Replies

Thing is, what I have been learning about Anglican Christianity, is that King Henry VIII was the Last Straw in a series of breakages from the Pope of Rome. My priest kept referring to the Great Schism, and I also got the idea that the Battle of Hastings had an effect on how England saw itself in relation to Rome. I try to explain this to RCCers and all they can latch onto is the King Henry VIII thing...but its always boiled down to the fact that he wanted a divorce because he couldn't get a male heir. If I am understanding correctly, it was a heck of a lot more than that, i.e. determining sovereignty etc. A female heir from Spain could have spelled far more disastrous things for England than a divorce, don't you think?

Just typing out of the top of my head.

The Great Schism predates the Reformation by quite a while. It refers to events just after the Babylonish Captivity of the Papacy in Avignon, when there were two Popes ruling concurrently, each supported by some segment of the western Church.

It began after the death of Gregory XI in 1378. The Roman populace selected Urban VI (a Neapolitan). Though a pious, devout and Godly churchman, his peremptory attitude (and low birth) antagonized a number of the cardinals. One of the key sparks that ignited the Schism was because he insisted on remaining in Rome rather than returned to posh Avignon.

So, some cardinals at Avignon declared Urban's election invalid and elected another candidate, who took the name Clement VII (incorrectly counted). He was a soldier and related to the King of France (Avignon was not yet strictly in French territory at this time).

The eventual line of Popes descends from the line including Urban and not Clement. England (and hence the mother church to the Church of England) was loyal to Urban, which is exactly not what a rebellious national church would do, so I'm not sure what your priest was suggesting.

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+

For quite a long time, the British kings chafed under Roman influence. But it's tough to present it as a religious issue when, unlike the East, they were the kings, rather than the bishops, who were trying to break free. And their motives were seldom noble.

In National Review, John Derbyshire, who has a paleoconservative Brit's distaste for all things Catholics, related the story of a King John who offered allegiance to Allah to a Sultan as a way to be free of Rome. The Sultan figured that if England were allowed to be ruled by such a contemptible lowlife, it would defame Islam, so he refused.

Then there's Edward Longshanks, who ran afoul of Rome for, among other things, his insistence on giving nobility the right to rape brides.

What was unique in the case of Henry VIII was the Reformation had given the British kings the realization that they could sever relations with the church while still claiming to be Christian.