Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

[Picky_Picky]

Yes they are very keen to trace who ordained them. Now there are women bishops though that’s an exercise in futility

Well in Rome’s view the gender of the Anglican bishop makes no difference: he/she is no bishop anyway. The whole thing is an exercise in futility.

 

[Picky_Picky]

And, of course, there are plenty of Anglicans who do not have woman bishops/priests. GKC for one.

 

[GKC]

Yes they are very keen to trace who ordained them. Now there are women bishops though that’s an exercise in futility

Depends on which Anglicans you are thinking of, as to that point.

 

[GKC]

And, of course, there are plenty of Anglicans who do not have woman bishops/priests. GKC for one.

And darn well gonna stay that way.

 

[zz912]

I never believed Henry started the Church of England because he sided with Martin Luther. it was all about his marital woes and the need for a legitimate male heir.

Which goes to show how stupid his whole plan was.

Two of his daughters reigned as Queen, one for about 50 years.

If he had obeyed the Pope, he wouldn’t have created the whole Anglican Church, the wars and fighting and all that mess. He could have worked hard to firmly plant his daughter Mary as Queen upon his death, and there would have been stability and England would still be Catholic.

 

[GKC]

Which goes to show how stupid his whole plan was.

Two of his daughters reigned as Queen, one for about 50 years.

If he had obeyed the Pope, he wouldn’t have created the whole Anglican Church, the wars and fighting and all that mess. He could have worked hard to firmly plant his daughter Mary as Queen upon his death, and there would have been stability and England would still be Catholic.

That in his rather feeble grasp on the throne, Henry worried about the idea of a female heir and successor, and thought that the conventional wisdom of a legitimate male heir was far more secure a path, is not surprising. The closest parallel he might have considered was the row between Stephen and Matilda, back 400 years previous. Didn’t work out well for anyone. That, in fact, Elizabeth was both accepted and competent as the sovereign, was not something that would have been expected, given English history. Henry was acting as to the safest course for his dynastic succession.

 

[friardchips]

Which goes to show how stupid his whole plan was.

Two of his daughters reigned as Queen, one for about 50 years.

If he had obeyed the Pope, he wouldn’t have created the whole Anglican Church, the wars and fighting and all that mess. He could have worked hard to firmly plant his daughter Mary as Queen upon his death, and there would have been stability and England would still be Catholic.

Maybe he simply misinterpreted his title of Defender of the Faith as meaning something else.

 

[friardchips]

I have no idea AT ALL what you are talking about. Do you imagine More to be some sort of gentle soul then? I think you will find that by our standards you are very mistaken. I really think you should CALM DOWN and READ HISTORY ������

I read history. Just the kind that is not fabricated by secular atheist historians. This thread uses a similar tone to that of the BBC.

As I said, REAL knowledge, not LIES, has been used in the defence of St. Thomas More’s name from people in authority in the Church. Unless you are a member of the American ‘Catholic’ Church? In which case, I’d understand why you might say these desperate things.

So quick to defend Henry XIII’s motives and yet so quick to make disparaging remarks about St. Thomas More’s good name on the say-so of a few historians with an atheist agenda.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Which goes to show how stupid his whole plan was.

Two of his daughters reigned as Queen, one for about 50 years.

If he had obeyed the Pope, he wouldn’t have created the whole Anglican Church, the wars and fighting and all that mess. He could have worked hard to firmly plant his daughter Mary as Queen upon his death, and there would have been stability and England would still be Catholic.

Ahhh, hindsight is everything, isn’t it? And what would have happened once Mary died given there were no heirs? And what of the rumblings of the Reformation in Europe? I have very little faith that England would still be Catholic in your alternative reality.

 

[friardchips]

Ahhh, hindsight is everything, isn’t it? And what would have happened once Mary died given there were no heirs? And what of the rumblings of the Reformation in Europe? I have very little faith that England would still be Catholic in your alternative reality.

A schism is never a good thing no matter what the reason.

 

[JimmyG88]

I read history. Just the kind that is not fabricated by secular atheist historians. This thread uses a similar tone to that of the BBC.

As I said, REAL knowledge, not LIES, has been used in the defence of St. Thomas More’s name from people in authority in the Church. Unless you are a member of the American ‘Catholic’ Church? In which case, I’d understand why you might say these desperate things.

So quick to defend Henry XIII’s motives and yet so quick to make disparaging remarks about St. Thomas More’s good name on the say-so of a few historians with an atheist agenda.

Let me tell you I have be taught about Thomas More (and St John Fisher and the other 40 martyrs of England and Wales) since before you heard of him. He was my late mother’s favourite Saint. However unlike you I don’t look at characters in on one dimensional way through rose tinted glasses and I am a Roman Cathoiic. Read this it might enlighten you a bit.
The Life of Thomas More amazon.co.uk/dp/0385496931/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_xpBLvbKNMQHF3

 

[friardchips]

Let me tell you I have be taught about Thomas More (and St John Fisher and the other 40 martyrs of England and Wales) since before you heard of him. He was my late mother’s favourite Saint. However unlike you I don’t look at characters in on one dimensional way through rose tinted glasses and I am a Roman Cathoiic. Read this it might enlighten you a bit.
The Life of Thomas More amazon.co.uk/dp/0385496931/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_xpBLvbKNMQHF3

Considering that the author was literary editor of The Spectator (!), one of his books won the Guardian Fiction Prize, he is an author well known for magnifying dark sides in personalities in his books, and that his books are themes of people linked with London; you couldn’t have picked a more transparently subversive writer.

As I said, now for the third time, St. Thomas More has been defended by men in positions of authority in the Church. And I would rush to their accounts before picking up one written by someone so likely to try and write to sell.

I wouldn’t read it if it was there in front of me.

And yes, I believe that saints are saints for true, noble and holy reasons.

 

[Contarini]

I read history. Just the kind that is not fabricated by secular atheist historians. This thread uses a similar tone to that of the BBC.

As I said, REAL knowledge, not LIES, has been used in the defence of St. Thomas More’s name from people in authority in the Church. Unless you are a member of the American ‘Catholic’ Church? In which case, I’d understand why you might say these desperate things.

So quick to defend Henry XIII’s motives and yet so quick to make disparaging remarks about St. Thomas More’s good name on the say-so of a few historians with an atheist agenda.

What facts are you disputing, exactly?

If you’re disputing the whipping/torture claim, then you’re on solid ground.

If you are disputing that More imprisoned heretics in his house and was part of the process that led to their execution–of which he thoroughly approved, in cases where they were impenitent–then you are not.

And whining about bias doesn’t change evidence.

Edwin

 

[Reuben_J]

Which goes to show how stupid his whole plan was.

Two of his daughters reigned as Queen, one for about 50 years.

If he had obeyed the Pope, he wouldn’t have created the whole Anglican Church, the wars and fighting and all that mess. He could have worked hard to firmly plant his daughter Mary as Queen upon his death, and there would have been stability and England would still be Catholic.

Politic and religion cannot really mix and when they do, one will usurp the other.

Anglicans would believe that Henry thought he did what was right, as he believed. They probably need to believe this, but obviously he was wrong, whether he was properly catechized or not, notwithstanding.

Yes, he should just obey the Pope’s ruling on the rejection of the annulment and continue to be a believer. The rest, what happened, was purely political maneuvering to achieve Henry’s ambition for his dynasty, and nothing to do with religion anymore. As a Catholic, he should know that he could not do what he did.

Sadly this is the course of action that some Catholics still do today - being not allowed to remarry, they would just leave the Church.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Politic and religion cannot really mix and when they do, one will usurp the other.

Anglicans would believe that Henry thought he did what was right, as he believed. They probably need to believe this, but obviously he was wrong, whether he was properly catechized or not, notwithstanding.

Yes, he should just obey the Pope’s ruling on the rejection of the annulment and continue to be a believer. The rest, what happened, was purely political maneuvering to achieve Henry’s ambition for his dynasty, and nothing to do with religion anymore. As a Catholic, he should know that he could not do what he did.

Sadly this is the course of action that some Catholics still do today - being not allowed to remarry, they would just leave the Church.

I can’t agree that it didn’t have anything to do with religion anymore or the Church of England would not have a liturgical worship service that so closely resembles the Catholic Mass. Granted, Henry was a flawed Christian, committing adultery, among other things, but I don’t think he was an atheist.

 

[Reuben_J]

I can’t agree that it didn’t have anything to do with religion anymore or the Church of England would not have a liturgical worship service that so closely resembles the Catholic Mass. Granted, Henry was a flawed Christian, committing adultery, among other things, but I don’t think he was an atheist.

Well, we can’t read his heart. What he did was really an improvisation to legitimatize his new church. Using the same liturgy, well, exactly.

He left the Church because the annulment was rejected.

 

[Contarini]

Politic and religion cannot really mix

What do you mean by politics and what do you mean by religion?

Because personally, I don’t see how you can possibly disentangle these things. The idea that you can strikes me as a bizarre modern superstition.

But perhaps we are just defining the terms differently.

Anglicans would believe that Henry thought he did what was right, as he believed.

They might, or they might not.

They probably need to believe this

No. You and many other Catholics on this forum apparently need to believe all sorts of things about what Anglicans need to believe. But Anglicans do not need to believe anything at all about Henry VIII.

Henry VIII’s actions in making himself the head of the English Church have certainly had huge ramifications for Anglicanism. But these ramifications do not in any way entail Anglicans needing to believe something about Henry.

All that Anglicans, as Anglicans, need to believe in order to be Anglicans is that their communities are genuine communities of baptized people holding to the ancient Creeds that embody the essential teachings of the Church, and celebrating the two sacraments instituted by Christ.

Anglo-Catholics, a subset of Anglicans, further need to believe that Anglicans have valid apostolic succession.

That, it seems to me, is all that Anglicans need to believe. None of it depends on believing anything at all about Henry VIII.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I can’t agree that it didn’t have anything to do with religion anymore or the Church of England would not have a liturgical worship service that so closely resembles the Catholic Mass.

That is a strange non-sequitur for all kinds of reasons:

1. Something can have plenty to do with religion and not directly affect the liturgy.
2. In fact, the liturgy during Henry’s reign was the Catholic Mass. Major liturgical changes took place in Edward’s reign.
3. The similarity between Anglican and Catholic liturgies today probably derives (depending on what C of E liturgies you are thinking of–there’s wide variety, from “Missal parishes” to “Prayer Book parishes” to parishes that behave like American non-denominational worship services) from later liturgical changes in Anglicanism and in Catholicism, creating a convergence that would not have been evident, say, in 1800.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

What do you mean by politics and what do you mean by religion?

Because personally, I don’t see how you can possibly disentangle these things. The idea that you can strikes me as a bizarre modern superstition.

But perhaps we are just defining the terms differently.

They might, or they might not.

No. You and many other Catholics on this forum apparently need to believe all sorts of things about what Anglicans need to believe. But Anglicans do not need to believe anything at all about Henry VIII.

Henry VIII’s actions in making himself the head of the English Church have certainly had huge ramifications for Anglicanism. But these ramifications do not in any way entail Anglicans needing to believe something about Henry.

All that Anglicans, as Anglicans, need to believe in order to be Anglicans is that their communities are genuine communities of baptized people holding to the ancient Creeds that embody the essential teachings of the Church, and celebrating the two sacraments instituted by Christ.

Anglo-Catholics, a subset of Anglicans, further need to believe that Anglicans have valid apostolic succession.

That, it seems to me, is all that Anglicans need to believe. None of it depends on believing anything at all about Henry VIII.

Edwin

I need to add 5 sacraments, myself.

 

[7_Sorrows]

That is a strange non-sequitur for all kinds of reasons:

1. Something can have plenty to do with religion and not directly affect the liturgy.
2. In fact, the liturgy during Henry’s reign was the Catholic Mass. Major liturgical changes took place in Edward’s reign.
3. The similarity between Anglican and Catholic liturgies today probably derives (depending on what C of E liturgies you are thinking of–there’s wide variety, from “Missal parishes” to “Prayer Book parishes” to parishes that behave like American non-denominational worship services) from later liturgical changes in Anglicanism and in Catholicism, creating a convergence that would not have been evident, say, in 1800.

Edwin

but Henry did not start the Church of England because he wanted to follow in the footsteps of Luther. I agree with Reuben that it was ambition for his dynasty. he did not abandon the Catholic way of worship. he abandoned Papal authority and we can see what transpired the following 400+ years.