What influence did King Henry VIII of England have on Protestant, non-Catholic Christianity?

[grampben]

***I believe that King Henry’s ego, (name removed by moderator)atients, immorality and lack of any healthy Christian formation, along with his own personal desires, were the driving forces, which lead to his unraveling and to him murdering his wives and countless others, as well as his dividing the people of England and destroying his own country. These same factors were also, what caused him to go “Protestant” and try to take the rest of his country with him, not any “truths”, “discovered” in Protestantism and not any fault of the Catholic Church. He didn’t get his way and plenty paid for it, plain and simply. ***

He used Martin Luther, manipulated Christianity and exploited Protestantism for his own personal gain, not for God, not for religion, not for his country and definitely not for his people. He struck a devastating blow to Christianity, which is still felt to this day.

What would have happened if King Henry had been patient and submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church, on the morale issues of Marriage and divorce?

Would the Church be divided, or as divided today, if not for King Henry?

Ego, (name removed by moderator)atients, immorality and lack of any healthy Christian formation, along with one’s own personal desires taking precedence, creates the same problems for people today, as it did in King Henry’s time. These same factors are also the cause for many divorces and broken families today.

Rejecting a Christian truth found in Catholicism during King Henry’s time was as damaging as it is in our time.

Rejecting the Catholic Church - Bad then!
*Rejecting the Catholic Church - Bad now! *

Your thoughts?

I think where we differ is, I see the english reformation as being a good thing. However I see Henry’s actions as immoral and don’t hold him in high regard. But I also see that without him, brilliant theologians like Thomas Cranmer may not have risen. Thomas Cranmer had a great affect on protestantism, much greater than Henry. Henry was a catalyst, I reckon the reformation was coming to England anyway (The Lollardy movement etc, as well as William Tyndale seem to indicate this).

 

[GKC]

Very good post ralphinal; I believe others here want to continue digesting different view points of history instead of answering the post. I am tempted to engage historical facts, names, dates and events from Protestant England and what resulted. But you cleared up nicely what I wanted to say so ditto to you.

Besides, I would call posters attention to the result of King Henry’s seperation from the Roman Cathoilc church. What is the Anglican church today, is it the same as when King Henry left it? For all that matters where is Europe today? Christian or Muslim? or other?

Do, if you wish, engage historical facts, dates, and events. The Tudor period has been one of my hobby areas for around 10 years, in reading and book collectring, and I would gladly learn what you know.

GKC

GKC

 

[GKC]

From his actions I would say he wanted not just one but many divorces or were you just being funny

I was being canonically and historically accurate. Henry did what was very common at the time, amongst his level of society. He sought a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, based (in his causa), on a supposed impediment of affinity, in the first degree collateral, as particularly reflected in the so-called Levetical Prohibition. It was done all the time, and the Church had a vastly detailed and constantly changing sysytem of impediments/dispensations and annulments, all designed to allow two things to be possible: retention of the sacramental nature of marriage, and the making and breaking of dynastic marriges. It happened literally all the time, in the day. Trent attempted to get the whole thing somewhat under control (Session XXIV).

But it wasn’t a divorce. A divorce implies the sundering of a valid marriage. A decree of nullity says that no valid marriage existed. It is an important sacramental distinction.

The process, as I said was commonplace at the time. More details available if desired. It’s a hobby area of mine.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Your right King Henry’s pride was an act seperating himself from God like original sin.

It is certainly possible to think so, but not to think that he originated the problem.

GKC

 

[Lujack]

I think that it is fair to say that his impact was more on society as a whole than on just non-Catholic Christianity.

Think about this: prior to Henry VIII, even the nobility was subject to the Church. After him, the rules shifted. Suddenly, nobility had no one directly over them to answer to. I think that this was the begginning of the end for monarchies in Europe. Slowly, the people began to pull power away from them. After all, how divine is the divine right of kings if the faith itself is under their control and not the clergy?

Henry was actually one of the stronger kings of his time. It was around the time of Henry, actually, that the monarchy was gaining strength. In the Middle Ages, it was the nobles who had the power, not the kings. The King of France was weak in many ways, unable to control his unruly nobles. Spain was a collection of divided duchies and dukedoms, and even in England, which usually had a strong central monarchy, the nobles were able to force King John into signing the Magna Carta.

Central authority from the king was growing at the time of Henry, not fading.

 

[GKC]

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=100333&rendTypeId=4

Hello SIA,

*In your opinion then, who ultimately has the authority to grant a divorce? Who determines the grounds for the divorce? I do not mean in a secular or civil, legal sense, I mean in a Christian sense. *

*Can couples “divorce” themselves or should they go specifically to your denomination, if the Catholic Church doesn’t act immediately and allow it? *

*Should we let the secular world decide? Should there be any sort of inquiry completed first, to determine what actually happened in the marriage? *

*What about marriage counseling? Is that out of the question? *

*What if the couple has children together? *

What about the statistics, which show that a child has a much greater likelihood of being abused by a stepparent.

What about the statistics the show divorce-parent, single-parent homes equal poverty, a higher, high school drop-out rate for their children and a higher risk that that child may become involved in criminal activity….higher risk of teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock marriages of those children….and so on and so forth.

*And… the viscous cycle continues….This occurs because of the breakdown in marriage and because many today, do not honor or respect the Holy Sacrament of Marriage. *

*Many today forgo marriage altogether and then have children out of wedlock. *

A shallow, simplistic, liberal attitude towards divorce, leads to a shallow, simplistic, liberal attitude towards marriage.

All statistics show that Catholics have a lower rate of divorce. Why do you think that is?

*Maybe we should grant a divorce to anyone who asks for it. Oh, that’s right, we (society) already does that in most cases. *

*Who grants the divorce? *
*Who determines the grounds for the divorce? *
Who defines or creates the guidlines?
*Who has the authority to do so? *
*W**ho has the authority to separate what God has put together? Where do they derive their authority to severe the marriage that God and the couple created. *
What is the process in which this should occur….
*in your opinion? *

Marriage is a Holy Sacrament!

Sometimes, the quickest answer is not the right answer. Sometimes, the solution to a problem is not the easy one, or, as easy as one might think. Sometimes, problems cannot be explain or solved by citing a single Bible verse, taken out of context. Finally, sometimes, patients, prayer and time are required.

*Unfortunately, we live in a world today where people have no patients, instant gratification is the norm, and for many this need to “fix their problem, right now”, actually creates more problems for them in the future. *

Many of my comments here, are of a general nature but any apinion that you might be able to add here would be helpful in this discussion.

I would like to read your response to the questions posed here.

Thank you for your post.

Peace.

You do need to keep the distinction between a civil marriage, for which divorce is possible, under civil law, and a sacramental marriage, in which divorce is not possible, though a decree of nullity is. I know that there is a tendency to use the terms interchangeably,but, esp. historically, it’s not precise to do so.

GKC

 

[ralphinal]

Henry was actually one of the stronger kings of his time. It was around the time of Henry, actually, that the monarchy was gaining strength. In the Middle Ages, it was the nobles who had the power, not the kings. The King of France was weak in many ways, unable to control his unruly nobles. Spain was a collection of divided duchies and dukedoms, and even in England, which usually had a strong central monarchy, the nobles were able to force King John into signing the Magna Carta.

Central authority from the king was growing at the time of Henry, not fading.

But this authorty, due to Henry, was removed from any oversight by the Church. Once there was no one higher than the king, it was a matter of time before it would fall.

 

[GKC]

***I believe that King Henry’s ego, (name removed by moderator)atients, immorality and lack of any healthy Christian formation, along with his own personal desires, were the driving forces, which lead to his unraveling and to him murdering his wives and countless others, as well as his dividing the people of England and destroying his own country. These same factors were also, what caused him to go “Protestant” and try to take the rest of his country with him, not any “truths”, “discovered” in Protestantism and not any fault of the Catholic Church. He didn’t get his way and plenty paid for it, plain and simply. ***

He used Martin Luther, manipulated Christianity and exploited Protestantism for his own personal gain, not for God, not for religion, not for his country and definitely not for his people. He struck a devastating blow to Christianity, which is still felt to this day.

What would have happened if King Henry had been patient and submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church, on the morale issues of Marriage and divorce?

Would the Church be divided, or as divided today, if not for King Henry?

Ego, (name removed by moderator)atients, immorality and lack of any healthy Christian formation, along with one’s own personal desires taking precedence, creates the same problems for people today, as it did in King Henry’s time. These same factors are also the cause for many divorces and broken families today.

Rejecting a Christian truth found in Catholicism during King Henry’s time was as damaging as it is in our time.

Rejecting the Catholic Church - Bad then!
*Rejecting the Catholic Church - Bad now! *

Your thoughts?

Henry played the game as it was played, in those days. And the game was as much political as theological. Many things were, then. The societal imperative that required the ability to make and break dynastic marriages was a political one, long recognised and provided for by the Church. The requirement to maintain the sacramental nature of marriage was theological, likewise accomodated. The result was the vastly complicated system in which Henry was manuvering. Given the nature of his causa (which was, in fact, weaker than his best case, for an undispensed imediment arising from Julius’s original dispensation) he was completely justified in expecting the decree. What intervened, much to Clement’s sorrow, was Charles V.

And then there is the issue of Henry’s concern for his dynasty. I leave it there, for the moment.

History is almost always more complicated than one thinks. I recommend J. J. Scarisbricks maginificent bio HENRY VIII, for a good understanding of what was going on, and H. Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII, for mind-numbimg detail.

Henry ran head long into a political situation. And he made a political response.

Believing things is always to be expected. Being deep in history is useful.

GKC

 

[GKC]

But this authorty, due to Henry, was removed from any oversight by the Church. Once there was no one higher than the king, it was a matter of time before it would fall.

It would have fallen, anyway. As was true with the issue of the political authority of the Church, nationalism would have eventually moved in the direction of, first the rise of the nobility (THe WArs of teh Roses showed that the Crown could rest where the nobles in power wanted it), then to the rise of the people.

Henry’s concept of the divine right of kings, tied to his reading of THE OBEDIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MAN, was formative in his concept of Brtiain as an imperial realm. It in itself, didn’t cause the decline of kings. History did. It was a matter of time, either way.

GKC

 

[Lujack]

But this authorty, due to Henry, was removed from any oversight by the Church. Once there was no one higher than the king, it was a matter of time before it would fall.

The Holy Roman Empire was at war with the Pope for long periods of time, and they held on all right.

Outside of England, the king simply wasn’t that powerful or important. The Duke of Burgundy was on equal footing with the King of France. There was no king of Spain. Germany was the Holy Roman Empire, and the Emperor was dependent on his nobles. Italy was all city-states.

There hadn’t been any strong central monarchy for the Church to oversee to begin with.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You do need to keep the distinction between a civil marriage, for which divorce is possible, under civil law, and a sacramental marriage, in which divorce is not possible, though a decree of nullity is. I know that there is a tendency to use the terms interchangeably,but, esp. historically, it’s not precise to do so.

GKC

Hello GKC,

Is your comment here for me, or is it a general comment regarding this subject?

I’m asking because, if your talking to me, I know the difference.

Do you miss something? If you go back and read the third sentence in the quote of mine that you used here, you’ll see that I wrote -

“I do not mean in a secular or civil, legal sense, I mean in a Christian sense.”

My point being, the many non-Catholic Christians today do view the Holy Sacrament of Marriage and divorce, more as a civil matter and not as it should be viewed, as a Holy Sacrament.

I think we agree on this one.

Go back and read the post.

Thanks

 

[Jimmy_B]

…History is almost always more complicated than one thinks. …Believing things is always to be expected. Being deep in history is useful.
GKC

Nice post…Well put…Thank you.

Peace

 

[GKC]

Hello GKC,

Is your comment here for me, or is it a general comment regarding this subject?

I’m asking because, if your talking to me, I know the difference.

Do you miss something? If you go back and read the third sentence in the quote of mine that you used here, you’ll see that I wrote -

“I do not mean in a secular or civil, legal sense, I mean in a Christian sense.”

My point being, the many non-Catholic Christians today do view the Holy Sacrament of Marriage and divorce, more as a civil matter and not as it should be viewed, as a Holy Sacrament.

I think we agree on this one.

Go back and read the post.

Thanks

\

We do agree, and yes, I did miss it. My time is not what it once was, on line, and I speed through stuff. It shows in my typos, too.

But I still refer to one as a divorce, and not the other. Some marriages, by legal defnition, are merely secular unions, failing as sacraments in some way as to matter, or intent, in particular. What the State has joined, the State could put asunder.

But we are in accord on the idea.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Nice post…Well put…Thank you.

Peace

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[SIA]

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=100333&rendTypeId=4

Hello SIA,

*In your opinion then, who ultimately has the authority to grant a divorce? Who determines the grounds for the divorce? I do not mean in a secular or civil, legal sense, I mean in a Christian sense. *

*Can couples “divorce” themselves or should they go specifically to your denomination, if the Catholic Church doesn’t act immediately and allow it? *

*Should we let the secular world decide? Should there be any sort of inquiry completed first, to determine what actually happened in the marriage? *

*What about marriage counseling? Is that out of the question? *

*What if the couple has children together? *

What about the statistics, which show that a child has a much greater likelihood of being abused by a stepparent.

What about the statistics the show divorce-parent, single-parent homes equal poverty, a higher, high school drop-out rate for their children and a higher risk that that child may become involved in criminal activity….higher risk of teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock marriages of those children….and so on and so forth.

*And… the viscous cycle continues….This occurs because of the breakdown in marriage and because many today, do not honor or respect the Holy Sacrament of Marriage. *

*Many today forgo marriage altogether and then have children out of wedlock. *

A shallow, simplistic, liberal attitude towards divorce, leads to a shallow, simplistic, liberal attitude towards marriage.

All statistics show that Catholics have a lower rate of divorce. Why do you think that is?

*Maybe we should grant a divorce to anyone who asks for it. Oh, that’s right, we (society) already does that in most cases. *

*Who grants the divorce? *
*Who determines the grounds for the divorce? *
Who defines or creates the guidlines?
*Who has the authority to do so? *
*W**ho has the authority to separate what God has put together? Where do they derive their authority to severe the marriage that God and the couple created. *
What is the process in which this should occur….
*in your opinion? *

Marriage is a Holy Sacrament!

Sometimes, the quickest answer is not the right answer. Sometimes, the solution to a problem is not the easy one, or, as easy as one might think. Sometimes, problems cannot be explain or solved by citing a single Bible verse, taken out of context. Finally, sometimes, patients, prayer and time are required.

*Unfortunately, we live in a world today where people have no patients, instant gratification is the norm, and for many this need to “fix their problem, right now”, actually creates more problems for them in the future. *

Many of my comments here, are of a general nature but any apinion that you might be able to add here would be helpful in this discussion.

I would like to read your response to the questions posed here.

Thank you for your post.

Peace.

This is all just your opinion as is every bit of rhetoric that you post here. I can support my points with Scripture, you cannot and that’s the difference. It is your claim through your church that you do not have to support your claims with Scripture for the reason of oral tradtion. We all know the REAL reason why you claim that Scripture evidence is not needed. For that matter, I can claim ANYTHING outside of Scripture as oral tradition becasue there is no way to refute it. Your tactics are not new. If you wish to convice me of your opinion, then simply show me support for it in the Words of God. Otherwise, it is the same old song and dance with no truthful basis that I sat and listened to for far too long when I was unfortunately Catholic.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

"adrift:

From his actions I would say he wanted not just one but many divorces or were you just being funny?

I was being canonically and historically accurate. Henry did what was very common at the time, amongst his level of society. He sought a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, based (in his causa

), on a supposed impediment of affinity, in the first degree collateral, as particularly reflected in the so-called Levetical Prohibition. It was done all the time, and the Church had a vastly detailed and constantly changing sysytem of impediments/dispensations and annulments, all designed to allow two things to be possible: retention of the sacramental nature of marriage, and the making and breaking of dynastic marriges. It happened literally all the time, in the day. Trent attempted to get the whole thing somewhat under control (Session XXIV).

But it wasn’t a divorce. A divorce implies the sundering of a valid marriage. A decree of nullity says that no valid marriage existed. It is an important sacramental distinction.

The process, as I said was commonplace at the time. More details available if desired. It’s a hobby area of mine.

GKC

**Hi adrift,

I can validate what GKC stated as being fact! The CC still issues degrees of nullity says that no valid marriage existed. As Jim said It is an important sacramental distinction.**

 

[adrift]

I was being canonically and historically accurate. Henry did what was very common at the time, amongst his level of society. He sought a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, based (in his causa), on a supposed impediment of affinity, in the first degree collateral, as particularly reflected in the so-called Levetical Prohibition. It was done all the time, and the Church had a vastly detailed and constantly changing sysytem of impediments/dispensations and annulments, all designed to allow two things to be possible: retention of the sacramental nature of marriage, and the making and breaking of dynastic marriges. It happened literally all the time, in the day. Trent attempted to get the whole thing somewhat under control (Session XXIV).

But it wasn’t a divorce. A divorce implies the sundering of a valid marriage. A decree of nullity says that no valid marriage existed. It is an important sacramental distinction.

The process, as I said was commonplace at the time. More details available if desired. It’s a hobby area of mine.

GKC

Thank you I didn’t realize that he did not divorce

 

[adrift]

Not quite.

The horror is only a supposition although he did refuse to see Maurevert.

Both quotes from newadvent.org/cathen/13333b.htm

Atrocities by any side are not justifiable.

Absolutely atrocities are not justifiable.

I should have cited my source.

Warren H. Carroll has written “The Cleaving of Christendom” It is a well cited book. The citations take up chapters by themselves. In it he says

Pope Gregory XIII ordered a TE Deum said in thanks giving for the deliverance of the French royal family and Christendom from Coligny’s alleged plot to murder the king, seize the crown, support the rebels in the Low Countries and march on Rome.
However, the Pope was horrified by the cruelties of the massacre, shedding tears and saying:“I am weeping for the conduct of the king, which is unlawful and forbidden by God.” Spanish ambassador Zuniga described him as “struck with horror” at the details of the massacre. Later the Pope said he wept for the many innocent dead, and refused to receive the assassin Maurevert in audience

The Te Deum was in thanksgiving not for the massacre, as you indicate, but for the safety of the king.
You did quote the Catholic Encyclopedia but only part here is an entire quote

Besides, the pope’s joy did not last long. A rather involved account by Brantôme leads us to think that, becoming better informed, he grew angry at the news of such barbarity, and it is certain that when, in October, 1572, the Cardinal of Lorraine wished to present Maurevel, who had fired on Coligny on 22 August, Gregory XIII refused to receive him, saying: "He is an assassin."

Hardly a supposition than since we have the Pope’s own words. It was a terrible event but the Pope was not celebrating the massacre as you tried to say he was.

 

[GKC]

Thank you I didn’t realize that he did not divorce

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[SyCarl]

Absolutely atrocities are not justifiable.

I should have cited my source.

Warren H. Carroll has written “The Cleaving of Christendom” It is a well cited book. The citations take up chapters by themselves. In it he says

The Te Deum was in thanksgiving not for the massacre, as you indicate, but for the safety of the king.
You did quote the Catholic Encyclopedia but only part here is an entire quote

Hardly a supposition than since we have the Pope’s own words. It was a terrible event but the Pope was not celebrating the massacre as you tried to say he was.

I was going by the words “leads us to think…he grew angry”. My take is that if it was definite a source like the Catholic Encyclopedia, which clearly is not unbiased, would have said so in a more conclusive way.