I grew up as a Catholic and was told as a general knowledge thing that the Anglican Church is the closest breakaway to the Catholic. As an adult I learn the closest is the Orthodox. I think that if it wasn’t for the doctrine of purgatory small penances would be for personal growth and not spiritual growth. I try not to judge the church by it’s members or hierarchy. I appreciate well crafted sentences or poorly crafted sentences that show humility, clarity and understanding. Like a written note attached to flowers saying “sorry”. King Henry VIII, doesn’t seen like a well mannered man. I understand that he wanted a church with Bible based teachings, but why would he do this?
Don't you agree that faith must be linked with grace, works and wisdom? Not just one aspect. You see, I can do a lot of good deeds, but stop praying. I think it is a matter of and/both not either/or. It seems like the Anglican church kept the church in Rome in high regard, but he was arrogant, had no table manners, perhaps suffering from mental anguish?
Well if I did and started a church I would probably call it a church with Bible based teachings as Henry did. Yes we could probably find fault with his personality. Wouldn't you with 6 mother in laws
The same people who hate Henry VIII love Constantine the Great. Obviously, both men were not very moral. They may have had political reasons for what they did, but God works wondrous works through sad circumstances oftentimes.
This is not want Henry VIII wanted. What he wanted was for the pope to delcare his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to be null. Judging by other cases that got annulments in that era Henry had a strong case. However, politics intervened, as always, and the pope refused his request. As a result Henry broke away from the Church in England's submission to the pope and made himself the head of the [Catholic] Church in England. May be if Henry had got his way Anglicanism wouldn't exist. But, he didn't so we'll never know how history may have been different. Of course, what he wanted was a son and he didn't get this until his third marrriage. Had Henry been granted an annulment from Catherine and then married Anne Boleyn he may still have executed her because she didn't give him a son and he would've needed a way to end that marriage. When Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries it wasn't for the reason given. Maybe the monks, friars, canons regular, nuns, etc. weren't leading the kinds of life they should've been. However, I don't think it was that simple. Some were and some were not. Henry dissolved the religious houses because he wanted their wealth. Henry VIII was no Protestant. He was a Catholic and he didn't change the faith or rleigion of his kingdom. Indeed, he had written a book, Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defence of the Seven Sacraments), which earned him the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith), still in use by British monarchs (I believe HM The Queen uses the feminine form Fidei Defensatrix) awarded by Pope Leo X. It was during the reign of Henry's son, Edvard VI, that the Protestant Reformation occurred and that more because Edward was controlled by others who wanted it. Edward was a sickly youth who exercised little power. The Reformation is more complex than my précis but I wanted to point out this wasn't what Henry VIII wanted, far from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pavia#Aftermath Yes if the French win this battle Henry probably gets his annulment.
Maybe but I think it was pressure from Catherine nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, on Pope Clement VII that prevented him from getting his annulment.
https://blackswantheology.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/henry_viii_u3a.pdf On this link you will find a presentation on Henry VIII which you may find interesting and helpful and may fill in a few of the blanks. The presentation talks about more than religion, and I think you need that to understand what was going on. The Great Bible, came about in part I think due to the input from Anne Boleyn. In terms of this period of the Church's history in Europe it might well be said that Princes would have acted less like Pope's if Pope's had acted less like Princes. Henry VIII was probably one of the most Catholic Princes in Europe, and he would be horrified if anyone suggested he founded a Church. That was neither his purpose nor his intent. Whilst Henry VIII is important in the story of England, and the story of Anglicanism, he is not St Henry and there is not feast day in his honour. I also think it is a mistake to talk about Henry VIII as a monochrome event, for the young vibrant Henry has a joyous personality, and the more senior Henry debilitated, overweight and challenged was more of an overbearing monster.
@Botolph Do you know who Philip Barrington is who wrote the presentation to which you provided a link? I intend to read it, and look forward to doing so. I would like to know who he is so I know how reliable to consider what he says.