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.
Yeah fair enough it is a little debatable, think it depends on the history teacher… but the Pope backed him? I thought it was parliament that had backed William because the parliament was mostly made up of protestants and they didnt like King James II being Catholic and promoting Catholics to positions of power?
 
Guerney,

Note, I was watching an Anglican/Episcopalian liturgy…sensed the lack of the Eucharist…intuitive…but also, just like we pick up when a Catholic cleric speaks outside the spirit of the Church…
 
I was wondering how you could “sense” the lack of the Eucharist on a TV viewing? I would think one would have to be there to sense such a thing? I’ve been to many an Anglican liturgy and never sensed that. TV is about as distant and detached an experience as one can experience…My Anglican bishop, John David Schofield, has told us about a Eucharistic miracle he himself encountered in England in the early 1960’s that changed his life. It was so powerful that he actually says he saw Christ in his fullness in an encounter before the tabernacle. Christ spoke to him and asked him to take a vow of celibacy and dedicate his life to Him. He did and has remained celibate all these years…He described the Eucharistic miracle as akin to the Transfiguration.

If you ever meet Schofield, he is the happiest person I’ve ever known, PERIOD. He reflects someone who met the Risen Lord.
Guerney,

Note, I was watching an Anglican/Episcopalian liturgy…sensed the lack of the Eucharist…intuitive…but also, just like we pick up when a Catholic cleric speaks outside the spirit of the Church…
 
Thanks…but I speak as a Roman Catholic…We know our shepherd and he knows us…that reality…that comes from Christ in the sacrament…
 
But I’m just saying you can’t ascertain the reality of a spiritual feeling/presence, something metaphysical from TV. You’ve made up your mind about it so the whole thing is a wasted exercise for you. I’m not sold on the idea that the pope is the only shepherd, actually drawn to Orthodoxy lately quite frankly…
Thanks…but I speak as a Roman Catholic…We know our shepherd and he knows us…that reality…that comes from Christ in the sacrament…
 
But I’m just saying you can’t ascertain the reality of a spiritual feeling/presence, something metaphysical from TV. You’ve made up your mind about it so the whole thing is a wasted exercise for you. I’m not sold on the idea that the pope is the only shepherd, actually drawn to Orthodoxy lately quite frankly…
I don’t mean to sound harsh towards Kathleen, so I hope she doesn’t take what I say that way, but it almost sounds like “My subjective experience as a Roman Catholic is more true because its mine”

In other words, because someone senses a “lack” of a Eucharist might be due to the fact that they do not believe it to be there in the first place.
 
No offense, expected that…you are free to think as you want.

In the Spirit…same experience as Eucharist, absolution at end of confession…hearing an incorrect statement in Church…then it corrected…and hearing the right answer…sense of sacred…mind, body, spirit…

Sacrament are Christ’s body, soul, blood, and divinity…separate from us, but at reception, He becomes one with us.
 
Like I said, my bishop, John Schofield, has recounted a powerful Eucharistic experience that changed his life. I guess to say there is no Eucharistic presence in the Anglican world would be to call him a liar. Having met him, talking AT LENGTH with him, I believe his story. He is the most joyful man. Of all the Catholic priests, bishops, and deacons, I’ve never seen the glee and joy in them that I’ve seen in Schofield. I am not quick to discount the spirituality of Anglicans, Orthodox, or other communions.
 
Guerny,

Faith transcends…as for myself, I am a survivor of the aftermath of Vatican II, resided in two dioceses that had papal nuncios sent because of various issues…and they have a great effect on turmoil among believers…the dust is settling…I have my place in the apostolic faith, and I don’t focus so much on the hierarchy in themselves…I see them more a part of the whole experience of faith passed down by the apostles…

I don’t invalidate or deny either the great witness of faith you have in your bishop either.

I just don’t have hang-ups on the role of the pope, the church’s past sins…more the church as Bride to Christ.

Nostra Aetate…all people of religion seek God…and there is so much akin to Anglicanism/Episcopalianism to Roman Catholic…there are different churches within them and I am not able to follow the differences…

I heard a priest on tv say why he switched over to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism and for him it was certitude of faith, being able to teach faith and truth as absolutes. I have met former Catholics who have switched to the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches…and we still can share alot at a deep level with our faith.

I just don’t have the hang ups about Roman Catholicism like non-catholics do…never had…my father was in Benedictine seminary 2 years…served the poor in his spare time…always told us to not be prejudice, etc…so with the type of Roman Catholicism he shared…he and uncle and grandmother…we would all sit at table and discuss church, faith, politics…history…very interesting…
 
Your father sounds like a remarkable man! God bless him! :)…and you.👍
Guerny,

Faith transcends…as for myself, I am a survivor of the aftermath of Vatican II, resided in two dioceses that had papal nuncios sent because of various issues…and they have a great effect on turmoil among believers…the dust is settling…I have my place in the apostolic faith, and I don’t focus so much on the hierarchy in themselves…I see them more a part of the whole experience of faith passed down by the apostles…

I don’t invalidate or deny either the great witness of faith you have in your bishop either.

I just don’t have hang-ups on the role of the pope, the church’s past sins…more the church as Bride to Christ.

Nostra Aetate…all people of religion seek God…and there is so much akin to Anglicanism/Episcopalianism to Roman Catholic…there are different churches within them and I am not able to follow the differences…

I heard a priest on tv say why he switched over to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism and for him it was certitude of faith, being able to teach faith and truth as absolutes. I have met former Catholics who have switched to the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches…and we still can share alot at a deep level with our faith.

I just don’t have the hang ups about Roman Catholicism like non-catholics do…never had…my father was in Benedictine seminary 2 years…served the poor in his spare time…always told us to not be prejudice, etc…so with the type of Roman Catholicism he shared…he and uncle and grandmother…we would all sit at table and discuss church, faith, politics…history…very interesting…
 
Please help me to understand this. From what I can see is there is an effort to disconnect Protestantism from King Henry VIII. However, if not for King Henry VIII and his motives for breaking with the Catholic church Protestantism would not have gained the strength and the support to establish itself. Yes, there would have been parts of Europe that practiced it but it would not have become the widespread faith it is now. So how can Protestants disconnect themselves with the very person who gave their faith the strength and power to become one of the major religions of the modern era? If anyone can tell me how this could have happened without King Henry VIII’s decision to break from Rome I would like to know, because I can’t see it. Also I realize Presbyterianism originated in Scotland and with Calvinist teachings, but please remember the Calvinist teachings came about within the Protestant movement, that gained it’s strength from King Henry’s VIII’s decision and motives. As to, “The sins of Henry VIII are his own problem, in whatever afterlife he’s in. They’re not my problem. You know, as I remember my Catholic Church history, some Popes weren’t very good people either.” This confuses me. You see many Catholics are well aware of treacherous Popes, the inhumanity of the Spanish Inquisition, and every other evil that has plagued the Catholic Church. To deny it would be just as awful as it would deny it’s victims any shred of sympathy. But we don’t disconnect ourselves from it’s history. To say those are King Henry VIII’s problems is disconnecting yourself from the very man who gave the support and strength for your religion to flourish. How can one so casually disconnect themselves from this? I in no ask that anyone by sympathetic to him, but it is a hard thing for me to understand how one can knowingly disconnect themselves from the very man who put their religion in a position of strength, and whom without they would have held a different faith. To me that even seems cold. Again, I have no judgement about what faith people practice. I just want to know how they reconcile these facts within themselves and to others.
 
Please help me to understand this. From what I can see is there is an effort to disconnect Protestantism from King Henry VIII. However, if not for King Henry VIII and his motives for breaking with the Catholic church Protestantism would not have gained the strength and the support to establish itself. Yes, there would have been parts of Europe that practiced it but it would not have become the widespread faith it is now. So how can Protestants disconnect themselves with the very person who gave their faith the strength and power to become one of the major religions of the modern era? If anyone can tell me how this could have happened without King Henry VIII’s decision to break from Rome I would like to know, because I can’t see it. Also I realize Presbyterianism originated in Scotland and with Calvinist teachings, but please remember the Calvinist teachings came about within the Protestant movement, that gained it’s strength from King Henry’s VIII’s decision and motives. As to, “The sins of Henry VIII are his own problem, in whatever afterlife he’s in. They’re not my problem. You know, as I remember my Catholic Church history, some Popes weren’t very good people either.” This confuses me. You see many Catholics are well aware of treacherous Popes, the inhumanity of the Spanish Inquisition, and every other evil that has plagued the Catholic Church. To deny it would be just as awful as it would deny it’s victims any shred of sympathy. But we don’t disconnect ourselves from it’s history. To say those are King Henry VIII’s problems is disconnecting yourself from the very man who gave the support and strength for your religion to flourish. How can one so casually disconnect themselves from this? I in no ask that anyone by sympathetic to him, but it is a hard thing for me to understand how one can knowingly disconnect themselves from the very man who put their religion in a position of strength, and whom without they would have held a different faith. To me that even seems cold. Again, I have no judgement about what faith people practice. I just want to know how they reconcile these facts within themselves and to others.
Well, I do acknowledge that King Henry VIII single-handedly switched England away from Catholicism and to a new hybrid mix of Catholicism and Protestantism called Anglicanism. And certainly Protestantism gained a great deal of popularity and momentum from that. And I’m glad at least for two famous Anglican writers, C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, because I owe a great deal of my theology to them.

But I don’t see how Henry VIII’s being a murderer should cause a crisis of faith in Protestants, any more than the notoriously corrupt and treacherous Borgia family of poisoners having two Popes (Alexander VI and Callistus III) should cause a crisis of faith in Catholics.
 
“But I don’t see how Henry VIII’s being a murderer should cause a crisis of faith in Protestants, any more than the notoriously corrupt and treacherous Borgia family of poisoners having two Popes (Alexander VI and Callistus III) should cause a crisis of faith in Catholics.”

There is a huge difference. It was as a result of King Henry VIII’s break with Rome, motivated by his ego manic desires that lead to England becoming a Protestant country, and without England as a Protestant country, Protestantism would never had the strength and support to take and become one of the most flourishing religions of the modern era. As for the corrupt Popes such as the Borgias, were a single Pope and his family that were part of the Catholic Church, but had nothing to do with the actual founding of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had been in place from the year 50 to about 500 depending how you view Church history. With or without the Borgia family, the Catholic Church was already strong and in place. The Borgia family could never have existed and the Catholicism would still be the widespread religion it is today. The Borgias and the like had little to do with the Catholic religion taking hold in Europe and spreading to the Americas as it is now. That fact was already set into motion centuries earlier. If the Borgia family had in fact been a family that for without it them Catholicism would not be the widespread religion it is today, then Catholics would definitely have to reconcile the issue of their origins to the Borgia family. This is the difference .
 
“But I don’t see how Henry VIII’s being a murderer should cause a crisis of faith in Protestants, any more than the notoriously corrupt and treacherous Borgia family of poisoners having two Popes (Alexander VI and Callistus III) should cause a crisis of faith in Catholics.”

There is a huge difference. It was as a result of King Henry VIII’s break with Rome, motivated by his ego manic desires that lead to England becoming a Protestant country, and without England as a Protestant country, Protestantism would never had the strength and support to take and become one of the most flourishing religions of the modern era. As for the corrupt Popes such as the Borgias, were a single Pope and his family that were part of the Catholic Church, but had nothing to do with the actual founding of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had been in place from the year 50 to about 500 depending how you view Church history. With or without the Borgia family, the Catholic Church was already strong and in place. The Borgia family could never have existed and the Catholicism would still be the widespread religion it is today. The Borgias and the like had little to do with the Catholic religion taking hold in Europe and spreading to the Americas as it is now. That fact was already set into motion centuries earlier. If the Borgia family had in fact been a family that for without it them Catholicism would not be the widespread religion it is today, then Catholics would definitely have to reconcile the issue of their origins to the Borgia family. This is the difference .
Anglicans would argue that Henry didn’t found anglicanism. Anglicans track their orders back to St. Peter. A break would have happened somewhere, it’s not that Henry was completely alone, no one was with him, and he just broke off and formed his own church and dragged his entire country kicking and screaming with him. (Some did go kicking and screaming. But that’s a different story.) He broke largely for political reasons, the English church then used the opportunity to reform what they saw as abuses and problems within the Church.
 
Please help me to understand this. From what I can see is there is an effort to disconnect Protestantism from King Henry VIII. ** However, if not for King Henry VIII and his motives for breaking with the Catholic church Protestantism would not have gained the strength and the support to establish itself**. **Yes, there would have been parts of Europe that practiced it but it would not have become the widespread faith it is now. ** So how can Protestants disconnect themselves with the very person who gave their faith the strength and power to become one of the major religions of the modern era? If anyone can tell me how this could have happened without King Henry VIII’s decision to break from Rome I would like to know, because I can’t see it. Also I realize Presbyterianism originated in Scotland and with Calvinist teachings, but please remember the Calvinist teachings came about within the Protestant movement, that gained it’s strength from King Henry’s VIII’s decision and motives. As to, “The sins of Henry VIII are his own problem, in whatever afterlife he’s in. They’re not my problem. You know, as I remember my Catholic Church history, some Popes weren’t very good people either.” This confuses me. You see many Catholics are well aware of treacherous Popes, the inhumanity of the Spanish Inquisition, and every other evil that has plagued the Catholic Church. To deny it would be just as awful as it would deny it’s victims any shred of sympathy. But we don’t disconnect ourselves from it’s history. To say those are King Henry VIII’s problems is disconnecting yourself from the very man who gave the support and strength for your religion to flourish. How can one so casually disconnect themselves from this? I in no ask that anyone by sympathetic to him, but it is a hard thing for me to understand how one can knowingly disconnect themselves from the very man who put their religion in a position of strength, and whom without they would have held a different faith. To me that even seems cold. Again, I have no judgement about what faith people practice. I just want to know how they reconcile these facts within themselves and to others.
I don’t know how you can possibly know this for sure.

There are a lot of scenarios one could dream up that would have changed history either way.

I could say – if Catherine of Aragon had given birth to 5 sons, England would still be Catholic. Perhaps there is some merit to the idea that it’s POSSIBLE that Henry VIII, had he had sons, would not have sought a decree of nullity – but who can really know for sure? If that had happened, then other factors could have been changed as well – other European monarchs may have been threatened by England and it’s relationship to Rome and a Reformation could have taken hold there instead – in France or Spain – who knows?

I am not defending Henry VII – he was a bad man in many ways, no doubt – but the course of history is more complex than “He was lustful and founded a religion to satisfy that lust.” To me, that’s the HBO version of him, which doesn’t take into account all the complex political machinations of the time.
 
Ah that would make sense, I wasn’t taught that part. William was only ever really mentioned at school for the orangemen in Ireland having been named after him (long after his death) and for him signing the original treaty preventing any catholic from being on the english thrown (which doesnt make any real difference to anything but its still unfair to make the royal family have less choice than the rest of us)
 
Guerny,

Faith transcends…as for myself, I am a survivor of the aftermath of Vatican II, resided in two dioceses that had papal nuncios sent because of various issues…and they have a great effect on turmoil among believers…the dust is settling…I have my place in the apostolic faith, and I don’t focus so much on the hierarchy in themselves…I see them more a part of the whole experience of faith passed down by the apostles…

I don’t invalidate or deny either the great witness of faith you have in your bishop either.

I just don’t have hang-ups on the role of the pope, the church’s past sins…more the church as Bride to Christ.

Nostra Aetate…all people of religion seek God…and there is so much akin to Anglicanism/Episcopalianism to Roman Catholic…there are different churches within them and I am not able to follow the differences…

I heard a priest on tv say why he switched over to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism and for him it was certitude of faith, being able to teach faith and truth as absolutes. I have met former Catholics who have switched to the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches…and we still can share alot at a deep level with our faith.

I just don’t have the hang ups about Roman Catholicism like non-catholics do…never had…my father was in Benedictine seminary 2 years…served the poor in his spare time…always told us to not be prejudice, etc…so with the type of Roman Catholicism he shared…he and uncle and grandmother…we would all sit at table and discuss church, faith, politics…history…very interesting…
Your father sounds like a holy man, and you sound like someone is sincerely following Christ. One of the strengths of Catholicism is if one is able to take the teachings of the church, it does provide an absolute certainty in a world of ambiguity. I have learned that I don’t need the absolutism and dogmatism of Catholicism to achieve the same certainty, as some people do in their faith journey.
 
I still don’t see anyone answering the question. As for the Anglicans, they are considered Protestant, and even if they don’t want to be considered Protestant they would not have developed without the Reformation, which would not have happened had Henry VIII not broke from Rome. As for to idea that if Henry would have made the break if he had 5 sons from Catherine of Aragon or would have broke from Rome anyway for other political reasons, now that’s a stretch. The fact is that he didn’t have 5 sons from Catherine of Aragon, that he was very open with the fact that he wanted a legitimate son, he asked the Pope for the annulment and only after the Pope refused him did he break with Rome making one of the key moments in history called the Reformation. True their were Reformers prior to England’s break with Rome but they did not have the political support to flourish until England, one the most powerful European countries at the time, gave it it’s backing. What I am seeing clearly from this post is that so many people don’t want to acknowledge a key fact in the history of Western Civilization. In the 16th century King Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church which lead to Reformation, and out of the Reformation came the Protestant faith, or faiths that would not exist had it not been for the Reformation, which again was the result of King Henry VIII’s break with the Catholic Church. Plane and simple, a common fact in any high school or college history text book. It would be difficult to find any student of history or historian who will disagree with this statement. This is not HBO talking, this is a reference to historical fact. So now here is my issue, why and how on earth are so many people of Protestant faith attempting to disregard this historical fact or re-shape it to fit their needs. I’m sorry, you just can’t do that to history, no matter how creepy it makes one feel. Do you even understand that doing this make you appear to lack credibility? Honestly, I entered this thread to find a truth that I had been missing. I had come here with the thought that, “No, that Presbyterian aunt who married into my family was just ignorant and short sited for not having an answer to my question, I’m sure there are intelligent, well educated Protestants out there who have dealt with this issues. After all, it is a 500 year old question and I’m sure if they have made themselves one of the main religions of the planet then they surely must have thought this through, I mean I’m not the first one to pose this question in the last 500 years. I’ll just ask on a forum and someone will show my how it’s been reconciled.” And now I’m thinking I was just naive. Because every answer I have gotten either outright disconnects with Henry VIII’s actions saying they have no bearing which just blatantly ignores historical facts that I mentioned above, or they say the Presbyterians or Anglicans are not Protestant, even they would not exist had it not been for the Protestant Reformation and the ideas and philosophers who came out that, which is another way denying history by making a subtle distortion. That would be like Mexicans saying that Columbus landing on the Americas has nothing to do with them because they’re not Italian and they didn’t decided to make the voyage. Sound ridiculous huh? All I am going to say is that I tried. Truth be known it looks like most Protestants haven’t made their peace with Henry VIII and how their religion was started. And have chosen to conveniently ignore and distort historical fact, and in doing so actually believe the rest of the world has done the same in order to acomadate them. But no one has, just because you’ve conveniently forgotten history doesn’t mean anyone else has. Please don’t take our kindness for not mentioning it for ignorance of not knowing history. I’m not trying to be mean but all your lack of facts and excessive denials of historical facts is just irritating, no wonder people have issues with you. Sadly, as a result of the answers to my question (or lack there of) I am walking away from this forum less opened minded about Protestant religions, or religions that deny they are Protestant but still came forth due to the Reformation. And sadly I can say I made an educated attempt to gather information, but the result of trying to give people the opportunity to make me more understand has turned and made me more judgemental, and that is very sad. And it’s not because I didn’t try, it’s because after 500 years after Henry’s break from Rome, the people who took up the beliefs from that Reformation have not thought about what he means to the origins of their religion. I mean, really. I mean this has been like talking to someone who had an alchoholic father and seeing them looking you in the eye and say “No, my dad’s alcoholism doesn’t effect me at all” or “No, he’s not my real father we just kinda look alike”. And then they expect you to buy it. At least if they admitted it and dealt with it in some way you could respect them. But since they don’t you just feeling like you’re talking to a fraud.
 
If you broke that up into paragraphs it would be easier to read.😃

Just a suggestion…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top