How many Christians would love to see Catholics...

[eucharisteo]

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.

I think you’ve been beaten up too much from people wrongfully telling others that Catholics are not Christian. That is not only the biggest lie anyone has ever conjured up but someone would have to be very dumb not to see through it. The irony is that I’ve met may in my past where I asked if they were Christian and they’d reply “no, I’m Catholic”. I correct them each and every time. I do not tolerate that, even when I was practicing a very anti-Catholic fundamentalist faith. I’m a revert too. Even though I corrected people when they tried to say Catholics are pagans I still thought that leaders back in the early days lied, made up and misled people down an authoritarian road to control the people the way they wanted…“clericalism”.

 

[aicirt]

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.

What was the strong evidence that there was reason to give Henry an annulment? The basis of this was Catherine didn’t produce an male heir who lived. Had a boy survived, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The Pope had already said it was okay to marry Catherine because the marriage to Arthur had never been consumated. (Even if it had been, I don’t see what the big deal was considering she had never born Arthur a child and she was a widow). Now the Pope would have to contradict himself so either the Pope was inept in the first place or Catherine was a liar.

IMO, IF the annulment had been granted, it means Princess Mary, first in line for the throne, would be a bastard. Even if the country had remained Catholic, there would probably be a strong following for Catherine and Mary backed by the Spanish. Spain was the most powerful nation at that time. Mary would no longer have a title. How would one marry her off. She would serve no purpose. To avoid civil war, why not behead Catherine? She would have been proclaimed a liar. He concocted Anne Bolyen’s fate and she was a Queen too.

Yes, I could see C.S. Lewis a saint. The difference is the RCC requires miracles after death. Use to be a requirement that five miracles had to occur, now it is two. First stage is venerable, then blessed, and finally sainthood. Not all get to sainthood.

 

[Bluegoat]

What was the strong evidence that there was reason to give Henry an annulment? The basis of this was Catherine didn’t produce an male heir who lived. Had a boy survived, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The Pope had already said it was okay to marry Catherine because the marriage to Arthur had never been consumated. (Even if it had been, I don’t see what the big deal was considering she had never born Arthur a child and she was a widow). Now the Pope would have to contradict himself so either the Pope was inept in the first place or Catherine was a liar.

Ah, but you are using logic! In practice, what Henry was asking was very common, and commonly granted. There were several types of claim for annulment that he could reasonably have made. Eleanor of Aquitaine I mentioned before as a similar example - her marriage to the King of France was annulled, officially, on the basis on consanguinity. But the real reason was she bore no sons to the King of France, and they had serious marriage difficulties.

IMO, IF the annulment had been granted, it means Princess Mary, first in line for the throne, would be a bastard. Even if the country had remained Catholic, there would probably be a strong following for Catherine and Mary backed by the Spanish. Spain was the most powerful nation at that time. Mary would no longer have a title. How would one marry her off. She would serve no purpose. To avoid civil war, why not behead Catherine? She would have been proclaimed a liar. He concocted Anne Bolyen’s fate and she was a Queen too.

But in fact he did get his annulment, and his daughters were not murdered.

Yes, I could see C.S. Lewis a saint. The difference is the RCC requires miracles after death. Use to be a requirement that five miracles had to occur, now it is two. First stage is venerable, then blessed, and finally sainthood. Not all get to sainthood.

Yes, the miracles are to “prove” the person is in Heaven.

 

[aicirt]

Ah, but you are using logic! In practice, what Henry was asking was very common, and commonly granted. There were several types of claim for annulment that he could reasonably have made. Eleanor of Aquitaine I mentioned before as a similar example - her marriage to the King of France was annulled, officially, on the basis on consanguinity. But the real reason was she bore no sons to the King of France, and they had serious marriage difficulties.

But in fact he did get his annulment, and his daughters were not murdered.

Yes, the miracles are to “prove” the person is in Heaven.

Just so the
audience knows, the annulment came from the Anglican Church of which Henry was the head. And I think it was after that and his marriage to Anne which put the cherry on the cake and he was excommunicated. And as head of both state and church, there wasn’t anyone to stop him from beheading Anne, Catherine and many others.

 

[Bluegoat]

Just so the
audience knows, the annulment came from the Anglican Church of which Henry was the head. And I think it was after that and his marriage to Anne which put the cherry on the cake and he was excommunicated. And as head of both state and church, there wasn’t anyone to stop him from beheading Anne, Catherine and many others.

I think you need to review your history notes - Catherine died of natural causes.

 

[aicirt]

I think you need to review your history notes - Catherine died of natural causes.

I w
as thinking of the other wife who was beheaded…Catherine Howard.

 

[Bluegoat]

I w
as thinking of the other wife who was beheaded…Catherine Howard.

Ah yes. Well, she might actually have been guilty of those charges.

 

[aicirt]

Ah yes. Well, she might actually have been guilty of those charges.

If it were true that he found her in a brothel sh17 an themarried her, then what could he expect? Guess the heart, or whatever, wants what the heart wants. Before Henry, were there others who had th eir wives and/or mistresses kiledl leglally?

 

[Bluegoat]

If it were true that he found her in a brothel sh17 an themarried her, then what could he expect? Guess the heart, or whatever, wants what the heart wants. Before Henry, were there others who had th eir wives and/or mistresses kiledl leglally?

I don’t think the brothel thing is true, she was a lady in waiting to Anne of Cleaves. I’m not sure if any monarchs had previously had their wives executed. Generally there has been a serious disinclination to execute royalty.

 

[Hesychios]

Just so the
audience knows, the annulment came from the Anglican Church of which Henry was the head. …

I don’t think there is any dispute over this.

I think the point Bluegoat was making is that king Henry sought an annulment, not a divorce, and that’s what he eventually got (therefore the claim the Anglican church was a result of a divorce is incorrect). The same thing so many other good faithful Catholics seek (and are granted) then and now. King Henry VIII was in no way a Protestant sympathizer.

I think it is rather odd (and sad) that royalty all over Europe were having illegitimate heirs, these bastards were popping up like dandelions. Clerics (even Popes) were not immune from the attractions of keeping concubines either. The kings and other nobility were breaking their marriage vows by the score, on top of engaging in serial marriage through the annulment process.

Bluegoat mentions Eleanor of Aquitane, but she is simply the most notable, it happened all over Europe and even in the royal family that governed the kingdom of Jerusalem.

Henry’s problem with getting the church rubber stamp was a political one that deteriorated into a morass for the Catholic church in England. We might demonize him today, but he was really typical of the age.

 

[aicirt]

I don’t think there is any dispute over this.

I think the point Bluegoat was making is that king Henry sought an annulment, not a divorce, and that’s what he eventually got (therefore the claim the Anglican church was a result of a divorce is incorrect). The same thing so many other good faithful Catholics seek (and are granted) then and now. King Henry VIII was in no way a Protestant sympathizer.

I think it is rather odd (and sad) that royalty all over Europe were having illegitimate heirs, these bastards were popping up like dandelions. Clerics (even Popes) were not immune from the attractions of keeping concubines either. The kings and other nobility were breaking their marriage vows by the score, on top of engaging in serial marriage through the annulment process.

Bluegoat mentions Eleanor of Aquitane, but she is simply the most notable, it happened all over Europe and even in the royal family that governed the kingdom of Jerusalem.

Henry’s problem with getting the church rubber stamp was a political one that deteriorated into a morass for the Catholic church in England. We might demonize him today, but he was really typical of the age.

Okay, it wasn’t a divorce, it was an annulment which the RCC would not give him. So Henry split with the RCC in 1531, est. the Anglican Church which gave him the annulment.

Eleanor of Aquitane received an annulment from Louis of France because of consanguinty and her adultery. No, she had not produced a male heir but did achieve that when she married Henry II of England. Think they had four or five males. Eleanor died about 1240 o 300 years before Henry VIII.

IF…annulments were given because a male child had not been produced, and IF this was common grounds for the RCC to give such an annulment, than why did Henry state that his marriage was void because his wife had actually had sex with her first husband, Arthur? Henry had asked that he be allowed to marry his sister-in-law, Catherine, because she had never slept with her husband.

I’d venture to say that Eleanor admitted to her adultery and, secondly, maybe there was grounds regarding being close relatives. Queen Catherine was not ammending her first testimony. And since it was common practice for some of the court to witness the first night, where were the witnesses?

 

[Metamorphoo]

You personally can do something about it.

To know your faith accurately and better, read from cover to cover the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II, first printed in the US in March, 2000.

Give copies of this Catechism as “gifts” to those over age 16.

While reading the catechism is a start, it is a “basics” manual. For people who really want to understand Catholicism and probe its teachings, it will not be adequate. I know because I was taught from the catechism throughout 12 years of Catholic school–but I have a better understanding of Catholicism and the “whys” of its teachings 25 years after leaving the RCC than I ever received through the catechism.

 

[Esdra]

And statements like this, which are NOT part of the churches teachings are what cause so much dissension between Catholics and Protestants…

ABSOLUTELY correct!!

I keep saying that in this Forum over and over again!!

I mean, I am from Central Europe - and this is the homebase of Catholizism!! - Guess what I found out since I am here in CAF: Most people here are really fundamentalists, compared with the Catholics I know!!

Esdra

 

[Returning_Home]

As a Catholic I would love to see more Catholics become more versed in the faith. The problem with people not knowing their faith is that they (majority anyway) don’t want to know their faith.

I agree, but how does one do that? The Catholic message isn’t as dynamic as that of, say, Mormonism, that promises that families will be together for eternity (I’m sure that Louise Bundy is thrilled to spend all time with her murderous son, Ted).

 

[Returning_Home]

i believe catholics are the only true Christians. other denominations contain truth, but it needs to be remembered that the truth they contain is Catholic

This I can’t understand. Why can’t a Protestant, Baptist, Epicopalian, or another Judeo-Christian brach be a true Christian? They all worship the same God, but in slightly differing ways. The creeds aren’t that different, the modes of worship either.

 

[estesbob]

This I can’t understand. Why can’t a Protestant, Baptist, Epicopalian, or another Judeo-Christian brach be a true Christian? They all worship the same God, but in slightly differing ways. The creeds aren’t that different, the modes of worship either.

There are huge differnces in the Doctrines of the Church and the Denominations you mention.

 

[tweetymom]

There are huge differnces in the Doctrines of the Church and the Denominations you mention.

But there is only one God of all.

 

[eucharisteo]

But there is only one God of all.

And one God that requires us to follow his teachings, not mans.

 

[Returning_Home]

There are huge differnces in the Doctrines of the Church and the Denominations you mention.

While I’m no expert on any of those groups, what are the major differences between them and Catholics, other than not accepting the Catholic leadership?

Again, they pray to the same God and they use the Bible.

 

[Returning_Home]

And one God that requires us to follow his teachings, not mans.

I agree and thus we get into the problems of Catholicism versus the Bible.