"uncle arnie" wrote in message
...
Michael Lawson wrote:

snip

Wasn't that part of the whole C of E's reason for existence?
Henry VIII and Anne Boelyn??

It's not that simple. Do a search on the Council of Whitby, 644 AD,
if
you're interested.

Didn't say it was that simple, but it was a factor. Remember,
Henry had defended Catholicism rather eloquently before
this, so I don't believe it a simple conversion experience
that caused him to perform an abrupt 180.

The King of Northumbria decided in favour of the Roman
versus indigenous Celtic church at that time. Archbishop Cranmer,
when he
wrote up the first Book of Common Prayer, specifically returned to
the
traditions of the ancient church of the British Isles. You could
"spin"
this and say that he only took advantage of Henry's marital issues,
and you
would be cozy with the Roman Catholic propaganda of many centuries.

Considering Henry's title of "Defender of the Faith", to turn
around quickly and reject the Roman Church at the specific
time when he felt he needed heirs, needed a divorce and
wanted to marry Anne smacks of a certain Machiavellian
style, not altruism. Certainly, Henry felt he could get away
with it and not have Civil War (that came later) and still do
with what he felt he needed to preserve the throne. It wasn't
all that long before that the Wars of the Roses had ended,
and he felt he needed to preserve the line and ensure a united
England.

You
can certainly denigrate a church if you promote that the founding of
it was
based on someone's desire for divorce. That would be like saying
the Roman
Catholic Church is based on Peter's three times denial of Christ in
His our
of need.

Did I say anything denigrating the CofE?? No. I just simply
found it curious that everyone is up in arms over this, when
a precendent has already been set. One, I might add, that was
a bit more ruthless and Machiavellian than the current
scenario. Considering that many of the German barons who
supported Luther did so for both Machiavellian as well as
altruistic reasons, I see no reason why that would denigrate
what Luther accomplished. Nor the same for Henry; were
it not for him, the Protestant Sects that helped to found the
Colonies would probably not be around, nor would William
Penn found Pennsylvania, nor would Maryland be founded
as a haven for Catholics, nor Georgia as essentially a "reformatory"
experiment. The Colonies might have turned out completely
different, as might have England's relationship to it. Nor, I
would argue, would England have become the power that it
became without what Henry set in motion.

--Mike L.