Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[guanophore]

Luther didn’t choose to revolt, he was excommunicated.

I agree, it was not his intention to foment a revolt - in the beginning. However, his hubris got the better of him, and he ended up doing so in the end. He excommunicated himself by rejecting the Teaching of the Apostles.

The Reformers did not believe in Private Interpretation of Scripture.

Luther made himself his own authority. He did not appreciate it when everyone else did the same.

Scripture alone is a praxis based on necessity once the Catholic praxis of the authority of the Church and Tradition had shown itself to be flawed.

No, it is never necessary to abandon the One Faith because people are flawed. People are always in need of Reform. Granted, there were wolves among the sheep, but that does not invalidate the Teaching of the Church.

That is like saying we should not follow the Teachings of Jesus because Judas did not.

 

[guanophore]

When the current situation becomes untenable, you start to question your assumptions.

Indeed.

The papacy made it impossible for the monarchs and princes to do their jobs,

It is not the papacy that does this, but the conflation of spiritual and secular authority. Jesus never gave Peter secular authority over anything. He was clear that His kindom is not of this world.

and so they broke away from the temporal power of the papacy. Unfortunately the papacy insisted that meant spiritual schism as well.

This is one of the best things that ever happened to the Church, because the secular contamination was fomenting corruption.

However, this does not equate to a spiritual schism. There is no need to invent new doctrines to Reform the Church./

 

[guanophore]

What it comes down to I think is that you can’t claim spiritual authority and exercise it for purely temporal ends, and then expect anyone to take that spiritual authority seriously.

Amen!

And I don’t mean the spiritual authority of individual priests, bishops, or popes, but of the church, sacraments, and Tradition.

There is no other kind. Since using a church office for purposes of greed and power are not part of the teaching of the Apostles, such persons behaving as wolves among the sheep cannot invalidate the authority of the church. They separate themselves from her, by their sins, cause great scandal and division, but cannot change that which is inviolable.

The lack of Christian unity is a scandal and a shame, but the CC brought the Reformation on itself. The undermined their own authority at every level.

I agree. Sin begats more sin, and only bad fruit can grow on a bad tree.
But the Church is not a bad tree, though there have been members attached to her that are.

 

[guanophore]

What makes you think I dismiss Tradition?

Scripture alone is a praxis based on necessity once the Catholic praxis of the authority of the Church and Tradition had shown itself to be flawed.

What it comes down to I think is that you can’t claim spiritual authority and exercise it for purely temporal ends, and then expect anyone to take that spiritual authority seriously. And I don’t mean the spiritual authority of individual priests, bishops, or popes, but of the church, sacraments, and** Tradition**.

The lack of Christian unity is a scandal and a shame, but the CC brought the Reformation on itself. The undermined their own authority at every level.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps it is in harmony with some Protestants too. As I recall the United Church of Christ for instance, stating “God is still speaking”.

The fact that God is still speaking does not give us the authority to change what He spoke previously.

 

[CMatt25]

The fact that God is still speaking does not give us the authority to change what He spoke previously.

Perhaps not unless we need to better understand what He meant by what He spoke previously. Take just as one instance. He said a Creation day was the evening and the morning. And yet many Christians no longer measure such a day as having occurred in those terms. But I know Guan it is your faith and belief the Catholic Church infallibly will reveal all the necessary understanding in teaching faith and morals. So the 2 of us don’t need to start going in circles again about faith. God bless.

 

[Augustine3]

I have a question for Protestants – if the Church is a divine institution set up by Christ Himself how could He allow His Church to teach false doctrines especially when he said “the gates of Hades will not overcome it”?

God bless,

 

[CMatt25]

I have a question for Protestants – if the Church is a divine institution set up by Christ Himself how could He allow His Church to teach false doctrines especially when he said “the gates of Hades will not overcome it”?

God bless,

I’m not as voiced in Protestant thought as I’d like to be. That’s why I started this thread. But there is a different understanding as to what constitutes the Church. And I have heard it said the gates will not prevail in the end. But hopefully someone “in the know” bettter than me can add more. Fortunately a lot of good Protestants have participated in the thread thus far for which I am grateful. As I believe it is a good thing to further our understanding of each other. God bless you too.

 

[tqualey]

Hats off to you, Bluegoat!

And, here I was thinking that Henry’s documented six wives, and his reported multiple mistresses and veneral disease were pretty good evidence he was just a lustful man who was into both serial and sequential adultery… oh, how I have misjudged this beloved monarch! God save the King … and all who lay with him!

And, poor Mary - an heir, but not viewed as one! And then there was the issue of Elizabeth who never had the honest recognition of legitimacy.

Unfortunately the popular media tends to let on that Henry was an inveterate philanderer, which wasn’t really the case.

Thank you, Bluegoat, for this most insightful view of this truly remarkable king.

God bless

But that isn’t really the point except in so far as it colours the way people think. In a form of government that depends on inheritance, having a secure heir is very important. This was recognized throughout the period in question, including by the papacy. A woman was not a secure heir - the experience in England had made it clear to them that was not a good road to go down, with the potential of civil war being very real to them.

The normal recourse in cases where there was no heir was annulment, and granting one was an every day occurrence, not just among monarchs, but the nobility in general.

Henry did not look for an annulment until Catherine was past child bearing, and he was fully confident he would get one. He was denied, but not for moral or spiritual reasons.

he was denied because the Pope was under the direct power of the Emperor of Spain, the enemy of England.

So in effect, the papacy was enabaling Spain, England’s enemy, to determine her national security. No monarch could carry on under those circumstances.

This kind of a thing was a problem throughout Europe, and is why many of the European princes welcomed the Reformation. The arrangement by which the papacy held both temporal and spiritual power had become untenable in very direct ways.

 

[Serap]

Hats off to you, Bluegoat!

And, here I was thinking that Henry’s documented six wives, and his reported multiple mistresses and veneral disease were pretty good evidence he was just a lustful man who was into both serial and sequential adultery… oh, how I have misjudged this beloved monarch! God save the King … and all who lay with him!

And, poor Mary - an heir, but not viewed as one! And then there was the issue of Elizabeth who never had the honest recognition of legitimacy.

Bluegoat made a very good account of history. Bluegoat never said that Henry was a good moral man. He simply stated the history of why the Church of England was created and sometimes history hurts.

He was a bitter, cruel and evil man, but it doesn’t change the facts in history.

 

[Curious_Seed]

While you gave a non-answer to my direct question, I can give you the following answer regarding the origin of the Catholic Church.

I define the origin of the Catholic Church as God. Jesus handpicked the Apostles, and they became Bishops and appointed successors to themselves. Jesus re-named Simon to Peter when he made him the leader of the Apostles, or Bishops, and thus the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. These Apostles had Disciples which are similar to modern day Priests, and they minister to the people. The Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and they have the authority on earth to govern the Church by God’s Holy Spirit guiding them, infallibly, until the end of the world. Amen.

You define the origin of the Catholic Church as God.

Fair enough.

All Christian denominations claim their origin as God; so, this is not peculiar to Catholics.

Still, your point is taken.

Jesus handpicked the Apostles.

True.

Each became a Bishop.

Each became a Bishop?

Each appointed successors to themselves?

Well, ok, for you, but, for me, history does not support your thinking.

And so, I disagree; but, let me say that I am impressed by the succinct succession of your thoughts: quite impressive [no sarcasm intended].

 

[GKC]

Bluegoat made a very good account of history. Bluegoat never said that Henry was a good moral man. He simply stated the history of why the Church of England was created and sometimes history hurts.

He was a bitter, cruel and evil man, but it doesn’t change the facts in history.

True.

GKC

 

[araiceil]

phi·lan·der   /fɪˈlændər/
[fi-lan-der]

–verb (used without object)
(of a man) to make love with a woman one cannot or will not marry; carry on flirtations.

Synonyms: adulterer, chaser, cruiser, dallier, debaucher, flirt, gallant, lover, operator, swinger, Casanova, Don Juan, Romeo, gigolo, ladies’ man, lady-killer, lecher, libertine, lover, philanderer , rake, seducer, skirt chaser, stud*, wolf*

Antonyms: faithful

Also:

Children (or at least the documented ones):
By Catherine of Aragon (married Greenwich Palace 11 June 1509; annulled 23 May 1533)
Unnamed Daughter 31 January 1510- 2 February 1510
Henry, Duke of Cornwall 1 January 1511 -22 February 1511
Henry, Duke of Cornwall December 1514 died within one month of birth
Queen Mary I 18 February 1516 -17 November 1558
Unnamed Daughter November 1518 died within one week of birth

By Anne Boleyn (married Westminster Abbey 25 January 1533; annulled 17 May 1536) beheaded on 19 May 1536
Queen Elizabeth I 7 September 1533 -24 March 1603 never married; no issue

By Jane Seymour (married York Place 30 May 1536; Jane Seymour died 24 October 1537)
King Edward VI 12 October 1537 -6 July 1553 unmarried; no issue

By Anne of Cleves (married Greenwich Palace 6 January 1540; annulled 9 July 1540)
no issue

By Catherine Howard (married Oatlands Palace 28 July 1540; annulled 23 November 1541) beheaded on 13 February 1542
no issue

By Catherine Parr (married Hampton Court Palace 12 July 1543; Henry VIII died 28 January 1547)
no issue

By Elizabeth Blount
Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset 15 June 1519 -23 July 1536 illegitimate; married 1533, the Lady Mary Howard; no issue

By Mary Boleyn
Catherine Carey, Lady Knollys c. 1524 -15 January 1569 married Sir Francis Knollys; had issue
Henry Carey, Baron Hunsdon 4 March 1526 -23 July 1596 married 1545, Ann Morgan; had issue

So, explain to me how it is that saying Henry VIII was NOT a philanderer is historically accurate?

True.

GKC

Originally Posted by Serap
Bluegoat made a very good account of history.

 

[Serap]

phi·lan·der   /fɪˈlændər/
[fi-lan-der]

–verb (used without object)
(of a man) to make love with a woman one cannot or will not marry; carry on flirtations.

Synonyms: adulterer, chaser, cruiser, dallier, debaucher, flirt, gallant, lover, operator, swinger, Casanova, Don Juan, Romeo, gigolo, ladies’ man, lady-killer, lecher, libertine, lover, philanderer , rake, seducer, skirt chaser, stud*, wolf*

Antonyms: faithful

Also:

Children (or at least the documented ones):
By Catherine of Aragon (married Greenwich Palace 11 June 1509; annulled 23 May 1533)
Unnamed Daughter 31 January 1510- 2 February 1510
Henry, Duke of Cornwall 1 January 1511 -22 February 1511
Henry, Duke of Cornwall December 1514 died within one month of birth
Queen Mary I 18 February 1516 -17 November 1558
Unnamed Daughter November 1518 died within one week of birth

By Anne Boleyn (married Westminster Abbey 25 January 1533; annulled 17 May 1536) beheaded on 19 May 1536
Queen Elizabeth I 7 September 1533 -24 March 1603 never married; no issue

By Jane Seymour (married York Place 30 May 1536; Jane Seymour died 24 October 1537)
King Edward VI 12 October 1537 -6 July 1553 unmarried; no issue

By Anne of Cleves (married Greenwich Palace 6 January 1540; annulled 9 July 1540)
no issue

By Catherine Howard (married Oatlands Palace 28 July 1540; annulled 23 November 1541) beheaded on 13 February 1542
no issue

By Catherine Parr (married Hampton Court Palace 12 July 1543; Henry VIII died 28 January 1547)
no issue

By Elizabeth Blount
Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset 15 June 1519 -23 July 1536 illegitimate; married 1533, the Lady Mary Howard; no issue

By Mary Boleyn
Catherine Carey, Lady Knollys c. 1524 -15 January 1569 married Sir Francis Knollys; had issue
Henry Carey, Baron Hunsdon 4 March 1526 -23 July 1596 married 1545, Ann Morgan; had issue

So, explain to me how it is that saying Henry VIII was NOT a philanderer is historically accurate?

what has his character got to do with anything? yes, he was a jerk and spriritually deficient, but he still was denied the annullment b/c of the issue with Spain.

This is what sparked the reformation in England, not the wives he had afterwards. Executing his 2 wives afterwards, just showed how horrible a man he was, but it doesn’t alter the reason of the reformation.

what is the point you are trying to make?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Serap,

I guess that is what makes a horse race - in my opinion, Bluegoat was more of an apolotist for Henry’s sexual exploits, and mismanagement of government. Henry left the Catholic Church because he was denied a divorce - and that was the bottom line. While there are many claims about why the Pople denied the divorce - we just need to look at the facts: he requested a dispensation to marry his late brother’s wife, had several children by her (but, was dissatisified) and chose to cast his seed elsewhere. Requesting the recognition of marriage would have simply made a joke out of the Sacrament.

Now, we can go on in this area - but, the bottom line is not everyone is in agreement with what the motivation is for people like Henry VII to chose a particular course of action. And that is one of the things we are discussing.

Basically, Henry kept virtually everything he could get his hands on when it came to Catholic Church doctrine (and property). The snag, in my opinion, is that the teachings of the Catholic Church are so integral with one another that removing one of them (e.g., Henry making himself the head of the church) starts the process of unraveling the entire cloth. Henry saw some of this coming, I think - but, just look what you have today with the Canterbury recognizing practicing homosexuals to the office of bishop to the dismay of other Anglican communions. The group is in outright schism - and the branches lead right back to Henry and his determined philandering.

If you like some other explaination, fine. Stick with it. I saw problems in the presentation and pointed them out.

God bless

Bluegoat made a very good account of history. Bluegoat never said that Henry was a good moral man. He simply stated the history of why the Church of England was created and sometimes history hurts.

He was a bitter, cruel and evil man, but it doesn’t change the facts in history.

 

[araiceil]

what has his character got to do with anything? yes, he was a jerk and spriritually deficient, but he still was denied the annullment b/c of the issue with Spain.

This is what sparked the reformation in England, not the wives he had afterwards. Executing his 2 wives afterwards, just showed how horrible a man he was, but it doesn’t alter the reason of the reformation.

what is the point you are trying to make?

My point is that you asserted Bluegoats statement that Henry VIII was not in fact a philanderer was true. It clearly and factually is not.

Your opinion on the reasoning behind his denial of an annulment is simply that. Doctrinally since he had a child with her (actually, more than one, but one that lived) it is clear that according to the DOCTRINE of the Church, the marriage was a VALID one and therefore not eligible for ANNULMENT.

Don’t kid yourself… As far as Henry’s part in the reformation in England goes, it was sparked by his desire to have a male heir, and the Church’s moral standards were too high to allow that to happen.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Serap,

Henry’s character (or, lack of it) speaks for itself. Your comment positing the reason why he did not receive the divorce he requested is simply an opinion you are parading around like a fact. Of course there were issues with Spain - but, to leave it there is like saying none of the theology on marriage makes any difference - it was just a political deal and Henry got cheated.

It wasn’t the ‘wives’ he had afterwards - it was his divorce with his wife and marrying his mistress that brought about his revolt with Rome.

I think the point that is trying to be made is that Henry refused to be denied - and did all in his power - and that begins with breaking with the Church he once defended from Luther. Henry refused to be stopped - but eventually his prideful nature and wildly tossed ‘oats’ caught up with him in several ways.

Say what you like, but the Pope stood up for principle and he knew full well that Henry would not take this lying down. No action in the real world is devoid of other considerations - and, I have no doubt that considering Spain’s response to a divorce entered into the Pope’s thinking… but, this is pure speculation on my part. You are presenting this element as the dominant factor and matter of sacramental integrity have little or no bearing here.

I think you are in error on this point and I have given you the reasons for it. I respectfully suggest you re-think your position and give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. Henry knew full well about the situation with Spain - and went directly to the Pope claiming he lied to get the original dispensation. You really have to wonder if Henry lied then or was now lying to the Pope to get his way. This monarch was simply not to be trusted - a lesson learned by the 5 women who previously called him ‘husband’.

God bless

what has his character got to do with anything? yes, he was a jerk and spriritually deficient, but he still was denied the annullment b/c of the issue with Spain.

This is what sparked the reformation in England, not the wives he had afterwards. Executing his 2 wives afterwards, just showed how horrible a man he was, but it doesn’t alter the reason of the reformation.

what is the point you are trying to make?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Araiceil,

Great post!

God bless

My point is that you asserted Bluegoats statement that Henry VIII was not in fact a philanderer was true. It clearly and factually is not.

Your opinion on the reasoning behind his denial of an annulment is simply that. Doctrinally since he had a child with her (actually, more than one, but one that lived) it is clear that according to the DOCTRINE of the Church, the marriage was a VALID one and therefore not eligible for ANNULMENT.

Don’t kid yourself… As far as Henry’s part in the reformation in England goes, it was sparked by his desire to have a male heir, and the Church’s moral standards were too high to allow that to happen.

 

[GKC]

My point is that you asserted Bluegoats statement that Henry VIII was not in fact a philanderer was true. It clearly and factually is not.

Your opinion on the reasoning behind his denial of an annulment is simply that. Doctrinally since he had a child with her (actually, more than one, but one that lived) it is clear that according to the DOCTRINE of the Church, the marriage was a VALID one and therefore not eligible for ANNULMENT.

Don’t kid yourself… As far as Henry’s part in the reformation in England goes, it was sparked by his desire to have a male heir, and the Church’s moral standards were too high to allow that to happen.

The child (Mary) had no bearing on the validity or invalidity of Henry’s marriage to Catherine. His point, in his causa,, was that Julius’ dispensation (which was in response, not to Henry, the prince, but to Henry’s father, Henry VII, who was primarily concerned with keeping the marriage dowry Catherine had brought, in marrying Arthur), was ultra vires, the Levitical prohibition being beyond the power of the Pope is dispense. That is, the prohibition was asserted to be of divine, not of Church, origin. The Levitical prohibition was certainly sometimes so treated, as one of the category of impediments that were absolute, such as an impediment of consanguinity in the first degree, direct. But it was not a clear cut position, and, like much of the law relating to impediments and dispensations, in constant flux. It was, in fact, a weak argument. But one that was as strong as was generally the case in matters of state marriages such as this one. There was a stronger argument available, that of an undispensed, but diriment, impediment of the justice of public honesty, which Wolsey urged as the basis of Henry’s case. Henry ignored it.

The system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity was a constantly evolving one, and a highly complex one, in Henry’s day (the Council of Trent began to take it in hand). It was developed to do two things simultaneously: allow the Church to control matrimony as a sacrament, and permit the making and breaking of dynastic marriages, for reasons of state. The decrees of nullity which Henry’s sister Margaret received were examples. That is, like much in the day, it was a mixture of theological and political goals. Normally, Henry’s case would have probably been looked on favorably. But normally, such a case did not also involve the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, and European politics, involving the Pope. Which meant the system worked as it was supposed to, and Henry was trumped, by real-politics. He was in a position to make a political/theological response of his own, and did.

History is complicated, but interesting, more so than the waving about of cardboard cut-outs. For those interested, I always recommend Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, the standard bio, and Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII, the latter for mind-numbing details.

I got to stop doing this.

GKC

 

[araiceil]

The child (Mary) had no bearing on the validity or invalidity of Henry’s marriage to Catherine. His point, in his causa,, was that Julius’ dispensation (which was in response, not to Henry, the prince, but to Henry’s father, Henry VII, who was primarily concerned with keeping the marriage dowry Catherine had brought, in marrying Arthur), was ultra vires, the Levitical prohibition being beyond the power of the Pope is dispense. That is, the prohibition was asserted to be of divine, not of Church, origin. The Levitical prohibition was certainly sometimes so treated, as one of the category of impediments that were absolute, such as an impediment of consanguinity in the first degree, direct. But it was not a clear cut position, and, like much of the law relating to impediments and dispensations, in constant flux. It was, in fact, a weak argument. But one that was as strong as was generally the case in matters of state marriages such as this one. There was a stronger argument available, that of an undispensed, but diriment, impediment of the justice of public honesty, which Wolsey urged as the basis of Henry’s case. Henry ignored it.

The system of impediments, dispensations and decrees of nullity was a constantly evolving one, and a highly complex one, in Henry’s day (the Council of Trent began to take it in hand). It was developed to do two things simultaneously: allow the Church to control matrimony as a sacrament, and permit the making and breaking of dynastic marriages, for reasons of state. The decrees of nullity which Henry’s sister Margaret received were examples. That is, like much in the day, it was a mixture of theological and political goals. Normally, Henry’s case would have probably been looked on favorably. But normally, such a case did not also involve the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, and European politics, involving the Pope. Which meant the system worked as it was supposed to, and Henry was trumped, by real-politics. He was in a position to make a political/theological response of his own, and did.

History is complicated, but interesting, more so than the waving about of cardboard cut-outs. For those interested, I always recommend Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, the standard bio, and Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII, the latter for mind-numbing details.

I got to stop doing this.

GKC

My apologies, I assumed (an obvious error on my part) that if you were entering into this conversation you would have educated yourself as to what constitutes an invalid marriage in the Catholic Church. My mistake.