Anne Boleyn

[mgoforth]

That Anglo-Catholic one, that I’ve spoken of.

GKC

Ahhh, I see.

Hey on a different topic, did I ever tell you that I live in the White House? It’s actually blue on the outside, and it’s in North Carolina instead of Washington DC, but we call it the White House. Oh, and I bet I didn’t mention that I’m the President of the United States too! I wasn’t elected by the voters or anything like that, I just like the title so I use it. Names are what’s really important anyway, right?

Hey, I’m up to 76 posts!

 

[mgoforth]

Rudeness wasn’t my intention. I’m attempting to use some mild sarcasm to make a point about labels vs underlying facts. I apologize for any incidental offense, but surely GKC is aware that I’m trying to persuade him toward the Truth. These are the “Catholic Answers Forums” after all…posting here as a non-Catholic and expecting no one to challenge those views out of love for the Truth and for the individual doesn’t seem to make sense either. If GKC were to tell me that my tactics were offending him then I would stop because I don’t want to do that. But thus-far he’s stepped up to the plate and argued his case.

 

[GKC]

Ahhh, I see.

Hey on a different topic, did I ever tell you that I live in the White House? It’s actually blue on the outside, and it’s in North Carolina instead of Washington DC, but we call it the White House. Oh, and I bet I didn’t mention that I’m the President of the United States too! I wasn’t elected by the voters or anything like that, I just like the title so I use it. Names are what’s really important anyway, right?

Hey, I’m up to 76 posts!

Congrats!

GKC

 

[mgoforth]

Congrats!

GKC

I’m sorry if my posts have offended you GKC, truly.

 

[GKC]

I’m sorry if my posts have offended you GKC, truly.

I appreciate that, thank you. But you haven’t. I’ve been posting on RC boards (actually, only around 4-5 of them) for around 10+ years. I agree with much of what I find on such boards, and disagree, as and when you might expect me to. If I were offended by folk who differ with me, I would not have stayed around so long.

The next portion, below, is what I was preparing as a reply to your previous post. I’ll put it here. And don’t worry. I’m retired military; I have a reasonably tough skin.

Mild sarcasm, no problem. Sarcasm on steroids, no problem.

What constitutes underlying facts depends on whom you ask.

Surely, GKC is aware of what you are attempting. It’s always gratifying to see that, and that’s a true statement.

GKC is posting here as a Catholic, in the Anglican tradition. If you were not to disagree with that assertion, I’d remind you that you should. As I have done to others in similar circumstances. And GKC doesn’t care much if others challenge him or not.

Which harks back to my comments recently about 6700 (give or take) posts. In that number, I’ve repeated many, many times certain themes of mine, to the point that some board posters, familiar with my style, could (and did) complete my sentence if I posted that “Anglicans are…” or “History is…” Here’s another such example of my take on things. I never, ever, attempt to argue a RC out of believing what the RCC requires to be affirmed, with whatever degree of theological certainty appertains to the point under discussion. That is to say, I don’t try to make anyone, ever, think like an Anglican. On occasion, I will try to say what an Anglican might think. But I don’t argue, as to belief systems.

Your tactics do not offend me, though I appreciate your concern. It is very hard to offend me, in fact. I’m so irenic I can make your teeth ache. This not unpleasant ping-pong persiflage post padding is harmless, though I appreciate (name removed by moderator)'s comment (and I agree with it).

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholics *

 

[GKC]

Thanks, my friend. I appreciate your comment, greatly.

GKC

 

[GKC]

It could be interpreted that way. Of course, wouldn’t you agree that all persons in leadership positions, great or small, have to “gamble” at some time or other. It seems to come with the job.

And btw everyone. We seem to have gone far afield from the OP’s topic. Mea culpa.

Wasn’t your fault. IMO.

GKC

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m also fascinated by the “untold” story of the Tudors. Everybody knows about Henry VIII–at least most people know the overall history.

What is usually missing is the history before Henry VIII became king.

His father, Henry VII only became king by deposing then-king Richard III. Henry VII, in other words, “stole the throne.” He had no legitimate claim to be king (at least as far as anyone can ever legitimately claim to be a king over anyone). Therefore it was very important for him to legitimize his own reign and very important for him (and his son the 8th) to have a clear and undisputed heir.

Henry 8 had a older brother Arthur who was “supposed” to become the next king, but died early. There were no other brothers. That means that Henry 8 was very aware the potential for confusion, turmoil, and even more war if there was no clear heir; and Henry 8 was very concerned that he have a son who would clearly succeed him as king.

The earlier history goes a long way in explaining his obsession–unfortunately, it’s rarely discussed.

 

[Kaninchen]

The earlier history goes a long way in explaining his obsession–unfortunately, it’s rarely discussed.

Really?

 

[GKC]

I’m also fascinated by the “untold” story of the Tudors. Everybody knows about Henry VIII–at least most people know the overall history.

What is usually missing is the history before Henry VIII became king.

His father, Henry VII only became king by deposing then-king Richard III. Henry VII, in other words, “stole the throne.” He had no legitimate claim to be king (at least as far as anyone can ever legitimately claim to be a king over anyone). Therefore it was very important for him to legitimize his own reign and very important for him (and his son the 8th) to have a clear and undisputed heir.

Henry 8 had a older brother Arthur who was “supposed” to become the next king, but died early. There were no other brothers. That means that Henry 8 was very aware the potential for confusion, turmoil, and even more war if there was no clear heir; and Henry 8 was very concerned that he have a son who would clearly succeed him as king.

The earlier history goes a long way in explaining his obsession–unfortunately, it’s rarely discussed.

I tend to discuss it, as the occasion arises, in the context of Henry’s shaky grip on the throne. After all, a hundred years or so earlier, the War of the Roses had marked a series of claimants and counter claimants amongst the York and Lancastrian factions, advancing their claims behind armies and banners and dead bodies, which eventually resulted in Henry Tudor, a Lancastrian claimant (from his relationship, through his mother, to Edward III) gaining the seat as Henry VII. He was the last English king to win the throne on the field of battle, at Bosworth, and his son wanted no repetition of that method of succession. Hence his dynastic obsession with securing a legitimate male heir. Conventional wisdom of the time.

GKC

 

[Aelred_Minor]

All the members of the Church together make up the body of the Church.

I don’t want to completely derail the thread, but my original intent was to show that Protestant groups attempting to reform the core teachings of the Church has never been necessary, because those core teachings have never been changed. In order for the Church as a whole to need reforming, wouldn’t She have to stray from the Truth in Her teachings first? This hasn’t happened in over 2000 years and Christ has assured us it never will, though individuals and even large groups within the Church certainly can and do stray. I thought of these verses when I read your response:

"Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor. For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart." Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

Anyone who leaves the fellowship of the Church may fall and not have another to lift him up, or may get cold and have no one to keep him warm, or may be overpowered by another and have no brother or sister to defend him. On the other hand, when two or more are together (representing the entirety of the Church here), if one gets in trouble there are others to help him. The only way the Church would need to be reformed is if all the members were corrupted at the same time and there was no one left to pick up the pieces. And that would mean that some basic belief would have to be changed officially. The Holy Spirit has always made sure, and will continue to make sure this doesn’t happen.

I hope no one will take offence at continuing this side conversation, especially since it we are several pages in and it’s still slightly (very slightly, I grant) connected to the original topic.

Obviously authentic Catholic reform is going to be in continuity with the whole history of the Church and shouldn’t imply any total corruption of the Church prior to the reform.

Let’s use the analogy of a house. A house that is lived in is always in need of cleaning and maintenance. Even if you get it absolutely spotless and perfect for a moment, which you probably won’t, it will very quickly need work again. Once in a while you will even need to replace a major appliance, unclog a sink, recarpet, repaint, get a new window, etc. That doesn’t mean you have to tear the whole thing down and rebuild on a new foundation every time someone tracks mud across the living room floor.

 

[Happy_Convert]

Hi:

You’re right about Catherine of Aragon. She showed a quiet dignity throughout her ordeal that could teach us all a lot about humility. She definitely deserved better than she got. Henry the Eighth created a schism in the Church and destroyed much of England’s priceless architecture out of a combination of unfettered lust and unabashed greed.

 

[mgoforth]

I hope no one will take offence at continuing this side conversation, especially since it we are several pages in and it’s still slightly (very slightly, I grant) connected to the original topic.

Obviously authentic Catholic reform is going to be in continuity with the whole history of the Church and shouldn’t imply any total corruption of the Church prior to the reform.

Let’s use the analogy of a house. A house that is lived in is always in need of cleaning and maintenance. Even if you get it absolutely spotless and perfect for a moment, which you probably won’t, it will very quickly need work again. Once in a while you will even need to replace a major appliance, unclog a sink, recarpet, repaint, get a new window, etc. That doesn’t mean you have to tear the whole thing down and rebuild on a new foundation every time someone tracks mud across the living room floor.

I think I can agree with that. I like the house analogy.

 

[Little_Mary]

I hope no one will take offence at continuing this side conversation, especially since it we are several pages in and it’s still slightly (very slightly, I grant) connected to the original topic.

Obviously authentic Catholic reform is going to be in continuity with the whole history of the Church and shouldn’t imply any total corruption of the Church prior to the reform.

Let’s use the analogy of a house. A house that is lived in is always in need of cleaning and maintenance. Even if you get it absolutely spotless and perfect for a moment, which you probably won’t, it will very quickly need work again. Once in a while you will even need to replace a major appliance, unclog a sink, recarpet, repaint, get a new window, etc. That doesn’t mean you have to tear the whole thing down and rebuild on a new foundation every time someone tracks mud across the living room floor.

I like the house analogy. I also heard another one I like involving bath/dish water. Quite often, it needs to be changed, but you don’t replace the whole sink! Along the lines of “don’t throw the baby out with the bath”… no?

 

[Marie_Gregg]

I’m away from the computer for a few days…

I love discussion threads.

 

[sallybutler]

I’ve spent too many years as a computer programmer, which means I tend to want things in a yes/no on/off switch type of construct (not that I get that very often ), but if some Anglicans are, in their view, Catholic, why are they still going to an Anglican service instead of a Catholic Mass?

 

[sallybutler]

Incidentally, I’m now going to the front yard, to read a David Weber SF book and smoke my afternoon pipe. In case I’m missed.

GKC

One of my most favorite authors. Hope you enjoyed your afternoon.

 

[sallybutler]

Then that’s what us Methodists and former Methodists would call small-c catholic, because in our printed versions of the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed the word “Catholic” is always written “catholic”, and children have to be taught that the word doesn’t mean “Catholic” with a big-C, but “the universal church of all believers.” Obviously not everyone has the same usage, just like not all Protestants have an identical ecclesiology.

In “our” version, it is also written with a small C

 

[Leegal]

Hello, All. This is my first thread. Be kind.

I adore the Tudor era, and the thread on King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon prompted me to ask my own question. Among Protestants, Anne Boleyn is usually hailed as one of the scions of the English Reformation. I have a problem with that. Not only was she probably not as Protestant as people like to think, but she also probably wasn’t quite as religious as is usually believed. (She did hound a man for years to divorce his wife, after all…) The family connections from whence she came seemed to have viewed religion as a matter of political expediency, being rather willing to change “sides” as needed.

Of the two women, I think Catherine comes out the true heroine of it all. She was faithful to her husband and loyal to her faith. What are your thoughts? (I know that this is a bit off-topic, but you can’t discuss religion without discussing history, right?)

Interesting because I, too, am fascinated by the Tudors.

My understanding is that Cromwell was behind Henry’s reformation because for all his abilities, Henry was a lazy man who might not have followed through without the pressure of Cromwell. Who knows – other sources put Henry at the helm forcing Cromwell to persecute the Church, but that comes later.

I also understand that Henry never entirely rejected core Catholic teachings. He believed that as King of England he should be head of the Church there - when, of course, the Pope would not give him the annullment. The only solution he saw was declare himself head of the Church in England. He rejected Luther and wrote his own defense of the sacraments. He rejected Papal authority … at first.

And there were abuses by the Catholic Church in England, Luther’s reformation came at a most opportune time, in time for when Henry wanted to dissolve his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

I doubt that they thought Henry’s desire for a heir would result in a break with Rome – or few (though I can’t be certain) had other agendas such as a Protestant reformation. But, I really don’t think the original intention was to create a Church of England. The original intention was to dissolve a Catholic marriage, to marry legitimately (in the Church) and produce a male heir.

Since the Archbishop, who did Henry’s bidding anyway, at first granted the annullment, most thought (or led Henry to believe) it would be a inevitable for the Papacy to agree. That set events in motion that I think were unforeseen. Afterall, having a male heir was most important and on everyone’s mind – not breaking with the Church – until they found that dissolving the marriage was going to be an impossibility.

Anne Bolelyn never became Lutheran, but she was a Catholic reformist. Anne was a pawn. I’m not sure that she was not pressured herself if she pressured Henry. There were many manipulators behind the throne. The Protestant reformation just happened at close enough to a time when other matters were of Henry’s concern – producing a male heir. When he ultimately could not manipulate the Papacy, he created his own reformation – and Anne happened to be in the right place at the time.

 

[GKC]

One of my most favorite authors. Hope you enjoyed your afternoon.

My wife feels the same. We know him, casually.

Afternoon, book and pipe went well.

GKC