Well, to dig deeper still, however, those “reform” movements have very political origins. Papal acceptance of the Magna Carta hinged on England having a unique condition of fealty to Rome which the British government deeply detested, and sought to get out from under. One British king even offered his kingdom to become a vassal state to Islam, but a wise Sultan of Morrocco deemed any land which tolerated such a wicked ruler would be a liability. Wycliffe operated with a Parlaimentary “commission” of sorts to undermine the papal domination. With Jan Hus (who studied Wycliffe) came the radical realization that one could claim Christianity apart from from either the Western or Eastern system of patriarchs.
Nonetheless, Henry’s “reforms” were hardly greeted with the docility and ready acceptance you suggest. Quite the contrary, he executed the Archbishop of Canterbury, dissolved 825 monasteries, siezed the monastic and church properties, executed as treasonists several hundred priests, and provided for only those who would accept his schism (in the form of a continuation of their ministries, a pension, or a one-time cash payout for those who chose laicization over apostate ministry). Entire communities of priests were replaced, in many cases, by a single rector, vicar or curate.
Keep in mind, the population of England was only about 4 million, so it could be served quite well by only a few thousand pastors, a small faction of the number of priests form the 825 monasteries and thousands of rectories.
Of course reforms have political considerations. So did the Papacy for the first 1900 years. A very large part of the history of Europe is the tug of war between the Papacy and secular powers in Europe for political advantage. The Pope is still a monarch. He used to rule over a considerable amount of land. He had a standing army and a navy. He ordered those armed forced into battle. At times he even led his army on horse back. I would hope that we don't have to pretend on these threads that the Papacy was never a political force in Europe or wield political power.
Nonetheless, Henry’s “reforms” were hardly greeted with the docility and ready acceptance you suggest.
I never suggested that. I only stated that he had allies among the Catholic clergy who advocated reform. The Catholic Church has experienced many reform during its history. If the Pope had been a little more diplomatic during the 16th century, perhaps it could have used to forces for reform to its advantage. But of course it didn't turn out that way, and Christian unity in Western Europe was broken.
Nonetheless, Henry’s “reforms” were hardly greeted with the docility and ready acceptance you suggest.
As I said in my post, King Henry was a beast. He saw an opportunity to enrich himself and the nobles who supported him, and he took it by taking advantage of the Catholic priests who advocated reform.