Part of the issue with a crusade in the 16th century is that Crusades require a submission of the will of the nation to the will of the Pope. But not only was nationalism rising (huge topic, not going into it here), but there was a great turning away from Rome as the source of Christianity.

Regardless of the religious reasons in the 16th century there was no international will for a united war. (a huge simplificaiton, but see "Conceptions of Europe in Renaissance France, ‘Voici venir d’Europe tout l’honneur’: identité aristocratique et conscience européenne au XVI siècle e" by Jean Balsamo for a better understanding). Let me explain that by going back a century.

There was a series of crusades called against the Hussites (early reformers pre-Luther) in the early 15th century but they failed utterly. They mostly were made up of small groups poorly united under limited leadership. A few kings got involved, here and there and briefly, but this wasn't the kind of international operation that we think of when we think of crusades. In fact some of the crowns cautiously supported the Hussites. By the end Bohemia and the surrounding lands were ravaged and took generations to recover.

However that's a small part of why there was no crusade.

Fast forward 80 years and the Reformation begins. The Ottoman Empire possesses the entirety of the Balkans, Hungary is defending themselves from the Ottomans with Bohemia's help, who have now recovered from the crusades of the previous century. Bohemia and Poland are not religiously united with both reformers and those answering to the Pope scattered throughout them. Bohemia then becomes part of the Hapsburg dynasty, though it keeps some religious freedom.

The Holy Roman Empire is fractured along religious lines, and France tries to avoid that problem by pushing for a type of limited religious freedom for the what would later become the Huguenots, they later abandon it leading to conflicts at the same time England leaves the Church. Sweden and Denmark quickly became a reformation countries breaking with Rome shortly after England does.

All that means that a Crusade against England would likely have only Spanish support with some limited support from France. And there's the problem, King Francis I of France and Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor were gearing up for war against each other in Italy at the time.

So TL:DR:

Eastern and Central Europe were either at war with the Ottoman Empire or in the midst of religious struggles.

Northern Europe was turning their backs on Rome just as fast as England.

France and Spain were preparing for war against each other.

Basically there was no will to work together in a Crusade, even among the Crowns who still supported Rome. Even a century before when there was some of it the end result was a disaster that nearly destroyed Eastern Europe and likely made the advance of the Ottoman Empire easier.

For the long version read The European Reformation by Euan Cameron http://www.worldcat.org/title/european-reformation/oclc/796212275?referer=di&ht=edition

There was certainly talk of it, but the reality is that a Catholic Crusade against Henry VIII at that time was unlikely. Charles V, himself was Catholic, and his aunt was the woman that Henry had cast aside in order to marry Anne Boleyn, and yet even he did not wish to invade England. While he had concerns and did not like Henry's actions, a war was costly, and not really in his interests and neither in Francis's either. Even Katherine of Aragon didn't want war waged in England on her behalf. Henry was concerned and I think he was right to be concerned because of his actions, but there was no planned invasion by any of the Catholic Countries. The biggest threat to him during that decade would have been the Pilgrimage of the Grace, which was put down harshly, and the leaders round up and executed.