How many Christians would love to see Catholics...

[aicirt]

I wasn’t comparing Catholics to Mormons. I said that Mormons were an example of a Resorationist group - they believe the truth of the Church was lost after the age of the apostles and then given again to Joseph Smith and the other Mormon prophets.

The Catholic Church understands itself to be in schism with the Orthodox, but they see Protestant sects as heretical. Protestants tend to see themselves as in schism, and they understand the Catholics and Orthodox to be in schism too. That is, they see all Christendom as fractured.

I don’t know how to put it any more simply. The post-Reformation Churches did not understand themselves to be part of an essentially different Church. What had changed were the human things. They were part of the Western Church, then they were still part of the Western Church, Christ’s Church, but with a political disagreement with Rome. If anything, some might have argued that they were the continuing Church, and the Catholic Church had diverged into something else.

I don’t believe the Anglican Church would have come into existence if it wasn’t for Henry demanding to divorce his wife to marry Anne. There were issues with the RCC. Okay. How does one justify adopting a new church because the RCC Pope said it was not allowing a divorce? Now being King, it was easy to get support through confiscation of the RCC’s land and enriching his followers and his new church. Okay, whatever. But when he starts beheading his wives and isolating some others who fell into disfavor, don’t you think it would behoove his followers to eventually wonder how this man could be the founder and head of a Christian church? Maybe the last 500 years wasn’t a good time to re-evaluate but, with what is going on now, aren’t many Anglicans wondering if history is repeating itself?

The RCC and the Anglican, and most Protestant churches, held fast re. abortion, divorce, mercy killing and contraception. In the 1930s, that changed. The RCC didn’t.
Now we have gay priests in the Anglican church and a couple of lesbian bishops. And I wonder if things were a sin before 1930, why are they not a sin today? And the pattern I see is an institution adjusting itself to the whims and lusts of SOME members of the flock as Henry adjusted to fit his needs.

Is it the job of the Shephard to lead its flock into perdition?

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t believe the Anglican Church would have come into existence if it wasn’t for Henry demanding to divorce his wife to marry Anne. There were issues with the RCC. Okay. How does one justify adopting a new church because the RCC Pope said it was not allowing a divorce? Now being King, it was easy to get support through confiscation of the RCC’s land and enriching his followers and his new church. Okay, whatever. But when he starts beheading his wives and isolating some others who fell into disfavor, don’t you think it would behoove his followers to eventually wonder how this man could be the founder and head of a Christian church? Maybe the last 500 years wasn’t a good time to re-evaluate but, with what is going on now, aren’t many Anglicans wondering if history is repeating itself?

The RCC and the Anglican, and most Protestant churches, held fast re. abortion, divorce, mercy killing and contraception. In the 1930s, that changed. The RCC didn’t.
Now we have gay priests in the Anglican church and a couple of lesbian bishops. And I wonder if things were a sin before 1930, why are they not a sin today? And the pattern I see is an institution adjusting itself to the whims and lusts of SOME members of the flock as Henry adjusted to fit his needs.

Is it the job of the Shephard to lead its flock into perdition?

This is pretty off topic. There are lots of threads discussing this if you are interested.

FWIW, if it had been some other man on the throne, there likely would still have been an English Reformation,. It would have been much more Protestant, though, not like the Reformed Catholicism they got, which was due to Henry’s insistence on maintaining a catholic identity.

Sometimes people like to imagine that if Henry, or Luther, or Calvin had never been born, there would have been no Reformation- it was the result of bad and egotistical men. That is false, the Reformation was a wave that engulfed the people in its path in one way or another. Much of it was the result of politics as much as religion - including the English Reformation.

 

[estesbob]

actually learn their Catholic faith better? Why?

It would also be helpful if Non Catholics actually learned Our Faith

 

[aicirt]

This is pretty off topic. There are lots of threads discussing this if you are interested.

FWIW, if it had been some other man on the throne, there likely would still have been an English Reformation,. It would have been much more Protestant, though, not like the Reformed Catholicism they got, which was due to Henry’s insistence on maintaining a catholic identity.

Sometimes people like to imagine that if Henry, or Luther, or Calvin had never been born, there would have been no Reformation- it was the result of bad and egotistical men. That is false, the Reformation was a wave that engulfed the people in its path in one way or another. Much of it was the result of politics as much as religion - including the English Reformation.

Okay. Steer me to the other threads and I’ll go there.

Henry wanted to maintain a catholic identity…meaning universal. Unless you really look, hard not to think you’re in a RCC.

Do you really see Henry VIII as a good man?

 

[barnesms]

It would also be helpful if Non Catholics actually learned Our Faith

I do think that many of us do try to learn about other churches, including the Catholic Church. It is one of the reasons I first came to this site. I have studied Catholicism for well over thirty years and have found much to cherish and admire.

You could say that I thresh other doctrines/teachings/religions for truth. I have found truth in all religions; it seems they all emphasize something different that uplifts me and helps to know God more fully and deepens my relationship with him.

Seeking the truth in others is the great work of ecumenism. I tire and reject those who seek to destroy the churches of others. Yet, I welcome honest, thoughtful disagreement; the difference is the presence of mutual respect and kindness. Not only do I wish Catholics would do this, but all Christians irrespective of their church or denomination.

 

[eucharisteo]

It would also be helpful if Non Catholics actually learned Our Faith

This is true. I remember painfully attempting to educate my bible teachers about what the Catholic Church teaches because it was mostly what I knew and some of what I learned was not true. So we must remember that some of them are receiving very misguided information from former Catholics who believed they knew what the Church teaches too. I never allowed them to get away with slandering them and it cost me much. We were always treated like we were never members of the Lord’s Church for the most part and that we too needed evangelizing because of our positions that did not jibe with theirs. However, I was asked to say the closing prayers many times as well as serve on the Lords table for communion. They did ask me once to teach the teens about the heresy of Catholicism. So in my detailed notes I began the quest to teach but in the middle the Holy Spirit stopped me and really confused me. At that moment in time I realized that what I had always called man’s tradition was really sacred tradition and I finally got it. It made a very interesting closing presentation and make me wonder how many of them are now Catholic as a result.

 

[Bluegoat]

Okay. Steer me to the other threads and I’ll go there.

Henry wanted to maintain a catholic identity…meaning universal. Unless you really look, hard not to think you’re in a RCC.

Do you really see Henry VIII as a good man?

No, I think he was a jerk.

But, he was trying to do his job, which was to take care of England. The Holy See was making it impossible, and he was backed into a corner. And they didn’t do it for religious reasons, but for purely political ones - as an earthly power they tried to use their spiritual authority for earthly reasons.

This kind of thing was behind a lot of the success of the reformation in Europe too. Rulers supported it because they were not able to rule effectively. The Church was claiming temporal power which properly speaking didn’t belong to it, and so caused what had many features of a political revolution.

Of course they don’t do that kind of thing now, but as far as the Reformation that’s closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

 

[aicirt]

No, I think he was a jerk.

But, he was trying to do his job, which was to take care of England. The Holy See was making it impossible, and he was backed into a corner. And they didn’t do it for religious reasons, but for purely political ones - as an earthly power they tried to use their spiritual authority for earthly reasons.

This kind of thing was behind a lot of the success of the reformation in Europe too. Rulers supported it because they were not able to rule effectively. The Church was claiming temporal power which properly speaking didn’t belong to it, and so caused what had many features of a political revolution.

Of course they don’t do that kind of thing now, but as far as the Reformation that’s closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

From what I learned, the Pope was fine with Henry. It was Henry who was pushing the edge of the envelope in his insistance on a divorce. It was he who wanted a male heir. That had nothing to do with religion. He had a legitimate female heir,Princess Mary, whom he late had declared a bastard. Ditto for Elizabeth when she came along. I don’t see the Pope wanting to take over Henry’s position as ruler of England. I see Henry backing the Pope into a corner, not the other way around.

Another question off topic: An Episcopalian told me you don’t pray to statues and RC do. We ask for their intercession as part of the communion of saints. I asked her what is the reason for statues of saints in her church. She didn’t know. I also asked since the EC apparently does believe in saints, why don’t you cannonize? Would you know the answers? Thanks.

 

[Bluegoat]

From what I learned, the Pope was fine with Henry. It was Henry who was pushing the edge of the envelope in his insistance on a divorce. It was he who wanted a male heir. That had nothing to do with religion. He had a legitimate female heir,Princess Mary, whom he late had declared a bastard. Ditto for Elizabeth when she came along. I don’t see the Pope wanting to take over Henry’s position as ruler of England. I see Henry backing the Pope into a corner, not the other way around.

Another question off topic: An Episcopalian told me you don’t pray to statues and RC do. We ask for their intercession as part of the communion of saints. I asked her what is the reason for statues of saints in her church. She didn’t know. I also asked since the EC apparently does believe in saints, why don’t you cannonize? Would you know the answers? Thanks.

Ok, well, I would first point out that he was looking for an annulment, not a divorce. (And after the break it was an annulment that was granted - the marriage was deemed never to have been valid.) And although we know that Elizabeth turned out to be arguably the greatest of all British monarchs, before then there had never been a successful female monarch in Britain. The last attempt had resulted in a long drawn out civil war.

Securing the succession was a real worry, what we might call a national security issue. And in such cases it was normal and common for annulments to be granted, essentially for the national good. (Think Eleanor of Aquitaine and the King of France.) But in this case it was not granted, because Spain was at odds with England and used its power over the Holy See to prevent it.

So in essence national security in England was being threatened by her enemy, Spain, through the Pope. That is just not a tenable position for a King. Being under the Pope is one thing, under the monarch of another nation is another.

Re Saints - the Episcopalian you spoke to is wrong, Anglicans do pray to saints and believe in the Communion of Saints. In some churches it is not commonly practiced, however. This tends to relate to whether historically that church tended to a more Protestant liturgical practice or Catholic one - both were common in the Anglican church though they used the same actual liturgy.

After the Reformation, the Anglican Church never set up a structure to canonize, nor did they return to the primitive practice or popular acclimation of saints. However, we do have post-Reformation Anglicans commemorated in our calendar.
Also, Episcopal Church is actually abbreviated TEC. I belong to the Anglican Church of Canada, ACC.

 

[aicirt]

Ok, well, I would first point out that he was looking for an annulment, not a divorce. (And after the break it was an annulment that was granted - the marriage was deemed never to have been valid.) And although we know that Elizabeth turned out to be arguably the greatest of all British monarchs, before then there had never been a successful female monarch in Britain. The last attempt had resulted in a long drawn out civil war.

Securing the succession was a real worry, what we might call a national security issue. And in such cases it was normal and common for annulments to be granted, essentially for the national good. (Think Eleanor of Aquitaine and the King of France.) But in this case it was not granted, because Spain was at odds with England and used its power over the Holy See to prevent it.

So in essence national security in England was being threatened by her enemy, Spain, through the Pope. That is just not a tenable position for a King. Being under the Pope is one thing, under the monarch of another nation is another.

Re Saints - the Episcopalian you spoke to is wrong, Anglicans do pray to saints and believe in the Communion of Saints. In some churches it is not commonly practiced, however. This tends to relate to whether historically that church tended to a more Protestant liturgical practice or Catholic one - both were common in the Anglican church though they used the same actual liturgy.

After the Reformation, the Anglican Church never set up a structure to canonize, nor did they return to the primitive practice or popular acclimation of saints. However, we do have post-Reformation Anglicans commemorated in our calendar.
Also, Episcopal Church is actually abbreviated TEC. I belong to the Anglican Church of Canada, ACC.

The annulment was granted by the ACC, not the RCC. Henry had to seek permission to marry Catherine as she was the widow of his deceased older brother, Arthur. According to Catherine, that marriage had never been consumated because of age and/or Arthur’s failing health. The Pope gave permission. Now Henry wanted to back track because it was convenient which would make Catherine a liar and her daughter a bastard and not a princess of England. Also Catherine was Queen and much loved by the English. If the annulment had been granted, IMO, Catherine and Mary could have been jailed and killed.
If allowed to live, a civil war could have resulted with support from Spain and maybe France. The latter because, I believe, Mary was bethrothed to some French royal.

Henry may have feared having a woman on the throne but his “cure”, break with Rome, caused an equally devestating blood bath and ended with a woman, Elizabeth I, wearing the crown.

What do you mean by “primtive practice” regarding saiints? If you accept the “old” saints, why wouldn’t the ACC/TEC have considered that there are those, even today, who are holy and should also receive the title of saint? Guess I’m not understanding the difference.

Maybe the Pope, like you and I, thought Henry a jerk too.

 

[estesbob]

The annulment was granted by the ACC, not the RCC. Henry had to seek permission to marry Catherine as she was the widow of his deceased older brother, Arthur. According to Catherine, that marriage had never been consumated because of age and/or Arthur’s failing health. The Pope gave permission. Now Henry wanted to back track because it was convenient which would make Catherine a liar and her daughter a bastard and not a princess of England. Also Catherine was Queen and much loved by the English. If the annulment had been granted, IMO, Catherine and Mary could have been jailed and killed.
If allowed to live, a civil war could have resulted with support from Spain and maybe France. The latter because, I believe, Mary was bethrothed to some French royal.

There was anothr impediment to the marriage-he had slept with Ann Boleyn’s sister which would prohibit him from marrying Ann.

 

[mpjw2]

Hi barnesms

well said …my sentiments exactly…especially your last statements …

amen and very much agreed.

barnesms

I would love to see Catholics lead by example. John Paul II did more for the evangelizing of the Catholic Church than Catholics realize. His way of being was as a simple, sincere Christian and holy man. It is through him that I started to read more about Catholicism, the patristic fathers, and why I daily practice the Liturgy of the Hours.

HOWEVER, in coming to this site **I have been greatly saddened ** you not the only one and made to question whether I can find true Christians here.

they are here … i am here seeking those true christians too

and I believe I am finding them.

I am a Latter-day Saint and the clear misinformation, half-truths, and lies that I have read about my beliefs is shocking. I have no problem with a good Catholic sharing his faith; it usually uplifts me and I appreciate their faith. To be an apologist is one thing, but to become an anti-Mormon, an anti-Lutheran, an anti-Baptist, etc. is the very antithesis of being a practicing Christian.

I am learning from this forum there is a lot of presumption we christians have one for another which can lead to harsh communication and lead to the feeling one is anti_______ against the other. I will be the first to admit i was guilty at one time too.

I come to learn it serves no purpose to talk down about anyone, especially another christian just because they are catholic or baptist or protestant or whatever.

I come to honor and respect catholicism and christianity for what we are suppose to stand for…

And that is to be an example of the love of God and the saving grace offered by the shed blood of Jesus Christ

so…in my quest to try to break down the “walls of presumption” I started a few threads and , Praise God, the results are rewarding

check out these threads

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458051
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458823
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=459613

As time passes I see a need for all those who follow Jesus Christ to stand together against the evil of the world, the assault on families, the sanctity of life, morality, and the healing of poor people throughout the world. I hope that I could find those types of Catholics here. I yearn for Catholics that lead by example and emulate the Savior.

I pray to God your words barnesms will be heard and received by those who need to hear…not just catholics but all christians

by the way …I would love too see as many catholics and all christians post to this thread…

my witness to being a little Jesus towards others
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=459514

God bless

mpjw

 

[mpjw2]

I wish my sister knew more about the Catholic faith before wanting to convert to Islam! She thought that all Christians are the same and wanted to become a Muslim because she was disgusted by all that ‘miracle curing’ stuff some denominations do.

Luckily though, my mum made her talk to a priest and I think she’s changed her mind. She was also claiming that Muhammed was mentioned in the Bible and that the Holy Trinity was made up! She’s never even read the bible, which was why her Muslim friends could brainwash her so easily!

m8g8…I pray the truth of God’s love be revealed in your sister. Oh God how we all have family and friends who do not know you.

Speak to all who need to hear oh God, let them know truth so that the truth can set them free of the lies of satan

in Jesus name I pray

amen

 

[mpjw2]

I do think that many of us do try to learn about other churches, including the Catholic Church. It is one of the reasons I first came to this site. I have studied Catholicism for well over thirty years and have found much to cherish and admire.

You could say that I thresh other doctrines/teachings/religions for truth. I have found truth in all religions; it seems they all emphasize something different that uplifts me and helps to know God more fully and deepens my relationship with him.

Seeking the truth in others is the great work of ecumenism. ** I tire and reject those who seek to destroy the churches of others.** Yet, I welcome honest, thoughtful disagreement; the difference is the presence of mutual respect and kindness. Not only do I wish Catholics would do this, but all Christians irrespective of their church or denomination.

Amen

God bless you

I believe what you said barnesms is definitely an attitude which God wants to see all His children have

Praise God

mpjw

 

[mpjw2]

there is a saying…

people do not care how much you know … ***until they know ***how much you care

I have illustrated my attempt to communicate with catholics better and to understand better

I would love to see all christians learn their faith better and also learn the faith of others.

I did not say convert to the other but just learn and understand better

I can only imagine what an impact it would make.

my only question is

How many of you will **take a stand **and say "I agree"

God bless you all

 

[tweetymom]

there is a saying…

I have illustrated my attempt to communicate with catholics better and to understand better

I would love to see all christians learn their faith better and also learn the faith of others.

I did not say convert to the other but just learn and understand better

I can only imagine what an impact it would make.

my only question is

How many of you will **take a stand **and say "I agree"

God bless you all

 

[aicirt]

There was anothr impediment to the marriage-he had slept with Ann Boleyn’s sister which would prohibit him from marrying Ann.

Henry had three sons…and maybe more: Henry Fitzroy by a lady-in-waiting, a son by Mary Boleyn, and Edward by Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour.

Fitzroy died at 17. Edward died too paving the way for Elizabeth I. Mary’s son served in Elizabeth’s court.

I don’t think Henry’s relationship with Mary Boleyn would have been given any consideration by the Pope because the the crux of the annulment problem was there wasn’t anything wrong with his marriage to Queen Catherine.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t think Henry’s relationship with Mary Boleyn would have been given any consideration by the Pope because the the crux of the annulment problem was there wasn’t anything wrong with his marriage to Queen Catherine.

This isn’t really true, there was actually a strong case, as such things were understood. He fully expected it to be granted. I’m not sure why you think that such an annulment would have resulted in the death of his other children? (But a relationship with Mary obviousl y wouldn’t imact the validity of his marriage to Catherine.)

Re saints - a saint of course is anyone who is in Heaven. The Church did not always have an official process for declaring saints. Before that, saints were recognized by a kind of process of popular acclaim.

In the Anglican church there is no real official process as there is in the Catholic Church, but we do recognize some people as being essentially saints and we commemorate them. Honestly I am not sure why they are not given the title. We also recognize saints from other Christian Churches.

People Anglicans might think of this way include Thomas Beckett, C.S. Lewis, or Florence Nightingale.

 

[WatchingMedia]

What would happen if all Protestants would live up to the teachings in the Bible?
They would not approve of divorce, abortion and euthanasia, gay sexual activities and gay marriage, they would not support taxpayer dollars funding abortions and euthanasia, etc.
They would support conscience clauses in the charitable and medical professions so that people could follow God to the best of their ability.

By the same token, if Catholics followed the Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition (first printed in the USA in March of 2000), the same would apply.

Although history is important, we each will be judged on what we do as individuals in our own life times.

Any non-Catholic who would like to know accurate teachings of the Catholic Church, is invited to get a copy of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”. You can find them on Catholic catologue web sites such as EWTN.com catalogue.

 

[Church_Militant]

This thread is completely misnamed IMO because Catholics are Christians and so the best answer is that of course we Christians want all Catholics to know their faith as well as possible. It is also what the Church itself calls us all to.