Well, there isn't really a simple answer to the question of how much opposition there was to Henry's break with Rome; but fundamentally, I'd disagree with you on the idea that there was a lack of it.

Although a comprehensive account of opposition to Henrician reforms is difficult to provide, It's important to remember how significant opposition really was; it inspired the largest rebellion of the 16th century, and it is quite possible that (without the successful management of the Duke of Norfolk and of the King to defuse and deceive that rebellion) said rebellion would have led to a reunification with Rome.

But there are plenty of other reasons which can account for the relative lack of resistance to Henrician reforms, especially in their initial stages. The way in which the Henrician court system worked meant that anyone hoping to maintain influence with the King was going to agree, at least outwardly, with the policies leading to his divorce (and hence the break with Rome). Moreover, Henry's reliance on a chief minister in Cromwell meant that the reformation was effected through a particularly powerful individual who worked hard to implement protestant religion without the influence of religious conservatives at court (i.e. the Howard faction). But I'd particularly draw attention to the simple fact that very few people anticipated the scope of the Reformation as it was implemented. Henry had a well-documented dislike of Luther and Lutheranism; the dissolution of the monasteries was an extremely well-managed and rapid coup by Cromwell; and actual religious doctrine changed very little over the course of his reign. In essence, the result was that religious devotion remained similar enough (and if anything became more catholic in the last years of Henry's reign) as to inspire a little less dissent than Edward's changes would.

That said, it'd be extremely misleading to say that there was a lack of opposition to Henry's break domestically (let alone internationally). The ability to express that dissent was unsurprisingly lacking; some people left the country, while others worked to displace radicals at court (IE Anne Boleyn's faction) and install more conservative figures around the King, while on a local level many people simply passively resisted or ignored change wherever possible. The fact that active resistance was difficult (especially after the failures of 1536-7) did not preclude the existence of opposition.

The most significant work which covers this passive resistance in study is probably Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars; but bear in mind that this is probably the most directly Catholic revisionist text of the historiography, and therefore should be contrasted with other works, i.e. G. Bernard, The King's Reformation, and E. Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation. I hope this is helpful!