

It is always funny to hear people speak of the break with the church like it was just a mere matter of the annuullment and politics …

Easy to say you did not have a Christian understanding on the sacramentality of marriage and entered into marriage too hastily …[even for a King - royalty for whom marriages were almost all about power, geography and finacances - not Christian fidelity] once … but a second time?..

How much leniency should have been thrown to the English Monarch? Even the church, that many might argue was far to political, must draw a line [and remember Jesus and the Gospel entrusted to her]…

 

[SyCarl]

Henry VIII had already received anullment or his first arranged marriage, based upon the fact that he did not make an informed consent in a catholic sacramental way … like others I am going mostly from memory here …

It is always funny to hear people speak of the break with the church like it was just a mere matter of the annuullment and politics …

Easy to say you did not have a Christian understanding on the sacramentality of marriage and entered into marriage too hastily …[even for a King - royalty for whom marriages were almost all about power, geography and finacances - not Christian fidelity] once … but a second time?..

How much leniency should have been thrown to the English Monarch? Even the church, that many might argue was far to political, must draw a line [and remember Jesus and the Gospel entrusted to her]…

As far as I am aware, Henry had not been married prior to his marriage to Catherine.

After Arthur’s death a project was at once formed of marrying him to his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon, who, being born in December, 1485, was more than five years his senior. The negotiations for a papal dispensation took some little time, and the Spanish Queen Isabella, the mother of Catherine, then nearing her end, grew very impatient. Hence a hastily drafted Brief containing the required dispensation was privately sent to Spain in 1504, to be followed some months later by a Bull to the same effect which was of a more public character. The existence of these two instruments afterwards caused complications. Owing, however, to some political scheming of Henry VII – who was trying to outwit his rival Ferdinand – Prince Henry, on attaining the age of fourteen, was made to record a formal protest against the proposed marriage with Catherine, as a matter arranged without his consent.

newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm

 

[GKC]

As far as I am aware, Henry had not been married prior to his marriage to Catherine.

newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm

He had not.

Ok, I’ll do part of it again. Henry’s stated objection at age 14 was only a minor part of it.

By the 16th century, the Church system for managing the sacrament of marriage was incredibly complex. It was designed to do two things: protect the sacrament, and simultaneously permit the making and unmaking of dynastic marriages, for political reasons. To do this, it had a system of courts, running up to the final court in Rome. And marriages were made and unmade, routinely and constantly, under this system.

Henry sought to do what was commonplace at the time. He sought a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, in order to make a marriage that would provide him with a legitimate male heir (a thing that had been worrying him for years) and also permit him to scratch an itch that he had recently acquired, re: Anne Boleyn. Seemed reasonable to him.

And, with respect to the system as it was worked in his day, it was not only reasonable, it was unexceptional. It happened daily (the story of how his sister received her first decree of nullity, at precisely the time Henry was applying for his, is quite instructive). But to make it happen, Henry had to submit his case (causa) to the system, and wait for a decree of nullity, which he was fully justified in expecting to be forthcoming. Henry’s case was based on the concept of an impediment to his marriage to Catherine, arising from the prohibition in Leviticus against a man marrying his brother’s (Arthur’s) wife. This was what was generally known as an impediment of affinity (of which there were many kinds and degrees. Because of this impediment, Juluis II had issued a dispensation (the other side of a decree of nullity, removing an impediment) permitting Henry to marry Catherine in the first place. Henry now maintained that the prohibition was Scriptural, God’s law, not Church law, and thus was beyond a Pope’s power to dispense. There are impediments like that; no one can dispense to permit a son to marry his mother for example (an impediment of consanguinity in the first degree, direct). This meant that he was saying that Julius had made an error and the dispensation exceeded his authority (that the action was*ultra vires). *

While a reasonable and certainly typically adequate case, it was not an exceptionally strong one. And Clement was not an exceptionally strong Pope. And for historical reasons (hint: Charles V) the ruling was against Henry. But there was actually a stronger case lurking in Henry’s history (not that either case would have gotten him the decree of nullity; politics and military power trump church law). His stronger case, as Cardinal Wolsey saw, lay in a class of impediments called the justice of public honesty. Without getting into technical details, this meant that if a marriage was contracted and consummated between A and B, two actual types of impediments might arise for person C later wishing to marry A or B. That is, there was the potential for an impediment of affinity, which arose from the the consummation of the marriage, or of the justice of public honesty, which arose from the betrothal/marriage contract.

At the time, the rule was that if a valid marriage was contracted, and consummated, and later a dispensation was sought for some one who would have an impediment to marrying A or B, the dispensation need only specifically state that the affinity impediment was dispensed, and the impediment of public honesty was thereby dispensed, implicitly. But, if the marriage was not consummated, as Catherine maintained all along, and as was likely true, then the justice of public honesty must be explicitly dispensed. Julius didn’t do that. And hence there was a good case for Henry.

He didn’t pursue that, and it didn’t really matter. Given the relationship between Clement and Charles, and Charles and Catherine, no way was Henry going to get a decree of nullity. An Emperor trumps a King. And an emperor controlling a Pope is stronger still. So Henry didn’t get his decree. He got a Church, instead. And here we all are.

More details available, if required.

GKC

 

[GKC]

In 1896, Pope Leo XIII issued the *Apostolicae Curae, *which determined that Anglican orders were not valid–therefore Anglican priests cannot confect the Sacrament. There are a few cases of priests who have been ordained by bishops from Old Catholic or Polish National Catholic Churches, in which case they would have valid orders, but this is quite rare…

Actually, given the Anglican custom of utilizing three bishops in a consecration, it’s fairly common. But the issue would not be of priests ordained by PNCC or OC bishops. I’m not aware of any such. What happened, and happened regularly for 75 years and more, were PNCC and OC bishops particiapting in Anglican consecrations, resulting in Anglican bishops with (as Rome sees it) valid, but illicit episcopal lines. And they transmit vaild (illicit) orders to Anglican priests they ordain.

GKC

 

[YADA]

Yes, I agree, it was the dispensation received for the close marriage as you stated here that I was remembering

Juluis II had issued a dispensation (the other side of a decree of nullity, removing an impediment) permitting Henry to marry Catherine in the first place.

It was still ‘gaming the system’ and I guess that was what sticks in my mind …

Thanks for the history review and the cler concise post

Far better for Christanity to have stayed united … too bad Henry VIII did not remain more of a “defender” than one who tears apart…

 

[GKC]

Yes, I agree, it was the dispensation received for the close marriage as you stated here that I was remembering

It was still ‘gaming the system’ and I guess that was what sticks in my mind …

Thanks for the history review and the cler concise post

Far better for Christanity to have stayed united … too bad Henry VIII did not remain more of a “defender” than one who tears apart…

You are very welcome, and any time. Hank and the annulment story are hobbies of mine. That post was me cutting and pasting myself. I’ve written it so often, in so many ways, I got tired.

And the whole system was gaming. It was how the thing worked, in those days, by design, until Trent took it in hand (Session 24, IIRC). Henry’s sister’s case, for instance (just the closest and handiest example.

Always glad to post more details.

GKC