Henry 8th, Questions?

[aeneas]

WHY DID HENRY 8TH, LEAVE THE OLD CHURCH AND SET UP A NEW ONE?

Henry didn't leave the Church at any time. He might not be a very good advert for the Church in England, but he was baptised in it and stayed there till he died.
What happened was that Henry 8th, had a fall out with the Papal Court.
He wasn't after a divorce, he wanted an annulment. In effect he wanted the marriage with Queen Catherine to be a non starter, as though it had never existed and princess Mary had never been born!

ONE of the people to approach about this was the pope, or Bishop of Rome. For a lot of money, he would issue annulments, it was a nice little earner! The King of France had obtained one from Rome, though it had nearly bankrupted him, but he had gained the ,'lady'. Now Henry sought the same service. He paid his money , lots of it, he saw all the right people. Scholars and clerics all over Europe were bribed, the Papal Court at Rome waxed rich, Henry was strung along like a love struck lad, no one asked poor Queen Catherine or the Princess Mary! It all came to nothing because Queen Catherine, was auntie, to the German Emperor and the emperor didn't want his aunt's private life to be the subject of gossip in every court in Europe. Besides he was holding the Pope as his prisoner and persuaded the Bishop of Rome to turn down Henry's petition, which he finally did after taking and keeping all the Kings money. The Pope would rather offend Henry, far away in England, than the most powerful man in Europe. The King became the laughing stock of Europe and lost all of his money!

Then the King found out that not only the Bishop of Rome could issue annulments, the same business could have been done by any unscrupulous Archbishop, such as Cranmer of Canterbury! He could have saved all his money , millions in gold as well as his pride! He got his annulment, but lost face! A scholar, he also found at that by earning money this way, the Papacy was actually going against the rules of the Catholic Church as the Canons of the Seven Councils actually prohibited interference by one bishop in another bishop's see.
This meant that not only Henry was covered with egg, but the pope as well.
In a fit of pique the pope responded by breaking communion with Henry,(not England, this only came some 40 yrs later.). At no time did Henry, or the English Church fall away from the Catholic Faith, or leave the Catholic Church any severance that took place was the action of the papacy at the Council of Trent!
[/b]

[gerry murphy]

why did Henry murder his people

[fred]

Mr Murphy


[/co It was a question of power! POWER CORRUPTS. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!


Henry was first man in the Land, largest landowner and richest. While most people carried on in their place, some, especially amongst the nobility thought they could do better! Henry used force and death as a standard of pacification.
But Henry was mental, he had a fall from his mount in a Joust in 1536, i
think. It left him more than slightly brain damaged! There's a letter in Elizabeth's correspondence ,it is from a minor relative and it shows the nobility and gentry robbing Henry and the Church together of everything that wasn't nailed down.

But Henry wasn't the only killer on the loose, he was just one out of a bad bunch. The Emperor of Germany is estimated to have killed 150,000, his speciality was burying his religious opponents alive! Whilst the King of France murdered over thirty thousand in one night, during the Massacre of S.Bartholomew's Eve! While The King of Spain's subjects were burnt at the stake, sent to the galleys and hanged, or otherwise executed in gay abandon. His armies massacred Protestants all over Europe.

[nonjuror2003]

The response to the questions have been interesting and many
In view of the response to the topic, which isn't reflected in replies to the board, we have decided to answer questions asked generally by discussions with people at Church or in the pub's. But questions can be posed by visitors to the blog without too much trouble thanks to Pushka the Blog owner.We will promise to do our best to answer , but questioners must be patient.

[nonjuror2003]

HENRY AND THE REFORMATION!

It is usual to talk about Henry's ,'Divorce,' but as we've already seen, Henry didn't ask for one, it would have shocked the English Church , because it was not acceptable by Catholic Standards. He sought an,"ANNULMENT,' which is only given if the marriage does not fulfill the Church's standards or rules for marriage.
The facts are that Henry did not leave the Church, but simply stood by the laws of the ancient church and the councils. It was very likely this attitude that drove the pope to cut Henry from communion with the Roman Church, note, this is not the same organisation as the ,One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!
The truth is that for some hundreds of years there had been trouble within the Catholic Church regarding the authority of the pope. Initially the Pope had simply been the Bishop of the Suburbicarian Church of Rome, this was that part the catholic church within a few Leagues around the City of Rome. Later the Church appointed he Pope to be Bishop of Suburbicarian Italia, that is the whole of Italy. He was made simply Primate of the West, that is first in rank, there was no other primacy given than to any other bishop. In the early days of the Church however, the Bishop of Rome had become virtually a civil servant to the Roman Emperor and the Church in Rome little more than a Dept, of State! At one time the Pope was given the responsibility of repossessing two houses. In thanks for his sterling service as a servant of the State the Pope Leo ! was given the privilege of using the Stasi, the Roman Police force for his own use! This continued for several hundred years giving the Bishop of Rome unprecedented authority and power over the Western Church.
Later the Pope assumed authority over the political sphere of Rome and much of Northern Italy.

However, the attempt to take power or authority over the Church was resisted with the Eastern Church breaking free in 1054 AD.
In Britain and then England, the Church struggled against the papal claims and developed on what we would today call ,"Orthodox' ,lines. This caused the Pope to support the invasion of England in 1066 AD. It might ultimately cost near a million dead after the defeat of Hastings and William's death in approx, 1080, but it enabled William, with papal support , to move the entire leadership from the English Church and replacing them with supporters of the papacy. All the Bishops but one and all the other senior officials both, Deans and Abbots were removed. Yet even this didn't achieve all the Pope sought, for William refused to to render sovereignty to the Bishop of Rome for his throne and refused also to adopt any other way than that of his Saxon predecessors.

It wasn't that the Early Church rejected the Bishop of Rome's position, or at that time, his theology. It was the popes attempts to enlarge his authority at the expense of other bishops.As long as Catholic standards were preserved they struggled to retain the ancient order. Their position wasn't helped by the fact that from about 900 AD, the Bishop of Rome was virtual King of Northern Italy. He was a Monarch and the European Monarchs were reluctant to move against one of their own perchance it worked against the very principle of Monarchy! Theologically he had not any support whatsoever beyond his claim for primacy.There was nothing in scripture , or in Holy Tradition. There were however a series of forgeries printed about 9th Century purporting to be the Donation of Constantine the First Emperor of Rome. Later another set of Forgeries were,' found,' the isadorian Decretals , or Laws. The trouble was that whilst every scholar new that they were not original, they had no way of proving it. From 1054 the Church split between east and west, but the fight went on to preserve the ancient and traditional Church in its Catholic ways. In England the Pope was accepted as a spiritual leader, even now that part of his authority wasn't ever challenged, but the pope's failing was ,probably, as a political power, or monarch he was using his spiritual authority as a means of preserving or even advancing his earthly position.

Part 1.

[francisduckett]

Part 2.

All over Europe the Church was being bled white everything was for sale, there was a price tag on all aspects of religious life, time and time again the avarice of the Pope and the papal court was a matter of discussion in both parliaments, civil and religious. ( Indeed it became the subject of poetry and literature i.e Guildford's Owl and the Nightingale, in the time of the second Henry and Dante's masterpiece). Under Henry II, the Bishops and clergy were advocating severance from Rome, not on theological grounds, but for the very simple reason unity was at to great a financial price. Even the papacy was for sale and under the lead of the King of France the papacy was moved from Rome to Avignon! Soon there were three Popes, this meant that as a Catholic had to be in Communion with the Papacy to retain his position and every Pope excommunicated his opponents and their supporters,the whole world was outside the Church. Uproar ensued, popes were sacked, two imprisoned and one simply ran away, all this was done at a series of Ecumenical Councils held in the middle ages. The trouble was none of the new popes behaved much better and under pressure of need reverted to the Old system. If we look at the debates in England at the time of the early reformation in this country, we find that very few questions of a spiritual nature arose, it was all about money. Money to pay for the Popes pleasures and to buy soldiers to protect the popes estates and to bribe his opponent both political and spiritual, this money was known as Annates or Peter's pence.

• 
  By Henry 8th,'s time the question of the Annulment raised people's interest to fever pitch, Henry was conned by the papacy and excommunicated. What he and the Church in England did was to point out by the means of legislation passed in the Convocation of the Church in England that,"The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.!" This was not to challenge any Spiritual Claim , or indeed to admit any such claim by the Roman Bishop, but simply to point out that by the rules of the Ancient Church through the Bishops in Council that no bishop has authority in another bishop's see, without prior permission.This is the matter of the English Reformation, The enforcement of Anglican independence! This is why the Pope's took such an amazing step such as lead to a nearly five hundred year schism on his part.The action of the Anglican Convocation and the English King was to put England very much on the side of the Orthodox Church of the East and make the CHurch in England a Western Orthodox Church! We have to note that this doesn't mean there are not theological differences between Rome and Anglicanism. Authority in the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ in which we are a Communion of Believers, is through the Revelation of Christ,(Jude.) This entered in Scripture and interpreted, explained and completed by the Bishops in Council is the Magisterium we hold to. The claims of some to personal authority are simply additions to the Revealed Faith and following the Pauline Injunctions we eschew them.
  
  
• 
  
• 
  

[francisduckett]

For facts and figures on these matters we have not to look to modern authorities or even modern scholars , we have to search the authorities provided by our own Church such as
A Hand Book on the Papacy. Kerr, Bishop of Down & Connor.
The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. FW Puller, ed 3.
Of the Church, Dean Feild.
39 Articles. Kidd.
An Ecclesiastical History . Jeremy Collier. Vol.1to 5.
Papalism. Denny