www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Henry VIII: Defender of the Faith!

I tend to enjoy following various events in Catholic and Orthodox publishing...

Here is an event I did not expect, but am delighted to see!

http://keysofpeter.org/Henry8.htm

Brilliant idea!

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Henry the VIII was indeed a most devout Roman Catholic until he allowed his passions to get the better of him.

From the time that he broke away from the Church because of lust, and had his faithful and respected mentor (Saint) Sir Thomas Moore executed for not taking the oath of acceptin him as head of the English Church, he seemed to have gone increasingly insane (or perhaps demon possessed)...

May God have mercy on his soul.

Alice

Let's not forget, that a decade and a half before the break with Rome, that Henry was already a practicing adulterer, and that at the time of Septum Sacramentorum, he was already the father of an illegitimate child. There has also been some historical debate as to whether Henry actually wrote the response to Martin Luther

I seldom defend Henry Bluebeard - but sober people at the time who had known him for years certainly believed that he wrote the book, at least in part. Even after fomenting the schism, suppressing the monasteries, and killing lots of martyrs, he retained his devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. He also left considerable money for the celebration of Mass for the repose of his soul.

But, let's face it, theology has moved on since the fifteen-twenties (and before someone starts calling me a heretic or throwing brickbats at me, this was, after all, several decades before the Council of Trent). So I would not be inclined to consider the book a reliable manual except as an historical witness.

As for the Hanoverian trappings which accompany the reprint - well, those who like them may enjoy them. There might even be a certain degree of poetic justice: neither the Tudors nor the Hanoverians had any serious rights to the thrones they usurped. Bluebeard and his father set the example by murdering every Plantagenet whom they could lay their hands on.

Fr. Serge

Not to defend Henry, but I think "lust" is the wrong term here.

He had a serious concern that if he were to die without a legitimate male heir, England would be plunged into yet another civil war of succession--and history proved him right.

hawk

No doubt, had Catherine of Aragon given birth to a male heir, England would have remained Catholic, at least for the time being, while Henry continued a life of debauchery.

Ideallly, (for the 16th century that is) those who took up arms in the Pilgrimage of Grace, should have been more resolute, and forced Henry's abdication in favor of his Catholic daughter Mary. Then Henry could have been locked away in the same manner as Edward II or Richard II. It works in my alternate realty.

History did what? Henry bluebeard achieved his goal of "a legitimate male heir" in the person of Edward VI, his son by Jane Seymour. Since the phony marriage to Anne Boleyn was not valid by any stretch of the imagination, and Queen Catherine could be said to have died a natural death, One could, vaguely, postulate the legitimacy of Edward - to whom Henry Bluebeard gave syphilis as a conception present.

There was no civil war when Henry died. Edward was too young to rule; he was in the hands of two successive regency councils. A very brief civil conflict - nine days, to be precise - followed Edward's death (from the syphilis he got from daddy): Edward attempted to declare both Princess Mary and Anne Boleyn's daughter illegitimate, and leave the thrown to a distant relative, Lady Jane Grey. England was not about to tolerate that. Queen Mary had a triumphal procession to London and was crowned with no hint of any protest. When the Protestant minority later attempted Wyatt's rebellion, Queen Mary had no serious trouble rousing London and putting a stop it it almost before it started.

Queen Mary's death also did not precipitate a civil war. Anne Boleyn's daughter took the throne without serious opposition, unfortunately.

Elizabeth, having taken an oath to maintain Catholicism, proceeded to break the oath and move to extreme Protestantism. She commenced imprisoning bishops, murdering priests, and quasi-judicially murdered her own legitimate heir, Mary Queen of Scots.

Despite this horrible behavior, Elizabeth's death (and what a frightful death it was!) did not precipitate a civil war either; Mary Stuart son, James VI of Scotland, became also James I of England. His death likewise did not precipitate a civil war.

What did, strangely enough, was the economic inflation of the period, itself begun by Henry the Wastewealth Bluebeard's despoliation of the monasteries, which ultimately also despoiled the Crown. Eventually, it caught up with the monarchy and made it impossible for Charles I to rule without kowtowing to the House of Commons. The King's attempt to raise funds brought on civil war, and the regicide of Charles I.

Charles II was restored, but the problem did not go away. He managed to die a natural death in London, but his brother and legitimate heir, James II, did not and could not last long; the business interests got rid of him in favour of his disgraceful daughter Mary and her husband William. Attempts to restore the legitimate Stuart line came close to success, particularly in 1745, but did not triumph.

So how does all this somehow vindicate Henry Bluebeard?

Fr. Serge

With all due respect, this thread is getting a bit off topic. It started with a book reprint and is now becoming a discussion of the author and his life, rather than the book or its content. Let's start another thread if it is necessary to discussion the history and the era in which the book was written and published.

BOB

If you really know the story of Henry VIII it was not the concern for a male heir, it was lust pure and simple! Now thats a contradiction of terms.
Stephanos I