You wrote:
“Henry VIII was no reformer. All of his moves were taken for personal/political reasons and not religious ones.”
That doesn’t make him any less of a “Reformer”. I think all of the “Reformers” often acted out of personal gain rather than religious conviction or simply confused the two as one in the same.
Also, your quote didn’t do anything to overturn what I posted. You are off by four years. It doesn’t matter how Henry VIII started out. It matters where Henry ended up. If Henry started to Protestantize the ritual books (and he did) and did all the other things I mentioned (and he did) then he was a “Reformer”.
The fact that he disagreed with the other “Reformers” is also meaningless. They ALL disagreed with each other. It’s sectarianism based on subjective feelings and interpretations of the Bible. Of course they disagreed with each other.
You don’t seem to understand the Reformation. But, that’s OK. Many people don’t. The Reformation, at its core, was a doctrinal rebirth, and was not a rebellion. Henry’s acts place him squarely outside that reformation, but crucially, so does his doctrine.
By grace only, through faith only, because of Christ only.