Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

[GKC]

He was a very large person in more that one way, but not perhaps one’s prime candidate for sainthood. He did have a tendency to, as GKC put it, take things to excess.

Opinionated, bull-headed, self-centered, not to be trifled with, fascinating historical train wreck.

Else fine, as we say in the rare book business.

 

[GKC]

Sure!!!

Ok. Since there is a demand for it.

Here’s one of the versions. Occasionally I add or subtract something.

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or pretty, 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 help 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; another title. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, were forwarded to Rome, 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 Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals, at a Consistory in June. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (that last lacked imagination).

When the Cardinals considering the matter 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 he was standing against Luther. For example, there was the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, 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 idea of a title for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to consider was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably clinched the deal. About the time it was presented to Leo, (one of 28 presentation copies sent, the Pope’s with a handwritten dedicatory verse, written by Henry, and bound in cloth of gold) Henry asked for 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, or, more strictly, by Leo’s reception of it, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus to Henry’s suggestion, but Leo vetoed the idea.

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. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, in her 2nd Act of Repeal, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

History is interesting.

 

[steido01]

Would you like then, to hear another go around, of a slightly off the topic, but fun, historical tidbit?

I’m of the opinion that history ought to be repeated as much as possible, lest it be repeated.

 

[GKC]

I’m of the opinion that history ought to be repeated as much as possible, lest it be repeated.

Then look above.

 

[utah_rose]

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.

Also, he claimed Catherine couldn’t give him an heir. None of them knew at the time that a mans chromosomes determine the sex of the baby. Poor excuse because he lusted after Anne, and if he had just made her a mistress maybe this would have been avoided. After this went downhill from there. He died of syphyllis. Wonder if he repented at the last minute.

 

[Durnford]

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?

The Anglicans are totally wish washy with no real theology to speak of
Just sort of a mutual self help club for various causes.

 

[Contarini]

That was not my point. I am sorry if I seem to challenge his catholicity. It was just the Catholic Church under the Pope would be a new church once separated from the Pope. I did not contest whether he was right or the theology was right or wrong.

But you can’t separate the two issues.

Was your Communion a new church once separated from Constantinople? Obviously you would say no. And whether or not you’re right would depend on the rightness or wrongness of your theology.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

The Anglicans are totally wish washy with no real theology to speak of
Just sort of a mutual self help club for various causes.

Depends on which Anglicans you are thinking of.

 

[GKC]

Also, he claimed Catherine couldn’t give him an heir. None of them knew at the time that a mans chromosomes determine the sex of the baby. Poor excuse because he lusted after Anne, and if he had just made her a mistress maybe this would have been avoided. After this went downhill from there. He died of syphyllis. Wonder if he repented at the last minute.

No conclusive historical evidence for syphilis; see Scarisbrick, HENRY VIII, p. 487, and note 2, loc. cit.

Ironically, of course, Henry did have a mistress, who did provide him with a male offspring. It didn’t help his dynastic problems.

 

[Contarini]

The Anglicans are totally wish washy with no real theology to speak of
Just sort of a mutual self help club for various causes.

That does not describe any Anglican parishes I have any experience of.

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

He was a very large person in more that one way, but not perhaps one’s prime candidate for sainthood. He did have a tendency to, as GKC put it, take things to excess.

Well put.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Ok. Since there is a demand for it.

Here’s one of the versions. Occasionally I add or subtract something.

Henry liked sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or pretty, 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 help 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; another title. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, were forwarded to Rome, 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 Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals, at a Consistory in June. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” (that last lacked imagination).

When the Cardinals considering the matter 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 he was standing against Luther. For example, there was the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, 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 idea of a title for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to consider was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably clinched the deal. About the time it was presented to Leo, (one of 28 presentation copies sent, the Pope’s with a handwritten dedicatory verse, written by Henry, and bound in cloth of gold) Henry asked for 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, or, more strictly, by Leo’s reception of it, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus to Henry’s suggestion, but Leo vetoed the idea.

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. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, in her 2nd Act of Repeal, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

History is interesting.

Thank you GKC. Maybe if they had put Rex Fidelis things might have turned out differently.

 

[GKC]

Thank you GKC. Maybe if they had put Rex Fidelis things might have turned out differently.

King Apostolic is mind-boggling.

 

[seanman611]

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?

If we use the bad political decisions and examples of bad political leaders that existed centuries ago as criteria for making or breaking a church, we are all in trouble.

During this medieval era and for the hundreds of years preceding King Henry VIII, the Papacy was mostly political office in which the most wealthy families in Italy vied for it like a crown. The actions of some of these medieval Popes are so despicable, it’s hard to even fathom some it.

Now, do I think that bad political leaders of the RCC during the medieval era undue them as a church? Of course not! If we want to have an honest discussion of the validity of the Anglican Church or any church, lets focus on the issues that matter and not on tyrannical leaders of the medieval era.

 

[7_Sorrows]

King Apostolic is mind-boggling.

yeah, that one made me laugh!!!

 

[ComplineSanFran]

The Anglicans are totally wish washy with no real theology to speak of
Just sort of a mutual self help club for various causes.

Well, that statement is a bit unpleasant, don’t you think? And in my life-long experience, not the case at all.

 

[Reuben_J]

But you can’t separate the two issues.

Was your Communion a new church once separated from Constantinople? Obviously you would say no. And whether or not you’re right would depend on the rightness or wrongness of your theology.

Edwin

Here refer to my postr #109:

It is just that if the church that existed where Henry was a member was a Catholic Church under the control of the Pope, then that Church had not changed. If it is changed, that is, not under the control of the Pope anymore, it would therefore cease to be a Catholic Church under the Pope control, and it will be an another church. If that church did not exist before that, then it will be a new church from that point in time, albeit with the same people.

And my post #101:

Reuben J:

What does it mean by separated from papal control? It is no more a Catholic Church because a Catholic Church would be under papal control. Yes, all the former Catholics of England left en mass from papal control and what does it means? It is not the Catholic Church by definition but a new church. What about the Catholics that did not leave with King Henry? These are the continuation of the Catholic Church.

What I wanted to know was answered by GKC here. I was done with it. The rest will be new issue for me.

GKV:

The point is, the Church in England, from its earliest days (which are a little lost in history), to the conflict in Henry’s day, was the same church. And that was the one with its seat in Rome. Henry did not start a new church, ab initio, or join some other, preexisting church in England. He broke that portion of the church that was in communion with Rome, and located in his territory, off from Rome, from submission to the Papacy, and declared it a separate and equal church. It was a schism.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is what I was trying to say. My language here may not be pretty accurate but it was something like that.

Once you changed, you might be the same person but the belief is not, the authority is not. In church language you would cease from being the old church because what would that makes those who do not change with you? Would they be the new church? Certainly not.

 

[Reuben_J]

Once you changed, you might be the same person but the belief is not, the authority is not. In church language you would cease from being the old church because what would that makes those who do not change with you? Would they be the new church? Certainly not.

For the comprehensively challenged, let break this into a simple understanding.

Say, if A and B are Catholics of the Catholic Church in England prior to Henry, they were simple ordinary Catholics under the Pope just like any other Catholics in the world, in Spain, France or Italy.

No.2. But if B decided to be separated from the Pope, then B ceased to be a Catholic under the Pope. What he is now therefore is something else by his own definition but certainly not Catholic as before. A is.

No.3. The claim is that the Anglican Church is the same Church since the fourth century where both A and B were members. It could not be. If it was so, what about A now? Which church is A then?

No. 4. One cannot change any Catholic Church in any place or parish by separating from the Pope and then say it is still the catholic Church, say of St, Mary. It doesn’t work that way.

No. 5 The Church is not a personal property where King Henry can just change and take it anywhere. It is not just King Henry. There were people there. Some might choose not to follow him and these were still in the same church. As for King Henry, if he wanted to separate from the Pope, he could bring some people along with him but it would not be the same church anymore. Certainly those Catholics who did not follow him disagree that his church is still the same as theirs.

 

[friardchips]

It was a political move from every angle. To gain an heir by another marriage. And, the dissolution of the monasteries happening soon afterwards, leads to the conclusion that maybe it served more than the one purpose.

I often wonder the same thoughts. How can people who really love Christianity remain in Anglicanism when they read their history?! I think it has something to do with englishness. Many english people pride themselves in their country, middle-class englishness. This attitude has an ongoing detrimental effect on the Catholic Church here too. And it segregates many people. It is very stiff upper lipped and quite stifling. I don’t mean to be cruel but it also attracts a lot of oddballs (not in the vulnerable-how-sad sense). I think this general laidback attitude stifles the work of the Holy Spirit. One can be educated and not be narrow at the same time. One has to free oneself from limited scope to be an effective Christian, IMO.