Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuckinavortex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
7_Sorrows said:
I don’t either just as I don’t think it is humane to crucify someone.
Click to expand...
Back in Tudor times, beheading with the sword was actually seen as the humane way to execute someone. Normally, execution for treason would lead to a sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering.

Henry had two of his wives executed - his second wife, Anne Boleyn, was beheaded for adultery. Just before she was executed, the marriage to Henry was declared invalid and dissolved - which makes you wonder how she could have been accused of adultery, but there you are. He then immediately married Jane Seymour (one of Anne’s ladies-in-waiting), who died a couple of weeks after giving birth to a son and was considered to be the wife he really loved.

Wife number 4 was Anne of Cleves, a foreign aristocratic bride who didn’t last long - the portrait of her that Henry had received evidently didn’t really resemble her when she turned up, and he wasn’t happy! That marriage was dissolved after 6 months and she lived out her life with an honorary title and land provided by the King.

Wife 5 was Kathryn Howard, the second one to be executed for alleged adultery. Then his last wife, Katherine Parr, actually survived him - but only by a year. She married again immediately after Henry’s death, and died from complications of childbirth.

In England, we remember the fate of the wives like this - Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
 
Isca said:
Back in Tudor times, beheading with the sword was actually seen as the humane way to execute someone. Normally, execution for treason would lead to a sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering.

Henry had two of his wives executed - his second wife, Anne Boleyn, was beheaded for adultery. Just before she was executed, the marriage to Henry was declared invalid and dissolved - which makes you wonder how she could have been accused of adultery, but there you are. He then immediately married Jane Seymour (one of Anne’s ladies-in-waiting), who died a couple of weeks after giving birth to a son and was considered to be the wife he really loved.

Wife number 4 was Anne of Cleves, a foreign aristocratic bride who didn’t last long - the portrait of her that Henry had received evidently didn’t really resemble her when she turned up, and he wasn’t happy! That marriage was dissolved after 6 months and she lived out her life with an honorary title and land provided by the King.

Wife 5 was Kathryn Howard, the second one to be executed for alleged adultery. Then his last wife, Katherine Parr, actually survived him - but only by a year. She married again immediately after Henry’s death, and died from complications of childbirth.

In England, we remember the fate of the wives like this - Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the short history of the King’s wives and their fate. Your last tidbit makes it easier to remember if you can just keep the names straight!
 
Isca said:
Back in Tudor times, beheading with the sword was actually seen as the humane way to execute someone. Normally, execution for treason would lead to a sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering.

Henry had two of his wives executed - his second wife, Anne Boleyn, was beheaded for adultery. Just before she was executed, the marriage to Henry was declared invalid and dissolved - which makes you wonder how she could have been accused of adultery, but there you are. He then immediately married Jane Seymour (one of Anne’s ladies-in-waiting), who died a couple of weeks after giving birth to a son and was considered to be the wife he really loved.

Wife number 4 was Anne of Cleves, a foreign aristocratic bride who didn’t last long - the portrait of her that Henry had received evidently didn’t really resemble her when she turned up, and he wasn’t happy! That marriage was dissolved after 6 months and she lived out her life with an honorary title and land provided by the King.

Wife 5 was Kathryn Howard, the second one to be executed for alleged adultery. Then his last wife, Katherine Parr, actually survived him - but only by a year. She married again immediately after Henry’s death, and died from complications of childbirth.

In England, we remember the fate of the wives like this - Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
Click to expand...
The history of this English king seems a bit disgraceful to me.
 
7_Sorrows said:
I understand beheadings from a historical perspective. They were done more humanely than what we see happening now. Very barbaric the graphic videos made today. France had the guillotine. I also look at King Henry VIII’s predicament from the perspective of the era.
A Man for All Seasons is a great movie to watch.
Click to expand...
When I think of Henry VIII, I have Richard Burton in mind from “Anne of a Thousand Days”.
Geneviève Bujold as Anne Boleyn was a little pistol, but seemed like she actually loved the guy, called him laughingly a “royal fool”. Irene Papas’ mournful smirk as the unwanted Catherine was also unforgettable.
 
Picky_Picky said:
But they will not, I think, doubt the legitimacies of their churches on those grounds, because the Church of England does not believe it was formed by Henry, but was the church present in England since the early centuries AD.
Click to expand...
The Church of England can believe the moon is made of blue cheese, that doesn’t make it so. The belief that the Anglican Church did not start during and by the Tudor dynasty flies in the face of history. If the Church of England existed during the early centuries, how did it escape mention in any of the early text. It’s not like the early Church did not standup to heresy at the time.

Delusion.
 
Antegin said:
The Church of England can believe the moon is made of blue cheese, that doesn’t make it so. The belief that the Anglican Church did not start during and by the Tudor dynasty flies in the face of history. If the Church of England existed during the early centuries, how did it escape mention in any of the early text. It’s not like the early Church did not standup to heresy at the time.

Delusion.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are plenty of references to the distinctiveness of the English Church within the church catholic, and of course the English church had its own rite, the Sarum rite which was different from the Roman Rite and form the basis of the translated prayer books. Liturgically there were no changes at all during Henry’s reign and the even the Quicunque Vult of the reformed prayer book of 1662 refers to “the Catholick Faith” throughout. I would say that it’s more accurate to talk about the reformed nature of the Church of England but on a solidly catholic foundation.
 
Antegin said:
The Church of England can believe the moon is made of blue cheese, that doesn’t make it so. The belief that the Anglican Church did not start during and by the Tudor dynasty flies in the face of history. If the Church of England existed during the early centuries, how did it escape mention in any of the early text. It’s not like the early Church did not standup to heresy at the time.

Delusion.
Click to expand...
Actually you can research the Council of Arles in 314 AD where 3 English Bishops were in attendance. 👍
 
zamyrabyrd said:
When I think of Henry VIII, I have Richard Burton in mind from “Anne of a Thousand Days”.
Geneviève Bujold as Anne Boleyn was a little pistol, but seemed like she actually loved the guy, called him laughingly a “royal fool”. Irene Papas’ mournful smirk as the unwanted Catherine was also unforgettable.
Click to expand...
I probably have not seen this movie in over 20 years. I would love to see it again and see Richard Burton play the role of King Henry VIII.
Genevieve Bujold was really good as Anne I remember.
 
liturgyluver said:
Actually, there are plenty of references to the distinctiveness of the English Church within the church catholic, and of course the English church had its own rite, the Sarum rite which was different from the Roman Rite and form the basis of the translated prayer books. Liturgically there were no changes at all during Henry’s reign and the even the Quicunque Vult of the reformed prayer book of 1662 refers to “the Catholick Faith” throughout. I would say that it’s more accurate to talk about the reformed nature of the Church of England but on a solidly catholic foundation.
Click to expand...
I grew up in the Episcopal church and growing up I believed the Church of England and its American counterpart the Episcopal church had a solid Catholic foundation. Unfortunately, as I got older I saw the foundation beginning to crumble.
 
Antegin said:
The Church of England can believe the moon is made of blue cheese, that doesn’t make it so. The belief that the Anglican Church did not start during and by the Tudor dynasty flies in the face of history. If the Church of England existed during the early centuries, how did it escape mention in any of the early text. It’s not like the early Church did not standup to heresy at the time.

Delusion.
Click to expand...
Too much bile. The OP asked how Anglicans felt, and I attempted to answer. What you feel is not wholly to the point: you can feel the moon is made of blue cheese, that doesn’t make it so.
 
Stuckinavortex said:
It is often agreed by historians that predominate reason for Henry VIII’s formation of the Church of England was the Pope’s refusal to grant Henry an annulment for his marriage to Catherine, so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. Of course, Henry later had Anne beheaded so that he could again remarry.

For me, this makes the whole Anglican/ Episcopalian church seem slightly hypocritical, being created for political reasons. What is your opinion on the actions of Henry and what reasons do you give to support the legitimacy of your church?
Click to expand...
The specific occasion for Henry VIII’s break with Rome was the Pope’s refusal to grant an annulment (there was a much more longstanding conflict between monarchy and Papacy which might have led to a breach even if this specific issue hadn’t arisen–but then again it might not, as similar issues in France and Spain and the Holy Roman Empire did not).

The question you’re begging is whether the split with Rome “formed the Church of England.” On the one hand, there was a Church of England for centuries as part of the Catholic Church. Since by definition Anglicans do not believe communion with Rome to be constitutive of membership in the Catholic Church, obviously for Anglicans the breach with Rome isn’t as decisive to our identity as it is to your picture of us. On the other hand, the definitive liturgical and doctrinal documents of Anglicanism (the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles, etc.) weren’t drawn up until after Henry’s death. So if we define Anglicanism as a Protestant church based on its doctrines and liturgies, then it wouldn’t be true that Henry founded Anglicanism.

In fact, perhaps Catholics should be asked to choose between claiming that Anglicanism is Protestant and claiming that Henry VIII founded it, since Henrician Anglicanism really wasn’t Protestant doctrinally or liturgically!

Edwin
 
Antegin said:
The Church of England can believe the moon is made of blue cheese, that doesn’t make it so. The belief that the Anglican Church did not start during and by the Tudor dynasty flies in the face of history. If the Church of England existed during the early centuries, how did it escape mention in any of the early text. It’s not like the early Church did not standup to heresy at the time.

Delusion.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the argument. The argument is that there was a Church in England from early centuries, and that this Church continued after the Reformation.

To disprove that, you have to prove that union with Rome was an essential mark of the pre-Reformation “Church of England,” so that the post-schism Church of England is a different entity. And that’s a theological, not a historical argument.

So no, the historical record doesn’t prove anything one way or the other here.
 
ericc said:
How did you determine that the refusal was equally politically motivated? After been married for decades and now lusting after another woman, should the Church grant him annulment ? The Church gave him the honour of Defender of the Faith previously.

Would your church grant that annulment and if so, for what reason would your church grant it? Wouldn’t your Church recognised such a marriage as sacramentally valid? And would your Church give in in such a situation.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108400/Vatican-exhibition-The-threatening-letter-sent-Pope-asking-annul-Henry-VIIIs-marriage.html

Was this the politics that you allude to?
Click to expand...
The basis for Henry’s request was that Catherine had been married to Henry’s brother Arthur. In fact Church law did forbid such a marriage, and Henry had received a dispensation. Henry was basically asking the Pope to nullify his earlier dispensation. That’s the one sense in which what Henry was doing linked up to Protestantism. He claimed that the (first) marriage had been contrary to divine law and thus the Pope couldn’t give a dispensation covering it.

GKC can cover the details better than I, but I understand that Henry actually had a more persuasive canon-law approach available and chose not to go with it.

So the Pope had good grounds for refusing the request–he was basically being asked to say that he hadn’t had the authority to give the dispensation in the first place. But political factors were definitely at work as well–the Pope didn’t want to offend Charles V, Catherine’s nephew, whose mutinous armies had just sacked Rome.

Ediwn
 
liturgyluver said:
Actually, there are plenty of references to the distinctiveness of the English Church within the church catholic, and of course the English church had its own rite, the Sarum rite which was different from the Roman Rite and form the basis of the translated prayer books. Liturgically there were no changes at all during Henry’s reign and the even the Quicunque Vult of the reformed prayer book of 1662 refers to “the Catholick Faith” throughout. I would say that it’s more accurate to talk about the reformed nature of the Church of England but on a solidly catholic foundation.
Click to expand...
This is a poor line of argument. All the different cultural expressions of medieval Catholicism were distinctive. The Sarum Use was not a Rite but one of many such “uses” throughout the medieval Church, and in fact it wasn’t the only one used in England.

There were some liturgical changes in Henry’s reign, actually, but they were minor compared to what would follow.

Of course post-Reformation Anglicans claimed to adhere to the Catholic Faith, as did all other Protestants.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
This is a poor line of argument. All the different cultural expressions of medieval Catholicism were distinctive. The Sarum Use was not a Rite but one of many such “uses” throughout the medieval Church, and in fact it wasn’t the only one used in England.

There were some liturgical changes in Henry’s reign, actually, but they were minor compared to what would follow.

Of course post-Reformation Anglicans claimed to adhere to the Catholic Faith, as did all other Protestants.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Just to be clear…I am Catholic and it’s not my argument, but one I have heard used by Anglo-Catholics. There is a book (but I forget the title) that develops these themes quite substantially.
 
Contarini said:
You misunderstand the argument. The argument is that there was a Church in England from early centuries, and that this Church continued after the Reformation.

To disprove that, you have to prove that union with Rome was an essential mark of the pre-Reformation “Church of England,” so that the post-schism Church of England is a different entity. And that’s a theological, not a historical argument.

So no, the historical record doesn’t prove anything one way or the other here.
Click to expand...
Contarini, you are not only annoyingly knowledgeable, you are annoyingly lucid. Please stop it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top