Need Help: King Henry Viii

[proudwitness]

im debating with a friend who claims that king henry rewrote the bible and started the church of england, i havent heard this claim before and i need help refuting it. any help is appreciated!

 

[Gkbarnes]

im debating with a friend who claims that king henry rewrote the bible and started the church of england, i havent heard this claim before and i need help refuting it. any help is appreciated!

Henry VIII didn't "rewrite" the Bible. His desendent James VI of scotland (and I of Britain) in 17-something created the King James version (or Aurthorised Version).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

He did kinda start the CofE. His 1st wife wasn't giving him a male heir, so he wanted a divorce, whioch was impossible (mainly because his brother-in-law was holding the Pope hostage), so he made himself head of the Church, so he could get married to his misstress (who was pregnent with another girl).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII

Hope it helps. Sorry it's so brief, but it's late, and I wnt to get to bed.

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello Proudwitness.

I'll add a little to what Gkbarnes posted.

William Tyndale's 1525 Bible was published in Cologne but was banned in England as heretical. Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer persuaded Henry VIII to allow a Bible to be printed in the English vernacular of the day. Matthew's Bible was published in 1537. This was a hybrid version of Tyndale's version translated by John Rogers under the name of Thomas Matthew. This was revised and printed in 1537 under the name of the Great Bible. Henry issued a royal proclamation in 1541 that said that every parish have a copy for public use.

Henry did indeed start the Church of England. Along with the fact that the Pope wasn't cooperative about giving Henry a divorce, the monasteries were sending a lot of money to Rome. Henry went ahead and put himself in the Popes place as the head of the church. This kept the structure of the English church fairly intact, with the result that the money now stayed in England and Henry had compliant churchmen to do his bidding.

Pax

 

[winsome]

Henry did indeed start the Church of England. Along with the fact that the Pope wasn't cooperative about giving Henry a divorce, the monasteries were sending a lot of money to Rome. Henry went ahead and put himself in the Popes place as the head of the church. This kept the structure of the English church fairly intact, with the result that the money now stayed in England and Henry had compliant churchmen to do his bidding.
Pax

Not so much that the money didn't go to Rome but that it went into Henry's coffers. He confiscated all the abbys, monasteries etc and took the money, and and buildings. Then he gave or sold the land and buildings to his cronies to keep them on his side.
This is one reason why the rich and powerful were so anti-catholic, they were afraid that if catholics got back in to power they would take their ill-gotten gains back off them.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

im debating with a friend who claims that king henry rewrote the bible and started the church of england, i havent heard this claim before and i need help refuting it. any help is appreciated!

Henry didn't rewrite the bible, but he did start the Chruch of England.

 

[Catherineanne]

Henry didn't rewrite the bible, but he did start the Chruch of England.

This needs a bit of clarification, to be honest.

Henry was a Catholic all his life. He was born a Roman Catholic, and was given the title of Defender of the Faith by the Pope because of his defence of Catholic doctrine against Luther, in, 'The Assertion of the Seven Sacraments', his own work, published in 1521.

For a very large part of his life he was very much against the publication of an English version of the Bible, because he was afraid that it would contain too many errors, and also - as with many people at the time - he believed that the Bible was not a book for ordinary people - it was a Holy book to be revered, and read only by priests.

Lutherans placed great importance on the Bible. Catholics far less so. Thomas More, in writing Eutopia, envisaged a perfect society, which became Christian, and had priests, but it had no Bible.

One person has said that Henry sponsored an English translation and disseminated it throughout English parishes. I am not aware of this, and would be very much surprised if it is true. Henry would have (and indeed did) burn unauthorised English language Bibles.

The Authorised Version of the Bible did not appear in England until the time of King James. Which is why it is called the King James Bible. This is the version which was sent to every parish in the land. Any versions other than the Authorised version would have been very likely to be burned, even at that time.

When Henry split the English Church from the Roman Church, it remained, in his view and that of many others, a Catholic Church. Henry took absolution and last rites, as a Catholic, and was buried with full Catholic rites. When he died he left money in his will for masses to be said for his soul. (This part of his will was never carried out, because the Carthusian Monks he wanted to say the masses had been suppressed under the reformation.)

It was his son, Edward VI, who can more truly be said to have allowed the Church of England to become a Protestant religion, when the new Prayer Book was introduced. At this time Mary, his sister, continued the faith of her childhood, which was Catholicism, and her defence was that this was the faith of her father, in which he lived and died.

 

[HiredGoon]

One person has said that Henry sponsored an English translation and disseminated it throughout English parishes. I am not aware of this, and would be very much surprised if it is true. Henry would have (and indeed did) burn unauthorised English language Bibles.

BalaamsAss51 was correct. Henry VIII did indeed authorize the Great Bible to be placed in, and read in every English church. Though Henry's Church of England was little different than the Roman Catholic church, some minor Protestant influences did seep in due to his advisors after the break with Rome. The authorization of a vernacular Bible being one of those Protestant influences. The reign of his son Edward VI, widely regarded as England's first Protestant ruler, is when the English Reformation really took off.

 

[PaladinValer]

im debating with a friend who claims that king henry rewrote the bible and started the church of england, i havent heard this claim before and i need help refuting it. any help is appreciated!

Having just wrote a paper about the Catholicacy of the Henrican church, I believe I can offer some insight:

Henry VIII did declare a new translation of the Bible, called the Great Bible, to be the Authorized Version of the Church of/in England, but it was in no way a "rewrite" of the Bible. It was translated from those sources the translators had access too, which did include the Vulgate.

As for Henry initiating the Church of England, that is not true. The Anglican faith had always been seperate from Rome in more ways than one. Henry VIII's split was just the icing on the cake.

If you have any more questions about this, I suggest going over to STR, which is the Anglican/Old Catholic forum here on CF.

He did kinda start the CofE. His 1st wife wasn't giving him a male heir, so he wanted a divorce, whioch was impossible (mainly because his brother-in-law was holding the Pope hostage), so he made himself head of the Church, so he could get married to his misstress (who was pregnent with another girl).

You should fire your history teacher, especially since you live in Great Britain.

1. Henry VIII sought an annulment, not a divorce. Henry VIII despised the notion of divorces.

2. By rights, Henry's marriage with Catherine of Aragon was actually against canon law anyhow. Catherine was originally wed to Arthur, Henry's brother, who died from choking to death on a chicken bone. However, the wedding wasn't consumated, so Henry VII (their father) petitioned (and paid) the pope for a papal dispensation to ignore the canon law that stated that you could not wed your brother's wife. The pope took the money and the marriage was annulled so Henry VIII could wed Catherine.

Later on, since he couldn't produce a stable male issue with Catherine, Henry VIII appealed to Clement VII, arguing (correctly) that the original papal dispensation for him to wed Catherine was contrary to the rule of the church. Unfortunately, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, being nephew to Catherine, had sacked Rome for political reasons, and had a vested interest with Catherine remaining on the throne as queen; if Henry procured no male issue, the crown would pass into his family. Henry VIII would not allow that, and with good reason, his split allow him to rightly end his non-canonical marriage with Catherine and to wed in a truly canonical fashion Anne Boleyn

Henry did indeed start the Church of England. Along with the fact that the Pope wasn't cooperative about giving Henry a divorce, the monasteries were sending a lot of money to Rome.

He did not start the Anglican Church. It may be more accurate that he formalized a seperation that had been there for centuries. Again, please ask questions about this in STR.

For the secont point about the "divorce", read my lengthy history above.

The monasteries weren't just about money, although money did have to do with the formal schism. The monastics and other religious houses would be a liability since they were ecclesiastical territory, to which the pope had claims on. By sacking the religious orders, he cut this threat, although it should be noted that all the monks and nuns were still considered under their vows and thus, still monks and nuns.

Henry went ahead and put himself in the Popes place as the head of the church. This kept the structure of the English church fairly intact, with the result that the money now stayed in England and Henry had compliant churchmen to do his bidding.

Not really. It is true that Henry VIII was a pope-like figure, but to call him the "Pope of England" is gravely erronous. The language used in the Act of Supremacy declared Henry VIII Head of Church with authority that was limited so that it was in agreement with the Creeds, the Councils, and the Scriptures. The Pope had far, far more power over his own church.

Not so much that the money didn't go to Rome but that it went into Henry's coffers.

Money however wasn't the key reason, as I've shown above.

He confiscated all the abbys, monasteries etc and took the money, and and buildings. Then he gave or sold the land and buildings to his cronies to keep them on his side.

He didn't need to keep anyone on his side.

This is one reason why the rich and powerful were so anti-catholic, they were afraid that if catholics got back in to power they would take their ill-gotten gains back off them.

This is simply not true.

 

[billwald]

I think the CofE argument is that there was an Orthodox Catholic bishop in England before the Bishop of Rome left the Orthodox Catholic Church thus the CofE (only) reverted to their origional roots.

 

[PaladinValer]

No.

The argument is that the Pope never had a true and valid claim as a spiritual authority the area.

 

[Gkbarnes]

I think the CofE argument is that there was an Orthodox Catholic bishop in England before the Bishop of Rome left the Orthodox Catholic Church thus the CofE (only) reverted to their origional roots.

Hang on, i'm a bit confused

By Orthadox, do you mean as in EO/OO? If so do you mean to say the CofE became Orthadox again?

apologies if i've got the wroing end of the stick

 

[albertmc]

Henry VIII no more started the C of E than Photius started Eastern Orthodoxy. The Church of England had existed from patristic times. Eventually it fell under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Henry VIII, unlike Luther and Calvin, won the support of the local bishops. Granted, some of this support may have been at the point of a sword, but it was there. The first bishops of the C of E after the split were by and large the same as before - in other words there was continuity.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Henry VIII didn't "rewrite" the Bible. His desendent James VI of scotland (and I of Britain) in 17-something created the King James version (or Aurthorised Version).

James was a Stuart, not a Tudor. James was not a descendant of Henry's, which makes me question your credibility on this issue.

He did kinda start the CofE. His 1st wife wasn't giving him a male heir, so he wanted a divorce, whioch was impossible (mainly because his brother-in-law was holding the Pope hostage), so he made himself head of the Church, so he could get married to his misstress (who was pregnent with another girl).

That is one interpretation of history, some Anglicans have a different view of events. You might want to ask your question in the Scripture,Tradition,Reason-Anglican/Old Catholic. I am sure that you will get some responses.

DIANE

 

[Gkbarnes]

James was a Stuart, not a Tudor. James was not a descendant of Henry's, which makes me question your credibility on this issue.

James and Henry were relaited. Henry's sister (Margaret) was the great-grandmother of James.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

James and Henry were relaited. Henry's sister (Margaret) was the great-grandmother of James.

I specifically said, "James was a Stuart, not a Tudor. James was not a descendant of Henry's, which makes me question your credibility on this issue."

Above you wrote:

Henry VIII didn't "rewrite" the Bible. His desendent James VI of scotland (and I of Britain) in 17-something created the King James version (or Aurthorised Version).

I was just correcting your obvious error. Of all people a Brit should know this history of Britain.

Your welcome

Then you wrote, "He did kinda start the CofE. His 1st wife wasn't giving him a male heir, so he wanted a divorce . . ."
I don't know how I missed that error, but others have rightfully said that Heny was seeking an annulment, which is different from a divorce.

DIANE

 

[Gkbarnes]

Sorry Diane. To be honest, that WAS what I was taught in history