Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

You have usually provided better responses … and, this is a simply turning around in circles. It appears that you are actively defending Henry for the similar action you have criticized the Pope. Historically, the Pope (and that would be Peter in Matt 16:18) began as the spiritual leader, acquired civil governance by virtue of the fact he alone was left standing after the fall of the Roman Empire - gradually (and not always willingly) gave up temporal power to what is now Vatican City - but, never lost spiritual leadership. Henry is quite different.

The monarchy of England had a long and colorful history leading up to Henry VII and his successor. Who actually applied for the dispensation - and the reasons for it - are truly of no consequence to this topic. The dispensation for young Henry to marry Mary was made and granted and the marriage took place - and was consumapted. There is no reasonable ground to claim that a marriage never existed. This nonsense about not having a male heir is strictly beyond the bounds of the Sacrament of Matrimony. And, that is really the fact of the matter.

Defending Henry for trying to defend his temporal crown by SELF-claiming he is now pope is to attempt to usurp what he can not possibly have in reality. For those forthright souls like St. Thomas More and many others (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation) who followed their conscience rather than king’s orders - a heavenly crown is theirs, rather than the priase given to the lackey.

Henry VIII freely chose to confrom his belief to fit his bedroom adventures. Like Luther he had ‘industrial strength pride’ - but also the temporal power to effect his will on others while on earth. Defending Henry’s claim to spiritual authority is not only a lost cause - but a poor masquerade of trying to praise hubris.

What makes Henry even more tragic than Luther is that his entire focus on a male heir was never really materialized.

God bless

What he assumed was, in practice, the political powers, not the spiritual ones. Henry had few innovations in the theological realm, for the most part what he proclaimed was to be followed hewed closely to the RC origins, i.e., the Six Articles. He had some original thought, as in an insistence on wider availability of vernacular Holy Scripture, but his aim in the Act of Supremacy was to proclaim that whatever the Church in England followed, it would be enforced by the political, Royal arm, and not by any agency outside the realm. If a point of doctrine did catch his eye, as with Scripture, he could enforce it, but as a part of the political role of a Sovereign who was also (by Act of Parliament) the head of the Church in England.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

His aim was to govern the country without political influence or control from outside it. And since the spiritual and political sides were so intertwined, he could not do so without addressing the spiritual.

Bingo! Therefore to all intents and purpose he has made himself adjudicator of the Christian life and it just so happened that he decided to let it be.

But that was not his aim and he did little of it. He didn’t want to be Pope.

Nonetheless, by saying he was the head of the Church he made himself Pope though he did not quite put it that way.

He wanted the Pope not to be King.

And in doing so made himself Pope even though he did not exercise the prerogative nor gave himself the title.

As I said before, should it so happen that he had an issue on an article of faith, it would be within the boundaries he has set for himself to decree this to be what England should follow.

And in European development, that was the way things evolved, the Church yielding the political side, the secular powers the spiritual side.

GKC

Yes, that may be the way it was practiced but as I have outline above, it had ramifications on the spiritual life far greater than that.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Hn160,

I think you have given us a truly wonderful gratuitous statement… that really needs to be examined in some detail. Let me explain.

In addition to the thoughtful response given by Benedictus2, let me add the efforts of St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380). Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm. As you can see, she preceeded Luther in history, so there is nothing anti-Lutheran in this woman’s life at all. The link is instructive because of two elements:

1- It identifies serious abuses in the Catholic Church, and,

2- It identifies how this humble woman worked with the Grace of God to enable necessary changes in the Church to take effect.

Now, this is just a matter of personal opinion, but I think Catherine had far more serious abuses to deal with than Luther. In reading about her one gets a view of a truly humble person who God had chosen to bring His Church back into line. You really do not get anything like that sense in reading the majority works of Luther’s works. To me, it was ore of a ‘them-against-me’ outlook.

One of the most profound things about the Catholic Church is that it is both human and divine. The Holy Spirit is truly guiding it and ensuring that no error is taught. Human beings are running the operation and they were all ‘born in sin’, carry the effects of both original and actual sin on their person and are regularly tempted to not cooperate with the Grace of God. In brief - people just like you and me!

If the idea you are presenting is that the Catholic Church is incapable of genuine reform - then the work of St. Catherine of Siena will be instructive as serious evidence to the contrary. But, do not stop there - the Catholic Church has a long and established history of abusing a lot in its 2,000 year history - and a great number of these abuses - and heresies - come directly from the clergy! Like the Chosen People, we lose sight of God’s Love - and wander off. And, just like the Chosen People, certain individuals were called by God to point out abuses and encourage corrections. What makes Luther such a profoundly tragic figure is that he jumped off the ship during the storm thinking he could swim the distance by himself. He was wrong and those who followed him and his example have been wrong. Reform is not carried out with a wildly flung ‘sledge hammer’ - but with a ‘screwdriver’ under the direction of God. Truly, Luther’s message of revolt to the Vatican was, “My way or the highway” and this is solid evidence Luther left the Catholic Church prior to his formal excommunication.

Had it not been for his incredible pride, he could have been known as St. Martin Luther today - just like St. Catherine of Siena is known today. The abuse involving the sale of indulgences and church offices and other abuses would have been stopped (as other abuses in the past were stopped).

God bless

Excellent !!! :clapping::clapping:

 

[GaryTaylor]

I gather you are unwilling to simply state the problem you had with Trent. Shame. Why not try again and reduce your issues to writing.

The Lutherans and traditional Catholics at the time of the English Reformation used to confound their papist opponents with the cry of, “Where was your Church before Trent.”
( Bishop Hickes 's Reply. 1713. )
In fact the Council was called by the pope as an attempt to call halt to the inroads of both Lutherans and Calvinists in Europe and was classified as a,'General Council,".
But in fact it was a factional Council, being called by a section of the Catholic Church that was already embattled by dissension with the Eastern Church and the Catholic Church in England. The pope supplied the organisers, the officials;it was called in a place controlled by the Emperor of Germany a servant and abetter of the popes aspirations to be dictator and no one was allowed to attend unless by permission of the pope. He sent out the invites to a selected few and when he failed to gain enough support from the Church in Europe put pressure on the traditional followers of Rome throughout Italy. When this failed to produce sufficient bodies, he resorted to paying their costs and even went further making bishops simply to attend the conference and make the numbers up. He invited Anglican Bishops , but they were prevented by the State from attending even if they wanted to do so.

Once their they were not even able to formulate an agenda, this was produced by the pope’s creatures and revealed piecemeal as necessary! Nor were the bishops allowed to discuss the material before hand, indeed they were not even allowed to mix freely, but were assigned to two groups who were kept apart socially.

The result was, the medieval innovations complained about by the dissidents were accepted by the papal followers,[Even so , it is estimated that at the early sessions, at least a third of the bishops supported Lutheran ideas by their votes.( Kidd.The Counter Reformation.)
No subjects were accepted by the managers, unless it had been agree upon previously by the Papal Court!
The Ecumenical Councils had been classed as free, with invitations being sent to all Catholic Bishops, but here the matter was hole and corner, with the question of a free vote being rubbished.
At the end of the Council, the results were sent to Rome for the Pope’s agreement before being affirmed by the Council. This was an innovation of enormous consequence, the hitherto free bishops, the Magisterium, abandoning their responsibilities on to the shoulders of one man, or rather what was known in those days as the ,“Court of Rome.”.+
It then became a sect.After Trent the guidance of the Church was assumed in an increasingly exclusive and direct fashion
+Dictionary

A sect being a breakaway from parent organisation on a single principle. such as Baptism , or Calvinism.
In this case the breakaway was on the principle of authority in the Catholic Church, being Revelation, Scripture and Bishops in Council. (Seven Ecumenical Councils.)

The guidance of the Church was assumed in an increasingly exclusive and direct fashion by the Bishop of Rome, through a series of structured reforms effectuated or brought to a completion in the decades immediately following the close of the Council.

To emphasise their beliefs there was a change of name, the organisation became The Holy Roman Church . This according to the Tridentine Creed. (TraditionalCatholic.net.prayer.

This is more pure nonsense which much be straight from a protestant sight. First of all Luther was already considered a “heretic” by Trent. Second of all he was dead by the time Trent was held. It took years to put the council together because of war and plague.

I’m not sure what it is your trying to say here or what it has to do with the “First 1500” years of the Catholic Church.

The fact the Catholic Church existed since Christ and the Apostles is a fact. The fact this was the dark Ages and a difficult time is also a known. Every Ecumenical Council further defines specific aspects of the Church. Thats why they are held. I fail to see the logic here?
[/quote]

 

[benedictus2]

**Anglicanism, which is Catholicism with an English face , 'follows the Revelation of Christ, Recorded in Scripture and completed,interpreted and explained by the Holy Fathers in Council". That is the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the first thousand years.
**

Which Church Father and which Ecumenical council said that a country’s king is the head of the Church of that country?**

This would have been the basis of your faith until it was changed by the Council of Trent!

**
On the contrary, Trent affirmed the councils before. Now if you are saying that Trent altered previous councils then please state which doctrines were altered.**

One gets the impression that both Rome and Canterbury now make belief up as they go along.

**
Canterbury yes. They’ve gone for ordaining women, active homosexuals, allowed contraception … all no-nos as far as the councils and church Fathers were concerned. And that alone my dear, speaks volumes.

 

[benedictus2]

The fact this was the dark Ages and a difficult time is also a known. Every Ecumenical Council further defines specific aspects of the Church. Thats why they are held. I fail to see the logic here?

Actually the "Dark Ages"is a misnomer. This was coined by the so called "Enlightenment’ but the middle ages was anything but Dark.

Art and Literature flourished and also philosophy and faith. St Thomas and St Catherine of Sienna are two people that come to mind.

 

[seamusmohr]

Early Church Fathers? The Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church is denied exactly where?

**He is not denied anywhere by the `Church Fathers, because he was already a grandee, the Bishop of Rome, he was not however the Head of the Church! he was simply the Head of a Particular Catholic Church, The Suburbicarian Church of Rome and then Italy.He was one bishop out of many no better and no worse.
**

Ignatiu\s of Antioch

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]). \

Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Justin Martyr

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place *” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Clement of Alexandria

“Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews” (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

“I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.

God Bless, Gary***

The above quotations show nowhere the position of the Bishop of Rome, I can’t find one that mentions him even..

 

[seamusmohr]

Which Church Father and which Ecumenical council said that a country’s king is the head of the Church of that country?**
**
If you read the Catholic View of the Monarchy,in Liber Concilia, by Cardinal Pole you will see the place given to the monarch at that time was very much the head of the Church, Pole calls him ,“The Vicar of Christ"and " Regal Head, as the Pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head” (.Pge 370,Dixon’s Hist. 3rd, Vol.)

You have not read, even the R/C view of Trent, so how can you determine the sense of it.
Whilst Paul tells us to preserve the Deposit, 9 Thess.) Trent ADDED, to the Faith, whilst
It virtually added the Jurisdiction as a dogma! Friend, you must read more than the Vatican handouts on the subject! Further Trent added to the Creed, the Nicaene Creed that is, which as I understand is totally forbidden.

---

Canterbury yes. They’ve gone for ordaining women, active homosexuals, allowed contraception … all no-nos as far as the councils and church Fathers were concerned.

**Even so they didn’t try to foist a spurious Vicar of Christ on the Church as did Rome.
As for Homosexuals, you must ask the parishioners in the next town to where I live, their priest went to jail for six years for homosexual deeds with his young parishioners, whilst the Dean of that are was retired out to grass, for turning a blind eye to his subordinates activities.

You pays your money and takes your turn, it seems.
What Canterbury did, was to forget Tradition and its palce in the Church. The question of Women, should have gone to a Council of Bishops for discussion, seeing the great trauma it caused. Rome became a sect for adding Jurisdiction and Infallibility to the Faith.
**

 

[seamusmohr]

**
Now pray tell, is there any Church Father or general council of the Church who has decreed that a king may form his own church and this church will be valid?**

**Who is this King that formed his own Church ?

Was not the Bishop of Rome the inheritor, through false documents, of most of Northern Italy,? Were not they, the popes, virtual Kings of Northern Italy and Rome. Civil Rulers and as I have explained, at Trent did they not turn most of Catholic Europe in to a Catholic Sect?
Did not the Pope act as Civil Servant under the early Christian Emperors?
Did not Valerian,(?) return the favours done by the papacy by giving the Bishop of Rome Authority to arrest other Catholics in pursuit of his own political aggrandisement. Infact this
was done for two or three hundred years by several Emperors.The Roman Church was simply a Dept, of State!** England and Henry, remained Catholic, not the Catholicity that came with the Council of Trent, but the Catholicity of the Apostolic Succession of Faith and Orders!

**However there are some points that stem from your mention above of the General Councils, or as traditional Catholics would say, Ecumenical Councils. Was it not the Bisho that gave the Bishop of Rome his authority and raise him from the Bishop of Suburbicarian Rome to Patriarch of the Italian Church?

Regarding your less than subtle remarks in the opening sentence, there was no King Of England who started their own church, why should they? Our Church was probably amongst the oldest outside Palestine, especially if we listen to Catholic Tradition! At no time as far as I can see did either Henry or the Church break away from the Body of Christ, the Church! All that was done was for henry to inform the Bishop of Rome that according to ancient canons, from various Councils his authority was suspect to say the least! All Henry did was to enforce English Law,that had been in force since 1066 and before, that the Bishop of Rome had no authority in this country in less than spiritual matters. For some 800 years he had not been able to enforce his will in England, nor send his legates , or Bulls without permission of authority, that is King and Parliament.**

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Seamus,

It would be easier to read your posts if you could clean up the dropped quote tags, previewing posts helps with this. I can’t tell what text is yours and what text you are quoting.

“The first 1500 years… just the pre-game show” - imaginary protestant sports announcer.

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, GKC,
S.Thomas More?

**In a letter to Thomas Cromwell, Tom More affirmed his belief that the Bishop of Rome was subserviant to the Ecumenical Councils.Which is the traditional Catholic outlook!

The question of Henry’s love life, which was disgusting, paled before the love life of various Popes for over the 800 years previous to Henry. It is interesting that this outlook is so enduring amongst Roman Catholics. You should take more exercise On this question it is interesting that what Henry hoped for from the Pope had already been granted by the Pope to the King of France. It was bought by enormous cash advances. Henry’s trouble was that he paid his money but the Pope and the Court of Rome defaulted, frightened of the wrath of the German Emperor, a Good Catholic who was responsible for the death of an estimated 150,000 of his religious opponents who I imagine were Lutherans.
History tells us that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!**

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

You have usually provided better responses … and, this is a simply turning around in circles. It appears that you are actively defending Henry for the similar action you have criticized the Pope. Historically, the Pope (and that would be Peter in Matt 16:18) began as the spiritual leader, acquired civil governance by virtue of the fact he alone was left standing after the fall of the Roman Empire - gradually (and not always willingly) gave up temporal power to what is now Vatican City - but, never lost spiritual leadership. Henry is quite different.

The monarchy of England had a long and colorful history leading up to Henry VII and his successor. Who actually applied for the dispensation - and the reasons for it - are truly of no consequence to this topic. The dispensation for young Henry to marry Mary was made and granted and the marriage took place - and was consumapted. There is no reasonable ground to claim that a marriage never existed. This nonsense about not having a male heir is strictly beyond the bounds of the Sacrament of Matrimony. And, that is really the fact of the matter.

Defending Henry for trying to defend his temporal crown by SELF-claiming he is now pope is to attempt to usurp what he can not possibly have in reality. For those forthright souls like St. Thomas More and many others (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation) who followed their conscience rather than king’s orders - a heavenly crown is theirs, rather than the priase given to the lackey.

Henry VIII freely chose to confrom his belief to fit his bedroom adventures. Like Luther he had ‘industrial strength pride’ - but also the temporal power to effect his will on others while on earth. Defending Henry’s claim to spiritual authority is not only a lost cause - but a poor masquerade of trying to praise hubris.

What makes Henry even more tragic than Luther is that his entire focus on a male heir was never really materialized.

God bless

Your assessment of my habitual responses is kind.

No, as I said before, I’m explaining Henry. With history. It’s a mistake to couch such things in terms of defense. Makes a sectarian exercise of it, not an historical one. I’m not interested in waving cardboard cutouts, on either side.

That colorful history is a hobby of mine, I tend to aim for terminological precision. It was indeed Hank Sr. who wanted the dispensation. The dispensation had nothing to do with “Mary”, but with Catherine. The point as to Julius’ dispensation is the question of whether it was ultra vires, or (another issue), incomplete in overlooking an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty. Whether the marriage between Henry and Catherine was consummatum has no bearing on the validity of the marriage. The claim in Henry’s causa was in keeping with such things as it was done in the day. His case was esaily better than that of his sister Margaret, for example. Who received her decree.

The question was not whether a marriage existed. It was whether a valid marriage existed. And the system of impediments/dispensations and decrees of nullity was precisely crafted to allow two things to live together: the maintenance of matrimony as a sacrament under the control of the Church, and the making and breaking of dynastic marriages for reasons of state. It was the reason that impediments of affinity or of consanguinity, stretched out, before Trent, to 6 degrees. It was the recognition and accomodation of the relationship between politics and theology. And it was a commonplace, in Henry’s day. Henry’s problem was that he ran into a stronger political influence than he could counter, esp. post Pavia.

What made Henry’s concern (a perfectly natural one, given the country’s only previous experience with a female monarch, and given the nature of the Tudor grip on the Throne) ironic was that it was conventional wisdom that was proven to be an unnecessary concern. But it was certainly the wisdom of the day. Even so, Henry tried for a while to work out a method of using his daughter Mary as heir, just as he also worked on the idea of using the Duke of Richmond. In the end, he settled on the simplest solution (and one that let him scratch the Boleyn itch). He sought a decree of nullity. Simple. Happened all the time. And you are right. He had the political power to make a political response to what was a political rejection of his case.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Bingo! Therefore to all intents and purpose he has made himself adjudicator of the Christian life and it just so happened that he decided to let it be.

Nonetheless, by saying he was the head of the Church he made himself Pope though he did not quite put it that way.

And in doing so made himself Pope even though he did not exercise the prerogative nor gave himself the title.

As I said before, should it so happen that he had an issue on an article of faith, it would be within the boundaries he has set for himself to decree this to be what England should follow.

Yes, that may be the way it was practiced but as I have outline above, it had ramifications on the spiritual life far greater than that.

Head of the Church in England. A title that lasted 20 years, until the 2nd Act of Repeals, of Mary. Replaced by the term "governor, by Elizabeth, 5 years later. And after about 50 years, a meaningless term, in that the sovereign was not in any sense, save technically, the governor or head of the CoE in any pratical sense.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

Don’t forget DF - a title Henry had obviously grown so fond of that the Pope taking it away (simply for being a murdering heretic…) brought about him ultimately granting it to himself…

Now… onward.

God bless

Head of the Church in England. A title that lasted 20 years, until the 2nd Act of Repeals, of Mary. Replaced by the term "governor, by Elizabeth, 5 years later. And after about 50 years, a meaningless term, in that the sovereign was not in any sense, save technically, the governor or head of the CoE in any pratical sense.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

Classic response. Here you had a chance to really come through with some objective references … and, I for one am again disasspointed.

Just how many other posters out there have 'Dixon’s Hist. 3rd.Vol." is beyond me. Do you think you have something that we all could access on the net - or, is that asking too much?

Reginald Cardinal Pole (12 March 1500 – 17 November 1558) was a remarkable man and one apparently devoted to the Primacy of Peter - something that Archbishop Cramer came to appreciate when he recanted under Mary’s reign with Cardinal Pole being her advisor. Your quote seems highly out of place … could it have been from Cramer while Henry VIII was still on the throne? But, whatever the source, it is suspect given Pole’s life and writings. Here is a link with a brief bio: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Pole

The Council of Trent (December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563 in twenty-five sessions for three periods) was rather impressive as Councils go - and it may be that finding all of hte problems you have mentioned is going to take time - especially when they are without specific references.

Here is a link to the actual Decrees of the Council of Trent: catholic-forum.com/saints/trent00.htm Please be specific as to what your real issues are in this area.

God bless

benedictus2;7899722:

Which Church Father and which Ecumenical council said that a country’s king is the head of the Church of that country?

**
**
If you read the Catholic View of the Monarchy,in Liber Concilia, by Cardinal Pole you will see the place given to the monarch at that time was very much the head of the Church, Pole calls him ,“The Vicar of Christ"and " Regal Head, as the Pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head” (.Pge 370,Dixon’s Hist. 3rd, Vol.)

You have not read, even the R/C view of Trent, so how can you determine the sense of it.
Whilst Paul tells us to preserve the Deposit, 9 Thess.) Trent ADDED, to the Faith, whilst
It virtually added the Jurisdiction as a dogma! Friend, you must read more than the Vatican handouts on the subject! Further Trent added to the Creed, the Nicaene Creed that is, which as I understand is totally forbidden.

---

Canterbury yes. They’ve gone for ordaining women, active homosexuals, allowed contraception … all no-nos as far as the councils and church Fathers were concerned.

**Even so they didn’t try to foist a spurious Vicar of Christ on the Church as did Rome.
As for Homosexuals, you must ask the parishioners in the next town to where I live, their priest went to jail for six years for homosexual deeds with his young parishioners, whilst the Dean of that are was retired out to grass, for turning a blind eye to his subordinates activities.

You pays your money and takes your turn, it seems.
What Canterbury did, was to forget Tradition and its palce in the Church. The question of Women, should have gone to a Council of Bishops for discussion, seeing the great trauma it caused. Rome became a sect for adding Jurisdiction and Infallibility to the Faith.
**

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seasmusmohr,

So, let me get this straight: St. Thoms More denied the Primacy of Peter…? Would you happen to have an objective referece we could get on the internet?

Now, let’s not get into a vicarious ad hominem attack on the scandelous lives of certain popes. You know, we have been having a pope in charge of the Catholic Church for about 2,000 years - and, yes, there were a few who did not live the life of following Christ. Ah, but, there was only one Henry VIII! So, this puts him automatically in a class by himself. His desire to make himself head of his own church so he could do what he wanted - including the state sponsored murders of two of his wives is something that I do not think any pope every engaged in.

Don’t forget the reference(s)…

God bless

tqualey;7899695:

Hi, GKC,
S.Thomas More?

**In a letter to Thomas Cromwell, Tom More affirmed his belief that the Bishop of Rome was subserviant to the Ecumenical Councils.Which is the traditional Catholic outlook!

The question of Henry’s love life, which was disgusting, paled before the love life of various Popes for over the 800 years previous to Henry. It is interesting that this outlook is so enduring amongst Roman Catholics. You should take more exercise On this question it is interesting that what Henry hoped for from the Pope had already been granted by the Pope to the King of France. It was bought by enormous cash advances. Henry’s trouble was that he paid his money but the Pope and the Court of Rome defaulted, frightened of the wrath of the German Emperor, a Good Catholic who was responsible for the death of an estimated 150,000 of his religious opponents who I imagine were Lutherans.
History tells us that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!**

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

Don’t forget DF - a title Henry had obviously grown so fond of that the Pope taking it away (simply for being a murdering heretic…) brought about him ultimately granting it to himself…

Now… onward.

God bless

True; by Act of Parliament,1544, repealed by Mary, restored by Elizabeth, and there today.

Onward. Interesting story behind the story as to how the title came about. You know it? I’m not merely referring to the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

**If you read the Catholic View of the Monarchy,in Liber Concilia, by Cardinal Pole you will see the place given to the monarch at that time was very much the head of the Church, Pole calls him ,“The Vicar of Christ"and " Regal Head, as the Pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head” (.Pge 370,Dixon’s Hist. 3rd, Vol.) **

Just a very quick reply as my lunch break is almost over.

Let me step you through my question so you will understand it.

You have been going on and on about the Church Fathers and General Councils reiterating their primacy.

So I asked : “Which Church Father and which Ecumenical council said that a country’s king is the head of the Church of that country?”

You answered with Liber Concilia by Cardinal Pole.

**Is Cardinal Pole a Church Father or General Council?

Is Liber Concilia a Church Father or General Council?**

Hope that makes the question clearer.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

Classic response. Here you had a chance to really come through with some objective references … and, I for one am again disasspointed.

Just how many other posters out there have 'Dixon’s Hist. 3rd.Vol." is beyond me. Do you think you have something that we all could access on the net - or, is that asking too much?

Reginald Cardinal Pole (12 March 1500 – 17 November 1558) was a remarkable man and one apparently devoted to the Primacy of Peter - something that Archbishop Cramer came to appreciate when he recanted under Mary’s reign with Cardinal Pole being her advisor. Your quote seems highly out of place … could it have been from Cramer while Henry VIII was still on the throne? But, whatever the source, it is suspect given Pole’s life and writings. Here is a link with a brief bio: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Pole

The Council of Trent (December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563 in twenty-five sessions for three periods) was rather impressive as Councils go - and it may be that finding all of hte problems you have mentioned is going to take time - especially when they are without specific references.

Here is a link to the actual Decrees of the Council of Trent: catholic-forum.com/saints/trent00.htm Please be specific as to what your real issues are in this area.

God bless
seamusmohr;7900046:
I’ve only got Vol. 5, myself.

But if you have Nook capability, it’s down-loadable for the reasonable fee of 0.00. Hard to beat

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

**If you read the Catholic View of the Monarchy,in Liber Concilia, by Cardinal Pole you will see the place given to the monarch at that time was very much the head of the Church, Pole calls him ,“The Vicar of Christ"and " Regal Head, as the Pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head” (.Pge 370,Dixon’s Hist. 3rd, Vol.) **

A few more comments before I leave for home. I will have to reply to the rest tomorrow.

Your thinking is getting even more haphazard as the days progress.

First: In the above quote, you are trying to support your position by appealing to the “Catholic view of the Monarchy”. Isn’t that rather absurd considering that it is the Catholic view that you are trying to beat to pieces? One moment her view is suspect the next moment you are trying to hide behind her skirt. What’s going on there?

Second. That Pole or others, may think that King is the Vicar of Christ does not in fact make them the vicar of Christ. For that, we need to consult Christ and nowhere in the Bible has Christ given this role to a King. However, He did so with Peter (refer to John 21 : “feed my lambs, feed my sheep”.

Third. I may be wrong in this but it seems there are no English Translations around of Pole’s De Concilio so how do you know this is what he really said? In what sense was this said and so forth?

You have not read, even the R/C view of Trent, so how can you determine the sense of it.

And it seems you have not read much of anything either. I have a feeling that you are a doing a cut and paste from some nasty website.
Dixon who? Hist. What?

**Whilst Paul tells us to preserve the Deposit, 9 Thess.) Trent ADDED, to the Faith, whilst
It virtually added the Jurisdiction as a dogma! **

Which deposit was Paul talking about in which Chapter of Thess? There are only 5 Chapters in 1 Thess and 3 Chapters in 2 Thess so which verse are you referring to exactly when you say 9 Thess?

Considering you can’t even cite precisely which text you are trying to use to support your argument, then you’ve got no way of knowing whether something was added or not at all.