The times-news. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1927-current, 1935-04-08
The Truth About
Henlry, VIII And
EpiscopalChurch
BY REV. H. P. ScRATCHLEY
nj. A., 3. D.

L is frequently asserted in a
very dogmatic manner that Henry
viii founded IN the 18th century
bc Church of England. Since the
MS opal church in America IS
,e SPIRITUAL daughter Of the Eng
81 chur h, it would follow from
such dogmatic assertions that' II
my Vii was the founder OF
ne ~rother church, he is also the
o.rGer of the Episcopal church
| \ this country. Therefore, II
| this were true, neither the Church
Of Enyland nor it5 daughter IN
country would have any con-
,oot,cn historically with the
Chr~ch of fhe Apostles. Both
would be man made and created
II cent time. But, what is the
ruth atout the matter?
Controversialists make much OF
Ferrv's matrimonial career. Ihls
career certainly disUNa .f'"S him
be;n~ the founder of a re-
Taious body. Cne hears much of
no church Of Eng'snd having its
origin n the lustful desires OF
g? king. Few PEOPLE really know
he question involved in the mar
rage of Henry and Katherine.
The question raised by Henry
wps not divorce but whether he
had ever been married. Kath-
erie had been the wife of
Henry's brother Arthur. BY in
ference the 18th chapter of Le-
v.ticus forbade a mans marrying
h's dead brothers wife. The pope
bod granted dispensatioa at
the tire of the marriage. If the
pope had the power to grant such
q dispensation the marriage was
valid. 1t all depended upon
whether the rope had the power.
Convocation. the legislative
Rodv of the Church of England,
declared finally that the pope
had no such power, and, that, the
authority of the Bishop of Rome
was not by divine command great
err in England than that of any
other foreign bishop. This state
ment is the crux of the whole
matter: has the Pope of Rome by
divine command supreme author
ity over the Church of Christ?
The Church of England in con-
answered that question
with an emphatic "No."
The character of Henry IS not
savory, but his brother = in = law
Louis xii of France had put away
one of his wives with the pope's
consent under essentially the
same conditions. Really the char
acter of Henry has nothing to do
with the case.
If Henry founded the Church
of England as it now is. ne must
have destroyed the old English
Church which had existed in Eng
land since SGT A. D. To be
the founder If an organization or
a society q man must create
something that does not exist be-
fore its creation. If something
of the same name did exisist it
must be destroyed before the new
can take its place. Moreover,
there must De some definite act
and the date bv which Henry
created the Church of England.
Roman Catholics can say that the
separation from the papacy de-
stroyed the Did church, but, even
they cannot give the act which
created the new church. This,
however, is BASED upon the belief
that a national church ceases to
be Catholic when it sewers COM
munion with the See Of Rome.
Such argument would put the life
of Christ church in union with
the pope.
The interesting thing is that
the bishops and clergy of Henry's
time did not know when they
passed the act of separation, they
had destroyed the ancient Eng
lish church and prepared the way
for new creation by Henry.
They were so deluded that they
had no idea that they had not
ceased to be what they were be-
fore. The popes for many years
were also so ignorant that they
did not realize what modern con-
troversialists claim did take place.
Some of the bishops who took
part in Henrv's changes lived I'M
Ri Elizabeth's day and were &C.
knowledged by the pope as true
bishops. There were changes in
religious ceremonies and thologi-
cal formularies, monasteries were
abolished and their property