What if Henry VIII had converted to Lutheranism?

What if Henry VIII had converted to Lutheranism?

My guess would be that England and Ireland would be 80-90% Lutheran today, but that without the weird English groups like the Puritans, Babtists and Methodist, the colonisation of America would have been slower and less succesfull for England.

Even though Henry created his own church, I doubt that he would convert to Lutheranism. He was, for the most part, a devout Catholic.

The pope named him Defender of the Faith because of an essay he wrote denouncing Martin Luther. POD would have to be really early in his life.

Henry did not leave the Roman church because he disliked its policies just that it was impossible for the Pope to dissolve Henry's marriage to Catherine without angering Spain and he couldn't do that. He would risk having a new anti-pope supported by Spain or a Church of Spain
(I seriously doubt it but its possible)

I think it far more likely that Henry would rejoin the Roman Catholic Church after Catherine's death but if Henry did convert to Lutheranism, England would be far more involved in Europe. This means no navy to fight the armada if it happens still or the ability to colonize North America as well

Valdemar II said:

What if Henry VIII had converted to Lutheranism?

My guess would be that England and Ireland would be 80-90% Lutheran today, but that without the weird English groups like the Puritans, Babtists and Methodist, the colonisation of America would have been slower and less succesfull for England.

Click to expand...

I don't know... I mean, why would this really cause more people to convert than OTL, and why wouldn't these groups arise anyway?

Imajin said:

I don't know... I mean, why would this really cause more people to convert than OTL, and why wouldn't these groups arise anyway?

Click to expand...

Lutheranism was a lot better in replacing the Catholics on locale basis than other Protestant groups, simply because they took over the locale Church and their theology was close enough to Catholism, that Catholic priests just converted to Lutheranism, and just began to preach Luthers creed instead of the Popes. Because of the focus on locale conversion they created a strong religeous base, which meant that the Monarch could deal with alternative protestants groups like the Calvinist without risking large uprisings. That means that the Monarch get the ability to deal with all these before they became more than a little heretical cult. You can see how succesfull the Lutheran Germans dealt with the Anababtist.

There're several example of Catholic Clerics who fought the Lutherans converting, when the State converted.

Id argue the opposite is true: Protestantism was more successful because it drew a clear line. Anglicanism went back and forth between catholicism and protestantism for generations, hurting its own authority in the process...

Valdemar II said:

Lutheranism was a lot better in replacing the Catholics on locale basis than other Protestant groups, simply because they took over the locale Church and their theology was close enough to Catholism, that Catholic priests just converted to Lutheranism, and just began to preach Luthers creed instead of the Popes.

Click to expand...

But isn't this what the Anglican Church did as well, co-opting the previously existing religious structure?

Imajin said:

But isn't this what the Anglican Church did as well, co-opting the previously existing religious structure?

Click to expand...

Yes, it did. Even to this day, some Anglicans argue that the Anglican church is Catholic enough to rejoin Rome. Not that the Anglican church will, but their is that belief.

Imajin said:

But isn't this what the Anglican Church did as well, co-opting the previously existing religious structure?

Click to expand...

Yes but they lacked the strong theological base Lutheranism (and the other Protestant groups like Calvinist and Methodist) do have, the Anglican Church while theological sound, is just a Catholism split off because of political concern, while the other groups did have have a stronger ideological base. In many way Lutheranism join some of the best trait (purely political) from Calvinism (a distinct and sound theology) with the best from Anglicanism (a clear hierachy under secular control), which made it rather efficient in converting Catholics.

Henry VIII

I can't see him doing it, unless his marriage to Anne of Cleves had been successful. I know she was German, so I assume she was either a Lutheran or strongly influenced by it.

Valdemar II said:

Yes but they lacked the strong theological base Lutheranism (and the other Protestant groups like Calvinist and Methodist) do have, the Anglican Church while theological sound, is just a Catholism split off because of political concern, while the other groups did have have a stronger ideological base. In many way Lutheranism join some of the best trait (purely political) from Calvinism (a distinct and sound theology) with the best from Anglicanism (a clear hierachy under secular control), which made it rather efficient in converting Catholics.

Click to expand...

Or rather efficient in alienating them.
History is generally badly recorded of how Britain 'converted' to Protestantism. When England was returned to Catholicism under Anne there are paintings of the great celebrations that took place. Protestantism in England did not convert the general populace, nowadays there are still more practicing Catholics than Anglicans, and when the Catholic mass was decriminalised statistics taken later showed the the same to be true.

Wolfhound said:

Or rather efficient in alienating them.
History is generally badly recorded of how Britain 'converted' to Protestantism. When England was returned to Catholicism under Anne there are paintings of the great celebrations that took place. Protestantism in England did not convert the general populace, nowadays there are still more practicing Catholics than Anglicans, and when the Catholic mass was decriminalised statistics taken later showed the the same to be true.

Click to expand...

I was speaking about Lutheranism not Anglicanism, which has been rather ineffecient in converting the British, with large protestatic sects and Catholism surviving, and even take power once in a while.

el t said:

I can't see him doing it, unless his marriage to Anne of Cleves had been successful. I know she was German, so I assume she was either a Lutheran or strongly influenced by it.

Click to expand...

Cleve(-Jülich-Berg) was... intersting. The ruling family remained catholic, but tolerated Lutheranism and Calvinism and tried for a mediating role. Well, that failed, but it meant the Rhineland was a religiously very heterogenous area, as said.

Wolfhound said:

Protestantism in England did not convert the general populace, nowadays there are still more practicing Catholics than Anglicans, and when the Catholic mass was decriminalised statistics taken later showed the the same to be true.

Click to expand...

I think you are wrong in your statement. How things stand now is a rather irrelevent consideration to the state at the time of Henry VIII, let alone the following centuries. Are you really going to argue England (and Britain) was not a protestant country from approximately 1600 to 1900~? Elizabeth may not have desired a window into men's souls, but the people were certainly quite glad to ensure they were excluded from positions of considerable power.

England under Henry VIII arguably was quasi-Lutheran for a brief period when Anne Boleyn was queen. On the whole though to talk even of Lutherans in such a period seems a mistake, given that Protestant identities had not yet been solidly formed, and you had going on for dozens of different reformers who all had slightly different takes on things which were closer or further away from Luther. Even in the Lutheran core you can note differences in the thought of Luther himself and Melanchthon who ultimately proved his successor. If we consider Thomas Cranmer to be the lead English theologian then he is certainly seemed to be taking a somewhat Lutheran line in these early days.

Calvinism ofcourse then swept the continent, earning it the ire of Catholic and Lutheran alike and certainly post the peace of Augsburg Calvinists were considered the conversional threat. Henry drifted this way and that, between Cranmer who was moving more towards Calvinism, which would be made manifest under Edward VI's brief reign, and Gardiner who it might perhaps be considered the first anglo-catholic/high churchman.

Personally I think there has been far too much revisionism on the part of certain authors to try and paint the Church of England as essentially Catholic but divided for political reasons. Its doctrines and practices are fundamentally different and essentially more Calvinist even if the aparatus and institutions are somewhat Catholic. There is considerably more to being Catholic than maintaining the position of Archbishop, and it would seem to me that doctrine is what defines a denomination. It may be theologically confused, being something of a composite, but that was perhaps inevitable by its birth.

Personally I think there has been far too much revisionism on the part of certain authors to try and paint the Church of England as essentially more Calvinist even if the aparatus and institutions are somewhat Catholic. There is considerably more to being Catholic than maintaining the position of Archbishop, and it would seem to me that doctrine is what defines a denomination. It may be theologically confused, being something of a composite, but that was perhaps inevitable by its birth.

Click to expand...

You cannot separate doctrine and structure. That the Roman Catholic church maintains a system of bishops is a major doctrinal point in Roman Catholicism. That Calvin wanted to do away with bishops was an equally important point in Calvinism. The structure of the Church reflected how that Church wanted its members to think about their religion. The bishop system reflected the top-down, City of God approach. Calvinism reflected the salvation through faith alone approach. The Church of England keeping the bishops meant that it did not reject Rome on the most basic level, how it wanted its membership to think about their religion.

Anyway, back to the WI. I don't think that Henry VIII would convert to Lutheranism. He didn't convert to protestantism during his reign, he simply took control of the Roman Church in England. A turn to Lutheranism would mean that Henry's ATL actions in regards to the creation of the Church of England would have to be driven by something other than the financial and political rewards he would get. That is a very different Henry than OTL.

Matthais Corvinus said:

You cannot separate doctrine and structure. That the Roman Catholic church maintains a system of bishops is a major doctrinal point in Roman Catholicism. That Calvin wanted to do away with bishops was an equally important point in Calvinism. The structure of the Church reflected how that Church wanted its members to think about their religion. The bishop system reflected the top-down, City of God approach. Calvinism reflected the salvation through faith alone approach. The Church of England keeping the bishops meant that it did not reject Rome on the most basic level, how it wanted its membership to think about their religion.

Click to expand...

I am not convinced that is true. While I will accept that the manner of church government is influenced partly by doctrine, if we are to say the retention of Bishops, or an Episcopal polity, indicates a continued link with Rome, then it seems many organisations have this link. Many Lutherans for example have retained Bishops, as indeed does the Reformed Church of Hungary and some Methodists. Are we going to say that they have not broken with Rome at the most basic level? I think such would be something of a stretch even for the most ardent Syncretist.

While I agree that the idea of having a monarch as head of the Church, rather than the more oligarchical structure as outlined by Calvin and adopted by Presbyterians is a difference, and as such is a justifiable reason for saying the Church of England isn't as distant from Roman Catholicism as for example the Church of Scotland, I do not consider it accurate to portray Anglicanism as merely Catholicism without the Pope. By the end of Henry VIII's reign I think that is a simplification to say such and certainly it was never the case afterwards. Indeed, were we to accept the premise that you cannot seperate doctrine and structure, such a seperation from Rome would mark them different even before other practices are considered.