Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[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.

Since what I wrote does address the concept of a valid marriage, with respect to Henry VIII’s situation, at the time, I am perplexed by your comment. Can you expand on your notion a little, with reference to the situation in Henry’s day?

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Araiceil, as a newbie on the forum you may be unfamiliar with posting styles and the general culture on the forum, so you deserve some slack.

However, sarcasm is the protest of the weak and is most certainly unwarranted on this occasion.

 

[GKC]

Araiceil, as a newbie on the forum you may be unfamiliar with posting styles and the general culture on the forum, so you deserve some slack.

However, sarcasm is the protest of the weak and is most certainly unwarranted on this occasion.

It doesn’t bother me, but it does puzzle me. The issue of a valid marriage in Henry’s day, with respect to the then governing forms and degrees of impediments, is a small hobby of mine, and has been for 10+ years. Perhaps I can learn something here on that topic.

GKC

 

[hn160]

The problem with Henry the 8th was with him wanting a male heir and being broke. Don’t forget politics played a big part. Rome was playing France, the German States, and Spain against each other. The Pope was ruler of the Papal States and let’s face it there was corruption within the Church. If the Church would have cleaned up it’s act, there probably wouldn’t have been a need for Luther. Luther was right in his Augsburg Confessions.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t bother me, but it does puzzle me. The issue of a valid marriage in Henry’s day, with respect to the then governing forms and degrees of impediments, is a small hobby of mine, and has been for 10+ years. Perhaps I can learn something here on that topic.

GKC

To your credit, then.

However, I feel newbies sometimes need a word of caution and a friendly admonition. Else, they quickly vitiate the generally warm culture of the CAFs, and then we all suffer.

 

[GKC]

To your credit, then.

However, I feel newbies sometimes need a word of caution and a friendly admonition. Else, they quickly vitiate the generally warm culture of the CAFs, and then we all suffer.

D’accord.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Why, I think you’ve got it, Bluegoat!

It is obviously too tedious to identify any document to substantiate your theory that Luther was excommunicated before he rebelled - so just saying so, makes it so! Good job! Luther and Calvin had a perfect role model in real reform of a Catholic Chruch that had seriously run amuck in the person of St. Catherine of Siena. They, however, chose a different voice to listen to - and we see where that voice is leading those who continue to listen.

You know the root cause is Christ - you will recall He picked 12 … not the entire nation of Israel. While I would think that He had a reason for this - and, for making such statements about explaining the secrets of the Kingdom to the Apostles and not to everyone … maybe you are right! Yep - it would have been much better had Christ chosen everyone to be guided by the Spirit … and, according to you He did - it just is not written down!

Oh, and in answer to your question, I think you dismissed SacredTradition because it flies in the face of Sola Scriptura. The Traditions spoken of by Paul as he told the Church at Thessolinika to “…hold fast…” to were not written down! An obvious Pauline oversight. Then there are the Early Church Fathers who upheld things like Baptism of infants, the Real Presence, the Immanculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the necessity of confession, etc., standard things now denied by contemporary Protestants. Yes, I really would say you have dismissed quite a lot.

And the rejection of the ‘Single Leader’ hypothesis as the cause for the Protestant Revolt. I guess Christ should have had eleven other sets of keys made! But, you know, it is His Church and He really did call the shots on setting up everything. But, for the 1,500 years prior to the Protestant Revolt the belief in Christ’s Church fonded on Peter withstood the murderous persecution of the Roman Empire, the Word of God was written, protected and established in the Canon of Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church you are criticizing - for not following SS and orthodoxy was established through the Church Councils, heterodoxy identified and we continue to worship Christ through the Church He established. It has been a busy time.

During the last 500 years, we have seen further splintering of those claiming to follow Christ, heterodoxy replace the Word of God (e.g., endorsement of homosexual behavior by church organizations) and some chruch groups actually returning to the Catholic Church. This has been a busy time, too.

I honestly do not know what to say beyond this. I have attempted to give you documented and reasoned responses and you are content to ignore them and spin fanciful tales of what you would like to see, relieved of the burden of documenting anything.

God bless

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no issue with Tradition, or Infant Baptism, or the rest, not do I support Sola Scriptura. (Well, I would argue with the Immaculate conception, which is an innovation, and certainly not part of Sacred Tradition.)Perhaps you would make more sense if you didn’t assume what other people believe.

It seems to me that what you mean by rebelled is probably different than what I mean. At what point would you say he rebelled, or no longer hoped for a reconciliation?

Probably though if you want to discuss things, you should be less nasty…

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

Actually I didn’t say that he wasn’t a philanderer. He was not, however, while married to Catherine thought to be especially lecherous compared to other people in political marriages. There isn’t much evidence that he was carrying on constantly or with multiple people at once.

You might be surprised to discover that the Catholic Church’s understanding and treatment of the Sacrament of marriage has not always been the same, and has not always been observed, even by the Church itself.

 

[Bluegoat]

How so?

Kind of like the World-Spirit, bringing us to some sort of ultimate point of human understanding or illumination or evolution. Bringing us to the Final Man.

Are you sure that is how the CC would define development of doctrine? I’m not being snarky, it just seems a bit off to me.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

Well, I’m not sure what else could be done under the circumstances. To stay where he was under those circumstances? The Church was not willing to give an inch, and there were serious problems. At most, I think he could have retired silently. But he eventually came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was not in fact the Church. Which would mean that he didn’t owe it any obedience at all.

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

Now, I don’t think this is the case. Lutherans do not teach that Luther, or any individual has that role, and although Luther was influential in the Reformation, he did not in fact have the role of an ultimate authority. That is why Lutheranism was and is confessional. Confessional Christianity is something of an attempt to re-create a model of the Church where you have all members in some sense determining as a whole what is doctrine. This is somewhat similar to what you see in the English Church or Orthodoxy, though through a different mechanism. Notionally (not necessarily successfully) they are all rejecting the idea of one leader or head who can impose ideas on the Church as a whole.

Luther was unhappy about the idea of individuals making themselves Popes because he didn’t think any individual, including himself, could hold such a position.

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.

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./

Yes I agree that the severing of the secular role was very important for the Church.

But it wasn’t the people like Henry or other political figures that were insisting that they be in schism spiritually. I’m not sure how they could have better reacted to what was essentially a kind of spiritual blackmail.

It’s interesting to me - the English Reformation was initially political - the English Church remained very Catholic. If that had continued, today it might have been very easy for there to be some kind of reunion. But those who were interested in the new theological expressions of the Reformation found room to bring them into play and so it has become very difficult.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hn160,

The world certainly is a complex place, isn’t it…

It looks like people all over the world at the time of Henry VIII were determined to do their own thing. From even the most casual reading of history - it was Henry’s pride (having a male heir) and roving eye (multiple mistresses and sequential wives) that got him into all of this trouble. This is totally independent from the valid marriage that Henry began with. It is also totally independent of anything going on in Rome or elsewhere in the world.

Blaming Henry’s troubles on the Pope, to use a US example… is like blaming the Senate Watergate Committee for the resignation of Richard Nixon - rather then, Nixon really was a crook who lied to the American People.

And, if Martin Luther had just looked around at what St. Catherine of Siena had to address - and, did so quite successfully - as opposed to his prideful approach to obvious error and abuse - maybe it would be St. Martin Luther now - instead of just another heretic determined to force others to his will.

God bless

The problem with Henry the 8th was with him wanting a male heir and being broke. Don’t forget politics played a big part. Rome was playing France, the German States, and Spain against each other. The Pope was ruler of the Papal States and let’s face it there was corruption within the Church. If the Church would have cleaned up it’s act, there probably wouldn’t have been a need for Luther. Luther was right in his Augsburg Confessions.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

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

Still, your point is taken.

( …)

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].

Ahh indeed, but related to this thread is just how the first 1500 years of Christianity comes into determining the origin of protestant denominations.

I simply meant that apostolic offices became known as bishoprics. And only bishops can appoint others as bishops.

Thank you & Peace,
Phil

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

At the risk of sounding ‘nasty’ - you have a major contradiction in this post.

Well, I’m not sure what else could be done under the circumstances. To stay where he was under those circumstances? The Church was not willing to give an inch, and there were serious problems. At most, I think he could have retired silently. But he eventually came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was not in fact the Church. Which would mean that he didn’t owe it any obedience at all.

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

Now, I don’t think this is the case. Lutherans do not teach that Luther, or any individual has that role, and although Luther was influential in the Reformation, he did not in fact have the role of an ultimate authority.

You identify that you see Luther having limited options and then he determined that the Catholic Church was not the Church founded by Christ - which is truly a prideful positio to develop. Guanophore points out Luther has made himself his own authority - another manifestation of this prideful position of Luther’s and you disagree…

Luther takes 1500 years of Apostolic Tradition, Scripture, Church History, and writings of the Early Church Fathers (this Augustinian monk even pitched St. Augustine view of the Pope as the Successor of St. Peter) and throws it out the window becaue he decided that he no longer owed obedience to Church he once made vows to. I can understand Luther’s inconsistency - but, I do not understand yours. Are you saying Luther was not prideful? It really looks like Luther was determined to see his point through - no matter what. And as we see what happened, it certainly appears to be his pride that he pitted against Rome.

God bless

 

[hn160]

Hi, Bluegoat,

At the risk of sounding ‘nasty’ - you have a major contradiction in this post.

You identify that you see Luther having limited options and then he determined that the Catholic Church was not the Church founded by Christ - which is truly a prideful positio to develop. Guanophore points out Luther has made himself his own authority - another manifestation of this prideful position of Luther’s and you disagree…

Luther takes 1500 years of Apostolic Tradition, Scripture, Church History, and writings of the Early Church Fathers (this Augustinian monk even pitched St. Augustine view of the Pope as the Successor of St. Peter) and throws it out the window becaue he decided that he no longer owed obedience to Church he once made vows to. I can understand Luther’s inconsistency - but, I do not understand yours. Are you saying Luther was not prideful? It really looks like Luther was determined to see his point through - no matter what. And as we see what happened, it certainly appears to be his pride that he pitted against Rome.

God bless

I guess it depends on your point of view whether one is Roman Catholic or in my case a confessional Lutheran. But to call Luther a heretic, you don’t know what you are talking about, read our Confessions. Luther threw out the things that were not commanded by God in the Bible. The Sacraments had to be instituted by Christ, hence Absolution, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. We didn’t do away with Church Fathers, where they are right, we quote them, but they sometimes contradicted each other. We honor Saints, but we don’t pray to them. We honor the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, but we don’t pray to her. Lutherans consider themselves as Evangelical Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

Kind of like the World-Spirit, bringing us to some sort of ultimate point of human understanding or illumination or evolution. Bringing us to the Final Man.

Yipes! This most certainly is* not *Catholic teaching on development of doctrine!

You are maintaining that the above is a doctrine of some non-mainline Christian denominations? Please cite your sources! I know you said you “have met individuals who seem to believe this” but can you please provide sources for us here? What Christians believes this, as you claim?

Now, what you posted here, is, indeed, quite Catholic:

Originally posted by** Bluegoat:**
or the more educated version which says as we become more and more intellectually sophisticated and aware, we understand Christianity better

.

 

[seamusmohr]

Actually, there is not. And there is no false dichotomy of “this, and not that”. Jesus is THE Rock, and grafted Peter into Himself. Without integration and unity with the cornerstond, Peter cannot be a foundation stone. Peter cannot either be separated from the faith that makes him rocky. Peter, like all the Apostles, becomes part of the foundation because their faith is one with their personhoood. It is no longer they that live, but Christ that lives in them. There is no separation of the three “rocks”.

Of course he is, ‘like all the Apostles’, one amongst 12! But S.Peter is not given anything that Paul doesn’t receive, except perhaps his mission to the Jews. But you have not answered the question of Tradition and the papacy or the papal court, doesn’t enter in to it. In fact the Bishop of Rome has no more power or authority, within the Catholic Church than any other bishop. He is Patriarch of the Holy Roman Church!..

You must understand surely that it isn’t enough to say! You have to prove your points and not by slick one liners!

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Serap

God bless

Henry left the Catholic Church because he was denied a divorce - and that was the bottom line.

He wasn’t denied a divorce, he was denied an annulment! There is a difference?
When did henry leave the Catholic Church? It was the Bishop of Rome who cut Henry from Communion with the particular Church of Rome, of which the Bishop of Rome was the Patriarch! It was when Henry and the English Parliament questioned the Papal right to interfere in non papal business that caused a furore. When the Pope took his bat and ball home the consequence was felt and another section of Christ’s Body looked askance at the additions to be made final at Trent!. It was the papal interference in English Politics that caused the break between the Church in England and the Church in Rome! Henry’s morals were very little different from those of various pontiffs, at least one of whom, John 12, * had sexual relations with his own mother, whilst she in turn had relations with her father, Johns grandad! [Or Dad?! As for money? Henry was a thief, but wasn’t the pope? Was not the Papal Court banned from England, [virtually,] from Henry II’s time because of his financial exactions.*

 

[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,

I would be interested to see the answer to my question by any good Protestant…

 

[GKC]

seamusmohr:
Henry left the Catholic Church because he was denied a divorce - and that was the bottom line.

He wasn’t denied a divorce, he was denied an annulment! There is a difference?
When did henry leave the Catholic Church? It was the Bishop of Rome who cut Henry from Communion with the particular Church of Rome, of which the Bishop of Rome was the Patriarch! It was when Henry and the English Parliament questioned the Papal right to interfere in non papal business that caused a furore. When the Pope took his bat and ball home the consequence was felt and another section of Christ’s Body looked askance at the additions to be made final at Trent!. It was the papal interference in English Politics that caused the break between the Church in England and the Church in Rome! Henry’s morals were very little different from those of various pontiffs, at least one of whom, John 12, * had sexual relations with his own mother, whilst she in turn had relations with her father, Johns grandad! [Or Dad?! As for money? Henry was a thief, but wasn’t the pope? Was not the Papal Court banned from England, [virtually,] from Henry II’s time because of his financial exactions.*

As always, it was a decree of nullity that Henry and any other in his situation was seeking. Not annulment. A decree of nullity is a statement that due to an impediment existing, with respect to a given sacramental marriage, the sacrament was not validly confected and no valid marriage existed, ab initio..

The point about the political relations between the throne and Rome is correct. The struggle can be seen in Parliamentary acts and royal decrees running back 200-300 years, at least to the first Statute of Westminster.

The points about the various Popes are not germane, true or not.

GKC

 

[Serap]

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

Actually both of you are completely wrong in your account of history. It WAS over the issue of Spain that the Pope was largely influenced by his decision.

Henry could have been given an annullment despite his children b/c he was pressured to marry her by his father in the first place.