The Roman Catholicism itself was faultless, inflicting me to write a book against the 95 theses of Martin Luther’s. This also earned me the title “Defender of the faith”. A few similarities we share is that we both were excommunicated from the church, but for very different reasons; I, myself was fighting with the church, Luther didn’t fight with the church; he was fighting to improve the church. We both were driven out of the church, I for earthly reasons and Luther for religious reasons. Though in the end we both laid out the foundation for a new church, I did it willingly for the church refused myself. Luther hesitantly did it because the church refused to improve …show more content…
This legislation that I established, I believe is still I use in the United Kingdom. This led to the formation of a new branch of Christianity neither Catholic nor Protestant called Anglican meaning “of England”. I in simple words took the rule of the Pope. I also spitefully, to defy the wishes of the Pope, funded the printing of the scriptures in English; the first legal English bible. There was great impact on the economy, religion, and culture. The break from Rome resulted in large amount of money, which usually goes to the church, go to myself, the king. Moreover, the production of the English bible resulted in lots of people gaining knowledge. This new branch of Christianity was successful and gained large followers but after my death and my son’s death, my daughter, Queen Mary tried reuniting the Anglican church with the Roman Catholic