History of the RC to Church of England question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Whalljim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Whalljim

Guest
Okay, first, I’m sorry if this isn’t in the right spot, it seemed the best fit.

But I’m wondering if anyone can suggest a history of the birth of the Church of England.

I’m watching the Fr. Brown mysteries with my wife, and it got me to thinking as to how the C of E got started, and when Henry VIII made his break, what happened to the local parishes?

I mean, in my mind it was always a clean break; Thursday the parish is RC, Friday its C of E. But I know that can’t have happened that way.

How did the priests and bishops handle it? Did they flee? Some surely followed Henry, but what of those that didn’t? And what about the parish’s themselves? If Donald Trump declared himself head of ‘The American Church’ and put pressure on American Catholics to break from the Church, I can’t imagine going along with it, but I know it was a different time.
 
Whalljim said:
Okay, first, I’m sorry if this isn’t in the right spot, it seemed the best fit.

But I’m wondering if anyone can suggest a history of the birth of the Church of England.

I’m watching the Fr. Brown mysteries with my wife, and it got me to thinking as to how the C of E got started, and when Henry VIII made his break, what happened to the local parishes?

I mean, in my mind it was always a clean break; Thursday the parish is RC, Friday its C of E. But I know that can’t have happened that way.

How did the priests and bishops handle it? Did they flee? Some surely followed Henry, but what of those that didn’t? And what about the parish’s themselves? If Donald Trump declared himself head of ‘The American Church’ and put pressure on American Catholics to break from the Church, I can’t imagine going along with it, but I know it was a different time.
Click to expand...
First, good idea watching Fr. Brown, but the current series of shows is far inferior to the books (if you are watching the series I;m thinking of). Continue to absorb Chesterton.

And you’ve asked a wide ranging question, which I have not the time to address fully. But as a start:

Yes. A clean break. By Parliamentary decree, the Church in England became the Church of England. Yes. There was noise and non-concurrence. Look up the Pilgrimage of Grace. Yes, some clergy fled, and some went underground. And some resisted as best they Good reading: Duffy’s STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS, Moorman’s HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND, chaps X-XIV, DIckens’ THE ENGLISH REFORMATION, Elton’s ENGLAND UNDER THE TUDORS, and Hogge’s GOD’S SECRET AGENTS, for the underground resistance that developed. And, as always for understanding Henry and what was going on, Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII. It’s a start. And all I have time for, at the time.

And read a lot of Chesterton. Not particularly for this subject, just on general principles.
 
I second the motion to read Fr Brown stories. I find the TV series, though enjoyable, do a really poor job of representing Chesterton’s Fr Brown.

As to your main question: read the following:

traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/What_was_the_Reformation.html

Although not just specifically about the Church of England, Belloc does a better job explaining the reformation than any other historian, and he does so in a simple and concise manner. You can also read his book, The Great Heresies:

amazon.com/Great-Heresies-Hilaire-Belloc/dp/0991560671/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1498495741&sr=8-2&keywords=hilaire+belloc+reformation

Very good read!!!
 
tafan said:
I second the motion to read Fr Brown stories. I find the TV series, though enjoyable, do a really poor job of representing Chesterton’s Fr Brown.

As to your main question: read the following:

traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/What_was_the_Reformation.html

Although not just specifically about the Church of England, Belloc does a better job explaining the reformation than any other historian, and he does so in a simple and concise manner. You can also read his book, The Great Heresies:

amazon.com/Great-Heresies-Hilaire-Belloc/dp/0991560671/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1498495741&sr=8-2&keywords=hilaire+belloc+reformation

Very good read!!!
Click to expand...
Thank you both!

I suppose the speed with which the RC became the C of E just astounds me.
 
tafan said:
I second the motion to read Fr Brown stories. I find the TV series, though enjoyable, do a really poor job of representing Chesterton’s Fr Brown.

As to your main question: read the following:

traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/What_was_the_Reformation.html

Although not just specifically about the Church of England, Belloc does a better job explaining the reformation than any other historian, and he does so in a simple and concise manner. You can also read his book, The Great Heresies:

amazon.com/Great-Heresies-Hilaire-Belloc/dp/0991560671/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1498495741&sr=8-2&keywords=hilaire+belloc+reformation

Very good read!!!
Click to expand...
I figured that link was to Belloc. I’ve collected him for as long (50+ years) as I have Chesterton. But to get a balanced picture, you need to read him and others, as in those I suggested above.

But, read Belloc, sure. Say, his CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION. Or HOW THE REFORMATION HAPPENED. Or Vols. 3 and 4 of his A HISTORY OF ENGLAND. And other stuff. And Chesterton. Don’t forget Chesterton.
 
And The Church of England was formed several years after Luther it should be noted.
At one time, Henry VIII was granted the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope.

The Church of England was formed as a result of Henry VIII not being able to have
his first marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. It is all very complicated, but Henry did not have the arguments against the Church that Luther did. Of course, once the reforms started with Luther 17 years earlier, it did not take long for the
protestant thinking to spread throughout Europe. Or before it crept into the King’s court. If Henry had had a male heir with his first wife Catherine, there might never
had been a Church of England and England might have remained Catholic.
Mary, the daughter of Henry and Catherine, tried to return the country to Catholicism
when she reigned.
And it should be noted that Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn, became one of England’s greatest queens.
The liturgy of the Anglican communion is very similar to the Catholic Mass.
 
7_Sorrows said:
And The Church of England was formed several years after Luther it should be noted.
At one time, Henry VIII was granted the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope.

The Church of England was formed as a result of Henry VIII not being able to have
his first marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. It is all very complicated, but Henry did not have the arguments against the Church that Luther did. Of course, once the reforms started with Luther 17 years earlier, it did not take long for the
protestant thinking to spread throughout Europe. Or before it crept into the King’s court. If Henry had had a male heir with his first wife Catherine, there might never
had been a Church of England and England might have remained Catholic.
Mary, the daughter of Henry and Catherine, tried to return the country to Catholicism
when she reigned.
And it should be noted that Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn, became one of England’s greatest queens.
The liturgy of the Anglican communion is very similar to the Catholic Mass.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
That’s what surprises me, I guess.

It seemed like the faithful in England had a natural reaction to be more loyal to the King than the Pope in matters of faith.

As I said, I can’t imagine a President here (Any President) saying that now the Catholic Church in the United States is a branch of the US government and no longer owes any allegiance to the Pope.

I think (I hope) most would tell the President to pound sand.

But in England not only does it seem like they switched quickly, but they became vitriolically pro C of E quickly.

I mean, what happened to the Bishops? You’d think at least some of them would try to fight it out?

Anyway, I’ll read up and find out. Thank you!
 
Whalljim said:
That’s what surprises me, I guess.

It seemed like the faithful in England had a natural reaction to be more loyal to the King than the Pope in matters of faith.

As I said, I can’t imagine a President here (Any President) saying that now the Catholic Church in the United States is a branch of the US government and no longer owes any allegiance to the Pope.

I think (I hope) most would tell the President to pound sand.

But in England not only does it seem like they switched quickly, but they became vitriolically pro C of E quickly.

I mean, what happened to the Bishops? You’d think at least some of them would try to fight it out?

Anyway, I’ll read up and find out. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Consider the time period. Communications and the ease of communicating have made the world seem small. We’ve all seen pictures of Pope Francis, read articles about him, statements by him, etc… He’s visited many of our countries already, as did his predecessors, etc… And he’s primarily a religious figure.

Back then, the Pope was not afforded that luxury. The Pope was a distant figure, typically a corrupt (as far too many of the 15th and early 16th century Popes were) Italian, Frenchman, Spaniard, etc… who was as much worldly King of another temporal state, as he was the religious Bishop of Rome. The King of England, while still distant and unknown on a personal level to most English, was at least the king of your Temporal realm.
 
Whalljim said:
That’s what surprises me, I guess.

It seemed like the faithful in England had a natural reaction to be more loyal to the King than the Pope in matters of faith.

As I said, I can’t imagine a President here (Any President) saying that now the Catholic Church in the United States is a branch of the US government and no longer owes any allegiance to the Pope. . 4.

I think (I hope) most would tell the President to pound sand.

But in England not only does it seem like they switched quickly, but they became vitriolically pro C of E quickly.

I mean, what happened to the Bishops? You’d think at least some of them would try to fight it out?

Anyway, I’ll read up and find out. Thank you!
Click to expand...
With the notable exception of Fisher, and the bishophrics held in absentia (at least Salisbury and Worcester), the Bishops went with Henry, AFAIK. See Elton, op. cit. chap.4.
 
7_Sorrows said:
And The Church of England was formed several years after Luther it should be noted.
At one time, Henry VIII was granted the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope.

The Church of England was formed as a result of Henry VIII not being able to have
his first marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. It is all very complicated, but Henry did not have the arguments against the Church that Luther did. Of course, once the reforms started with Luther 17 years earlier, it did not take long for the
protestant thinking to spread throughout Europe. Or before it crept into the King’s court. If Henry had had a male heir with his first wife Catherine, there might never
had been a Church of England and England might have remained Catholic.
Mary, the daughter of Henry and Catherine, tried to return the country to Catholicism
when she reigned.
And it should be noted that Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn, became one of England’s greatest queens.
The liturgy of the Anglican communion is very similar to the Catholic Mass.
Click to expand...
I’ll add the rapid spread might have been in part because a large number of people were ready for something different. It could be said the soil was rich and just waiting for a seed.
 
Whalljim said:
That’s what surprises me, I guess.

It seemed like the faithful in England had a natural reaction to be more loyal to the King than the Pope in matters of faith.

As I said, I can’t imagine a President here (Any President) saying that now the Catholic Church in the United States is a branch of the US government and no longer owes any allegiance to the Pope.

I think (I hope) most would tell the President to pound sand.

But in England not only does it seem like they switched quickly, but they became vitriolically pro C of E quickly.

I mean, what happened to the Bishops? You’d think at least some of them would try to fight it out?

Anyway, I’ll read up and find out. Thank you!
Click to expand...
From what I understand, nothing really changed when the “Church in England” became the “Church of England”. The faith remained exactly the same with the exception that the head of the Church rotated from the Pope to the King, although really all decisions were still made by the Archbishop of Canterbury (who deferred to the King, of course). In the history of the medieval Church there had also been several attempts by secular rulers to bring the Church under their influence, such as the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. So Henry’s fight with Rome wasn’t exactly unheard of. Perhaps the average Englishman saw the split as above their paygrade and thought it would blow over, since nothing immediately changed at their level?

The real changes towards a liturgical and doctrinal protestantism did not begin until the end of Henry VIII’s reign and then the short reign of his young son Edward (who was a child and not really King of anything). These changes were solidified with the very long reign of Elizabeth.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I too have always wondered why the English turned so violently “anti-papist” so quickly, when they were such a strong Catholic country.
 
Whalljim said:
That’s what surprises me, I guess.

It seemed like the faithful in England had a natural reaction to be more loyal to the King than the Pope in matters of faith.

As I said, I can’t imagine a President here (Any President) saying that now the Catholic Church in the United States is a branch of the US government and no longer owes any allegiance to the Pope.

I think (I hope) most would tell the President to pound sand.

But in England not only does it seem like they switched quickly, but they became vitriolically pro C of E quickly.

I mean, what happened to the Bishops? You’d think at least some of them would try to fight it out?

Anyway, I’ll read up and find out. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Here is my short Opus.

We cannot compare Britain and the US because the US has never had a state Church.

Beginning with Armenia in 301 AD, many countries adopted Christianity as a state religion. Many kings and emperors had great influence over the Church in their country. The Pope eventually had his own country, the Papal States.

Henry VIII was seen as a loyal Catholic before his marital issues. When he split with Rome, he did not embrace the Protestant ideas/theology initially. He was, in his mind, just separating the English Catholic Church from the Bishop of Rome; much as the Eastern Bishops split with Rome in the Great Schism. Only after Henry did the Anglican Church adopt Protestant ideas. A hundred years later, the Calvinists under Cromwell take over Britain and execute the King.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
From what I understand, nothing really changed when the “Church in England” became the “Church of England”. The faith remained exactly the same with the exception that the head of the Church rotated from the Pope to the King, although really all decisions were still made by the Archbishop of Canterbury (who deferred to the King, of course). In the history of the medieval Church there had also been several attempts by secular rulers to bring the Church under their influence, such as the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. So Henry’s fight with Rome wasn’t exactly unheard of. Perhaps the average Englishman saw the split as above their paygrade and thought it would blow over, since nothing immediately changed at their level?

The real changes towards a liturgical and doctrinal protestantism did not begin until the end of Henry VIII’s reign and then the short reign of his young son Edward (who was a child and not really King of anything). These changes were solidified with the very long reign of Elizabeth.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I too have always wondered why the English turned so violently “anti-papist” so quickly, when they were such a strong Catholic country.
Click to expand...
Yep, mostly.
 
I think the rapid anti-Catholicism was begun due to Henry’s shame and , flip side anger. Taking much of Roman Catholic property was a reflection of the depth of his hurt (and his voracious appetite for new castles).

The Reformers under Edward supercharged it by banning anything resembling Catholicism. How would we react if some governmental entity came and tried to change everything about the parish we’ve attended for decades. (Not well…).

Mary was having none of that and so turned things back towards Rome. Elizabeth wanted to settle things down again and did so with what is known as the Elizabethan settlement.

Here’s a wiki article on the Elizabethan Settlement. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_Religious_Settlement
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I think the rapid anti-Catholicism was begun due to Henry’s shame and , flip side anger. Taking much of Roman Catholic property was a reflection of the depth of his hurt (and his voracious appetite for new castles).

The Reformers under Edward supercharged it by banning anything resembling Catholicism. How would we react if some governmental entity came and tried to change everything about the parish we’ve attended for decades. (Not well…).

Mary was having none of that and so turned things back towards Rome. Elizabeth wanted to settle things down again and did so with what is known as the Elizabethan settlement.

Here’s a wiki article on the Elizabethan Settlement. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_Religious_Settlement
Click to expand...
Henry used Cromwell’s idea to take the monasteries’ wealth primarily for passing out goodies to the upper class for support, and some other things.

Otherwise, yep.
 
I expect one can overestimate the involvement of most people in the details of religion in that (largely) pre-literate era.
 
Whalljim said:
That’s what surprises me, I guess.

It seemed like the faithful in England had a natural reaction to be more loyal to the King than the Pope in matters of faith.

As I said, I can’t imagine a President here (Any President) saying that now the Catholic Church in the United States is a branch of the US government and no longer owes any allegiance to the Pope.

I think (I hope) most would tell the President to pound sand.

But in England not only does it seem like they switched quickly, but they became vitriolically pro C of E quickly.

I mean, what happened to the Bishops? You’d think at least some of them would try to fight it out?

Anyway, I’ll read up and find out. Thank you!
Click to expand...
The reason why England seemed to “switch quickly” and seemed to side with the king over the Pope was very simple. The church’s lands were sneezed and immediately distributed. The new landed class and the nobles in existence were enriched by the action. They all had a huge material incentive to side with the King. There was no one to lead the fight for the Pope.
Contrast that with France, whose king specifically protected church lands and you ended up with religious wars, because people saw in Switzerland and England the bounty that could be gained from a split with Rome.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I too have always wondered why the English turned so violently “anti-papist” so quickly, when they were such a strong Catholic country.
Click to expand...
Part of it had to do with the fact that the Vatican immediately tried to undermine Henry and his heirs once they made the switch. Catholics were at times encouraged to plot against the state to restore Catholicism. Spain, England’s rival, got involved. Because of all this political maneuvering Catholicism became associated with treason and foreign powers. Gradually, common people began to associate Catholicism with being unpatriotic and Catholics as potential foreign agents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top