P
placido
Guest
It sounds funny. You declare something is so and it MUST be so … finish, end of of story!
placido
- Status
placido
S
seamusmohr
Guest
seamusmohr;6863829:
Wrong again madam, Henry was a member of a Church with a 2000 year History and it was Catholic, a Particular Church, The Church in England, its authority lies in Revelation and scripture plus the Ecumenical Councils.I’m glad as well that the Anglo Catholics are going, they’ve been of little use here in protecting against the liberals! Don’t be sorrry for my views, be sorry for the TAC, they are the people who abused The Lords trust! One day they will have to account for their stewardship!*Your church began with Henry VIII when he got mad at the Catholic Church and the Pope for not letting him have his own way. Before that he was a wonderful defender of the faith and wrote a marvellous book about the Catholic Church. Once he broke away he confiscated monasteries and persecuted Catholics and all hell broke loose. I think it is wonderful that many Anglicans are coming home to the Catholic Church. Sorry you do not feel that way.
Cinette*
M
Memaw
Guest
P
placido
Guest
Please, please, try to do justice to the history of your church. Everyone knows what happened. King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, but when it was refused he got mad at the Pope and started your church. Just admit that “small detail”.
Since you did not say all this before they left, we know why you are saying all this now.
placido
P
placido
Guest
And according to Easten Orthodox that excludes the Anglicanism!
And you have done very little too to renew it.
S
seamusmohr
Guest
Well not quite all of them, thank heavens! They might all say it about the Canterbury Communion and the ones who are in it! The neo Anglicans? Yet some of them speak differently about other Communions within traditional Anglicanism!
Little enough and certainly not enough,
Medieval Additions , rather! Infallibility and Jurisdiction have no place in our catholic History, or Holy Tradition! Authority rests with the Bishops and Ecumenical Councils guided by the Holy Ghost. Traditional Catholics Hold to the Deposit!
It’s a view of mine certainly. I am not angry however, bemused rather, that they prefer , the outward show to the realities. Vestments, Incense, Six Candles and Biretta’s before the faith?
It will be interesting to see just how many of the TAC and FiF stir themselves enough to make the Pilgrimage to Rome! Women in Orders or Homosexual Bishops they’ve stuck it up to now, I’m simply waiting to see if Rome stirs them enough!
P
placido
Guest
For example?
Others would disagree with you. Why are you right and why are they wrong? Why not the other way round? Are you infallible?
Says who? I am 100 % sure you can not quote scripture that says so. BTW, can you mention at least one Ecumenical Council that did not need Papal endorsement? Just one.
The deposit as defined by Seamusmohr?
Okay, that is fine if you are not angry but you are at least unhappy about TAC betrayal, aren’t you? BTW, how do you know that is what they prefer … and is your view on the issue infallible?
Yes, it would be interesting but you apparently can’t wait and would rather judge them wrong NOW!
No, you are not waiting … your posts are evidence of that.
placido
M
Memaw
Guest
Seems Seamusmohr has ‘taken’ over this thread with his self proclaimed ideas. I for one think we should by pass him and get on with a real conversation about the topic. God Bless, Memaw
P
placido
Guest
Let us march separately yet launch a joint strike. I won’t let Seamusmohr alone; at least not now.
I will continue to show him how he contradicts himself by, for instance, rejecting infallibility while at the same time considering his own views to be infallible and binding on every one.
placido
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Seamusmohr,
Sorry to join you so late…
In reading your past posts, I want you to know you missed a golden opportunity to challenge Cinette on the Henry VIII’s (1491-1547) authorship that enabled him to get the award from the Pope Leo X in 1521 as Defender of the Faith (DF still being used today on British currency) for the Defense of the Seven Sacraments. This work was a direct attack against the European Reformaiton. Yeahhhhhhh… St. Thomas More is assumed to have been the actual author (ghost writer) - Henry was the one given the credit. 
Sorry to join you so late…
In reading your past posts, I want you to know you missed a golden opportunity to challenge Cinette on the Henry VIII’s (1491-1547) authorship that enabled him to get the award from the Pope Leo X in 1521 as Defender of the Faith (DF still being used today on British currency) for the Defense of the Seven Sacraments. This work was a direct attack against the European Reformaiton. Yeahhhhhhh… St. Thomas More is assumed to have been the actual author (ghost writer) - Henry was the one given the credit. Cinette;6863938:
I’m glad as well that the Anglo Catholics are going, they’ve been of little use here in protecting against the liberals! Don’t be sorrry for my views, be sorry for the TAC, they are the people who abused The Lords trust! One day they will have to account for their stewardship!Wrong again madam, Henry was a member of a Church with a 2000 year History and it was Catholic, a Particular Church, The Church in England, its authority lies in Revelation and scripture plus the Ecumenical Councils.
I really was surprised at you, Seamusmohr, for this revisionist history section.
Is this some type of misapplication of the 6th Century mission of St. Augustine to the British Isles? If so, really, even Henry had no early relatives back then to make such a claim! A thousand years after St. Augustine in the 16th Century Henry VIII wanted an annulement from his wife and finally made the political move to break with the Catholic Church in 1688. One of Henry’s more ‘heroic’ acts, as Cinette pointed out, confescating Chruch property, despoiling churches and throwing out the poor who were cared for by the Catholic Church. Henry also threw the remains of St. Thomas aBecket in the river (a sign in Canterbury Cathedral - along with a candel marks the place where St Thomas’ shrine resided).
To the best of my knowledge, the Church of England was a political established by a hedonistic and syphlitic monarch that tried to wrap itself up in the garment of theology. And, for those who opposed such a usurpation of the authority of the Christ’s Church - there was the execution block - where St. Thomas More met his fate along with thousands of other faithful Cathoics in the English Reformation. Now, if there is a reference, as you claim, to the Church of England being in Revelation, please produce it. While I have a verse in mind, I do not think it would suit your ends very well.
One of the challenges that all stweards have is accountability. Your approach to history may give you reason to pause for not only does it distort the facts, but it subverts the truth of what happened when an adulterous king was told he could not make a sham out of marriage. Henry’s six wives can attest to this fact.
Really, if you are going to present historic fact, you will need to supply some type of reference. From what I have seen, there are simply too many errors.
God bless
S
seamusmohr
Guest
Did Henry want a divorce? or did he want an annulment? Does it matter? The only reason why he didn’t get one was that the Pope was the prisoner of poor Katherine of Aragon’s nephew the Emperor!
P
placido
Guest
If Henry needed papal approval for him to be able to get an annulment or a divorce or whatever, then Henry was under the Pope up to that point, isn’t it?
Or, do annulments in the Anglican church normally require papal approval?
placido
J
jimpres
Guest
He wanted to get out of his marriage because he wanted a son. He wanted to go against the sacrament of marriage.
P
placido
Guest
Yes, but regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that Henry needed papal approval for his annulment or divorce or whatever. That alone shows that he was under the Pope up to that point. That is all we needed for us to demonstrate clearly that Seamusmohr is in the wrong.
placido
S
seamusmohr
Guest
R
Roy5
Guest
I haven’t read all these postings, so maybe my points are repetitious.
Code:
1. It always has puzzled me that if veneration of Mary and the various Marian doctrines (Immaculate Conception, sinless life, Assumption, etc.) are so central to the Catholic faith, why is it that in all of his epistles St. Paul never mentions Mary once? He certainly focused on a lot of theological matters.
2. I have read the Church Fathers - some years ago. I found so much in their writings that seem totally out-of-touch with what we know today. Obviously they had a three-tier view of the universe - heaven, earth, hell - and no concept of the vastness of the universe. They had no microscope and often seemed to believe that diseases were caused by sin, demons, etc. Then, of course, you have many other early Christian writers who would have become the Church Fathers had the Arians, Nestorians, Gnostics or others won out. So, I don't look to those early writers as accurate enough to be that authoritative. I do have considerable sympathy for Origen, who turned out to be a heretic! He argued very early that we should regard many Biblical stories (e. g., Genesis 1-11) as symbolic rather than to be taken literally.
3. An argument that sounds a bit convincing to me goes like this. The Emperor of Rome was the vicar of the gods. When the empire broke up the Bishop of Rome emerged as his replacement. With the Muslim conquests most of the key churches in the East lost their influence, but Rome never was conquered by the Muslims so the Bishop of Rome gradually claimed to have spiritual authority over all the church. When I saw him in Rome, in all of his finery, carried high and lifted up by Swiss Guards, people shouting 'Viva le papa" - well, I could see this happening in the glory days of the Roman Empire.
But I don't really care. Most of this debate comes from our tribalistic instinct. We want our tribe to win out. My guess is that God doesn't care about our religious labels or even most of our doctrines. As Christ said to the lawyer who wanted to know how to gain eternal life: love God and one another. He said nothing about being Catholic, or Protestant, about believing this creed or that.
May God bless his beloved children of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier. Jesus would approve of that.
S
seamusmohr
Guest
You show a poor understanding of history, that is Catholic History within the wider Church, or the history of the Roman Catholic Church , a particular church!
There was 1500 yrs of Catholic history, what happened in the first thousand years, especially the first 350 are the important sections, Henry’s behaviour was conditioned by the later papal innovations and additions.He was following later custom and practice , it was medievalism!
S
seamusmohr
Guest
What about the Pope at the turn of the first millenium, who had regular intercourse with his mother? He was 16 yrs old!] Or all the other doings of various popes? These are things we shouldn’t wantonly indulge ourselves with!
S
seamusmohr
Guest
Is that a topic that you’ll be able to answer?
S
seamusmohr
Guest
We must mix with different sections of the Orthodox!
However the Anglican Church with its two thousand years history must be prepared to be
judged, not so much by either of the two sections of the One True Church, but by the standards of the early Church of the first thousand years. I think Anglicanism, catholicity with an English face, will come out of it!
- Status