some questions about the church of england

[dumbseeker]

I actually have some questions regarding the church of England. I am just being curious. I don’t want to offend any anglicans here.

In our textbook, it says Henry VIII wanted to get a divorce so he separated england from the catholic church and established the church of england. are there still people who truly believe in anglicanism? How do they explain that Henry VIII’s divorce?

 

[bpbasilphx]

In Henry’s favor, he was not TOTALLY motivated by lust.

Once centuries before, there had been an attempt to put a queen upon the throne of Engliand, but King Stephen wrested the crown from her.

A dynastic war (Wars of the Roses) had only been settled by Henry’s father, Henry VII. Henry VIII was afraid that there would be another civil war.

All he really did was put it off a century.

 

[GKC]

I actually have some questions regarding the church of England. I am just being curious. I don’t want to offend any anglicans here.

In our textbook, it says Henry VIII wanted to get a divorce so he separated england from the catholic church and established the church of england. are there still people who truly believe in anglicanism? How do they explain that Henry VIII’s divorce?

History is sort of complicated, and not really well served by sound bites. I’d recommend reading J. J. Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII, for an understading of what was going on.

And it was not a divorce, it was a decree of nullity that Henry sought. It was commonplace, at the time. And so were power politics, which Henry ran into, head-on.

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

History is sort of complicated, and not really well served by sound bites. I’d recommend reading J. J. Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII, for an understading of what was going on.

And it was not a divorce, it was a decree of nullity that Henry sought. It was commonplace, at the time. And so were power politics, which Henry ran into, head-on.

GKC

Quite so!

In fact breaking up marriages for political reasons happened many times across western Europe. People who do not realize this or ignore the fact do their own arguments a disservice when they bring up Henry’s situation.

I can recall (vaguely) something like that going on more than once in the short lived Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Holy Land itself.

Perhaps most famously, Eleanor of Aquitaine was in turn Queen of the Franks (having two daughters by Louis V) and also Queen of the English (having five sons and two daughters by Henry II).

In the time of Tudor England, the Catholic churches of Spain and France were very much institutions of state, and the royal monarchs exercised tight personal control in their regions.

This was not so in England, the Papacy had a more direct influence over appointments and day to day operations of the English church due primarily to the reestablishment of church hierarchy under Papal control through Saint Augustine’s mission to Canterbury in the late sixth century. (The churches in Spain, France, Sicily, North Africa and Italy date from the first century and were not established as missions from Rome.) Henry was frustrated by his inability to exercise a similar degree of control in his own church, and by the fact that other kings had much more influence over the Papacy and it’s decisions than he, and this translated into foreign leverage over his own domain.

None of this justifies the man’s personal failings, but I really think that would not have mattered so much to us today if he had received his anullment. (It would be a mere footnote in history, sandwiched between the more interesting wars.) Many European leaders had serious personal failings but received the anullments they applied for, and their issues are more or less forgotten today. Another factor, not to be overlooked, is the fact that the Protestant movement had already been in full swing across Europe for decades.

Henry VIII clearly was a Catholic theologically, it was the Calvinist Geneva movement which high-jacked his intentions for the church of England. The church was in schism, but Catholic, for some forty years but not considered heretical until some time in the reign of Elizabeth I, who famously sought a compromise between the Catholic position and the very popular continental Protestant position.

 

[GKC]

Quite so!

In fact breaking up marriages for political reasons happened many times across western Europe. People who do not realize this or ignore the fact do their own arguments a disservice when they bring up Henry’s situation.

I can recall (vaguely) something like that going on more than once in the short lived Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Holy Land itself.

Perhaps most famously, Eleanor of Aquitaine was in turn Queen of the Franks (having two daughters by Louis V) and also Queen of the English (having five sons and two daughters by Henry II).

In the time of Tudor England, the Catholic churches of Spain and France were very much institutions of state, and the royal monarchs exercised tight personal control in their regions.

This was not so in England, the Papacy had a more direct influence over appointments and day to day operations of the English church due primarily to the reestablishment of church hierarchy under Papal control through Saint Augustine’s mission to Canterbury in the late sixth century. (The churches in Spain, France, Sicily, North Africa and Italy date from the first century and were not established as missions from Rome.) Henry was frustrated by his inability to exercise a similar degree of control in his own church, and by the fact that other kings had much more influence over the Papacy and it’s decisions than he, and this translated into foreign leverage over his own domain.

None of this justifies the man’s personal failings, but I really think that would not have mattered so much to us today if he had received his anullment. (It would be a mere footnote in history, sandwiched between the more interesting wars.) Many European leaders had serious personal failings but received the anullments they applied for, and their issues are more or less forgotten today. Another factor, not to be overlooked, is the fact that the Protestant movement had already been in full swing across Europe for decades.

Henry VIII clearly was a Catholic theologically, it was the Calvinist Geneva movement which high-jacked his intentions for the church of England. The church was in schism, but Catholic, for some forty years but not considered heretical until some time in the reign of Elizabeth I, who famously sought a compromise between the Catholic position and the very popular continental Protestant position.

I agree with the post. Comments:

Making and remaking of dynastic marriages was a commonplace during the period, as you say. The entire system of impediments, dispensations and decreees of nullity was established to allow two things simultaneously: permit the making and remaking of marriage alliances (for reasons of state, or for high personal reasons), and allow the Church to maintain control over marriage as a sacrament. The incredibly complicated, and continually evolving set of rules and judgements, with respect to what constitiuted a valid marriage, and what could be done about it, was designed to do precisely those two things. What Henry sought (and he played by the rules), happened every day, and he fully expected to receive his decree. His sister Margaret got her first one, at approx. the same time. The examples could be multiplied.

That Henry desired to have a more direct control over the Church in England was quite true, but it didn’t begin with him. For roughly 250 years one can watch a series of Acts of Parliament, and of the Crown, starting (say) with the first Statute of Westminister, all designed to either reduce the authority of any agency (read:Rome) over the Church in England, and/or to increase the authority of the Throne over it. Henry was the latest, and because of his Great Matter, cut that Gordian Knot. But it would have happened, in some fashion, eventually.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree with the post. Comments:

Making and remaking of dynastic marriages was a commonplace during the period, as you say. The entire system of impediments, dispensations and decreees of nullity was established to allow two things simultaneously: permit the making and remaking of marriage alliances (for reasons of state, or for high personal reasons), and allow the Church to maintain control over marriage as a sacrament. The incredibly complicated, and continually evolving set of rules and judgements, with respect to what constitiuted a valid marriage, and what could be done about it, was designed to do precisely those two things. What Henry sought (and he played by the rules), happened every day, and he fully expected to receive his decree. His sister Margaret got her first one, at approx. the same time. The examples could be multiplied.

That Henry desired to have a more direct control over the Church in England was quite true, but it didn’t begin with him. For roughly 250 years one can watch a series of Acts of Parliament, and of the Crown, starting (say) with the first Statute of Westminister, all designed to either reduce the authority of any agency (read:Rome) over the Church in England, and/or to increase the authority of the Throne over it. Henry was the latest, and because of his Great Matter, cut that Gordian Knot. But it would have happened, in some fashion, eventually.

GKC

​

Not only that, but he was not unique in wanting to control the Church in his realm. The domestication of the Church in France was well-advanced by the beginning of the KGM; as for the Holy Roman Empire - 'nuff said. Spain & the Papacy did not get on well - Paul IV loathed the Spanish

As for his faults - again, there were others like him. So what’s all the fuss ? Why pick on him ? People ask for the Inquisitions not to be subjected to anachronistic moral standards, which is fair enough - the same applies here though. Maybe it’s time for some revisionist biographies of him…

 

[SIA]

I actually have some questions regarding the church of England. I am just being curious. I don’t want to offend any anglicans here.

In our textbook, it says Henry VIII wanted to get a divorce so he separated england from the catholic church and established the church of england. are there still people who truly believe in anglicanism? How do they explain that Henry VIII’s divorce?

Are you truly asking this or is this some kind of a joke?

 

[Chancellare]

Are you truly asking this or is this some kind of a joke?

Give Seeker a break.
Henry VIII did not seek to control the Church; did not want to separate from Rome; did not precipitate establishment of Anglican Church; did not care if he had no male successor so long as he remained chastely married .

 

[GKC]

​

Not only that, but he was not unique in wanting to control the Church in his realm. The domestication of the Church in France was well-advanced by the beginning of the KGM; as for the Holy Roman Empire - 'nuff said. Spain & the Papacy did not get on well - Paul IV loathed the Spanish

As for his faults - again, there were others like him. So what’s all the fuss ? Why pick on him ? People ask for the Inquisitions not to be subjected to anachronistic moral standards, which is fair enough - the same applies here though. Maybe it’s time for some revisionist biographies of him…

Agreed. Scarisbrick is quite fair, and informative, as to the whole Great Matter.

Across Europe, it was the growth of nationalism generally, following the consolidation of central powers in the nation-states. Of which the Church was accounted one of the boys, and treated as such, with political alliances, wars and invasions. Autres temps…

GKC

 

[SIA]

Give Seeker a break.
Henry VIII did not seek to control the Church; did not want to separate from Rome; did not precipitate establishment of Anglican Church; did not care if he had no male successor so long as he remained chastely married .

I don’t agree. Henry was well informed and studied in Scripture by Cranmer, Lattimore and others at this point to know that he wished for England to separate from Rome.

 

[Chancellare]

I don’t agree. Henry was well informed and studied in Scripture by Cranmer, Lattimore and others at this point to know that he wished for England to separate from Rome.

Give yourself a break too.
Henry VIII did not listen to political maneuverings of Cranmer and Cromwell.

 

[SIA]

Give yourself a break too.
Henry VIII did not listen to political maneuverings of Cranmer and Cromwell.

??? Cranmer was the first Archbishop of Canterbury following England’s separation from Rome.

 

[Chancellare]

??? Cranmer was the first Archbishop of Canterbury following England’s separation from Rome.

Ahh, the difficulty of understanding the complicated politics among the chief architects of the Split from Rome. Read more about Cranmer’s role.