* 1509- Henry became king. Church and state relations were very good (cordial). Church taught duty and obedience to king as a God-chosen man and king protected the church.
* 1520- England was very much at peace with itself and relations between State and Church seemed pleasant and secure. There were however, other countries in Europe who decided to break away from the Catholic Church << these people rejected the Pope as the Head of the Church.
* 1529- Relations were still good between Henry and Rome. Church & state worked well together.
* 1533-40- dissolutions of monasteries, New Articles of Religion and Royal Injunctions (about religious practice).
* 1538- Intro of English Bible.
However, these changes were not so wide ranging as they seemed to be because, they “merely confirmed the King’s existing power of the Church”. This relieved the sparking of riots, rebellions and protest from people as the Royal Supremacy had always been there, (it’s nothing new) people would protest against new changes as people dislike new changes.
Reformation under Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth
* 1547-1553 -Edward VI rule = Edward Seymour (Duke of Somerset) + John Dudley (Duke of Northumberland) = Two Prayer Books and 42 Articles of Religion. This did not provide fertile ground for Protestantism to grow as he was only in power for 6 years. * 1553-1558 – Protestantism destroyed and restoration of Catholicism + abolished Royal Supremacy and brought back Papal Headship of the Church BUT she did not bring back the monasteries (to reduce opposition). * 1558-1603 – Protestantism restored forever + New Religious Settlement (New Prayer Book + 39 Articles). She was moderate (included Catholics and Protestants in the new faith… although officially Protestant).
English Church was generally popular, everyone paid taxes, everyone attended religious services, everyone took part in religious rituals. However, there were individuals “humanist/scholars” who voiced criticism to the clergy for their behaviours. These people were criticising the materialistic/worldly side of the church NOT doctrine. 1529- Simon Fish produced a pamphlet “Supplication of the Beggars” – twas a vicious attack on the clergy (Anticlericalism). * Erasmus of Rotterdam In Praise of Folly – satire criticising the Church and its clergy. * Sir Thomas More lawyer/humanist, also voiced criticism of the Church but he was a devoted Catholic. * John Colet criticised the clergy for being too worldly, greedy and guilty of moral laxity. HOWEVER, these criticisms were generalised, traditional and exaggerated. The Church in England was not about to radically reformed. The king appointed men who were “educated and able administrators THAN educated and spiritual.”
* Absenteeism one criticism to the clergy; Cardinal Wolsey, Richard Fox, Archbishop of York did not reside in their dioceses as they were often busy fulfilling other duties. * Pluralism i.e. Thomas Magnus. Many bishops had more than 1 office at a time. * Simony the criticism that the clergy bought their offices but, this was not a widespread practice. Monasteries
Were popular and well liked as great charitable institutions and centres of religious veneration. 1536 – Pilgrimage of Grace to protest closing of monasteries. * Did an essential job – only place people could go to for help. * Were closed for ECONOMICAL reasons (Henry desired their wealth i.e. land, gold, lead etc...). Hunne Case
Richard Hunne was said to be convicted of heresy (not officially) and was found dead in a church cell. No one was brought to trial and this was seen as a case of “the Church protecting its own”. HOWEVER, there were no riots or demonstrations against the Church on Hunne’s behalf. Anticlericalism could have not led to reform BECAUSE, there were no explosive incidents concerning Hunne or other anticlerical incidents. There were...