On the origins of the Protestant faith

[filcee]

I was vaguely brought up in the C of E / Protestant religion and, while it held any interest, always assumed that to be C of E was to be Protestant and to be Protestant was to be C of E. However, watching Adam Hart-Davies on his 'What the ****s did for us', he went into the Tudor reign. Obviously this focused at one point on Henry VIII, the break away from Catholicism and the ramifications for Church, State and Science. It mentioned existing Protestants being persecuted for their beliefs in Europe, which made me wonder about the origins of Protestantism and the C of E.
Was Protestantism in existence before Henry's 'nads lead him to break away from the Catholic Church?
If so, did Henry just take an existing flavour of Christianity, add a few shiny knobs and coronets and call it his own?
If not, did Henry's break lead to the formation of the whole Protestant Church?
Would this mean Protestants the world over look to our current monarch as Defender of the Faith, and therefore leader of their religion?
Am I just being dumb?

 

[George_millett]

I did Tudor history at school for A Levels. IIRC Luther had published his rant against the abuses of the Catholic church and the first protestant groups were based around his teaching, called Lutherans.

Henry VIII is supposed to have written a pamphlet in defense of the Catholic church and was awarded the title Defender of the faith ( the FD on all English coins represents this).

When Henry VIII "reformed" the English Church about all he did was allow himself to get a divorce and make himself Supreme Governor of the Church in England with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Clerical head.
Apart from that no real changes in Doctrine were introduced until he died and Edward VI ascended to the throne. When Thomas Cramner became Archbishop of Canterbury and introduced a new Liturgy.

This all fell through during the reign of Mary I when she attempted to revert us to Catholicism. But that was quashed when she died and Elizabeth I took the throne and instiuted an act of Uniformity officailly making us a Protestant country.

This is all from memory. When I get home I can see if I have my old textbooks if you want.

 

[Timble2]

Protestantism started with Luther in Germany, Henry was originally agin it. That's what earned him the title Defender of the Faith from the Pope.

When he split with Rome it was to form an English Catholic Church, the CoE became protestant later.

I'm sure someone else will point ot that this is a gross oversimplification...

 

[ramonmercado]

The CoE differs from RCC in Liturgy and Theology but they are closer than you think. The CoE believe that Transubstantiation is codswallop and that the veneration of Our Lady has no scriptural basis. There is also the matter of non celibate clergy in the CoE, but I believe that they still have some celibate nuns and monks. Lets not forget the semi-democratic form of Church government in the CoE via Synods. In the RCC one man rules in Rome. In their own Dioceses, RCC Bishops are mini-Popes.

When it comes to High Church Anglicans though its superficially difficult to distinguish their masses from those of the RCC.

 

[Leaferne]

Christopher Hill has pointed out that Protestantism took strongest root in areas which were, at the time, really 'backwaters' of Europe and the furthest from Rome geographically: England, Scotland, Scandinavia, Germany.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

Well you used to get burned just for more or less anything. Because they had a book and it said so.

The key thing about Protestantism is that it asked, "What are the rules, then, and can we see them?"

Up till then, The Book was chained up and in a dead language anyway.

When the Protestants got it they really, really loved it and they hit each other over the head with it and hated each other in ever more inventive ways.

This was called the Reformation for some reason . . . but I'd dispute that, and to prove it, I can cite Chapter and Verse . . . :shock:

 

[Yithian]

There are plenty of Protetstant demoniations in Britain and Abroad some of which exist under the wide-umbrella of the CofE and some which do not. Notably the names Calvin(ism), Lutheran(ism), Zwingli(ism?), Arminian(ism), and Mennonit(ism) spring to mind; google or wiki them.

(To restrain myself to the the sixteenth century).

Henry did not institute the Reformation, dude though he was.

 

[Leaferne]

Well you used to get burned just for more or less anything. Because they had a book and it said so.

The key thing about Protestantism is that it asked, "What are the rules, then, and can we see them?"

Up till then, The Book was chained up and in a dead language anyway.

Mm, not quite; you're forgetting Wycliffe and the Lollards. The Bible was available, if you were rich and educated enough to have one. In Wycliffe's time (14thc.) there had yet to be a *complete* translation of the Bible into English; if you had a Bible, it was likely to be in Latin or French (or, less commonly I think, Greek).

The birth of Protestantism also coincided, very roughly, with the introduction of the printing press, which made mass distribution of Bibles and other literature feasible for the first time. Wycliffe believed the vernacular Bible was the true path to salvation and should be accessible to all. These remained in manuscript, however. Print, Protestantism and propaganda seemd like a natural combination from the 1530s onward. The literate read aloud the Bible, along with other texts, for the benefit of their less educated relatives and neighbours. Thomas Cromwell issued an injunction in 1538 requiring a Bible for public reading placed in every church. Not entirely pleased with this result, i his last speech to Parliament, on December 24, 1545, Henry VIII deplored that "the most precious jewel, the Word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung and jangled in every alehouse and tavern."

Both Luther and Calvin used the press to first attack Rome and her policies, and then to spread their doctrines. The new religion created by these reformers had at its core the notion that a vernacular edition of the Bible should be within reach of all for study and contemplation. In his study of Luther, A.G. Dickens argued that "Lutheranism was from the first the child of the printed book, and through this vehicle Luther was able to make exact, standardized and ineradicable impressions on the mind of Europe. For the first time in human history a great reading public judged the validity of revolutionary ideas through a mass-medium which used the vernacular language together with the arts of the journalist and scientist."

Now, class, you can see a paradigm shift developing here, can't you? Elizabeth Eisenstein (The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge 1983) said "A reading public was not only more dispersed; it was also more atomistic and individualistic than a hearing one." Yet at the same time, new links were made to more distant collective units--new communities in other words. (This board is the heir to that) The beginning of the print era also meant that the collection and dissemination of news were no longer confined to the pulpit; these functions were now taken over by lay people. Increased political awareness and growing sophistication regarding political and religious issues among the middle to lower ranks of society developed as a direct result of rising literacy. With the various flavours of Protestantism stressing individual study and prayer over the primacy of the sacraments...well, surely you can see the connection.

edited for typos

 

[decipheringscars]

Chiming in as an Episcopalian (American Anglican) here...

Henry VIII always considered himself Catholic, as others above have noted. The English Church, under the Elizabethan Settlement, was (as I understand it) meant to be a "big tent" or umbrella for all Christians, both Catholic and Reformed. Elizabeth frustrated a lot of people who wanted to peg her as either a Catholic or a Protestant - she exhibited (intentionally) markers of both traditions.

Of course, being American, I can't speak for the C of E, but Anglicanism as I understand it is Catholic, and maybe Protestant too, or maybe neither. There have always been struggles between the "Anglo-Catholic" and the Reformed strains, and you can see this reflected in different churches throughout the Anglican communion. Here in the US, for example, you tend to get Episcopal churches varying from "low" (more Protestant) to "high" (more Catholic) depending on geographical region, or sometimes whether you're in the city or in the country. I've only been involved with cathedrals and churches in cities, so I've really only been in Episcopal churches that consider themselves Catholic, but really our pedigree is a little of both.

Henry VIII did want independence for the English Church, and while his motives may have been politically and personally tainted, there were plenty of church leaders who were interested in reform and took Henry's motivations and ran with them. So it's only a caricature to say Anglicanism began with Henry's desire for a divorce.

I had a professor in seminary who pointed out that the beauty of the English Reformation is that in all the mess, all the bloodshed, all the alterior motives, we can see that we come from humble and sinful origins, so that whatever good comes of our tradition we can see as God working with our very human mess. That way we can't have pretensions to anything like infallibility or some kind of divinely-inspired origins.

One of the best representatives of the Anglican via media (which refers to a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism) is Richard Hooker. He commented that the problem with the Catholic and Reform traditions was that "Rome cannot err; Geneva will not." The Anglican middle way, at its best, fully admits its ability to err, and is willing to do so in order to find its way through the messiness of history. Hopefully we can remember that, as we're certainly in it right now! (Maybe there's a bit of Protestantism there - remember it was Luther who said to "sin boldly!")

I guess what I'm trying to emphasize here is that Anglicanism is no more Protestant than it is Catholic. Protestantism on the Continent is another story, but one I know less about.