For a period in time, the Catholic Church held the “divine right of kings” to be all important, to be paramount. To the Catholic Church, it is a doctrine that states royal and political legitimacy. A divine right of kings affirms that a monarch is subject to absolutely no earthly authority. God had given the power and authority to a king in order that he may rule. In doing this, it consequentially gave the king the right to rule directly from the will of God and not be questioned or contended with. This doctrine states that the king is not subject to the will of his people, and did not have to answer to them, nor could the king be taken off his throne by the people. It also states that if anyone attempts to question the king’s authority, not only would it be marked for treason, but it will be seen as talking against God, as a sacrilege, since the king’s words and laws were only answerable to the Lord, therefore in a sense, questioning or challenging the king, was contesting God.
In 1597, books were written by King James VI of Scotland, regarding the divine rights of the kings. One book in particular, stated the duties of the king, and it stated “A good king acknowledges himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be accountable” (stoics, 2004).
Under the reign of Louis XIV, in 1685, France was beginning a transition it could not fight. Louis XIV attempted to stomp out all traces of Protestant Churches. Protestant schools were closed, as were the churches. Louis XIV even went so far as to have the Protestant ministers exiled from France. Some people converted; while others who would not convert were forced into slavery. Even the children were baptized by the Catholic ...
... middle of paper ...
...of the country depended on who was the current ruler of the country and which religion the king or queen followed. Many different laws were passed regarding the religion of the moment, for the current king or queen presiding on the throne. The current king or queen wished for the entire country to follow in the same footsteps as they were. Because of this, the people were angered and constantly confused by this constant fluctuation of decisions. Some of the kings who followed Catholicism were, Henry VII and Henry VIII but he only for a short while when Henry VIII was refused a separation from the queen, Catherine of Aragon from the Pope in Rome. Henry I and Edward VI were raised and taught in the Protestant religion and during those times, they were given the same treatment as the Protestants were, years before (Tudors and Religion, 2010).
Works Cited
Craig, 2009
These two opposing religions had their differences be known be the other side and would fight for their ideas to be the ones all to follow. Conrad Russel states in his book The Causes of the English Civil War, that England “was a society with several religions, while still remaining a society with a code of values and a political system which were only designed to be workable with one”. Inside the Church of England was essentially two churches, Protestant and Catholic. Both sides were determined that their religion was going to be the one in the church and not the one outside looking in. Both sides wanted to control the authoritative powerhouse of England and would do anything to have the Church of England become the church of their religion. However, religious differences did not just occur between the citizens, it also occurred between King Charles I and Parliament. First off let’s look at King Charles himself. Charles was a very religious monarch who liked his worship to be High Anglican. He also believed the hierarchy of priests and bishops was very important, which alarmed Parliament because they believed that King Charles was leaning towards the idea of Catholicism in England. King Charles’ form of worship was seen by the Puritan faith as a form of popery. This upset them because they wanted a pure worship without icons or bishops. To clarify, popery is the doctrines, practices, and ceremonies associated with the pope or the papal system; Roman Catholicism. Charles also wanted to support William Laud who was the leader of the High Church Anglican Party because they had recently became prominent. Parliament strongly disagreed with the King’s decision because they feared that Laud would promote Roman Catholicism ideas and
Divine right was a widespread idea under absolutist government: the concept that a king’s power was derived from God, and that kings therefore had the power to act as God on Earth. In 1609, James I of England spoke on this idea, proclaiming that kings were God’s lieutenants on Earth and likewise deserved the unquestioned authority of Gods
With any new monarch’s ascension to the throne, there comes with it changes in the policies of the country. From Elizabeth’s new council, to Henry’s documented polices and even to William the Silent’s inaction in response to threats were all policies that needed to be worked out by the new rulers. This group of rulers all had something in common; they chose to let their people make their religious preference solely on their beliefs but they all differed in their ways of letting this come about. This was monumental for the time period in which they lived, but it was something that needed to be done to progress national unity.
After King of England, Henry VIII (1491 – 1547) separated the Church of England from the authority of the Pope, the Crown took control of the church in the country. As such, after the English Reformation in the 16th century, the Crown ordered...
A couple decades later, in the 1640’s, the reign of Louis XIV took over the French leadership. Louis XIV took the persecution and pressure on the Protestant population to a whole new level. Louis XIV aggressively opposed the Protestant followers and did numerous things to force them to convert back to the Catholicism and denounce their loyalty to the Protestants. Initially, Louis XIV sent out simple missionaries into Protestant areas and told them that if there could be significant financial gain to be made if Protestants would convert to becoming Catholics once again. This method was no welcomed with a lot of success and so in response to that King Louis XIV led a much more consequential method in an effort to convert more Huguenots to the Catholic Church. He began to impose certain penalties around the Protestant population if they would not recommit their faith away from the reformation that they had committed themselves to. In addition to this Louis ordered the closing of Huguenot schools and establishments that the Protestant people had built to support their society. Throughout all these methods that Louis XIV instituted, he grew increasingly frustrated and agitated with the Huguenots and it was only a matter of time until he resorted to increasingly aggressive methods in forcing the Protestant followers to convert. He ordered military troops to invade and loot numerous establishments and homes that were owned by Protestant followers. He did this in an effort to forcibly convert them back to believing and placing loyalty back in the Catholic Church. Louis XIV continued this aggressive persecution of the Huguenots when he did away with the Edict of Nantes. He signed a document formally named the Edict of Fountainebleau which, as mentioned, revoked the previous Edict of Nantes that supported the Protestants and even went so far to even make
The traces of the split can be seen nearly five hundred years ago during the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. During King Henry VIII’s rule, Henry had wanted a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, to marry Anne Boleyn. When the Pope would refuse to allow a divorce between Catherine and Henry, Henry would decide to start his own church so that he could be in a position of power to proceed with the divorce. This church would become the Church of England. Through this radical break away from the social norm, Henry VIII would be remembered as a man who would go to great lengths to get what he wanted. This break would also signify the beginning of the Protestant Reformation across Europe. This event marks the first time that two groups are seen as a national friend and foe recognition. As Bartlett notes, “By the 1570’s loyal and disloyal ...
In the early modern period, the political system put in Europe was “absolute power” (Lecturer Morris). According to the OED, “absolute power is a monarch invested in absolute”. In this period, it was believed that it was necessary that only one person designated by God could hold absolute power. Usually this prophecy would be passed down in the royal family, from father to son (Carrol 246). Occasionally, if viewed as worthy of the opportunity, a person, usually a warrior who has served well in war, could rise to the occasion, and can be named king (Lecturer Morris). “The sons do not succeed the fathers, before the people first have as it were anew established them by their new approbation: neither were they acknowledged in quality, as inheriting
Elizabeth quickly consolidated power and returned the country to Protestantism, passing the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, although by Reformation standards Catholics fared well under these acts. Wi...
...ded to amend the Edict of Nantes, in which they were not allowed to have their own armies and towns. Louis took this amendment one step further, by completely revoking the Edict of Nantes. Huguenots were then forced to leave France, as they were forebidden to worship or to have their own schools, and Huguenots were publically humiliated by Louis’ troops. Many Huguenots were tortured to get converts to catholicism. 1/5th of the Huguenots were able to escape France, many of which were skilled artisans, and brought their talents to Protestant friendly countries. Louis also surpressed a sect of Catholicism, the Jansenists, a group of Catholics that had a somewhat Calvinist ideaoligy. Louis believed that some of the Jansenists were at the center of the Frondes, so he took the center of Jansenists, Port Royal, and burned it to the ground.
Absolute monarchy begins with the idea that one has a “divine right.” James I was one of those Kings who believed in this “divine right.” James I believed God himself put him, and other Kings, on the throne to be His “lieutenants upon Earth.” James I believed he was in the same category as God, seeing as that God and him both “have power to create, or destroy, make, or vnmake, at his pleasure, to giue life, or send death, to iudge all, and to bee iudged….”
Religion was a major issue for Queen Elizabeth I. For many years the Roman Catholic Church dominated England with great power (Elizabethan World View). Most of the people who rebelled against the Roman Catholic Church formed the Protestant religion(Elizabethan World View). For many years people were unsure which religion they should partake in. This was a major conflict for many after Henry VIII, Elizabeth’s father, left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant (Elizabethan World View). After Henry VIII died, Queen Mary, Elizabeth’s half-sister took the throne (Elizabeth I). Mary ferociously tried to reinstate Catholicism in England, believing it was the only religion people should follow, unlike Queen Elizabeth I Mary did not believe in religious freedom (Elizabeth I).
The French Revolution may have temporarily destroyed Christianity in France, however, it acted as a savior for the future of Christianity. According to the Bible, God allows us to go through trials of tribulation to grow stronger and closer to him. This series of events that impacted France, represented a truly dark period in the history of Christianity, but also marked a rebirth and overall revival of a religion that was becoming far detached from its roots.
Nobles in England, especially the king, before the time of the conquest, influenced religion in a way that they should not have. During the time when St. Augustine went to Kent and early English history, the pope did not have a close relationship with the island. He thought it was wise to let the king and already appointed bishops choose the bishops, since they knew better who would be appropriate for the positions. When the pope granted this power to the king and current bishops, he was not granting it forever; he was granting it at that time because he thought it was the wise thing to do. Then the English kings refused to give back the power. The pope, desiring to avoid fighting and keep peace, reluctantly complied with England’s resistance, telling them that he needed to confirm their choices at the very least. At the time of the conquest, William, a deeply religious man, changed and improved the situation. He made it clear to the bishops that they will be accountable to the pope. He placed them directly under the authority of the pope, restoring to him the power to appoint men for the bishopric. He further clarified that matters of the Church should be dealt with by the Church, and those of the state should be handled by the state. Thus the position of bishop was restored as a position of the Church not of the state. This encouraged a widespread growth in the religious life. Due to the Norman Conquest, the proper separation of Church and state restored the respective power to the Church and the state and restored appropriate respect and appreciation for
If you cannot reverently obey, you will not only not have your lands, but I will also carry to the utmost heaven’s inflictions on your persona.” Thus, creating the belief that even though heaven chose its ruler on earth, they could also have them removed.
The ancient Romans transferred the people’s imperium to the governing emperors. During that time, the emperor was not bounded by the laws’ constraints, as a matter of fact, his word was indeed the law. In the medieval era, the monarchs did not possess a similar power. It was based on a shared aristocracy (Philpott, 2016). Sovereignty during the medieval era existed in the form of de jure, a legitimate entitlement among the nobles, the governed population at the time were free to make their own choices. During the Reformation, the monarchs sort to rid the nobles of their de jure entitlements. During this period, the states craved for a central authority, a venture that was spearheaded by Jean Bodin. According to Bodin, he deemed it fit for the authoritative figures to seek counsel from a specialized group of individuals, an appointed Senate. Bodin thought that the sovereign needed to set up the Estates (a political order) to communicate with the population and magistrates who would administer the laws. Sovereignty according to Jean Bodin existed outside the confines of nobility; leaders were supposed to be constrained by the law, and act in accordance to a jus gentium, a law common to every nation (Philpott,