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.
P

psychicharvard

Guest
When I was 14 I had and aunt who married into the family. She was presbyterian and attempted to pull me and my sister away from Catholicism and into her religion. But one thing she could never answer for me is, How can one justify a religion that was brought about on King Henry VIII selfish desire to divorce his wife? I suppose if King Henry VIII was on a spiritual path it could have some credibility, but he only broke from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t allow his divorce and so from that he adopted Protestantism as the new religion of England, and then altered the Bible. And so England adopting Protestantism and putting it upon it’s subjects, and England being a strong nation in Europe made Protestantism grow strong. But if King Henry VIII hadn’t wanted a divorce then Protestantism would have either faded or remained small in numbers. So, my question is how can one have such profound faith in a religion that had it’s origins in a selfish King who only used it as a tool to gain a legitimate male heir? I’m not trying to be mean, but it is true. I just want to know if anyone has an answer to this that would make me understand how some Protestants can be so very self-righteous in their religion given it’s dubious origins?:confused::confused: I do want to understand but no as of yet has given me any solid explanation. So please…anyone?
 
psychicharvard said:
When I was 14 I had and aunt who married into the family. She was presbyterian and attempted to pull me and my sister away from Catholicism and into her religion. But one thing she could never answer for me is, How can one justify a religion that was brought about on King Henry VIII selfish desire to divorce his wife? I suppose if King Henry VIII was on a spiritual path it could have some credibility, but he only broke from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t allow his divorce and so from that he adopted Protestantism as the new religion of England, and then altered the Bible. And so England adopting Protestantism and putting it upon it’s subjects, and England being a strong nation in Europe made Protestantism grow strong. But if King Henry VIII hadn’t wanted a divorce then Protestantism would have either faded or remained small in numbers. So, my question is how can one have such profound faith in a religion that had it’s origins in a selfish King who only used it as a tool to gain a legitimate male heir? I’m not trying to be mean, but it is true. I just want to know if anyone has an answer to this that would make me understand how some Protestants can be so very self-righteous in their religion given it’s dubious origins?:confused::confused: I do want to understand but no as of yet has given me any solid explanation. So please…anyone?
Click to expand...
Henry didn’t have anything to do with Presbyterianism, but as to your question, I don’t think too many Protestants think very much at all about the foundations of ther denominations.
 
My grandfather, God love him, was an Episcopalian. He would say he’d never be a Catholic because he would not tell his sins to a man. And I would be thinking that I would never be an Episcopalian because I wouldn’t be in a religion founded by a man who beheaded two of his wives. Never made sense to me either.
 
psychicharvard said:
When I was 14 I had and aunt who married into the family. She was presbyterian and attempted to pull me and my sister away from Catholicism and into her religion. But one thing she could never answer for me is, How can one justify a religion that was brought about on King Henry VIII selfish desire to divorce his wife? I suppose if King Henry VIII was on a spiritual path it could have some credibility, but he only broke from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t allow his divorce and so from that he adopted Protestantism as the new religion of England, and then altered the Bible. And so England adopting Protestantism and putting it upon it’s subjects, and England being a strong nation in Europe made Protestantism grow strong. But if King Henry VIII hadn’t wanted a divorce then Protestantism would have either faded or remained small in numbers. So, my question is how can one have such profound faith in a religion that had it’s origins in a selfish King who only used it as a tool to gain a legitimate male heir? I’m not trying to be mean, but it is true. I just want to know if anyone has an answer to this that would make me understand how some Protestants can be so very self-righteous in their religion given it’s dubious origins?:confused::confused: I do want to understand but no as of yet has given me any solid explanation. So please…anyone?
Click to expand...
A king, president, sultan, emperor can be overthrown. But, a prophet can’t. Perhaps Henry VIII learned history of King David (regarded as a King-Prophet) and Muhammad (self regard as prophet-king). Those Prophet-King cannot be overthrown. In both cases, they hold the highest spiritual as well as physical power among their people.
 
I see that I was censored. I was referring not to Balaam’s hind parts, but the beast of burden on which said parts were perched.
 
In actual fact, Protestants don’t have to rationalize anything about King Henry VIII. Henry was a schismatic Roman Catholic who hated Martin Luther. Henry VIII carried his decima rosary with him throughout his life, prayed the Psalms of the Divine Office and even toyed with the idea of entering into union with Rome on a number of occasions.

It was the Spanish emperor who had invaded Italy at the time of Henry VIII’s troubles with his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon and who had tied the pope’s hands with respect to the possibility of granting Henry an annulment.

Few in England at the time thought the pope would deny Henry his annulment . . . The pope could not for obvious reasons.

And we know the rest of the story.

Alex
 
Yeah, I really hink the fact of the matter is most protestants don’t know, think about, or care in the end about the founders of their denominations or their origins. As a former Protestant, there are two big factors at work: first, the vast majority of modern Protestants, that is the American evangelcal, fundamentalist, mega-church “non-denominationalists”, and related low church groups, see the whole of the Bible very much as a matter of individual interpretation, personal relational faith. It’s the “Jesus and me” approach for them, and they believe the Holy Spirit leads them, personally, into all truth. So church authority, or the checkered lives of a particular denominations founder, are irrelevant to them. (nevermind 2 Peter 1:20 on this!). When your religion is only a “me and my friend Jesus” religion, you don’t care about any claims to authority.

Secondly, many also just don’t know anything about the history of the Early Church, the Reformation, or what the actual issues of the day were.
 
This is true. It would be better to specify who you mean in such posts. State if it’s fundamentalists/evangelicals, mainlines such as Presbyterians or episcopalians, etc.
 
psychicharvard said:
When I was 14 I had and aunt who married into the family. She was presbyterian and attempted to pull me and my sister away from Catholicism and into her religion. But one thing she could never answer for me is, How can one justify a religion that was brought about on King Henry VIII selfish desire to divorce his wife? I suppose if King Henry VIII was on a spiritual path it could have some credibility, but he only broke from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t allow his divorce and so from that he adopted Protestantism as the new religion of England, and then altered the Bible. And so England adopting Protestantism and putting it upon it’s subjects, and England being a strong nation in Europe made Protestantism grow strong. But if King Henry VIII hadn’t wanted a divorce then Protestantism would have either faded or remained small in numbers. So, my question is how can one have such profound faith in a religion that had it’s origins in a selfish King who only used it as a tool to gain a legitimate male heir? I’m not trying to be mean, but it is true. I just want to know if anyone has an answer to this that would make me understand how some Protestants can be so very self-righteous in their religion given it’s dubious origins?:confused::confused: I do want to understand but no as of yet has given me any solid explanation. So please…anyone?
Click to expand...
My husband is Church of England and he tells me that Henry VIII was completely right and that his divorce should have been allowed because there are only so many ex-wives you can murder and bury under patios :frighten: I’m hoping he is joking but just to be safe I’ve since stopped quizzing him on this particular point!

I think to be honest many of them just dont know where the church began or why, i know a few people that actually thought that England had always been CofE and that Catholics had come over with one of the many nations that have invaded England and those that do know their history are taking the view that the church is right for them so why should it matter why it started.
 
It’s things like this that basically made me decide to stop explaining the history of Henry’s Great Matter, the system of impediments/dispensations/decrees of nullity as developed, by the 16th century, the difference between the concept of a divorce and a decree of nullity, the political situation in Europe at the time, esp. post Pavia, what the Levitical Prohibition was, what an impediment of the justice of public honesty was, how state and dynastic marriages were routinely treated, etc, etc. I can no longer see the point. Ten years of posting history is likely enough (though there’s a thread on this page where I’m doing it again).

I will recommend the best single book on Henry, to explain what was going on, though. J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. Excellent. And Scarisbrick is RC.

GKC
 
From what I understand, most people in Great Britain do not attend any church.

The television broadcast of the Royal Wedding was probably the only church experience that most Englanders have had in their entire lives.

Isn’t “church” and “religion” for most people in Great Britain a “national” thing, something that is part of their culture, like having a monarchy, and eating fish and chips, and Sherlock Holmes and James Bond? If this is the case, then perhaps there is some national pride in the idea that one of their kings broke away from Rome and became free and independent.
 
Actually the last invasion was by William of Orange in 1688, it was nowhere near the scale of 1066 but thats because King James II’s soldiers refused to fight as many of them didnt like having a Catholic King.

But anyway other invasions have included Vikings, Saxons, Normans and Romans, Celts and Picts… the Spanish, French and Scottish have also tried.

I wasnt saying that the history was right but having been the only Catholic in a CofE secondary school I was sharing the reasons I was told why Henry VIII lack of morals didn’t affect their faith… should maybe have written attempted to invade tho, sorry.
 
I wonder if another questions could be posed…“How is it that Catholics can vilify Henry’s desire for an annulment when Europe’s royalty recieved them from the Pope for similar reasons?”
 
This is how I remember thinking about it. As a protestant, we viewed the reformation as a good thing. I remember a pastor talking about how great it was that Henry VIII allowed bibles in English (that may actually not be correct history, but that is what he said). And so you begin to think of it in terms of God working DESPITE the man’s faults.

It’s not too far of a stretch, if you are devoted to your protestant faith.

Remember Catholics also believe in the infallibility of the pope, even if an individual pope exhibits grossly immoral behavior.
 
First of all, non-Anglican protestants obviously don’t have to “rationalize” Henry VIII at all. He’s not one of them.

As for Anglicans, well none of us look at him as the “founder of our religion” - especially since he sided with Catholics on nearly every issue which divides us today. He simply set into motion the organizational separation of the Church of England from Rome, and if he was a nasty individual, well surely the good Lord can work through sinners.
 
shelby2014 said:
This is how I remember thinking about it. As a protestant, we viewed the reformation as a good thing. I remember a pastor talking about how great it was that Henry VIII allowed bibles in English (that may actually not be correct history, but that is what he said). And so you begin to think of it in terms of God working DESPITE the man’s faults.

It’s not too far of a stretch, if you are devoted to your protestant faith.

Remember Catholics also believe in the infallibility of the pope, even if an individual pope exhibits grossly immoral behavior.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming the inference was Catholics didn’t allow the faithful to read a Bible on their own which is what I’ve been told Protestants believe of Catholics.
Guttenberg invented the printing press 50 years before Luther was born. Up until that time, books were only for the wealthy. Monks copied them by hand with beautiful illustrations. By the time of the Reformation, the Bible was available to more but not all the people. The first King James Bible had all the Catholic books in that Bible which was printed in 1611.
 
Yes. Anglicanism is constantly bombarded with the Henry VIII divorce angle and considered a religion of Henry. In reality, Anglicans view the Church of England as having existed prior to the papacy’s domination over her, Henry is considered a scoundrel by just about every Anglican, but they appreciate that the moment was used to get the Church in England back on track to its pre-Roman roots polity-wise. Elizabeth I’s era did far more to create modern Anglicanism than Henry ever did…
GKC said:
It’s things like this that basically made me decide to stop explaining the history of Henry’s Great Matter, the system of impediments/dispensations/decrees of nullity as developed, by the 16th century, the difference between the concept of a divorce and a decree of nullity, the political situation in Europe at the time, esp. post Pavia, what the Levitical Prohibition was, what an impediment of the justice of public honesty was, how state and dynastic marriages were routinely treated, etc, etc. I can no longer see the point. Ten years of posting history is likely enough (though there’s a thread on this page where I’m doing it again).

I will recommend the best single book on Henry, to explain what was going on, though. J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. Excellent. And Scarisbrick is RC.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
Yes. It’s flimsy logic. Catholics believe that even crooked, egocentric, sinful popes are guided in their See by Christ as Peter’s Chair. Why can God work through crooked popes (most are not crooked, mind you) but not through a crooked King? 😛 Cyrus of Persia in the Bible was God’s instrument but boy he was not the nicest guy. King David was a weasle often times, too! 😃
Bran_Stark said:
First of all, non-Anglican protestants obviously don’t have to “rationalize” Henry VIII at all. He’s not one of them.

As for Anglicans, well none of us look at him as the “founder of our religion” - especially since he sided with Catholics on nearly every issue which divides us today. He simply set into motion the organizational separation of the Church of England from Rome, and if he was a nasty individual, well surely the good Lord can work through sinners.
Click to expand...
 
psychicharvard said:
When I was 14 I had and aunt who married into the family. She was presbyterian and attempted to pull me and my sister away from Catholicism and into her religion. But one thing she could never answer for me is, How can one justify a religion that was brought about on King Henry VIII selfish desire to divorce his wife? I suppose if King Henry VIII was on a spiritual path it could have some credibility, but he only broke from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t allow his divorce and so from that he adopted Protestantism as the new religion of England, and then altered the Bible. And so England adopting Protestantism and putting it upon it’s subjects, and England being a strong nation in Europe made Protestantism grow strong. But if King Henry VIII hadn’t wanted a divorce then Protestantism would have either faded or remained small in numbers. So, my question is how can one have such profound faith in a religion that had it’s origins in a selfish King who only used it as a tool to gain a legitimate male heir? I’m not trying to be mean, but it is true. I just want to know if anyone has an answer to this that would make me understand how some Protestants can be so very self-righteous in their religion given it’s dubious origins?:confused::confused: I do want to understand but no as of yet has given me any solid explanation. So please…anyone?
Click to expand...
No, if Henry hadn’t wanted a divorce Protestantism would NOT have ‘either faded or remained small in numbers’.

Many European countries and regions became Protestant en masse - none of them ruled by rulers who were desperate for divorces!

And Protestantism grew and flourished after Henry’s death - again, something that wouldn’t have happened if it were so tied up with his own wishes and desires.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top