How come some Protestants really believe

[steido01]

Yo!

That thread lives over here. npatrol:

 

[GKC]

That wont wash as its not true, Henry broke from Rome and in doing so he made every English person sign a document to the effect that he Henry was Head of the Church “in England” NOT HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ENGLAND. If that was the case he would not of broken off ties with Rome, and cut of heads of Priests, Nuns, Monks, and any Catholic that was loyal to Rome got there head chopped, but if you agreed that Henry was Head of the Church in England and he was now making the Rules and Regulations as he saw fit you kept your life, why did he chop the head of (one of many) of his Chancellor St. Thomas Moore his best friend because he said that he could not agree that Henry was Head of the Church or any Church in England, But as a loyal Catholic it was the Pope that was head of the Catholic Church. At the Home Page of the Catholic Forum there is an article regards Henry - read it , says exactly what I am saying. He was one evil, adulterer, who had sex with his second wife’s sister Anne Boleyn, who also gave him a daughter and he cut her head off for not giving him a son, look what he did to England to marry that woman who was his Mistress ( and had slept with her sister) he ruined England pulled down every Monastery, Convent, and a lot of Church’s anything to do with being “Catholic”. There was a Papal Nuncio in England at the time if he wanted to keep communication going, but he dispatched him back to Rome and went into a fury when Cardinal Pole stayed in Rome as he wanted him back to England to cut off his head, as Cardinal Pole sent him a very straight letter and pulled no punches.
A mad Tyrant who should have been removed from the Throne of England.

(Sigh).

GKC

 

[Bergon]

That wont wash as its not true, Henry broke from Rome and in doing so he made every English person sign a document to the effect that he Henry was Head of the Church “in England” NOT HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ENGLAND. If that was the case he would not of broken off ties with Rome, and cut of heads of Priests, Nuns, Monks, and any Catholic that was loyal to Rome got there head chopped, but if you agreed that Henry was Head of the Church in England and he was now making the Rules and Regulations as he saw fit you kept your life, why did he chop the head of (one of many) of his Chancellor St. Thomas Moore his best friend because he said that he could not agree that Henry was Head of the Church or any Church in England, But as a loyal Catholic it was the Pope that was head of the Catholic Church. At the Home Page of the Catholic Forum there is an article regards Henry - read it , says exactly what I am saying. He was one evil, adulterer, who had sex with his second wife’s sister Anne Boleyn, who also gave him a daughter and he cut her head off for not giving him a son, look what he did to England to marry that woman who was his Mistress ( and had slept with her sister) he ruined England pulled down every Monastery, Convent, and a lot of Church’s anything to do with being “Catholic”. There was a Papal Nuncio in England at the time if he wanted to keep communication going, but he dispatched him back to Rome and went into a fury when Cardinal Pole stayed in Rome as he wanted him back to England to cut off his head, as Cardinal Pole sent him a very straight letter and pulled no punches.
A mad Tyrant who should have been removed from the Throne of England.

The key point I was making was that Henry VIII was not a protestant. He did not found a Protestant denomination.

I can’t accept the veracity of your historical facts. There is a glaring error in those facts. Execution by having your head chopped off was for the likes of royalty. The rest of the population were executed by hanging.

 

[Brendan_64]

A mad Tyrant who should have been removed from the Throne of England.

Then, after him (following Edward’s brief reign), his Catholic daughter Mary was as bad, if not worse. They didn’t call her ‘Bloody Mary’ for nothing as she hung, burned and decapitated those who wouldn’t follow Rome. Then her sister Elizabeth took the reins and started executing people who were loyal to Rome. The poor people of England didn’t know whether they were coming or going.

Henry VIII, Mary I, and Elizabeth I all executed people left right and centre for not obeying their decrees on religious loyalty. It wasn’t really about religion, it was about loyalty to the Sovereign and doing what the Sovereign commands. If it wasn’t about religion they’d be executing people for disobeying something else (just like Henry VIII’s father, Henry VII did, and he was a loyal Catholic ruling a country united in its Catholicism).

 

[GKC]

The key point I was making was that Henry VIII was not a protestant. He did not found a Protestant denomination.

I can’t accept the veracity of your historical facts. There is a glaring error in those facts. Execution by having your head chopped off was for the likes of royalty. The rest of the population were executed by hanging.

Most of the assertions are inaccurate.

So it goes.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Then, after him (following Edward’s brief reign), his Catholic daughter Mary was as bad, if not worse. They didn’t call her ‘Bloody Mary’ for nothing as she hung, burned and decapitated those who wouldn’t follow Rome. Then her sister Elizabeth took the reins and started executing people who were loyal to Rome. The poor people of England didn’t know whether they were coming or going.

Henry VIII, Mary I, and Elizabeth I all executed people left right and centre for not obeying their decrees on religious loyalty. It wasn’t really about religion, it was about loyalty to the Sovereign and doing what the Sovereign commands. If it wasn’t about religion they’d be executing people for disobeying something else (just like Henry VIII’s father, Henry VII did, and he was a loyal Catholic ruling a country united in its Catholicism).

It, in fact, was what the period was all about. An intertwining of religion and secular politics, influenced by growing nationalism.

GKC

 

[Patti_M]

It, in fact, was what the period was all about. An intertwining of religion and secular politics, influenced by growing nationalism.

GKC

Perhaps if we had centuries of volume after volume, not to mention movies & miniseries’, of biased history from Great Britain regarding Mary Queen of Scots you would not think so badly of her. Instead England’s history is extremely biased and unreliable with regards to Henry VIII & Elizabeth, IMHO.

 

[GKC]

Perhaps if we had centuries of volume after volume, not to mention movies & miniseries’, of biased history from Great Britain regarding Mary Queen of Scots you would not think so badly of her. Instead England’s history is extremely biased and unreliable with regards to Henry VIII & Elizabeth, IMHO.

And what makes you think my opinion of Mary differs in some essential respect from that I have of Henry, Edward and Elizabeth? Mutatis mutandis, of course.

GKC

 

[Patti_M]

And what makes you think my opinion of Mary differs in some essential respect from that I have of Henry, Edward and Elizabeth? Mutatis mutandis, of course.

GKC

Maybe I’m reading you wrong but you seem to be very pro-Henry in your posts. Secular television here in the US seems to want to glamourize him, to what purpose I have no clue. He was everything I believe to be wrong with our world today; selfish, self-serving, narcissistic, gluttonous & cruel.

 

[GKC]

Maybe I’m reading you wrong but you seem to be very pro-Henry in your posts. Secular television here in the US seems to want to glamourize him, to what purpose I have no clue. He was everything I believe to be wrong with our world today; selfish, self-serving, narcissistic, gluttonous & cruel.

I’m not pro Henry. I’m pro history. In many subjects, which I’ve collected for many years. To a total of around 30,000 volumes. Plus the one I bought today. Subjects which occasionally show up on this board. Hence, many of my 8200 +/- posts. And I don’t take my views from TV, movies, internet sites or local gossip. I read.

What I think of Henry is best expressed in my oft used phrase “a fascinating train wreck”. But since what my reading tells me (and in my favorite subjects I read all sides, something I highly recommend) sometimes contradicts some folks’ conventional wisdom, some folks think I’m necessarily defending Hank. Sometimes I am, sometimes I’m not. It is certainly not an uncritical attitude. But my take on the RCC of the day is similar. It’s not a pietistic one. The Church was tightly intertwined in secular politics, and Henry’s day shows that, warts and all. On everyone.

In short, I’m anti cartoon history.

GKC

 

[Brendan_64]

It, in fact, was what the period was all about. An intertwining of religion and secular politics, influenced by growing nationalism.

GKC

That sums up the Tudor period in one short sentence.

 

[Brendan_64]

selfish, self-serving, narcissisic, gluttonous & cruel.

He was a European monarch, what else would you expect? They were all as bad as each other. Out to build their own fortunes, boost their egos, steal and plunder from all around them (especially their subjects) and slaughter anyone who didn’t bow and scrape to them. That pretty much went with the job description of ‘Monarch’.

Henry VIII was an interesting monarch, but not (in my opinion) quite as interesting as his father, Henry VII.

 

[Patti_M]

I’m not pro Henry. I’m pro history. In many subjects, which I’ve collected for many years. To a total of around 30,000 volumes. Plus the one I bought today. Subjects which occasionally show up on this board. Hence, many of my 8200 +/- posts. And I don’t take my views from TV, movies, internet sites or local gossip. I read.

What I think of Henry is best expressed in my oft used phrase “a fascinating train wreck”. But since what my reading tells me (and in my favorite subjects I read all sides, something I highly recommend) sometimes contradicts some folks’ conventional wisdom, some folks think I’m necessarily defending Hank. Sometimes I am, sometimes I’m not. It is certainly not an uncritical attitude. But my take on the RCC of the day is similar. It’s not a pietistic one. The Church was tightly intertwined in secular politics, and Henry’s day shows that, warts and all. On everyone.

In short, I’m anti cartoon history.

GKC

And my point sir, is that much of English history is biased in favor of the protestant monarchy. Do you deny that those in control of government have done this for ages? And perhaps what you think is “all sides” is still heavily influenced by that history.

 

[Bergon]

He was a European monarch, what else would you expect? They were all as bad as each other. Out to build their own fortunes, boost their egos, steal and plunder from all around them (especially their subjects) and slaughter anyone who didn’t bow and scrape to them. That pretty much went with the job description of ‘Monarch’.

It now goes with the job description of Prime Minister

 

[Brendan_64]

And my point sir, is that much of English history is biased in favor of the protestant monarchy. Do you deny that those in control of government have done this for ages? And perhaps what you think is “all sides” is still heavily influenced by that history.

I’d disagree with that. The British government couldn’t give two hoots about religion, Catholic or Protestant.

Henry VII was a self-serving, egotistical, nasty piece of work, but then again pretty much all English monarchs were. He just happens to be one of the more interesting, self-serving, egotistical, nasty puieces of work that ruled England. There’s nothing more to it than that really.

 

[Brendan_64]

It now goes with the job description of Prime Minister

Or President.

 

[Bergon]

Or President.

Yes, they probably are too.

 

[GKC]

I’d disagree with that. The British government couldn’t give two hoots about religion, Catholic or Protestant.

Henry VII was a self-serving, egotistical, nasty piece of work, but then again pretty much all English monarchs were. He just happens to be one of the more interesting, self-serving, egotistical, nasty puieces of work that ruled England. There’s nothing more to it than that really.

VIII. VII was much less colorful.

GKC

added. Hmm. Perhaps I misread a post here. But I still think VIII was a more fascinating whatever.

 

[GKC]

And my point sir, is that much of English history is biased in favor of the protestant monarchy. Do you deny that those in control of government have done this for ages? And perhaps what you think is “all sides” is still heavily influenced by that history.

Perhaps. I’m certainly familiar with the idea of Whig theory of history; I’ve collected Belloc for 48 years. But reading all sides makes me more knowledgeable, in making such a judgment.

GKC

 

[Patti_M]

Perhaps. I’m certainly familiar with the idea of Whig theory of history; I’ve collected Belloc for 48 years. But reading all sides makes me more knowledgeable, in making such a judgment.

GKC

Unfortunately it still goes on today, even in the US. I miss the days of unbiased journalism. Or maybe I’m remembering things that never were.