So, Henry VIII wanted a divorce but the pope wouldn't let him, so he started his own state church; plus Rome was over a thousand miles away.

American Revolution? Yeah, probably a good idea to make an American version of Anglicanism, because, you know, we went to war against the King.

Pretty damn simple compared to Mormonism.

Because they didn't murder as many people as the roman cathoholics ?

Actually, the simplicity lies in the founding of a cult by a charismatic leader who succeeded in selling his brand to those who became followers. It's happened many times down through history, with Mormonism being but a recent example. The origin of the Anglican Church was much more complicated, rife with political issues, family fortunes, legacy of succession, and ceded territory. The religious aspects, while important to the Papists, were only of minor concern to those who became leaders in the new church, which after all, turned out to be a lot like the old church.

Mormonism is butt a small zit on the vast buttocks of Anglicanism.

Correct! The fun story of Henry and his divorce makes a great sexy narrative, but there's more to the tale. He was a notorious spendthrift and was bleeding resources like a sieve. Henry looked at the vast holdings of the Roman Catholic Church and realized there was a huge source of wealth which could go a long way toward easing his money woes. Both his goals were eventually achieved and he got his heir, though not the son he desired. His daughter, Elizabeth I was one of the greatest monarchs in British history. Yes, I am Episcopalian and own all our funky history, warts and all.

For all who are actually interested in a sexy narrative about this, read The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory!

A historical-fiction gemmmmm for sure

I like Philipa Gregory's books, but she isnt all that accurate. There is a lot of artistic license in them. After reading it,look up what really happened. Actually, that is a good idea with any historic novel.

He also needed a male heir and his wife, Catherine only had a daughter and was too old to have another child. Ordinarily the pope would have granted an annulment in those circumstances.Women were not generally thought up to the task of ruling. In this case,Catherine's nephew had invaded Italy and the pope was his prisoner. No way was Henry going to get his annulment so he declared himself ruler of the church in England and married Anne Boleyn who was prwgnnant with a baby who turned out to be female. The church pretty much remained Catholic in other respects until the reigns of Edward who was a Puritan and Elizabeth who formed the Anglican church.Sex was an issue but so was securing the succession after years of civil war, money, Henry dissolved the monasteries and took the money, and Henry's ego. He didnt like taking orders from the pope.If Henry had had a son by his first wife it is very unlikely that he would have sought a divorce.Interesting aside. After all Henry's efforts to get a legitimate son,England's greatest ruler turned out to be his daughter,Elizabeth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2017 11:40PM by bona dea.

Actually, he did not start a new church, He made himself head of the church as it existed in England at the time.

It was a time known as the English Reformation, and was part of the larger Reformation in Europe. The English Reformation included such niceties as a bloody civil war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation

The Reformation was a time of Christians killing Christians for not being the right type of Christians.

To pant the history of the Anglican church as someone simply starting a new church while ignoring the bloody history is as bad as the LDS whitewashing its own history.

Henry killed more people for political reasons than religious-that is, he killed people who didnt agree with him. His son and daughter, Edward and Mary did persecute repectively Catholics and Protestants.Elizabeth who actually formed the Anglican church deliberately made it a combination of Catholic and Protestants so it would appeal to as many Englishmen as possible and she did not persecute other religions so long as they were discrete and were loyal to her. She once said that she had no desire to build windows into mens' souls and that there was only one Jesus Chriat and the rest was a dispute about trifles. She did persecute Catholics at times, but only if they were rebelling against her which some did. There was a lot of politics involved here as well as religion.

Ah, so if you can fond someone that killed more people, it makes killing OK?

NONSENSE.

Bottom line, The founding of the Anglican church was not the simple matter the OP claims, its history did include violence and civil war.

Oh, and you may want to have a read:

http://www.historyextra.com/article/elizabeth-i/elizabeth-i-war-englands-catholics

And if you focus on just Elizabeth and the beginning of her reign, you miss a lot of history (real historians would know this):

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/elizabeth-i-and-the-catholic-church/

"In 1585, now with the arch-conformist John Whitgift as Archbishop of Canterbury, an Act of Parliament ordered that all Jesuits and Catholics priests should be driven from the kingdom. Reports from spies in Spain about the impending Armada only made a campaign against the Catholics more vigorous. When the Armada came, the vast bulk of the population rallied around Elizabeth. Cecil had a simple equation – Catholicism in England equalled treason. Many agreed with him. Within the space of 30 years, Catholics who had been free to quietly worship in manor houses had become the hunted. In 1558, Elizabeth had no qualms about tolerating someone who practiced their beliefs even if they were different to hers. By the end of 1588, the Queen was unwilling to tolerate a group that threatened her very well being and title. The cause of the Catholics was not helped when Cardinal William Allen likened Elizabeth to Lucifer in his ‘Admonition to the Nobility and People of England’. Allen also referred to Elizabeth’s mother as the “infamous courtesan” and claimed that she herself was an “incestuous bastard”."

Ah, but at least we know the true story, warts and all, unlike TSCC and its buckets full of whitewash....

Do you know the true story? From your first post, I would have guessed that you knew the Anglican version of the story, which some still promote.

The truth is out there for both Anglican and Mormon religions.

Perhaps you should listen and stop trying to pick fights. No one said the Anglicans are perfect. We are simply pointing out that there was more to it than you said.

And way more that what YOU and the OP said. Trying to limit the discussion to the early reign of Elizabeth is nonsense.

I was the one that included the the formation of the Anglican Church as part of the English Reformation, which is part of the Christian reformation, far more than YOU and the OP included.

Don't know how much broader than discussing it in the context of the Reformation I would need to do.

The fact is, Catholics were persecuted even in Elizabeth's England, exactly what I said, but not what you said.

And I never said that people claimed that the Anglican church was perfect, I simply pointed out the errors that the OP and you made. Oh, and I supplied supporting evidence for my claims.

Yes, and those priests were supported by Catholic Spain and wanted to replace Elizabeth with her Catholic cousin ,Mary Queen of Scots. Elizabeth ,understandably took that as a threat. It was political and what I meant when I mentioned political reasons for her later persecution of Catholics.Her issue was not against Catholics per se, but with Catholics who wanted to overthrow her. The king of Spain was a religious fanatic. Elizabeth was not.

Bang, I am not going to argue with you. I find your argumentative attitude annoying. BTW, I have taught classes on the English Reformation and do know what I am talking about. You, on themother hand, arent even reading my posts, dont get my point and are trying to make arguments where we actually agree. I had enough of it with your rants on the thread on teachings kids the Bible. I dont have time for this. Bye.

You think that a person disagreeing with you, stating their case and providing supporting documentation "picking a fight" and "argumentative"?

Still, Catholics in England were persecuted in Elizabethan England regardless of the political positions. The quote I posted made point about how Elizabeth had changed on that issue. It became Catholics, not just disloyal catholics.


"In 1585, now with the arch-conformist John Whitgift as Archbishop of Canterbury, an Act of Parliament ordered that all Jesuits and Catholics priests should be driven from the kingdom." Get it, *ALL* loyal or NOT.

Act Against Recusants (1593)
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/engref/er87.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recusancy

And there is Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's subjects in their obedience"

"In response, the "Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's subjects in their obedience", passed in 1581, made it high treason to reconcile anyone or to be reconciled to "the Romish religion", or to procure or publish any papal Bull or writing whatsoever. The celebration of mass was prohibited under penalty of a fine of two hundred marks and imprisonment for one year for the celebrant, and a fine of one hundred marks and the same imprisonment for those who heard the Mass. This act also increased the penalty for not attending the Anglican service to the sum of twenty pounds a month, or imprisonment till the fine be paid, or till the offender went to the Protestant Church. A further penalty of ten pounds a month was inflicted on anyone keeping a schoolmaster who did not attend the Protestant service. The schoolmaster himself was to be imprisoned for one year.[34]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales

It makes no sense to claim that the Anglican history is "simple", it was not simple.

Henry V111 was a despotic king whose greatest contribution to England IMV was the breaking of papal power and the hold of the Catholic Church. That he and others did it with appalling acts of cruelty is not to their credit.