How do Protestants rationalize King Henry VIII, and his selfish non-spiritual motivation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychicharvard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
King Henri VII , King Henry VIII father had pursued a prudent fiscal policy and he was careful to avoid debt and reckless spending however his son King Henry VIII lacked any fiscal restrain spending like crazy , in palaces, jewels , sumptuous furniture, clothes , balls , tournaments and his many mistress . He broke the treasure, and he always needed money so his break with Rome provided an great opportunity to obtain new sources of revenues for his pleasures .

King Henry VIII broke from Rome not only due to his divorce but in order to
steal the assets from monasteries including relics, even the relic on the tomb of Thomas Becket were steal. King Henry VIII confiscated the land which belong to the clergy and many members of the nobility and the wealthy plebeians out of greed , abandoned the Catholic Church in order to enjoy the bounty .
 
Bluegoat said:
Not that I fault them really for simplifying or making it appealing. As the philosophers tell us us, fiction is history made perfect and laid bare. And as for the other, how many would prefer to watch Robby Coltrane frolic about half naked instead of Jonathan Rhys-Myers? (Actually, I think Coltrane be an amazing Henry, but there would be a certain viewing audience that would be lost I’m sure.)
Click to expand...
I love Robbie Coltraine! He would be a perfect Henry VIII – he has a weird sex appeal despite his less-than-leading-man physique. I could totally buy him as an egomanical, paranoid King, who still manages to charm the ladies…

If I could ask** GKC**… do you think there’s any validity to this statement from wikipedia:
Henry and his advisors felt the pope was acting in the role of an Italian prince involved in secular affairs, which obscured his religious role. They said Rome treated England as a minor stepchild, allowing it one cardinal out of fifty, and no possibility of that cardinal becoming pope. For reasons of state it was increasingly intolerable to Henry that major decisions in England were settled by Italians. The divorce issue exemplified the problem but was not itself the cause of the problem.[16]
Click to expand...
 
I would say Henry was more irked by the refusal of the pope to grant his decree of nullity from Catherine AND he saw the Church as an impediment toward taking the wealth of the monasteries and cathedrals, the loot of the Church. He was more driven by frustration and a desire for $$$ than anything. Also, controlling the State religion is a huge power play. It’s no GKC analysis, but it’s my opinion…from my books on the subject.
StJudePray4Me said:
I love Robbie Coltraine! He would be a perfect Henry VIII – he has a weird sex appeal despite his less-than-leading-man physique. I could totally buy him as an egomanical, paranoid King, who still manages to charm the ladies…

If I could ask** GKC**… do you think there’s any validity to this statement from wikipedia:
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I would say Henry was more irked by the refusal of the pope to grant his decree of nullity from Catherine AND he saw the Church as an impediment toward taking the wealth of the monasteries and cathedrals, the loot of the Church. He was more driven by frustration and a desire for $$$ than anything. Also, controlling the State religion is a huge power play. It’s no GKC analysis, but it’s my opinion…from my books on the subject.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that Henry had some serious problems – no money and no heir and a lot of enemies on the horizon, threatening.

I just wondered if there was any truth to his claims that Rome treated England badly.

I know there were definite complications due to Catherine of Aragon’s nephew being Charles VI and the Pope having to deal with the annulment as a political hot potato. I have heard it summarized as: “The Pope was more afraid of Charles than Henry.” But I wondered of there was shabby treatment of England leading up to this point that wasn’t directly related to the annulment question.
 
StJudePray4Me said:
I love Robbie Coltraine! He would be a perfect Henry VIII – he has a weird sex appeal despite his less-than-leading-man physique. I could totally buy him as an egomanical, paranoid King, who still manages to charm the ladies…

If I could ask** GKC**… do you think there’s any validity to this statement from wikipedia:
Click to expand...
Yes. Not only Henry felt that way, but it was a common thread in English history running back at least 250 years, or so. Starting with the First Statute of Westminster, there is a series of Parliamentary Acts and royal decrees, occasionally countered by Papal decrees, striving to do two things: reduce the influence of any agency outside the realm (that is, Rome) over the Church in the realm, and increase the authority of the throne over the Church.

Henry also had some personal characteristics which brought the matter to a head, and he had developed a theory (not his originally) as to the proper role of a Christian Prince, which drove his resolution. And finally, Anne was an itch he wanted to scratch, while simultaneously addressing his dynastic problem.

Like all history it’s complicated. But if the point had not come to a head under Henry (and Henry was the perfect storm for creating the crisis) in some sense, a shift in the relationships would have occurred, eventually.

I’m going to be gone a week.

GKC
 
StJudePray4Me said:
Yes, I understand that Henry had some serious problems – no money and no heir and a lot of enemies on the horizon, threatening.

I just wondered if there was any truth to his claims that Rome treated England badly.

I know there were definite complications due to Catherine of Aragon’s nephew being Charles VI and the Pope having to deal with the annulment as a political hot potato. I have heard it summarized as: “The Pope was more afraid of Charles than Henry.” But I wondered of there was shabby treatment of England leading up to this point that wasn’t directly related to the annulment question.
Click to expand...
Charles V.

As to your other question, yes, and it was a long term point of contention between the Monarchy and Rome.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Yes. Not only Henry felt that way, but it was a common thread in English history running back at least 250 years, or so. Starting with the First Statute of Westminster, there is a series of Parliamentary Acts and royal decrees, occasionally countered by Papal decrees, striving to do two things: reduce the influence of any agency outside the realm (that is, Rome) over the Church in the realm, and increase the authority of the throne over the Church.

Henry also had some personal characteristics which brought the matter to a head, and he had developed a theory (not his originally) as to the proper role of a Christian Prince, which drove his resolution. And finally, Anne was an itch he wanted to scratch, while simultaneously addressing his dynastic problem.

Like all history it’s complicated. But if the point had not come to a head under Henry (and Henry was the perfect storm for creating the crisis) in some sense, a shift in the relationships would have occurred, eventually.

I’m going to be gone a week.

GKC
Click to expand...
Thanks. Hope you’re going somewhere fun…perhaps London??? 🙂
 
ancients said:
King Henri VII , King Henry VIII father had pursued a prudent fiscal policy and he was careful to avoid debt and reckless spending however his son King Henry VIII lacked any fiscal restrain spending like crazy , in palaces, jewels , sumptuous furniture, clothes , balls , tournaments and his many mistress . He broke the treasure, and he always needed money so his break with Rome provided an great opportunity to obtain new sources of revenues for his pleasures .

King Henry VIII broke from Rome not only due to his divorce but in order to
steal the assets from monasteries including relics, even the relic on the tomb of Thomas Becket were steal. King Henry VIII confiscated the land which belong to the clergy and many members of the nobility and the wealthy plebeians out of greed , abandoned the Catholic Church in order to enjoy the bounty .
Click to expand...
Henry reaped vast rewards from confiscating Church assets. But that was an after thought and it wasn’t originally Henry’s. It was Thomas Cromwell’s.

GKC
 
That idea of a holy “Christian Prince” running the show was a common Reformation era idea. Luther loved it and Henry was a fan when things weren’t going his way! 😛

History is complicated…:rolleyes:😛
GKC said:
Yes. Not only Henry felt that way, but it was a common thread in English history running back at least 250 years, or so. Starting with the First Statute of Westminster, there is a series of Parliamentary Acts and royal decrees, occasionally countered by Papal decrees, striving to do two things: reduce the influence of any agency outside the realm (that is, Rome) over the Church in the realm, and increase the authority of the throne over the Church.

Henry also had some personal characteristics which brought the matter to a head, and he had developed a theory (not his originally) as to the proper role of a Christian Prince, which drove his resolution. And finally, Anne was an itch he wanted to scratch, while simultaneously addressing his dynastic problem.

Like all history it’s complicated. But if the point had not come to a head under Henry (and Henry was the perfect storm for creating the crisis) in some sense, a shift in the relationships would have occurred, eventually.

I’m going to be gone a week.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
That idea of a holy “Christian Prince” running the show was a common Reformation era idea. Luther loved it and Henry was a fan when things weren’t going his way! 😛

History is complicated…:rolleyes:😛
Click to expand...
Henry took most of his ideas on the subject from Tyndale’s OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN. Ironically.

GKC
 
But don’t you find it ironic that Tyndale himself, though his book indeed did influence Hank’s views on the idea of a holy Christian Prince, OPPOSED Henry’s desire for a decree of nullity? 😛 He and Henry had some real venom betwixt one another and it led to Tyndale’s execution!? Crazy…

I can’t fathom living in the 16th Century in England. Total insanity. History is just so dang complicated! :eek:
GKC said:
Henry took most of his ideas on the subject from Tyndale’s OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN. Ironically.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
But don’t you find it ironic that Tyndale himself, though his book indeed did influence Hank’s views on the idea of a holy Christian Prince, OPPOSED Henry’s desire for a decree of nullity? 😛 He and Henry had some real venom betwixt one another and it led to Tyndale’s execution!? Crazy…

I can’t fathom living in the 16th Century in England. Total insanity. History is just so dang complicated! :eek:
Click to expand...
Yep. Hence, ironically.

GKC
 
But the Catholic history books are equally flawed and Rome-centric and IMO not totally to be trusted either. History must be holistic. When reading about the Great Schism, I’m not going to trust Catholic books alone or Orthodox books alone, I’m going to read both and maybe a few from a third party like the Protestants and then come to a holistic, hopefully reasonable conclusion. Same with many things in history. Both sides need to be read, no doubt. And GKC and I tend to do just that…

blessings!
PbloPicasso said:
I realize this may sound off of topic but I believe the analogy is accurate. The history coming out of books, especially about the Catholic Church written by non-Catholics, is similar to the video games out children play. The video games portray the military as this all to the wall full speed ahead with constant action when in reality it’s actually like the following video:

**World Premiere Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - The Onion **
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5tRNs2X5Q4
Click to expand...
 
The Catholic Church admits there was wrong done on both sides. The Council of Florence tried to stop the forthcoming Reformation, but it was already on its way…

There is a grace of forgiving the Catholic Church. And that with all the knowledge we have of its past actions, doesn’t invalidate it. Trying not to repeat past wrongs isn’t fool proof, because we are dealing in essence, not with the Catholic Church, but in human nature.

I say there is a great grace and insight into the apostolic faith by maintaining one’s unity with the Seat of Peter, even if a present vicar is corrupt. We have had excellent and holy Peter’s since the last century, and I hope they should make up for the wrong doing of past ones.

Also, we have only to believe that errant Catholic priests, did confess their sins and repent. So Protestants should, too, following in the foot steps of Christ.
 
But again, Kathleen, what does this have to do with how Protestants rationalize Henry VIII? Also, many Anglicans and most Orthodox view each bishops as having the charisms and totality of ALL 12 apostles in each bishop, not just the pope exclusively “being” Peter for all time. Antioch was also a Petrine See…but now I’m getting off topic with you! 😛

Back to Hank!
KathleenGee said:
The Catholic Church admits there was wrong done on both sides. The Council of Florence tried to stop the forthcoming Reformation, but it was already on its way…

There is a grace of forgiving the Catholic Church. And that with all the knowledge we have of its past actions, doesn’t invalidate it. Trying not to repeat past wrongs isn’t fool proof, because we are dealing in essence, not with the Catholic Church, but in human nature.

I say there is a great grace and insight into the apostolic faith by maintaining one’s unity with the Seat of Peter, even if a present vicar is corrupt. We have had excellent and holy Peter’s since the last century, and I hope they should make up for the wrong doing of past ones.

Also, we have only to believe that errant Catholic priests, did confess their sins and repent. So Protestants should, too, following in the foot steps of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Well, what I am getting at is it is still better to be with ‘Peter’ than Henry…

And I know you have those books of what happened to the Catholic clergy under the Elizabethan reign…and I heard a nun say that when Henry split off, every strong ruler after him was a woman…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top