How do Protestants rationalize King Henry VIII, and his selfish non-spiritual motivation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychicharvard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
I know devout Anglicans.

GKC
Click to expand...
*Oh yes there are many.

I wish someone would explain to me the difference between Anglicans and members of the Church of England. Here is SA there is a real difference and the latter are more like Protestants.šŸ™‚
 
psychicharvard said:
No one has of yet answered a VERY simple question. I am a lapse Catholic I will admit, and I never thought in my entire life I would openly highlight the Vatican, but at least they have a meeting once in while to openly address issues confronting the Catholic Church, it may take them a few centuries, true, but they do it. I naively expected the Protestants or religions that came forth from the Reformation (those that donā€™t claim to be Protestant, however the Catholic Church would differ on that opinion) to have had the same type of scruples. But, no. What I see is denial, side stepping, dismissing, and attempts to twist and re-shape history to their liking, non of which earn my respect. Not to mention to this immature behavior of carrying on personal conversations on this thread in an attempt to trivialize this thread, but given the character of the answers Iā€™ve received I am not at all surprised.

I will say this discussion has increased my devotion to the Catholic faith, I will not longer date Protestants (include those who deny they are but that the Catholic Church deems as such) unless they expressed they would okay with Catholicism being the religion of our children and our home should things become serious, and I will be extremely cautious when befriending Protestants. In fact I will more likely befriend atheists and agnostics over Protestants, the reason being is that atheists and agnostics have analyzed, confronted, and are able to give well thought out answers to the difficult questions as to why they hold their belief system. And this I can respect, and sometimes even admire. Oddly, enough this discussion has turned a lapse Catholic into a proud Catholic, and one that will become more active and devote as the years go on. And to think all this wouldnā€™t have happened if somebody had just answered the question like an intelligent, educated, adult
Click to expand...
Your original question is flawed in its assumptions. Henry VIII of England did not start the Protestant movement. Furthermore, most varieties of Protestantism had no dependence whatsoever on the rise of Anglicanism.

Thereā€™s really no good reason to believe your assertion that had Henry not separated the Church of England from Rome that Protestantism would have either faded away or remained small in numbers. The history of the movement simply does not support your claim. By the time Henry was scheming to get rid of Catherine and marry Anne, Protestantism had been in existence for several years. These brands of Protestantism never received ideological, monetary, military, or political support from Henry, who actually despised Protestant theology.

The support of certain princes within the Holy Roman Empire mattered to the survival of varieties of Protestantism other than Anglicanism and the Methodist movement that developed from it-Henry VIII of England did not matter either to their rise or to their survival. There is no reason whatsoever that Protestants other than Anglicans should feel any need whatsoever to justify Henryā€™s actions.
 
Cinette said:
*Oh yes there are many.

I wish someone would explain to me the difference between Anglicans and members of the Church of England. Here is SA there is a real difference and the latter are more like Protestants.šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
Originally, after Henryā€™s break, there was no difference between the idea of Anglicanism, and the idea of the Church of England. The Church of England was Anglicanism. An Anglican was a member of the CoE, and the members of the CoE were all the Anglicans there were.

As England began to spread out, acquire colonies, etc, The CoE followed, as to South Africa, as to North America, here and there. Originally the CoE churches in these colonies were under the episcopal care of the Bishop of London, but eventually they developed into colonial dioceses. As the colonies grew to independence (or, in the case of the US, declared independence; a special case), the new dominions or countries achieved not only national independence, but national, independent Churches, also. These Churches, often identifiable by the term "Anglicanā€™, as in the Anglican Church of SA, of Canada, of Australia, etc, originated within the CoE, but are no longer part of it, officially. They are joined in the worldwide Anglican Communion, a group of 38 such totally independent Churches, all tracing their origin back to the CoE, in formal communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and hence in communion with the CoE, but no longer a part of the CoE. The Episcopal Church in the United States is such a Church.

This does not include Anglican jurisdictions that have split from the official Anglican Communion, over doctrinal differences.

Overall, the idea is that Anglicanism started with the CoE, but no longer is identical with the CoE. Anglicanism is the genus, the CoE, now, is a particular specie.

GKC
 
psychicharvard said:
No one has of yet answered a VERY simple question. I am a lapse Catholic I will admit, and I never thought in my entire life I would openly highlight the Vatican, but at least they have a meeting once in while to openly address issues confronting the Catholic Church, it may take them a few centuries, true, but they do it. I naively expected the Protestants or religions that came forth from the Reformation (those that donā€™t claim to be Protestant, however the Catholic Church would differ on that opinion) to have had the same type of scruples. But, no. What I see is denial, side stepping, dismissing, and attempts to twist and re-shape history to their liking, non of which earn my respect. Not to mention to this immature behavior of carrying on personal conversations on this thread in an attempt to trivialize this thread, but given the character of the answers Iā€™ve received I am not at all surprised.

I will say this discussion has increased my devotion to the Catholic faith, I will not longer date Protestants (include those who deny they are but that the Catholic Church deems as such) unless they expressed they would okay with Catholicism being the religion of our children and our home should things become serious, and I will be extremely cautious when befriending Protestants. In fact I will more likely befriend atheists and agnostics over Protestants, the reason being is that atheists and agnostics have analyzed, confronted, and are able to give well thought out answers to the difficult questions as to why they hold their belief system. And this I can respect, and sometimes even admire. Oddly, enough this discussion has turned a lapse Catholic into a proud Catholic, and one that will become more active and devote as the years go on. And to think all this wouldnā€™t have happened if somebody had just answered the question like an intelligent, educated, adult
Click to expand...
I think the question HAS been answered, but not with the answer you wanted. It was a loaded question to begin withā€¦the title of your thread betrays your prejudices. Many here have tried to show that people can ā€œrationalizeā€ Henry VIIs role in the founding of the CoE becasue it happened in a broader historical context than you present it. But you donā€™t want to hear that. šŸ¤·
 
Cinette said:
*GKC - you must not forget that you discourse with many different individuals on these forums and you are bound to repeat yourself. Its like us Catholics explaining the futility of Sola Scriptura over and over and over again as well as many other non-Catholic beliefs like Sola Fide and so on.

We have to be prepared to explain and re-explain because each time another person comes on the thread who has no understanding of these things.šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
Youā€™re right. And I have made that comparison, myself.

But I tend to sound like a Johnny One Note (or maybe 2 or 3 notes, at best).

GKC
 
On the side here, there is a grace and presence of Christ in the sacraments when we are connected in faith with the Holy Father.

My pastor called the pope who locked the cardinals up a bad nameā€¦that Pope Urban was a pope who failed Christ. But he didnā€™t destroy the papacy.

The seat of Peter holds the keys to the Blood of Christ, His sheep know Him and He knows the sheepā€¦
 
How does this connect to the thread OP though, respectfully, Kathleen? šŸ™‚
KathleenGee said:
On the side here, there is a grace and presence of Christ in the sacraments when we are connected in faith with the Holy Father.

My pastor called the pope who locked the cardinals up a bad nameā€¦that Pope Urban was a pope who failed Christ. But he didnā€™t destroy the papacy.

The seat of Peter holds the keys to the Blood of Christ, His sheep know Him and He knows the sheepā€¦
Click to expand...
 
Lots of things go through my mindā€¦like ā€œdid I shut the garage door?ā€ šŸ˜ƒ
 
My sixth graders think a paragraph is a slab of sentences that look purdy together šŸ˜›
 
JohnnyReb said:
Iā€™ve been watching the Tudors on showtime the last few weeks. It has shown me how spotty my history about this period really is. Have you had a chance to catch this program.? I do wonder what you think.
Click to expand...
It does have some serious historical errors. Mostly to make it flow better, or to sex it up.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Hollywood? Sexing things up? No way! šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
Not that I fault them really for simplifying or making it appealing. As the philosophers tell us us, fiction is history made perfect and laid bare. And as for the other, how many would prefer to watch Robby Coltrane frolic about half naked instead of Jonathan Rhys-Myers? (Actually, I think Coltrane be an amazing Henry, but there would be a certain viewing audience that would be lost Iā€™m sure.)
 
Ian McNeice would make the perfect Henry VIII. This guy played the Baron Harkonnen on the 2000 sci fi channel adaptation of Dune. While I prefer good ole Kenneth MacMillanā€™s Baron, this guy would be perfect to play Hank!
http://webspace.webring.com/people/fb/baron_harkonnen/the_Baron_02.jpg
Bluegoat said:
Not that I fault them really for simplifying or making it appealing. As the philosophers tell us us, fiction is history made perfect and laid bare. And as for the other, how many would prefer to watch Robby Coltrane frolic about half naked instead of Jonathan Rhys-Myers? (Actually, I think Coltrane be an amazing Henry, but there would be a certain viewing audience that would be lost Iā€™m sure.)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top