Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[tqualey]

Hi, Curious Seed,

Thank you for your colorful responses … As one who also likes color, I can appreciate the effort… Now, let’s take a look at their content.I have taken the liberty of grouping your one line responses together.

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.

‘Peculiar’? No. Original, yes! The expression, “Often copied never duplicated”… comes to mind…

One of the more interesting aspects of the Catholic Chruch is that it has a paper trail going back 2000 years! When you look at the OT there are all of these prophecies about the coming Messiah - and, when He comes there will be many blessings. Christ comes - and, before performing His First Miracle at Cana - He gathered up the Twelve. Now, that He would establish a permanent group of Apostles was never part of any prophecy - and we can see where things start to differ from expectations. The Jews were expecting someone who would overthrow the occupying Roman Army - what they got was Someone Who totally changed the way we think of God - now He is our Brother.

With this in mind, God the Father selected Peter from the Twelve and gave him the answer to Christ’s question. Christ then acknowledges His Father’s choice and Christ then founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18). This Church was initially called The Way and was actively persecuted by Saul of Tarsus a/k/a/ St. Paul until his conversion (Acts 8 & 9). St. Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road took place sometime between 33-36AD. By 108 Ignatius of Antioch is referring to it as the Catholic Church. There are no records that I am aware of that actually track name change during this 75 year history. But, when you look around there were just these three groups: Pagans, Jews and Catholics (no ‘The Wayers’… and no evidence of pre 16th Century Protestants either). Persecutions by the Roman Empire against the Catholic Church ended with Constentine the Great and we see more and more the Catholic Church with its headquarters in Rome, taking on a more noticable role in history. The Early Church Fathers and the Councils of the Church leave a well established record of their thoughts and concerns and beliefs and dogmas. There is the history - available to all who wish to look. No one else has anything like it.

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.

Quite the contrary, Curious Seed - history abounds with such documentation - you just have to look. While, as you know, Christ did not lay out a set of blueprints that were faithfully recorded in the NT with instructions that, “You will follow these exactly” He did tell Peter that whatever he bound on earth was bound in heaven (Matt 16:19). That, in itself, should indicate that there is a tremendous ‘oneness’ between Christ and His Chruch. One thing about the Catholic Bible, there is no “*” symbol at the end of Christ’s statement indicating that this is one time arrangement for the ‘original owner’ or that it would expire at the end of Peter’s life or that Peter had to be sinless for this statement to be in effect, or anything like that.

John tells us at the end of Chapter 20 and 21 that not everything is recorded in Scripture. Those who insist that everything must be in Scripture if it is to be believed are on a fool’s errand. From 33AD - 50AD the first words of the NT had not even been written yet! By 100AD the last book of the NT was just written. And, from 100AD - 400AD there was no Canon of Sacred Scripture - but there were a lot of fraudulent Gnostic texts out there (Gospel of St. Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdeline, etc.) trying to move people away from Christ. It is truly a miracle that the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) lasted so long with only the OT being in print. It is a miracle - and the mircle was accomplished by God inspiring Apostolic Tradition (and this is the same God who inspired the written Word of God).

To use a human example, in 1799 Napoleon’s troops found this strange tablet that had been carved in about 196BC… and no one could read the ancient Egyptian writing. Fortunately his troops did not use it for target practice as they did so many other things - and it was brought back to France. And, there it stood - a message that no one could read. Well, after many years and a lot of work the code was broken - and now all of ancient Egypt’s writings were available to be read. It is a fascinating story (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone) about how understanding truth even in the natural world has to be worked for - it isn’t going to jump out at you in the manner you are demanding and say, “Here I am!”

Later on, Christ tells the Apostles (John 13:16) the the Spirit of Truth will come and guide them to all truth. So, here we have Christ giving Peter a signed ‘blank check’ and then we have Christ telling the Apostles that they will not teach error.

There really isn’t any grey area here - you either believe it or you don’t.

Concerning the word ‘Bishop’ not appearing in the NT, how does ‘Overseer’ sound to you? You can find this in Phil1:1, 1Tim 3:1.

Hope this helps.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by 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…

He hasn’t, though sinful men on earth do, at times, either teach false doctrine, or allow abuses to obscure the truth. The Church is far more than the Church Militant. It is also the Church Triumphant, and if you’re Catholic, the Church Suffering. No one is suggesting that the Church has been or will be overcome by the gates of Hades. If it were, then surely the Church Triumphant would be overcome.

The teaching that the Church will not be overcome is not a temporal teaching, but a teaching regarding Parousia. Scripture tells us that there will be false teachings and teachers on this Earth. There will not be in the Church Triumphant, and the Church will not be overcome by the gates of Hades.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seasmuchmohr,

You are right - it was an annulment that Henry was seeking.

Now, let us get down to the meat of the issue.

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!

In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry

1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born

newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm

I do not want to be ‘nasty’ about this … but, really claiming the Pope is responsible for Henry’s break is like claiming Henry was totally inept and incapable of making his own choices. Yes, it is hard to read that and keep a straight face! Henry was simply reacting the way he always reacted when he did not get his way - and did it another way. When St. Thomas Moore refused to compromise his conscience - Henry had him executed! This is classic despotic rule by a serial adulterer who happened to be the King of England.

Actually, after thinking about Henry’s wild desires to have things his way and all the lives that were lost in this process, I am reminded of a quote from MacBeth,

“I am in blood
Steeped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

That is the problem Henry faced and all of the twists and turns he makes and requires others to make so that they keep their heads. This is the founder of your church you are so eager to defend. Henry’s persuasive abilities have not grown dull over the years.

Seriously, read the link I provided. You do not have to agree with the Pope - just do not defend your king thinking him to have been such a wilted flower in this matter.

God bless

 

[Bluegoat]

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

So you would suggest that a person should just take for granted that any institution which claims authority is true? How then is one to discern between competing claims? Or is each of us just to accept the authority we are born under. If I was raised a Mormon, that is where I ought to stay?

If I have no legitimate ability to look at and discern which of those claims are legitimate, then you can’t claim people ought to join the Catholic Church.

The difficulty is you are begging the question and assuming that the CC is correct. If the CC is not what it claims, then Luther was right to leave it. If it is, he was wrong - It could be that was a matter of pride, but it could also be that he was mistaken, which is a different issue.

But you can’t maintain that humans cannot use their discernment, unless you want to say that a Mormon who becomes Catholic is guilty of the sin of pride.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

If we look at modern teaching on annulment, there would have been many grounds for Henry.

I have no idea why anyone thinks Mary was relevant at all. Having kids does not change the rules for annulment, and girls were not considered secure heirs. Queen Maud convinced people that was a bad idea.

 

[TrueLight]

He hasn’t, though sinful men on earth do, at times, either teach false doctrine, or allow abuses to obscure the truth. The Church is far more than the Church Militant. It is also the Church Triumphant, and if you’re Catholic, the Church Suffering. No one is suggesting that the Church has been or will be overcome by the gates of Hades. If it were, then surely the Church Triumphant would be overcome.

The teaching that the Church will not be overcome is not a temporal teaching, but a teaching regarding Parousia. Scripture tells us that there will be false teachings and teachers on this Earth. There will not be in the Church Triumphant, and the Church will not be overcome by the gates of Hades.

Jon

 

[seamusmohr]

But Seasmohr, shouldn’t his name just remain Simon?

I look at it like this: His name was changed because Simon now is Peter (Rock) like Abram’s name changed to Abraham.

MJ

Martin,
But!!! We are still in the position of having the interpretation of scripture being made by the descendants of the apostles and this by the guidance of the Holy Ghost through the medium of the Seven General Councils! That is the magisterium of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and what we should cling to, not the modern additions.
There are two other points to make, one is that the early church fathers definitely claim Peter’s faith as the Rock,(and as I have already said, if it were Peter, what difference would the name change make?)
The second is that whatever Peter’s position in the College of Apostles, in neither the Scriptures or Holy Tradition does it show the papacy, as an individual or a court, assuming it!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I have to hand it to you … I really idea which part of the rainbow you are going to work next…

But see if we can work this out in a straight-forward and logical manner.

If we look at modern teaching on annulment, there would have been many grounds for Henry.

I have no idea why anyone thinks Mary was relevant at all. Having kids does not change the rules for annulment, and girls were not considered secure heirs. Queen Maud convinced people that was a bad idea.

Why would you want to look at a “…modern teaching on annulment…” ? Henry and the rest of the characters only had the rules of the early 16th Century to work with - just like we can not jump forward in time to look for laws favorable to our dispositions. Your entire premise is based on “IF” … and there is a well-known skiff awaiting your sailing pleasure. Believe me there is more then enough reality here - we do have to time travel into the future.

It really appears that you have bought Henry’s line of reasoning wholeheartedly. Since you have no problems here - please, explain some of these grounds that the King should have used.

You know, the red herring used to by the trainers is quite real. The problem is not the existence of this fish’s odor - but, does it succeed in distracting the hounds?

Henry claims he lied to get the dispensation to marry in the first place. Was he telling the truth or lying? Henry was in a class by himself as a manipulator - probably rivaled only by the kings of France and Spain at the time. Mary is quite relevant - and the argument about females not providing a secure heir was certainly disproven when Elizabeth came to the throne. She held it securely for a long time.

Ultimately, Henry (and Henry’s father) were quite impressed with Catherine of Aragon’s dowry - and bet their furture on it. Well, it probably would have worked had Henry not have been playing musical beds Given all the circumstances prior to this wedding, I am not convinced he did not want to marry her.

And then Henry - always the Renaissance Man defends the Catholic Church against Luther - even to the point of upholding the authority of the papacy. Hmmmmmmm was he lying then or was he lying when he broke with the Catholic Church. Hard to say…

The idea that the Pope - held prisoner by the Spanish crown - was afraid to side with Henry is very imaginative … my guess is, at least based on how Henery processed information - he would have surely gotten his way had he mounted a papal rescue. Now, that would have cost money Henry didn’t have. But, there were those ‘plump’ monestaries to plunder and lands to sell and gold to put in his treasury. No, the cowardly and imprisoned Pope did what all such ‘cowards’ do - he upheld principle (the sanctity of marriage that Henry consumated) and let the chips fall where they will.

As you noted from my previous post, Henry had already broken with the Catholic Chruch and was the head of his own church prior to the pope officially excommunicating him. It is the historical record - the dates - that expose the fiction of poor, wistful Henry being beaten by the imprisoned Pope.

Botton line: no one could trust him. He lied to his wife … then to his wives, he lied to the Pope, he lied to his subjects and saddest of all - he tried to lie to God. Henry divorced two, murdered two, one died of natural cuases and only Kate Parr lived to tell the tale. Hey you are not alone - many people (at least initially) believed in what Henry was saying. There is a notable exception from a person many years removed from Henry’s rule: John H. Newmann. Here is a link you may enjoy: newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

No. There is no virtue to being guible. I would suggest is that you approach this with an open mind and heart and just follow the paper trail as it is historically presented - this way you can what developed when. From a mechanical view - start with the NT and then move to the Early Church Fathers. Then along come the Church Councils. Just read what they say. Look at what they were experiencing, the heresies they confronted and the responses that they provided. This is a serious paper trail - it is hard evidence and it is solid.

The basic idea is that if you are serious, then the early record is there to examine. St. John Newman spent quite a lot of time examining this ‘paper trail’ before he made his move.

May I recommend a time out … and a retreat to Psalm 34 for prayer and contemplation. A humble and contrite heart the Lord will not refuse…
Here is a link: usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm34.htm

God bless

So you would suggest that a person should just take for granted that any institution which claims authority is true? How then is one to discern between competing claims? Or is each of us just to accept the authority we are born under. If I was raised a Mormon, that is where I ought to stay?

If I have no legitimate ability to look at and discern which of those claims are legitimate, then you can’t claim people ought to join the Catholic Church.

The difficulty is you are begging the question and assuming that the CC is correct. If the CC is not what it claims, then Luther was right to leave it. If it is, he was wrong - It could be that was a matter of pride, but it could also be that he was mistaken, which is a different issue.

But you can’t maintain that humans cannot use their discernment, unless you want to say that a Mormon who becomes Catholic is guilty of the sin of pride.

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Seasmuchmohr,

You are right - it was an annulment that Henry was seeking.

Now, let us get down to the meat of the issue.

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

For some 700 years , give or take two, the Catholic Church had been in disagreement about a single major issue, the place of the Bishop of Rome within the Catholic Church!
There were at least four or five councils held on the matter, one of them had some two thousand people there , Kings amongst them! We find that popes were sacked, imprisoned or just ran away and disappeared! They definitely lied on any fair reading of the reports of the various reports!

In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry
1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born

The Bishop of Rome is no more than the Patriarch of Italy, he has not the authority to expel from the Catholic Church, the suburbicarian Church of Italy possibly , Maybe, but the universal Church, the Body of Christ? No one man has that authority! Only a Council!

Protector and Supreme Head? So what? All kings were heads of the various ,‘particular,’ churches, this includes the Pope in his secular position as the ,‘King,’ of vast swathes of Northern Italy. The only thing that Henry did was to make this point official. In England the various Saxon War Lords had all claimed this long before the Norman Conquest! Also these Saxons issued laws that no papal letter or emissaries should be allowed in without their permission. Also that the Catholic Religion in England was the business of the Local bishops and not continental ones.

In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry
1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born

I do not want to be ‘nasty’ about this … but, really claiming the Pope is responsible for Henry’s break is like claiming Henry was totally inept and incapable of making his own choices. Yes, it is hard to read that and keep a straight face! Henry was simply reacting the way he always reacted when he did not get his way - and did it another way. When St. Thomas Moore refused to compromise his conscience - Henry had him executed! This is classic despotic rule by a serial adulterer who happened to be the King of England.

The Papal Responsibility?
Why didn’t the Bishop of Rome refuse immediately he found the truth out instead of allowing the sordid matter to drag on for years? Was it to allow himself and his court to milk the business for all it was worth? As for Tom More, in a letter to Cromwell he claimed that he believed that the place of the Pope was subservient to the Ecumenical Councils!

Actually, after thinking about Henry’s wild desires to have things his way and all the lives that were lost in this process, I am reminded of a quote from MacBeth,
“I am in blood
Steeped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

Before you go down the road of exploiting henry’s corrupt life, you should sit and consider the lives of the popes and perhaps realise as Catholics it is not a road we should go down. Especially when we think of Pope John 12s relationship with his mother.

As for Henry founding the Catholic Church in England? It was formed, according to S.Dorotheus of Tyre,303 AD., by the energy of S.Simon Zelotes, brother of Our Blessed Lord! Aristobulos, was first Bishop, our Church was one of the Communions first formed outside Palestine! The Bishops took part in the formation of the Ecumenical Councils and Church development through the early years.

Yours is the problem by not being able to provide sufficient history or tradition to sustain your vast, but ludicrous, CLAIMS.

 

[GKC]

Henry left the Catholic Church because he was denied a divorce - and that was the bottom line. In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry
1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry
1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born I do not want to be ‘nasty’ about this … but, really claiming the Pope is responsible for Henry’s break is like claiming Henry was totally inept and incapable of making his own choices. Yes, it is hard to read that and keep a straight face! Henry was simply reacting the way he always reacted when he did not get his way - and did it another way. When St. Thomas Moore refused to compromise his conscience - Henry had him executed! This is classic despotic rule by a serial adulterer who happened to be the King of England.

The Papal Responsibility?
Why didn’t the Bishop of Rome refuse immediately he found the truth out instead of allowing the sordid matter to drag on for years? Was it to allow himself and his court to milk the business for all it was worth? As for Tom More, in a letter to Cromwell he claimed that he believed that the place of the Pope was subservient to the Ecumenical Councils!

Before you go down the road of exploiting henry’s corrupt life, you should sit and consider the lives of the popes and perhaps realise as Catholics it is not a road we should go down. Especially when we think of Pope John 12s relationship with his mother.

As for Henry founding the Catholic Church in England? It was formed, according to S.Dorotheus of Tyre,303 AD., by the energy of S.Simon Zelotes, brother of Our Blessed Lord! Aristobulos, was first Bishop, our Church was one of the Communions first formed outside Palestine! The Bishops took part in the formation of the Ecumenical Councils and Church development through the early years.

Yours is the problem by not being able to provide sufficient history or tradition to sustain your vast, but ludicrous, CLAIMS.

Hi, Seamus.

Where’ve you been?

You and Tom play nice, now.

GKC

[/QUOTE]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamushmorh,

I give you specific documentaton with dates and you just dismiss them.

I tell you that Henry was a murderous and adulterous king and you claim he was not as bad as the Pope

I tell you Henry was given an abundance of time to reform his own ways - and you dismiss this with statements impuning the Pope for taking too long to act

Let me point out that Henry went all out to make his claim that wanted out of the marriage he had with Catherine of Aragon. You have yet to substantiate a case why such a request should have been granted.

But, better yet, you have yet to identify why Henry wrote about the primacy of the Pope over the entire Catholic Church (“Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defence of the Seven Sacraments), which defended the sacramental nature of marriage and the supremacy of the Pope.”) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidei_defensor

And, then Henry went to the Pope making a request - was ultimately denied and apparently, in spite, split from Rome, disavowed his previous writings (was he lying then?) and set about the business of being his own pope. You offer no substantiation for any statements and expect that your view will be seen as obviously correct.

A serious and objective look at Henry VIII will see a lazy and wasteful monarch with a real talent for bed jumping. His wasteful life and those of his favored court members (e.g., Cardinal Woolsey) impoverished the kingdom while they lived in splendor. Henry bullied everyone he could - and when that failed, he had them killed (note, Woolsey was falsely accused of treason and died in custody), two of his wives lost their heads and many priests were tortured and murdered for living their faith as they brought the Sacraments to faithful English Catholics. Your efforts at defending this monarch who engaged in what we now call state-sponsored terrorism of his subjects is beyond me.

God bless

Henry left the Catholic Church because he was denied a divorce - and that was the bottom line. In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry
1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry
1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born I do not want to be ‘nasty’ about this … but, really claiming the Pope is responsible for Henry’s break is like claiming Henry was totally inept and incapable of making his own choices. Yes, it is hard to read that and keep a straight face! Henry was simply reacting the way he always reacted when he did not get his way - and did it another way. When St. Thomas Moore refused to compromise his conscience - Henry had him executed! This is classic despotic rule by a serial adulterer who happened to be the King of England.

The Papal Responsibility?
Why didn’t the Bishop of Rome refuse immediately he found the truth out instead of allowing the sordid matter to drag on for years? Was it to allow himself and his court to milk the business for all it was worth? As for Tom More, in a letter to Cromwell he claimed that he believed that the place of the Pope was subservient to the Ecumenical Councils!

Before you go down the road of exploiting henry’s corrupt life, you should sit and consider the lives of the popes and perhaps realise as Catholics it is not a road we should go down. Especially when we think of Pope John 12s relationship with his mother.

As for Henry founding the Catholic Church in England? It was formed, according to S.Dorotheus of Tyre,303 AD., by the energy of S.Simon Zelotes, brother of Our Blessed Lord! Aristobulos, was first Bishop, our Church was one of the Communions first formed outside Palestine! The Bishops took part in the formation of the Ecumenical Councils and Church development through the early years.

Yours is the problem by not being able to provide sufficient history or tradition to sustain your vast, but ludicrous, CLAIMS.

[/QUOTE]

 

[GKC]

Hi, Seamushmorh,

I give you specific documentaton with dates and you just dismiss them.

I tell you that Henry was a murderous and adulterous king and you claim he was not as bad as the Pope

I tell you Henry was given an abundance of time to reform his own ways - and you dismiss this with statements impuning the Pope for taking too long to act

Let me point out that Henry went all out to make his claim that wanted out of the marriage he had with Catherine of Aragon. You have yet to substantiate a case why such a request should have been granted.

But, better yet, you have yet to identify why Henry wrote about the primacy of the Pope over the entire Catholic Church (“Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defence of the Seven Sacraments), which defended the sacramental nature of marriage and the supremacy of the Pope.”) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidei_defensor

And, then Henry went to the Pope making a request - was ultimately denied and apparently, in spite, split from Rome, disavowed his previous writings (was he lying then?) and set about the business of being his own pope. You offer no substantiation for any statements and expect that your view will be seen as obviously correct.

A serious and objective look at Henry VIII will see a lazy and wasteful monarch with a real talent for bed jumping. His wasteful life and those of his favored court members (e.g., Cardinal Woolsey) impoverished the kingdom while they lived in splendor. Henry bullied everyone he could - and when that failed, he had them killed (note, Woolsey was falsely accused of treason and died in custody), two of his wives lost their heads and many priests were tortured and murdered for living their faith as they brought the Sacraments to faithful English Catholics. Your efforts at defending this monarch who engaged in what we now call state-sponsored terrorism of his subjects is beyond me.

God bless
seamusmohr;7846040:

Henry left the Catholic Church because he was denied a divorce - and that was the bottom line. In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry
1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born In answer to your question, the formal excommunication of Henry VIII from the Catholic Chruch by Pope Clement VII was July 11, 1533. Prior to this date we find that Henry
1531 - Henry is declared “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”
Jan 25, 1533 - married Ann Boleyn
May 23 1533 - Arbishop Crammer declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine null … and then
Sep 7, 1533 - Elizabeth (future queen) is born I do not want to be ‘nasty’ about this … but, really claiming the Pope is responsible for Henry’s break is like claiming Henry was totally inept and incapable of making his own choices. Yes, it is hard to read that and keep a straight face! Henry was simply reacting the way he always reacted when he did not get his way - and did it another way. When St. Thomas Moore refused to compromise his conscience - Henry had him executed! This is classic despotic rule by a serial adulterer who happened to be the King of England.

The Papal Responsibility?
Why didn’t the Bishop of Rome refuse immediately he found the truth out instead of allowing the sordid matter to drag on for years? Was it to allow himself and his court to milk the business for all it was worth? As for Tom More, in a letter to Cromwell he claimed that he believed that the place of the Pope was subservient to the Ecumenical Councils!

Henry’s case was based on the Levitical prohibition, could have been based on the undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty, as Wolsey pointed out. All common in the day, when dynastic marriages were being rearranged, and the reason the system was so convoluted. Trent (Session XXIV) started a reform of the system.

Again, I suggest HENRY VIII, J. J. Scarisbrick, for a good understanding of what was going on.

History is complicated.

GKC

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

No. There is no virtue to being guible. I would suggest is that you approach this with an open mind and heart and just follow the paper trail as it is historically presented - this way you can what developed when. From a mechanical view - start with the NT and then move to the Early Church Fathers. Then along come the Church Councils. Just read what they say. Look at what they were experiencing, the heresies they confronted and the responses that they provided. This is a serious paper trail - it is hard evidence and it is solid.

The basic idea is that if you are serious, then the early record is there to examine. St. John Newman spent quite a lot of time examining this ‘paper trail’ before he made his move.

May I recommend a time out … and a retreat to Psalm 34 for prayer and contemplation. A humble and contrite heart the Lord will not refuse…
Here is a link: usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm34.htm

God bless

I’ve spent a fair bit of time on the early church thanks. But I wasn’t looking for advice - I was pointing out that saying Luther coming to conclusions about legitimate authority is necessarily.an example of pride is silly.

Why would you want to look at a “…modern teaching on annulment…” ? Henry and the rest of the characters only had the rules of the early 16th Century to work with - just like we can not jump forward in time to look for laws favorable to our dispositions. Your entire premise is based on “IF” … and there is a well-known skiff awaiting your sailing pleasure. Believe me there is more then enough reality here - we do have to time travel into the future.

My only point was since there are some posters who don’t want to consider the state of annulments at the time, modern practice might well also provide grounds. I wouldn’t actually argue that one ought to look at it that way, I was making a point.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Which early chruch have you spent time with?

Actually, I thought you wanted a suggestion… but, if Luther putting his understanding of the preceeding 1500 years (and doing it in the form of a university debate with his 95 thesis) is not an example of pride, then what is it an example of? And, yes, I am being quite serious.

An example of someone who found serious fault with the Catholic Church of the time was St. Catherine of Siena. This saint worked and prayed for genuine reform - during a crisis that, at least in my opinion, was far worse than Luther had. St. Catherine did not rebell as Luther did - and she was able to accomplish miracles. What is even more astounding is that Luther could have easily used her as a role model - but, I submit, such an approach did not fit his prideful personality. While history has many examples of apparent pride from this former Augustinian monk - there really are not any examples I can think of him having a ‘humble and contrite heart’… (evading arrest does not count!) Any enlightenment you can provide will be appreciated.

God bless

I’ve spent a fair bit of time on the early church thanks. But I wasn’t looking for advice - I was pointing out that saying Luther coming to conclusions about legitimate authority is necessarily.an example of pride is silly.

My only point was since there are some posters who don’t want to consider the state of annulments at the time, modern practice might well also provide grounds. I wouldn’t actually argue that one ought to look at it that way, I was making a point.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Jesus made the Apostles overseers of His One Flock. They passed the responsibility of oversight to their successors, the Bishops.

I am ‘curious’ how you can say that history does not support this. Is that because all the lines of bishops that trace themselves to Apostles do not “count” because you disagree?

Or do you think they don’t exist, and the fact that they believe they exist is a figment of their imagination?

 

[guanophore]

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.

You are new here, hn, so there is a lot to learn. Welcome!

The things you list here, as well as many you did not, are what put Luther in the heretical position.

You see, no person has the Authority to “throw out” anything that is in the divine deposit of faith, including the Pope.

Luther invented the idea of Sola Scriptura, then threw out things that did not pass his own inspection of how he read the text. He replaced what the Apostles taught with his own ideas.

The communion of the saints and intercessory prayer are part of that deposit of faith he jettisoned.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Which early chruch have you spent time with?

Actually, I thought you wanted a suggestion… but, if Luther putting his understanding of the preceeding 1500 years (and doing it in the form of a university debate with his 95 thesis) is not an example of pride, then what is it an example of? And, yes, I am being quite serious.

An example of someone who found serious fault with the Catholic Church of the time was St. Catherine of Siena. This saint worked and prayed for genuine reform - during a crisis that, at least in my opinion, was far worse than Luther had. St. Catherine did not rebell as Luther did - and she was able to accomplish miracles. What is even more astounding is that Luther could have easily used her as a role model - but, I submit, such an approach did not fit his prideful personality. While history has many examples of apparent pride from this former Augustinian monk - there really are not any examples I can think of him having a ‘humble and contrite heart’… (evading arrest does not count!) Any enlightenment you can provide will be appreciated.

God bless

I’m not sure what you mean by “which Early Church”?

The kind of theological debate you are talking about was very common in medieval university life, so it seems to me it is just an example of what theologians did, and indeed still do…

But again - if you think people ought to read and grapple with history in order to come to truth in religion, how can you say Luther doing so had to be an example of pride?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, he is. These are called the Petrine Gifts. One of them is the duty to strengthen his brethren. After his restoration, Jesus gave him other, including the responsibility to feed and care for HIs flock.

Peter is listed first in all the apostolic accounts because he stood at the head of the Apostolic college.

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!..

For some reason it is important for you to believe this, but it is not the case. The successor of Peter was given the responsibility for the whole flock, not just part of it. You can reject the role that God has placed Him in over yourself, but it does not change the facts. If you belong to Christ, then the successor of Peter is responsible for your care and feeding.

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

I have learned over many hours of posting that it is best to start small. There are some people that really don’t want to discuss points. One way to find out is to make the point, and see what happens.

And in fact, since you are the one asserting an innovative position not held by the Aposltes and their disciples, it is incumbent upon you, rather, to prove that the three rocks in that passage, Christ, Cephas, and the rocky statement can or should be somehow separated one another.

 

[guanophore]

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

I had to LOL at this. I found it right in the middle of a heated debate about King Henry. It popped up, then immediately fell to the ground as the debate raged on. I fear your thread has been hijacked!