I find it an inherently fascinating period.I know of a family where the oldest daughter had a major in English history, specifically the Tudor period. In fact, she became known as somewhat of an expert. But, I digress. The first thought which came to my mind about her was the fact her English mother was Protestant while her American father was Catholic. I think this is why the woman was so interested in that period.
I always enjoy you posts.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
You are very kind. I hope that one wasn’t too familiar; it’s me cutting and pasting myself, again.I always enjoy you posts.
It is the Catholic opinion that Henry bought into heresies. The break was much more about the Reformation than it was about an annulment.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?
I don’t think I’ve heard that one before- that he ‘bought into heresies’. I mean this with reference to your use of the plural ‘heresies’. Of course it was a heretical act to have denied the authority of the Pope by proclaiming himself head of the Church of England with the Act of Supremacy. If the ‘break’ was about the Reformation, why did Henry need fifteen years (after Luther’s 95 Theses and excommunication) to finally break with Rome? One could say that the divorce issue was the ‘last straw’ (and I don’t deny that there were other issues besides the divorce), but why did he write against the Reformation and in favour of the Church if he was buying into heresies along the way. Or why did the Pope not excommunicate him before 1534 if he knew Henry was sympathetic to the Protestant ideals on mainland Europe?It is the Catholic opinion that Henry bought into heresies. The break was much more about the Reformation than it was about an annulment.
Not much here to comment on. But if one does read the Articles, in what sense should one consider them binding on Anglicanism, in general?Your OP is hard to answer because it embodies a number of false assumptions about modern Anglicanism–such as that it denies the Real Presence or forbids confession to a priest.
The Church of England became solidly Protestant under Edward, and this Protestantism was reaffirmed under Elizabeth, albeit in a somewhat more moderate way. You can read the 39 Articles and see for yourself. The conflict with the Puritans, who wanted to make Anglicanism more radically Protestant, led to the development late in Elizabeth’s reign (and far more in the 17th century) of a “high-church” Anglicanism that distanced itself from Continental Protestantism to some extent and appealed more and more to the “undivided Church” of the first millenium. However, this was never more than one wing of Anglicanism. In the 19th century a far more radical form of high-church Anglicanism developed in the Oxford Movement, which denied that Anglicanism was truly Protestant at all. This “Anglo-Catholicism” had a huge impact on Anglicanism as a whole, although again it never became more than one wing.
For instance, from the Reformation until the 19th century regular private confession to a priest was unheard of. Priests did have the authority to declare absolution, but they exercised this either in the public liturgy or in cases of physical or spiritual emergency (i.e., serious illness or some particularly serious spiritual problem). Today confession is officially acknowledged as a sacramental rite, but it’s only practiced regularly by those of us who lean more toward the Anglo-Catholic side of things (actually I’m not that regular, but I do regard it as a normal discipline that is healthy for all Christians). The usual Anglican maxim on the subject is “all may, none must, some should.”
As for the Real Presence–as you can see in the Articles we have never denied the Real Presence, but the Articles do affirm it in a “spiritual” manner. Anglican theories on the subject have varied widely, but until the 19th century it’s probably safe to say that few if any Anglicans believed anything that was at all compatible with transubstantiation. After the Oxford Movement most Anglicans still didn’t like to use the word, but many, perhaps (or perhaps not) most of us believe in the Real Presence in a form hard to distinguish meaningfully from the Catholic position–much like the Orthodox.
Edwin
Yes, Edwin - I admit my initial statements regarding the real presence and confession were wrong, and I am happy that others have pointed out my error - as I said I don’t claim to know the answers on this topic & it wasn’t my intention to mislead or give an inaccurate picture of modern Anglicanism.Your OP is hard to answer because it embodies a number of false assumptions about modern Anglicanism–such as that it denies the Real Presence or forbids confession to a priest.
The Church of England became solidly Protestant under Edward, and this Protestantism was reaffirmed under Elizabeth, albeit in a somewhat more moderate way. You can read the 39 Articles and see for yourself. The conflict with the Puritans, who wanted to make Anglicanism more radically Protestant, led to the development late in Elizabeth’s reign (and far more in the 17th century) of a “high-church” Anglicanism that distanced itself from Continental Protestantism to some extent and appealed more and more to the “undivided Church” of the first millenium. However, this was never more than one wing of Anglicanism. In the 19th century a far more radical form of high-church Anglicanism developed in the Oxford Movement, which denied that Anglicanism was truly Protestant at all. This “Anglo-Catholicism” had a huge impact on Anglicanism as a whole, although again it never became more than one wing.
For instance, from the Reformation until the 19th century regular private confession to a priest was unheard of. Priests did have the authority to declare absolution, but they exercised this either in the public liturgy or in cases of physical or spiritual emergency (i.e., serious illness or some particularly serious spiritual problem). Today confession is officially acknowledged as a sacramental rite, but it’s only practiced regularly by those of us who lean more toward the Anglo-Catholic side of things (actually I’m not that regular, but I do regard it as a normal discipline that is healthy for all Christians). The usual Anglican maxim on the subject is “all may, none must, some should.”
As for the Real Presence–as you can see in the Articles we have never denied the Real Presence, but the Articles do affirm it in a “spiritual” manner. Anglican theories on the subject have varied widely, but until the 19th century it’s probably safe to say that few if any Anglicans believed anything that was at all compatible with transubstantiation. After the Oxford Movement most Anglicans still didn’t like to use the word, but many, perhaps (or perhaps not) most of us believe in the Real Presence in a form hard to distinguish meaningfully from the Catholic position–much like the Orthodox.
Edwin
Ok, I’ll do it.Yes, Edwin - I admit my initial statements regarding the real presence and confession were wrong, and I am happy that others have pointed out my error - as I said I don’t claim to know the answers on this topic & it wasn’t my intention to mislead or give an inaccurate picture of modern Anglicanism.
I have since read the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion from the link you provided; they certainly aren’t ‘backwards about coming forwards’ in mentioning the failings of the Roman Church- but then, I suppose ecumenism probably wasn’t very much on the cards in 1801… it certainly wasn’t in Ireland anyway!! It was interesting to see, looking a bit further on the website, that the “Thirty-nine Articles were important at the Reformation, but are less so today”. I wonder how this is so; but the site also describes the beliefs of Anglicans as ‘quite diverse’.
The other points you made have been enlightening. Thank you.
i think it’s interesting too, but what i’d like to know about is less the elite machinations that brought it about and more how the mass of commoners understood and responded to it.I find it an inherently fascinating period.
GKC
Complicated questions, and little time to reply.i think it’s interesting too, but what i’d like to know about is less the elite machinations that brought it about and more how the mass of commoners understood and responded to it.
if it was a top-down conversion as it is always portrayed, why does it seem there was little or no resistance on the part of christians, some of whom at least must have felt they were being forced to turn away from a more authentic form of christianity?
was it just that they knew they were powerless to contest the issue and so shrugged their shoulders over it? or were there social forces at work for some time that predisposed them to accept the reformation?
does anyone know of any good scholarship on this question?