When did the English Reformation become inevitable?

[Quid est Veritas?]

If you look at the history of the Reformation in England, you see a constant back and forth.

First we see Wycliffe and the Lollards in the 15th century with their proto-Protestant beliefs. Lollardy was quite powerful before the execution of Oldcastle destroyed them politically, but it remained widespread and their ideas fed and they were eventually absorbed into English Protestantism. There are ample records of the execution of Lollards up to the Reformation, and many ideas like Iconoclasm are more Lollard than Lutheran that were prevalent in the English Reformation.

Later Henry VIII split from Rome, but by no means did he alter the Church that much at that stage. He essentially just seized power by becoming head of the Church and passing the Statute of Praemunire which forbade loyalty to the Pope. He followed this up a few extra Acts of Parliament to cement his power, but at this stage little had been 'reformed'.

Cranmer and a group of Cambridge reformers proceeded to persuade Henry to reform a few things here and there in line with Luther's programme, before being forced by Lutheran unease with Henry's divorce(or more accurately Annulment) of Catherine of Aragon to associate with more Zwinglian ideals. This however brought the idea of Baptism, Eucharist and Penance as the only sacraments to the Church of England.
Also festivals and pilgrimages were abolished and then they proceeded to dissolve the monasteries. English bibles were to be acquired for each parish.

Then Henry had a change of heart and passed the Six Articles reaffirming Roman Catholic practices and prosecuted people who denied the real presence in the Eucharist. Use of the new English bibles were also swiftly curtailed and supressed.

Afterward came Edward VI with his radical Protestant revolution which rapidly lifted the six articles, tore down shrines, made priests into ministers etc. before he died young and the farce of Lady Jane Grey played out.

Next Bloody Mary tried to re-impose Catholicism. After an initial mild tone, she instituted the Marian persecution, burning Protestants at the stake utilising mediaeval heresy laws that had been previously repealed. However in the latter part of her reign, we see Catechisms printed, a collection of homilies produced and shrines repaired.

Finally, Elizabeth I established Protestantism, but of a far less reformed character than her brother. This of course led to Puritan and High Church squabbles that would culminate in the Civil War and the establishment of more extreme Non-Conformist denominations.

So a back and forth. What I want to know though is when do you think the Reformation became inevitable and essentially irreversible?

1. We could argue that the continued Lollard presence made England very susceptible to Protestantism and that as soon as the political will appeared, the wellspring of support made Protestantism all but certain. Therefore, English Catholicism was doomed from the get-go.
2. Henry's usurpation of the Headship of the Church and dissolution of the monasteries and festivals dealt a blow to popular Catholicism that it could never quite recover, which is why Henry himself later in life and Mary could not stop the slide into Protestantism.
3. Edward VI's wide reaching reforms which gave the Reformation sufficient momentum to withstand Mary I.
4. The Elizabethan settlement, which finally established Protestantism unequivocally. Basically, do you think that if Mary produced an heir, that England would have remained Catholic? Could the Marian Persecution have succeeded?

I would love to hear some views on this.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So a back and forth. What I want to know though is when do you think the Reformation became inevitable and essentially irreversible?

I would love to hear some views on this.

It happened.
Was it inevitable ? ( shrug, who knows )

"irreversible" ?
not by a long shot.
all of humanity is being summed up in these end days to worship the beast.
Read all of the Revelation of Jesus to John (last book in the Bible).
What is happening TODAY is described in vivid and gruesome detail.

Somewhat also in Galatians, expanded greek by WUEST,
and in Ephesian.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"irreversible" ?
not by a long shot.
all of humanity is being summed up in these end days to worship the beast.
Read all of the Revelation of Jesus to John (last book in the Bible).
What is happening TODAY is described in vivid and gruesome detail.

Somewhat also in Galatians, expanded greek by WUEST,
and in Ephesian.

I don't mean irreversable for all time of course.

What I do mean though is that for instance had Bonnie Prince Charlie been victorious and the Old Pretender James III installed, I doubt very much that a return to Catholicism would have been possible or even attempted at all.

Likewise James II would most probably never have attempted nor succeeded in such an attempt, had the Glorious Revolution failed.

So at what point was Britain firmly in the Protestant camp? Edward VI? After Elizabeth? Would Guy Fawkes' attempted revolution for instance have had a snowball's chance in hell?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I haven't paid attention to how many people in Britain have fallen prey to the one world church.
It is a long way away,
and there's enough problems on this side of the pond to deal with each day. (not that anything can be done about it. )

 

[tz620q]

Later Henry VIII split from Rome, but by no means did he alter the Church that much at that stage. He essentially just seized power by becoming head of the Church and passing the Statute of Praemunire which forbade loyalty to the Pope. He followed this up a few extra Acts of Parliament to cement his power, but at this stage little had been 'reformed'.

In a nutshell,
Cuius regio, eius religio

 

[Albion]

So a back and forth. What I want to know though is when do you think the Reformation became inevitable and essentially irreversible?

1. We could argue that the continued Lollard presence made England very susceptible to Protestantism and that as soon as the political will appeared, the wellspring of support made Protestantism all but certain. Therefore, English Catholicism was doomed from the get-go.
2. Henry's usurpation of the Headship of the Church and dissolution of the monasteries and festivals dealt a blow to popular Catholicism that it could never quite recover, which is why Henry himself later in life and Mary could not stop the slide into Protestantism.
3. Edward VI's wide reaching reforms which gave the Reformation sufficient momentum to withstand Mary I.
4. The Elizabethan settlement, which finally established Protestantism unequivocally. Basically, do you think that if Mary produced an heir, that England would have remained Catholic? Could the Marian Persecution have succeeded?

I'm thinking that 3. and 4. come closest to answering the question.

In a nutshell,
Cuius regio, eius religio

Definitely NOT this ^.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

World-wide today, it seems, the "Reformation" (which was good, as accomplished by God to restore salvation by grace and faith to a few people)
has already been reversed, largely.
Isn't that what the so-called (haven't and won't get into it) world council of churches is/has done?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Definitely NOT this ^.

I took it to be referring to Henry VIII's 'reformation' as that was the part he quoted. Henry changed very little initially.

Seeing that you are between 3 and 4, do you think Mary I had any chance of returning England to the Catholic fold?

 

[Albion]

I took it to be referring to Henry VIII's 'reformation' as that was the part he quoted. Henry changed very little initially.

I took the OP to be referring to the same era and it did make this point about Henry. However, I don't see that Cuius Regio, Eius Religio--which relates to the Reformation in the German states--has anything to do with this.

Seeing that you are between 3 and 4, do you think Mary I had any chance of returning England to the Catholic fold?

I'm not sure that I'm "between 3 and 4" so much as I think this is the right time period (later than Henry and Lollardism) and that if some things had broken differently at this time than they turned out to do, that there might have been a rapprochement.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In a nutshell,
Cuius regio, eius religio

So I take it you mean Henry VIII's initial break with Rome made it inevitable? Or do you mean Mary could have returned England to Catholicism?

After all, Cuius Regio, eius religio failed in Germany thanks to the counter-Reformation and the rise of reformed Churches in opposition to Lutheranism. Many princelets supported Calvinist ideas that ultimately failed to take root and many historically Protestant areas returned to Catholicism, most notably proto-Protestant Hussite Bohemia. Where Protestantism became dominant or not, is loosely connected to who ruled but not exclusively. For instance, France almost became Protestant in spite of Catholic rulers and would likely have been so had Henry IV dug in his heels instead of compromising attending Mass for Paris.

 

[tz620q]

So I take it you mean Henry VIII's initial break with Rome made it inevitable? Or do you mean Mary could have returned England to Catholicism?

After all, Cuius Regio, eius religio failed in Germany thanks to the counter-Reformation and the rise of reformed Churches in opposition to Lutheranism. Many princelets supported Calvinist ideas that ultimately failed to take root and many historically Protestant areas returned to Catholicism, most notably proto-Protestant Hussite Bohemia. Where Protestantism became dominant or not, is loosely connected to who ruled but not exclusively. For instance, France almost became Protestant in spite of Catholic rulers and would likely have been so had Henry IV dug in his heels instead of compromising attending Mass for Paris.

That is right. I think Henry's break and what caused it set the trajectory for the rest of the English Reformation. When I was getting married a fellow told me that in marriage it is the wife that sets the direction and the man that keeps it going with some constancy of purpose. I can see this unfold in Henry's moving from the Catholic Catherine of Aragon to the Protestant Ann Boleyn.

I would like to point out what I consider to be sloppy terminology. We call it a reformation; but in fact it was a rebellion against the religious authorities of that time. Reformation comes from within. I can see the argument made that the reformers felt they couldn't change the Catholic Church and so started their own. But at that moment they were no longer reformers; but creators of a new organization founded on new principles. This can certainly be seen in Henry's actions. He didn't start out to theologically reform anything. He just wanted to rebel against the Pope. But once he had rebelled, it began a trajectory that would only be played out by his heirs. So if you are tracing the actual theological reform of the English Church, then it did happen later. But in my opinion, if you took out Henry's Rebellion, there would not have been an English Reformation.

 

[tz620q]

For instance, France almost became Protestant in spite of Catholic rulers and would likely have been so had Henry IV dug in his heels instead of compromising attending Mass for Paris.

France has always been a Catholic enigma. Looking at Philip IV wresting the Papacy from Rome, to Louis XIII's alliance with Sweden in the Thirty Years' War, to Napoleon taking the Papal States, one would wonder if they are even a Catholic country.

 

[tz620q]

France has always been a Catholic enigma. Looking at Philip IV wresting the Papacy from Rome, to Louis XIII's alliance with Sweden in the Thirty Years' War, to Napoleon taking the Papal States, one would wonder if they are even a Catholic country.

 

[Albion]

That is right. I think Henry's break and what caused it set the trajectory for the rest of the English Reformation. When I was getting married a fellow told me that in marriage it is the wife that sets the direction and the man that keeps it going with some constancy of purpose. I can see this unfold in Henry's moving from the Catholic Catherine of Aragon to the Protestant Ann Boleyn.

We're all guessing at answers to a question for which there is no clear answer, you know, but I have to think the time frame you've settled on is wrong, and for this reason: To refer to most of these people as Protestants is shaky because Henry was a committed Catholic to his dying day and took steps to keep the Catholic faith as the national faith EXCEPT, of course, for reasserting the autonomy of the church in England.

But in my opinion, if you took out Henry's Rebellion, there would not have been an English Reformation.

Probably, but that wasn't part of the question that was put to us--

"...when do you think the Reformation became inevitable and essentially irreversible?"

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I personally think that people underestimate the importance of Lollardy. Its because we think of the Middle ages and the Renaissance/Age of Discovery as separate entities.

Lollardy was concentrated in the southwest of England in general and those same areas became the dominant Protestant areas and the Parliamentarian (and more Puritan) areas in the Civil War. Lollardy was suppressed after Oldcastle's rebellion, but it simmered on for years. Between 1510 and 1530 over 300 lollards were prosecuted in London for instance.
When Protestant reformers wanted English bibles, Lollard bibles were ready at hand. The speed and tenacity with which the reformation took hold during the short reign of Edward IV shows the strong Lollard undercurrent.

Many of the prominant Protestants in Henry's reign (and Edward's) were from prominant Lollard families and the English reformation had a definite smattering of Lollard ideas, most notably seen in later groups like quakers and baptists.

It seems to me that the areas where Protestantism really took hold (England, France, Germany), were places with long running heretical groups with a history of opposition to the Church (Lollardy in England and Waldensians in the latter amongst others). Protestantism's roots lay deep in these proto-Protestant groups as well. (I exclude Scandinavia as they tended to follow Germany's lead religiously)
While I don't think Lollardy was enough on its own to cause the Reformation to succeed (after all it had failed to make headway for a hundred years), I doubt it would have succeeded without it. Spanish and Italian Protestantism died in its infancy as there were no roots upon which it could be grafted. Peter Martyr and their ilk all fled.

My opinion is that the Dissolution of the monasteries and the first legal English Bibles in Henry VIII's reign was the turning point, as this was a tacit allowance of Lollardy. This allowed Lollard groups to flourish and this flowering was what Henry tried to suppress unsuccesfully later in life. Another point to consider is the fact that the dissolution placed significant Church lands in private ownership and any reconciliation would have to address the Church's losses, which even Mary I was forced to try to attend to. This was a significant development which made those landowners far keener on Protestantism, I would think.

 

[Albion]

I personally think that people underestimate the importance of Lollardy. Its because we think of the Middle ages and the Renaissance/Age of Discovery as separate entities.

Lollardy was concentrated in the southwest of England in general and those same areas became the dominant Protestant areas and the Parliamentarian (and more Puritan) areas in the Civil War. Lollardy was suppressed after Oldcastle's rebellion, but it simmered on for years. Between 1510 and 1530 over 300 lollards were prosecuted in London for instance.
When Protestant reformers wanted English bibles, Lollard bibles were ready at hand. The speed and tenacity with which the reformation took hold during the short reign of Edward IV shows the strong Lollard undercurrent.

The question we were asked concerned the Reformation becoming unavoidable and how to date that. How a lingering Lollary in England answers that question, I don't figure. For one thing, it was present -- to the extent that it played a part -- throughout the period covered by the 4 options.

While I don't think Lollardy was enough on its own to cause the Reformation to succeed (after all it had failed to make headway for a hundred years), I doubt it would have succeeded without it. Spanish and Italian Protestantism died in its infancy as there were no roots upon which it could be grafted.

As I said before, we're kicking the ball around with an interesting question that probably does not have a definite answer, but this one seem to me to be a really slender reed. That's just my opinion, of course, but there it is for the record.

My opinion is that the Dissolution of the monasteries and the first legal English Bibles in Henry VIII's reign was the turning point, as this was a tacit allowance of Lollardy.

Hmmm. Interesting. You don't think, then, that it was just a grab by a king who did that kind of thing...not especially meaningful from a theological POV? He remained staunchly catholic during that era (as I think you've already noted).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

.

Hmmm. Interesting. You don't think, then, that it was just a grab by a king who did that kind of thing...not especially meaningful from a theological POV? He remained staunchly catholic during that era (as I think you've already noted).

No, Dissolution was just an attempt to recoup his finances. Not meaningful theological at all, however the unintended consequences was to make reunion with Rome very difficult. It played right into anti-clerical Lollard hands and gave the landed aristocracy that bought those lands incentive to side with Protestantism against Catholicism - which would want their property returned. The ongoing dispute of former Church property bedeviled Mary's attempts to reconcile the Church to no end as Rome demanded their return or compensation for their loss and helped Protestants paint Rome as avaricious and worldly.

As to my points on Lollardy, this was just my personal view that people downplay their importance in the English Reformation. It was not really meant to answer the question, as I consider it more the backdrop to consider if we are arguing for an earlier point of no return, as I was doing.

 

[Albion]

No, Dissolution was just an attempt to recoup his finances. Not meaningful theological at all, however the unintended consequences was to make reunion with Rome very difficult. It played right into anti-clerical Lollard hands and gave the landed aristocracy that bought those lands incentive to side with Protestantism against Catholicism - which would want their property returned. The ongoing dispute of former Church property bedeviled Mary's attempts to reconcile the Church to no end as Rome demanded their return or compensation for their loss.

As to my points on Lollardy, this was just my personal view that people downplay their importance in the English Reformation. It was not really meant to answer the question, as I consider it more the backdrop to consider if we are arguing for an earlier point of no return, as I was doing.

Yeh, I'm interested to read your "take" on the matter. I'm just not persuaded that Lollardy had that decisive a role, at any point in the process. To put it another way, I think reconciliation was possible under Mary and Elizabeth both, IF things had developed differently not including whatever the impact of Lollardy was.

At this point, we probably need someone new to speak up and offer a totally different analysis!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yeh, I'm interested to read your "take" on the matter. I'm just not persuaded that Lollardy had that decisive a role, at any point in the process. To put it another way, I think reconciliation was possible under Mary and Elizabeth both, IF things had developed differently not including whatever the impact of Lollardy was.

At this point, we probably need someone new to speak up and offer a totally different analysis!

A new perspective would be nice.

I just like to point out that Elizabethan rapproachment is essentially impossible as she was the product of a bigamous marriage in Catholic eyes. If she adopted Catholicism, it would fundamentally undermine her own legitimacy as that would then be based solely on the dubious legality of the Act of Succession of Henry VIII.
For Catholicism to have returned in her reign would require either Elizabeth's death, abdication or her overthrow in favour of Mary, Queen of Scots.

Lollardy had effectively been absorbed into Protestantism in general by Edward VI's reign, so it is difficult to say what is due to Lollardy and what not by that stage.

 

[Albion]

A new perspective would be nice.

I just like to point out that Elizabethan rapproachment is essentially impossible as she was the product of a bigamous marriage in Catholic eyes.

Well, the Vatican was conspiring, through much of her reign, to undermine her and bring England back under the Pope, so the Catholic forces on the continent obviously were still very much in the game until ca. 1570 and thought that they could yet win out.

If she adopted Catholicism, it would fundamentally undermine her own legitimacy as that would then be based solely on the dubious legality of the Act of Succession of Henry VIII.
For Catholicism to have returned in her reign would require either Elizabeth's death, abdication or her overthrow in favour of Mary, Queen of Scots.

OK. Any of that would meet the requirements of the OP's question, no?