Fair point.
Henry VIII was not a man of high morals, I don’t deny that. What my previous comments referred to were that he did not found the Protestant Church of England. He did set himself up as the Head of the Catholic Church in England. Whilst I don’t set him up as a great rôle model, he was no better or worse than his fellow, contemporary monarchs. He is, too often, wrongly accused of being the founder of Protestantism in England.
He certainly set the ball rolling, though. Thousands suffered under his tyranny who were turned out onto the highways with no means of support after he took over the abbeys and monasteries and gave them to his nobles who supported him. He destroyed shrines and churches and killed hundreds for their faith. Hardly one who could be described as the head of the Catholic Church in any country, wouldn’t you say? If only Mary had had children England might have been saved for the Church since most of the common people were loyally Catholic.
I’m not suggesting we put Henry VIII up for sainthood. Similarly, I’d never claim he was more of a tyrant than his contemporaries. But, he didn’t reject the Catholic Faith and set up a Protestant Church. Yes, if Mary had had children thinks might have been different. We could argue that thinks might have been different if Catherine of Aragon had had a son. Likewise, the Pope could’ve granted Henry an annulment. From what I’ve read he did have a very good case. The whole issue is clouded by politics. Protestantism started to get its toe in the door under Henry’s successor Edward VI because of those in Court who were the power behind the Throne were Protestant supporters. The Pope was convinced by France and Castille and Aragon not to grant this marriage annulment. They were all playing politics and not taking a lot of care of the Church.
Elizabeth certainly was no Catholic. She persecuted many and executed priests just for being Catholic priests. The more formal split came under Edward, poor misused child, but Elizabeth was no friend of the Church. And certainly politics had a place, and if Henry’s application for an annulment had been made on other grounds it might have been granted. Still, Henry’s obstinance, desire for a son, and his need to control everything started the whole thing off.
That is somewhat an understatement
Henry was not a protestant. He didn’t make any protestant changes. He was even given the tile of ‘Defender of the Faith’ for his book on the Catholic Sacraments. Yes, he denied Rome’s authorities. He closed down the monasteries because he wanted their money. He was almost certainly schismatic. He wasn’t a heretic.
Henry VIII received a dispensation from the pope to marry Kathryn of Aragon. (she had been married to Henry’s late older brother). For the pope to have annulled Henry VIII’s marriage to her he (the pope) would have had to dispense with the original dispensation. As I understand it, that could not be done under Canon law.
I never used the word heretic.
And he was awarded the title DOF before he broke with Rome. All in all, his protests against Rome certainly paved the way for Protestantism in England. There is no denying that.The understanding is that Henry should never have been given the original dispensation to marry Catherine. Henry VIII had a good case to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. This was not forthcoming because Catherine’s relatives back in Aragon and Castille together with their ally at the time, France, applied pressure on the pope to refuse the annulment.
I know you didn’t use the word ‘heretic’. I was pointing out that Henry broke away from Rome (schism) but he retained the Catholic Church as people had always known it. He didn’t introduce Protestant theology (heresy).
I don’t think he’d much chance of it after his breaking away from Rome.
I would accept that Henry’s breaking away from Rome might have paved the road for the politically-minded protestants to be able to push the Church in England along the protestant route during Edward VI’s reign.
I don’t think we can say the original dispensation was not rightfully given. I have no doubt politic pressure was brought to bear, but I don’t think we can simply say that the pope made his decision based on who Catherine’s relatives were. The English were rather foreign in the way they thought about themselves, and the rest of Europe thought the same about them. They couldn’t “play ball” like the more southern nations. It was as much a problem of national character differences as anything else, IMHO, that lent itself to the difficulties the pope had with dealing with Henry. It’s the same today. Americans–USA Americans, that is, think very differently from S. Americans or Europeans or Asians, etc. Knowing how to deal with all these different cultural differences is truly hard. I don’t envy any man on the papal throne who has to sort it all out.
Yeah, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the Pope at the time was a prisoner of Catherine’s nephew, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who sacked Rome.I don’t think we can say the original dispensation was not rightfully given. I have no doubt politic pressure was brought to bear, but I don’t think we can simply say that the pope made his decision based on who Catherine’s relatives were. The English were rather foreign in the way they thought about themselves, and the rest of Europe thought the same about them. They couldn’t “play ball” like the more southern nations. It was as much a problem of national character differences as anything else, IMHO, that lent itself to the difficulties the pope had with dealing with Henry. It’s the same today. Americans–USA Americans, that is, think very differently from S. Americans or Europeans or Asians, etc. Knowing how to deal with all these different cultural differences is truly hard. I don’t envy any man on the papal throne who has to sort it all out.
Anyway, we’ve gone way off topic, for which I humbly apologize to the OP and the moderator.
It was no doubt part of the political pressure Clement VII had to deal with, but Charles regretted his actions in the sack of Rome and the imprisoning of the pope. As is usual in these cases, it was a complicated issue in a complicated time. Still, we cannot say that Clement was forced to make his decision by Charles or anything other than canon law. There is no hard evidence besides conjure to come to that conclusion.Yeah, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the Pope at the time was a prisoner of Catherine’s nephew, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who sacked Rome.
Anyway, we’ve gone way off topic, for which I humbly apologize to the OP and the moderator.
I’ve started a new thread on this topic here.
Point one is not historically accurate. See Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, the best bio on hank I know of ( and he’s a hobby of mine for years). Point 2 is accurate in that he had a variety of mistresses, Elizabeth Blount, one of Catherine;s ladies in waiting, who handed him his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy, later to lay a small part in Hank’s maneuvers to find a suitable heir to his throne.
There is no historical evidence that the coffin exploded. Lacey Baldwin Smith’s HENRY VIII:THE MASK OF ROYALTY, suggests that the body was embalmed before being moved. No other of my bios of Hank supports the exploding coffin idea.
I fully agree.I have been told that teaching Bible verses to kids starting at a very young age is not so much that they will know, understand and follow them at the time they memorize the verses (Although, wouldn’t that be nice?
The same situation happens with the multiplication tables and I’ve never heard anyone having a problem with that!
That wont wash as its not true, Henry broke from Rome and in doing so he made every English person sign a document to the effect that he Henry was Head of the Church “in England” NOT HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ENGLAND. If that was the case he would not of broken off ties with Rome, and cut of heads of Priests, Nuns, Monks, and any Catholic that was loyal to Rome got there head chopped, but if you agreed that Henry was Head of the Church in England and he was now making the Rules and Regulations as he saw fit you kept your life, why did he chop the head of (one of many) of his Chancellor St. Thomas Moore his best friend because he said that he could not agree that Henry was Head of the Church or any Church in England, But as a loyal Catholic it was the Pope that was head of the Catholic Church. At the Home Page of the Catholic Forum there is an article regards Henry - read it , says exactly what I am saying. He was one evil, adulterer, who had sex with his second wife’s sister Anne Boleyn, who also gave him a daughter and he cut her head off for not giving him a son, look what he did to England to marry that woman who was his Mistress ( and had slept with her sister) he ruined England pulled down every Monastery, Convent, and a lot of Church’s anything to do with being “Catholic”. There was a Papal Nuncio in England at the time if he wanted to keep communication going, but he dispatched him back to Rome and went into a fury when Cardinal Pole stayed in Rome as he wanted him back to England to cut off his head, as Cardinal Pole sent him a very straight letter and pulled no punches.