Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: donmeaker
Not so simple. There was no "established" church. There was just one Church. And they had enjoyed the protection of the king for time immemorial. The inviolability of Church property and Church lands was sacrosanct. From my Masters thesis . . .

. . . the spiritual tenure of the ecclesiastical benefice was a contractual obligation carrying the weight of inviolability, land held in benefit permanently from the king and enjoying his protection with associated reciprocal obligation. The English monarchs of the 15th century had maintained that obligation, founding new monastic institutions and encouraging reform within old ones. Such care and patronage was readily apparent in the separate reigns of Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, and even in that of Henry VII.

26 posted on 10/08/2013 5:55:02 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: MrChips

Of course there were alternative churches.

For example the Jews were emphatically not part of the established church. Their synagogues were built by them, and their property was not dependent on land held in benefit permanently from the king and enjoying his protection.

Perhaps Henry didn’t think that the Established Church had kept their reciprocal obligation. He wanted a son, and the Spanish Catholic princess to whom he was married was unable to give him one. In return for his benefits, he perhaps expected a certain flexibility, and when he didn’t get it, he felt his need to keep the reciprocal obligations somewhat lessened.


31 posted on 10/08/2013 6:01:00 PM PDT by donmeaker (The lessons of Weimar are soon to be relearned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson