What's your religion?

[J. J.]

The American branch (currently) of the Anglican Church.

[J. J.]

How many take their religion seriously?

I take my faith seriously; I take my denomination less so.

[J. J.]

CofE

The heretic church.

Thanks, I'm sorry I provoked you , twat

My point is that the Church of England was founded in sin. The sins of Henry VIII. His belief that he had the RIGHT to divorce is more of his own vanity then any belief in true scripture. He was like the kid who never got what he wanted and got pissed and said, "I'm taking my ball and going home."

You've missed another factor.  England had just had a civil war and Henry's claim on the throne was very weak.  Without an heir, the country could have very easily slipped back into one.  It was more of a (wise) political decision and a (good) economic one, as the "Peter's Pence" was draining money from the economy.

Aside from legitmate theolgical reasons, as Emsworth pointed out, there were political ones.  Rome had just been taken by the Most Catholic King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, who's (most Lutheran) German troops looted and desecrated numereous Churches, raped nuns, killed numerous priests as well as killing off the entire Swiss Guard, and had taken the Pope prisoner.  Catharine of Aragon had another name for Charles V, "Uncle Charlie."

Politically, the Pope could not act, at least not without losing his tiara and the head underneath it.

Actually, there were other examples of Papal annulments.  The King of France, Louis XII, married Jeanne of Valois, who proved to be barren.  A Papal annulment was granted.  Jeanne was later cannonized, showing there were no moral grounds for the annulment. 

Interestingly, the pope that finally ruled against Henry VIII, was Paul III, who fathered four illegitimate children.  :-)  BTW my source for that was:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0220.htm

States, is the the "Old Time Religion" you wish to return to?

[J. J.]

You've missed another factor.  England had just had a civil war and Henry's claim on the throne was very weak.

I am afraid that I must contradict this point of view. Henry VIII's father, Henry VII, did indeed have a very weak claim on the throne due to a potentially illegitimate lineage. Henry VII, however, consoldiated his position admirably well; his son had no succession problems at all.

I'm referring more to the dynastic claims, as evidenced that in 70 years, there were no more Tudors.  Even with two surviving direct children, Edward VI's death set off a fairly large succession problem, with rival claims being fought over.

It was imperative that their be male succession, from the country's viewpoint.  It wasn't a matter of sin, but a matter of state.