S
StJudePray4Me
Guest
Yes, I couldnât read that post.If you broke that up into paragraphs it would be easier to read.
Just a suggestionâŚ
How do Protestants rationalize King Henry VIII, and his selfish non-spiritual motivation?
- Status
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Agreed. I quit reading it about halfway. Giant blockâŚ
But I fail to see what the poster is claiming people havenât acknowledged? Nobody here has glossed over Henry VIII or his significance in influencing the Reformation in England? Nobody is minimizing his contributions, sins, influence, or part that he played???
To sum up the answer to the OP: How do Protestants rationalize Henry VIII and his selfish, non-spiritual motivation? Easy. Hereâs the Anglican view (at least the view many hold):
There was a Church in England prior to the papal oversight of the British Isles. Henry was a selfish letch who wanted a decree of nullity. He used Old Testament examples and thinking to explain to the Pope why he wanted one. While the popes had granted decrees of nullity for much less, due to politics, he didnât grant one to Hank. Hank got mad, made himself the supreme head of the Church of England. He wanted it to remain as Catholic as it had been up to that point. Reformers didnât necessarily approve of Hankâs antics or even the situation but they viewed the moment as something to jump on and go with in order to restore England to its original state of self-governance religiously. Just as Constantine the Great wasnât a wonderful man (killed his own son in a heinous way and was a warmonger, very violent) but politically used Christianity to his advantage in a win-win situation for both sides, so did Henry VIII. The Reformers took the moment, seized it, and then later folks like Edward VI and especially Elizabeth I carried it more into full-on ReformationâŚ
Thatâs it in a nutshell to me. I know GKC will poke holes in this but itâs my amateur analysisâŚ
But I fail to see what the poster is claiming people havenât acknowledged? Nobody here has glossed over Henry VIII or his significance in influencing the Reformation in England? Nobody is minimizing his contributions, sins, influence, or part that he played???
To sum up the answer to the OP: How do Protestants rationalize Henry VIII and his selfish, non-spiritual motivation? Easy. Hereâs the Anglican view (at least the view many hold):
There was a Church in England prior to the papal oversight of the British Isles. Henry was a selfish letch who wanted a decree of nullity. He used Old Testament examples and thinking to explain to the Pope why he wanted one. While the popes had granted decrees of nullity for much less, due to politics, he didnât grant one to Hank. Hank got mad, made himself the supreme head of the Church of England. He wanted it to remain as Catholic as it had been up to that point. Reformers didnât necessarily approve of Hankâs antics or even the situation but they viewed the moment as something to jump on and go with in order to restore England to its original state of self-governance religiously. Just as Constantine the Great wasnât a wonderful man (killed his own son in a heinous way and was a warmonger, very violent) but politically used Christianity to his advantage in a win-win situation for both sides, so did Henry VIII. The Reformers took the moment, seized it, and then later folks like Edward VI and especially Elizabeth I carried it more into full-on ReformationâŚ
Thatâs it in a nutshell to me. I know GKC will poke holes in this but itâs my amateur analysisâŚ
D
DharmaBum
Guest
If that doesnât answer the opâs question, Gurney, I donât know what would.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Thanks, DB
If that doesnât answer the opâs question, Gurney, I donât know what would.
P
psychicharvard
Guest
Actually,it doesnât answer the question. Because according to Catholicism it wasnât Emperor Constantine who established the Catholic Church it was St. Peter. Read below.
catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp
Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter; however, they do not honor his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but grant him a position of âfirst among equals.â
St. Peterâs role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).
Thatâs why Reformation was such HUGE deal. Because up until then this was accepted as truth. This is why I pose the question: âHow do Protestants rationalize King Henry VIII, and his selfish non-spiritual motivation?â Because only after Henry VIII in his arrogance broke from Rome and did away with Catholicism and thus did away with the accepted religious doctrine that had been in place centuries which placed St. Peter, the apostle of Christ as the first Pope. So basicly after more than centuries of accepting that St. Peter, an apostle of Christ, was the first Pope, Henry broke from Rome, and then under the Reformation all these other religions came to be, all of which got their strength from Henryâs break with Rome, which by doing so rejected that St. Peter was the first Pope, a doctrine that had been in place for centuries, and before Emperor Constantine. So no, citing Emperor Constantine doesnât address the issue.
So to break it down, your answer did address the political history, yes, but thatâs not in question everyone knows this. In short, Hank, as you refer to him, by his decision to break with Rome, okayed rejecting St. Peter as the first Pope, a doctrine that was accepted as truth for 1500 years by Catholics, and later by the whole of Europe that became Catholic and accepted it as truth also. But Hank didnât change to course of history and put in the Reformation because he had a spiritual calling that told him Catholicism was wrong or even that the Reformation was right. He just didnât get his way with Rome, used the Reformation as a political tool, and if denying that the apostle of Christ, St. Peter was the First Pope, which he and the rest of Europe had believe for centuries, then okay, sorry St. Peter I just donât believe you were the first Pope, not because I donât believe you are, itâs just not working for personal life right now so I have to say you werenât and make the rest of my kingdom accept it also, itâs business nothing personal. And religions that came out of the Reformation think this okay or do not address it. And even if you say that part of the Reformation was the belief that Peter, the apostle of Christ, never was the Pope because there is no such thing as a Pope, the fact still remains Henry VIII used the Reformation as a tool, a pawn, a chess piece, etc and and from this your religion was born, and Protestants are okay with this? Really, how? I mean if you are okay with saying âMy religion was came into place because it was a good tool for a Kingâ, then okay. But most people who practice their religion donât believe that, so if you really believe your religion is worth following how on earth do you make sense out itâs most insincere, non-spiritiual birth? This has yet to be answered.
catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp
Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter; however, they do not honor his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but grant him a position of âfirst among equals.â
St. Peterâs role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).
Thatâs why Reformation was such HUGE deal. Because up until then this was accepted as truth. This is why I pose the question: âHow do Protestants rationalize King Henry VIII, and his selfish non-spiritual motivation?â Because only after Henry VIII in his arrogance broke from Rome and did away with Catholicism and thus did away with the accepted religious doctrine that had been in place centuries which placed St. Peter, the apostle of Christ as the first Pope. So basicly after more than centuries of accepting that St. Peter, an apostle of Christ, was the first Pope, Henry broke from Rome, and then under the Reformation all these other religions came to be, all of which got their strength from Henryâs break with Rome, which by doing so rejected that St. Peter was the first Pope, a doctrine that had been in place for centuries, and before Emperor Constantine. So no, citing Emperor Constantine doesnât address the issue.
So to break it down, your answer did address the political history, yes, but thatâs not in question everyone knows this. In short, Hank, as you refer to him, by his decision to break with Rome, okayed rejecting St. Peter as the first Pope, a doctrine that was accepted as truth for 1500 years by Catholics, and later by the whole of Europe that became Catholic and accepted it as truth also. But Hank didnât change to course of history and put in the Reformation because he had a spiritual calling that told him Catholicism was wrong or even that the Reformation was right. He just didnât get his way with Rome, used the Reformation as a political tool, and if denying that the apostle of Christ, St. Peter was the First Pope, which he and the rest of Europe had believe for centuries, then okay, sorry St. Peter I just donât believe you were the first Pope, not because I donât believe you are, itâs just not working for personal life right now so I have to say you werenât and make the rest of my kingdom accept it also, itâs business nothing personal. And religions that came out of the Reformation think this okay or do not address it. And even if you say that part of the Reformation was the belief that Peter, the apostle of Christ, never was the Pope because there is no such thing as a Pope, the fact still remains Henry VIII used the Reformation as a tool, a pawn, a chess piece, etc and and from this your religion was born, and Protestants are okay with this? Really, how? I mean if you are okay with saying âMy religion was came into place because it was a good tool for a Kingâ, then okay. But most people who practice their religion donât believe that, so if you really believe your religion is worth following how on earth do you make sense out itâs most insincere, non-spiritiual birth? This has yet to be answered.
P
psychicharvard
Guest
As for the Anglicans, I realize you do not see yourself as Protestant but there is a Protestant look about it:newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm
To form a general idea of Anglicanism as a religious system, it will be convenient to sketch it in rough outline as it exists in the Established Church of England, bearing in mind that there are differences in detail, mainly in liturgy and church-government, to be found in other portions of the Anglican communion.
The members of the Church of England are professed Christians, and claim to be baptized members of the Church of Christ.
They accept the Scriptures as contained in the Authorized Version, as the Word of God.
They hold the Scriptures to be the sole and supreme rule of faith, in the sense that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation and that nothing can be required of anyone as an article of faith which is not contained therein, and cannot be proved thereby.
They accept the Book of Common Prayer as the practical rule of their belief and worship, and in it they use as standards of doctrine the three Creeds â the Apostlesâ, the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
They believe in two sacraments of the Gospel â Baptism and the Lordâs Supper âas generally necessary to salvation.
They claim to have Apostolic succession and a validly ordained ministry, and only persons whom they believe to be thus ordained are allowed to minister in their churches.
They believe that the Church of England is a true and reformed part, or branch, or pair of provinces of the Catholic Church of Christ.
They maintain that the Church of England is free from all foreign jurisdiction.
They recognize the King as Supreme Governor of the Church and acknowledge that to him âappertains the government of all estates whether civil or ecclesiastical, in all causes.â
The clergy, before being appointed to a benefice or licensed to preach, subscribe and declare that they âassent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, priests, and deacons, and believe the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of Godâ.
One of the Articles (XXV) thus subscribed approves the First and Second Book of Homilies as containing âa godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for these timesâ, and adjudges them to be read in churches âdiligently and distinctlyâ.
To form a general idea of Anglicanism as a religious system, it will be convenient to sketch it in rough outline as it exists in the Established Church of England, bearing in mind that there are differences in detail, mainly in liturgy and church-government, to be found in other portions of the Anglican communion.
The members of the Church of England are professed Christians, and claim to be baptized members of the Church of Christ.
They accept the Scriptures as contained in the Authorized Version, as the Word of God.
They hold the Scriptures to be the sole and supreme rule of faith, in the sense that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation and that nothing can be required of anyone as an article of faith which is not contained therein, and cannot be proved thereby.
They accept the Book of Common Prayer as the practical rule of their belief and worship, and in it they use as standards of doctrine the three Creeds â the Apostlesâ, the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
They believe in two sacraments of the Gospel â Baptism and the Lordâs Supper âas generally necessary to salvation.
They claim to have Apostolic succession and a validly ordained ministry, and only persons whom they believe to be thus ordained are allowed to minister in their churches.
They believe that the Church of England is a true and reformed part, or branch, or pair of provinces of the Catholic Church of Christ.
They maintain that the Church of England is free from all foreign jurisdiction.
They recognize the King as Supreme Governor of the Church and acknowledge that to him âappertains the government of all estates whether civil or ecclesiastical, in all causes.â
The clergy, before being appointed to a benefice or licensed to preach, subscribe and declare that they âassent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, priests, and deacons, and believe the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of Godâ.
One of the Articles (XXV) thus subscribed approves the First and Second Book of Homilies as containing âa godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for these timesâ, and adjudges them to be read in churches âdiligently and distinctlyâ.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Thank you Guerny and Johnny Reb,
Talking at the dinner table about Fr So and So doing such âridiculous thingsâ because of Vatican II (this is about 1964 or so), and hearing them talk about American bishops was quite interesting. They always loved the popes. It helped me to see the Church is made up of human beings and showed me we can openly our Church in my family. Of course, we always have been very respectful to Christâs authority working in the Church as well.
We are aviation and farming people. High aspirations, visionary, but our feet on the ground and we like the simple life. I love St. Francis.
In the missions this head priestâbecause I did not care for his approach with me, etc.âhe struck back at me very hard at my departure, told me he was a Christian Communist, accusing me of being a capitalist, of being white with blue eyes, so I wasnât as close racially to the Africans like himâŚAt the same time, one of my priest friends was standing by the door, heard everything, and reassured me completely with so much love.
left because I had no other American women with me and Marxism was going into the diocese, it having a critical, divisive spirit among the missionaries. It was not like this in other neighboring diocesesâŚI saw Liberation Theology for what it was â labelling people by class, people who are gifted and can make money and jobs are bad, America is the enemy of the world, and it is all about the work of our hands in the collectivist model. I could sense the falseness in this theology, and I was vomiting for the last 6 months of my life there. Thank God, the priest who worked most closely with me, and others, as well as the African people themselves covered over that one relationship. He and I have been friends for over 37 years, and he survived in that war torn country all those yearsâŚa most amazing person of God.
When I came home from Africa, I told my grandmother I wanted to leave the American church and be Roman (Italian-like) Catholic. She just about had a heart attack. She told me to look at God, she had to not look at Fr So and So at church, etc. She told me to stay in there, come to worship God, hear the Word of God, and leave. Be faithful to God in every day life.
Then came dissension in my local church. This time it was against the hierarchy and those who opposed women priests and our sexual mores and traditional values, and worst a hypercritical attitude towards John Paul II, where we had a near black out of his leadership, his teachingsâŚwhatever he did or said was criticized it seemed. One paper had a cartoon of him being the Lone RangerâŚlike who listens to himâŚ
And those like me didâŚHe was a breath of fresh air, he witnessed Naziism, communism, East vs West, poor struggling economiesâŚhe appeared critical of our American economy at first, but in time he said democracy and a free market were the best economic systems for the world.
We all loved him as a father, his spirit like ours. Now he is beatified. He covered up alot of church history and publicly asked the world forgiveness for the sins of the Church.
I knew him in the Spirit. It is the same Spirit that gives us the Eucharist. I have learned, some times the hard way, some in very hard times, to not look at people. If you look at people, be they clerics, sooner or later you will be betrayed or failed.
You have to learn to find Christ in the Word Among UsâŚhow the Church interprets the Word, you have to be nourished by HimâŚin the EucharistâŚif you sin mortally, you need to be restored by Christ Himself back to Himself in the Eucharist. The sacrament of Confirmation literally confirms, and deepens and defines us in Christ through the Holy SpiritâŚ
You have to take the Church for what it is and not see yourself any better than anyone else in itâŚonce you start to think you are better than someone else who caused scandal, then the Lord will show you where you cause scandal.
The Church is not the source of salvation. The Church nurtures us in Christ through the sacraments as a mother, and points the way to heaven. The Church herself does not ever take the place of God.
Talking at the dinner table about Fr So and So doing such âridiculous thingsâ because of Vatican II (this is about 1964 or so), and hearing them talk about American bishops was quite interesting. They always loved the popes. It helped me to see the Church is made up of human beings and showed me we can openly our Church in my family. Of course, we always have been very respectful to Christâs authority working in the Church as well.
We are aviation and farming people. High aspirations, visionary, but our feet on the ground and we like the simple life. I love St. Francis.
In the missions this head priestâbecause I did not care for his approach with me, etc.âhe struck back at me very hard at my departure, told me he was a Christian Communist, accusing me of being a capitalist, of being white with blue eyes, so I wasnât as close racially to the Africans like himâŚAt the same time, one of my priest friends was standing by the door, heard everything, and reassured me completely with so much love.
left because I had no other American women with me and Marxism was going into the diocese, it having a critical, divisive spirit among the missionaries. It was not like this in other neighboring diocesesâŚI saw Liberation Theology for what it was â labelling people by class, people who are gifted and can make money and jobs are bad, America is the enemy of the world, and it is all about the work of our hands in the collectivist model. I could sense the falseness in this theology, and I was vomiting for the last 6 months of my life there. Thank God, the priest who worked most closely with me, and others, as well as the African people themselves covered over that one relationship. He and I have been friends for over 37 years, and he survived in that war torn country all those yearsâŚa most amazing person of God.
When I came home from Africa, I told my grandmother I wanted to leave the American church and be Roman (Italian-like) Catholic. She just about had a heart attack. She told me to look at God, she had to not look at Fr So and So at church, etc. She told me to stay in there, come to worship God, hear the Word of God, and leave. Be faithful to God in every day life.
Then came dissension in my local church. This time it was against the hierarchy and those who opposed women priests and our sexual mores and traditional values, and worst a hypercritical attitude towards John Paul II, where we had a near black out of his leadership, his teachingsâŚwhatever he did or said was criticized it seemed. One paper had a cartoon of him being the Lone RangerâŚlike who listens to himâŚ
And those like me didâŚHe was a breath of fresh air, he witnessed Naziism, communism, East vs West, poor struggling economiesâŚhe appeared critical of our American economy at first, but in time he said democracy and a free market were the best economic systems for the world.
We all loved him as a father, his spirit like ours. Now he is beatified. He covered up alot of church history and publicly asked the world forgiveness for the sins of the Church.
I knew him in the Spirit. It is the same Spirit that gives us the Eucharist. I have learned, some times the hard way, some in very hard times, to not look at people. If you look at people, be they clerics, sooner or later you will be betrayed or failed.
You have to learn to find Christ in the Word Among UsâŚhow the Church interprets the Word, you have to be nourished by HimâŚin the EucharistâŚif you sin mortally, you need to be restored by Christ Himself back to Himself in the Eucharist. The sacrament of Confirmation literally confirms, and deepens and defines us in Christ through the Holy SpiritâŚ
You have to take the Church for what it is and not see yourself any better than anyone else in itâŚonce you start to think you are better than someone else who caused scandal, then the Lord will show you where you cause scandal.
The Church is not the source of salvation. The Church nurtures us in Christ through the sacraments as a mother, and points the way to heaven. The Church herself does not ever take the place of God.
N
nhylan
Guest
Here is your disconnect. Henry didnât start the Church of England either, St. Peter did. Henry caused the initial split between Rome and Canterbury not the creation of anything new. Thatâs why your not getting answers that satisfy your questions. Your frame of reference doesnât match up with the Anglicans who will answer this question for you. unless you change your frame of reference you wonât get a satisfying answer. There is no Roman Catholic answer that makes sense in that frame of reference since the Roman church considers us as schismatic. Either accept our answer as it is, from the Anglican perspective or we need to move on to something else to discuss because we will run in circles otherwise.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Iâve never heard of any Anglican claiming that St. Peter started the Church in England. Most commonly you hear things like St. Augustine of Canterbury or St. Patrick or other missionariesâŚthe early Celtic Church or early RomansâŚ
St. Peter was famed for Antioch and RomeâŚ
St. Peter was famed for Antioch and RomeâŚ
N
nhylan
Guest
Sorry, I meant indirectly. As in we trace of orders back to Peter. Of course Christ was our actual founder.Iâve never heard of any Anglican claiming that St. Peter started the Church in England. Most commonly you hear things like St. Augustine of Canterbury or St. Patrick or other missionariesâŚthe early Celtic Church or early RomansâŚ
St. Peter was famed for Antioch and RomeâŚ
G
GKC
Guest
Amongst certain Anglican types you can find the assertion that the Church in England was started by (you choose) Joseph of Arimathea, St.Aristobolous, FIL of St. Peter, St. Barnabas, St. Paul, St. Peter, and sundry others. The date given is usually 37AD. THis is usually associated with the Glastonbury legends.Iâve never heard of any Anglican claiming that St. Peter started the Church in England. Most commonly you hear things like St. Augustine of Canterbury or St. Patrick or other missionariesâŚthe early Celtic Church or early RomansâŚ
St. Peter was famed for Antioch and RomeâŚ
Anglicans are fun.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
No, Iâm going out to the front yard to smoke a pipe, in my new lawn chair.Agreed. I quit reading it about halfway. Giant blockâŚ
But I fail to see what the poster is claiming people havenât acknowledged? Nobody here has glossed over Henry VIII or his significance in influencing the Reformation in England? Nobody is minimizing his contributions, sins, influence, or part that he played???
To sum up the answer to the OP: How do Protestants rationalize Henry VIII and his selfish, non-spiritual motivation? Easy. Hereâs the Anglican view (at least the view many hold):
There was a Church in England prior to the papal oversight of the British Isles. Henry was a selfish letch who wanted a decree of nullity. He used Old Testament examples and thinking to explain to the Pope why he wanted one. While the popes had granted decrees of nullity for much less, due to politics, he didnât grant one to Hank. Hank got mad, made himself the supreme head of the Church of England. He wanted it to remain as Catholic as it had been up to that point. Reformers didnât necessarily approve of Hankâs antics or even the situation but they viewed the moment as something to jump on and go with in order to restore England to its original state of self-governance religiously. Just as Constantine the Great wasnât a wonderful man (killed his own son in a heinous way and was a warmonger, very violent) but politically used Christianity to his advantage in a win-win situation for both sides, so did Henry VIII. The Reformers took the moment, seized it, and then later folks like Edward VI and especially Elizabeth I carried it more into full-on ReformationâŚ
Thatâs it in a nutshell to me. I know GKC will poke holes in this but itâs my amateur analysisâŚ
The above will do for right now. You missed a point or two, but there will not be a deduction; you got the gist.
The Reformation was not a monolith. Henry was not the fons et origo
GKC
I
Izdaari
Guest
As another poster points out a little later in the thread, itâs a frame of reference issue. Christianity is my religion, not Protestantism, Anglicanism, Catholicism or any of its other branches. When people ask me my religion, I say Iâm a Christian or a Christ-follower (same meaning, less baggage, better conversation starter). I donât say Assemblies of God, though thatâs the church I attend. Nor do I say Pentecostal, though AG is part of that group. Neither do I say Protestant. That Iâm not Catholic or Orthodox is a fact, which makes me Protestant by default, but I donât consider it a whole lot more important that not being Presbyterian or Baptist.
The Borgias didnât start Catholicism as you rightly pointed out, and it survived despite their corruption. And Henry VIII didnât start Protestantism, though his actions significantly strengthened it, perhaps by divine providence? It wouldnât be the first time God had used a person of dubious character in His plan. Constantine comes to mind, as well as a number of OT figures. And of course, neither Henry VIII nor the Borgias started Christianity; it was already strong when they came along, though then as now it still had its problems.
C
coco2
Guest
I horrible person, perhaps? When people who are not Catholic say that the pope is infallible, they do not understand the meaning. The pope is only infallible when making a statement that is Ex Cathedra concerning faith and morals. That means that the statement is infallible, not the man. Scott Hahn, a theologian at Franciscan University has said that in his research, a pope has only spoken Ex Cathedra twice in the history of the church; and I think one of those was to declare Mary was born without original sin, but I donât remember the other.Just to turn the tables for once, and listen to the howlingâŚ
How do Roman Catholics explain
"Pope Urban VI (1378â1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured?"
So you seeâŚpopes are sinners like everyone else. Pope Benedict goes to confession daily, to confess his sins.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Nit pick and nit pick, ay yay yay! Iâm just a 36 year old wipper-snapper! Youâre Gandalf to my Frodo, be nice now!
Just like Gandalf, you smoke a pipe. STOP THAT! My dadâs buddy had to have deep scaling done on his gums and another buddy had lip cancer both from pipes! Stop the hobbit weedâŚ
Ok, Iâll biteâŚwhat did I leave outâŚ
Just like Gandalf, you smoke a pipe. STOP THAT! My dadâs buddy had to have deep scaling done on his gums and another buddy had lip cancer both from pipes! Stop the hobbit weedâŚ
Ok, Iâll biteâŚwhat did I leave outâŚ
G
GKC
Guest
Youâll have to ask a non-Catholic; I dunno.I always wonder why non-Catholics are so obsessed with Latin phrases? What part of the XXIV in the Articles did you not understand!?
I like TLM. What are these Articles of which you speak? I saw Stan, on the screen, today.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Nothing left out. Just some expository details.Nit pick and nit pick, ay yay yay! Iâm just a 36 year old wipper-snapper! Youâre Gandalf to my Frodo, be nice now!
Just like Gandalf, you smoke a pipe. STOP THAT! My dadâs buddy had to have deep scaling done on his gums and another buddy had lip cancer both from pipes! Stop the hobbit weedâŚ
Ok, Iâll biteâŚwhat did I leave outâŚ
GKC
R
RyanBlack
Guest
âTrue their were Reformers prior to Englandâs break with Rome but they did not have the political support to flourish until England, one the most powerful European countries at the time, gave it itâs backing. What I am seeing clearly from this post is that so many people donât want to acknowledge a key fact in the history of Western Civilization. In the 16th century King Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church which lead to Reformation, and out of the Reformation came the Protestant faith, or faiths that would not exist had it not been for the Reformation, which again was the result of King Henry VIIIâs break with the Catholic Church. Plane and simple, a common fact in any high school or college history text book. It would be difficult to find any student of history or historian who will disagree with this statement**.**â
Actually, it is more likely that it would difficult to find any student of history or historian who will agree with this statement. You have failed to make any remotely convincing case that the Reformation on the Continent developed from or was dependent upon the Reformation in England. Henry âmarriedâ Catherine of Aragon in 1533 and the Act of Supremacy, in which he made himself the head of the Church of England, was passed in 1534. By this time, more than a decade and a half had passed since Lutherâs 95 Theses were written in 1517. Furthermore, Luther was excommunicated in 1521-13 years prior to the passage of the Act of Supremacy, which was also preceded by both the Marburg Colloquy and the Augsburg Confession. You have grossly exaggerated the role of Henry VII in the Reformation on the Continent, with which he held no sympathies, and which he actually opposed. I also think you exaggerate the power of England during the reign of Henry. Actually, England would become much more powerful under the reign of his daughter, Elizabeth, than it was during Henryâs reign.
Actually, it is more likely that it would difficult to find any student of history or historian who will agree with this statement. You have failed to make any remotely convincing case that the Reformation on the Continent developed from or was dependent upon the Reformation in England. Henry âmarriedâ Catherine of Aragon in 1533 and the Act of Supremacy, in which he made himself the head of the Church of England, was passed in 1534. By this time, more than a decade and a half had passed since Lutherâs 95 Theses were written in 1517. Furthermore, Luther was excommunicated in 1521-13 years prior to the passage of the Act of Supremacy, which was also preceded by both the Marburg Colloquy and the Augsburg Confession. You have grossly exaggerated the role of Henry VII in the Reformation on the Continent, with which he held no sympathies, and which he actually opposed. I also think you exaggerate the power of England during the reign of Henry. Actually, England would become much more powerful under the reign of his daughter, Elizabeth, than it was during Henryâs reign.
G
GKC
Guest
- Status