Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[GKC]

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!

My bad, for one.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

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?

A very just question, and one that is germaine to human beings. I am sure that Christ knew this when He formed His church. It is clear in the NT that those in authority were those commissioned personally by Christ, and afterwards, those ordained by their authority. Jesus wanted His Church to be visible, so that people with disputes would know where to go.

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.

Indeed not.

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.

Exactly.

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.

Discernment needs to be informed by the HS, and the Truth. History testifies as to how the authority was passed. I am not denying that people in positions of authority grossly abused it, scattering the flock. But, just as there have been bad presidents, the office of the president remains, even if some have disgraced it.

 

[guanophore]

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.

The authority of the apostolic succession is apparent in the NT. How can you call it a modern addition?

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?)

I suggest you do a case study of the instances where God changed the name of a person. YOu will find that it has tremendous import on their identity and mission in life.

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!

No, the successor of Peter never acts by himself (well, unless he is taking care of his personal bodily needs, I suppose). He is charged with the feeding and caring for the flock, and does this together with all the other successors of the Apostles. He is the visible sign of unity in the Church founded by Christ.

 

[Lovesa]

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

As much as most modern Lutherans would claim that that was Luther’s intent–and it may be in his later writings; I’m afraid I haven’t read his entire works–our church library’s collection of the “collected writings of Luther” or somesuch titled five-volume work actually includes a section that endorses the communion of the saints and intercessory prayer, but warns that it is easy for such things to become idolatrous. Whether or not this was an early position Luther later discarded I don’t know, but most Lutheran teachers, pastors, etc. I have met think Luther was too permissive in his views on Mary and the saints.
Sorry if I’m a little off; I’m not exactly a theologian.

As far as the first 1500 years go, I’d have to agree on a few points already brought up. The first is the idea that people had been protesting for a while. The second point is that, while perhaps not ordained by Christ, most Lutherans I know approve of a good many of the first so-called popes and their acts, but put more stock in the councils, etc. Finally, a viewpoint I’ve often seen expressed, sometimes in explicit but more often in inexplicit terms, is that, when Christ ascended into heaven, he may have continued to “be with [us] always” but he did not continue to police the actions of the church on earth in all matters. That is, the argument goes that human error and human free will led to the primacy of the papacy in all matters. The reformers coming along and protesting various abuses of the church, while perhaps a work of the Holy Spirit (though I’ve yet to hear a Protestant claim this), was also an act of human free will, protected by God but which God did not prevent from causing factions, again as a way of preserving human free will. I have no way of knowing if this is a common opinion, but it is the opinion of my church, anyway.

To put that as simply as I can: The first 1500 years were guided by God, but not policed by him. Human beings screwed things up, as human beings always do. When the reformers came along, this was a social, religious, and political development of social, religious, and political causes, all of them human, if divinely influenced on occasion for the benefit of the truth. So, God does not divinely protect the visible church on Earth. He keeps the Bible incorrupt and He protects His followers, but He does not prevent doctrinal errors from arising. It’s not a happy thought, but it’s the explanation I’ve always run into.

You will run into the occasional “The first 1500 years ought to be discarded” guy, but going to a Lutheran high school I took my share of Church History classes, and they always started right at the death of Christ. It was only in around 1300 or so (not an exact date; I don’t remember perfectly) that the teacher had any issues with the Catholic Church’s policies. It seems like a late date, and it is, but up till there were, we were told, no real errors of major concern. Even the papacy only “took itself a little too seriously”.

 

[guanophore]

 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!

Of course he is! The successor of Peter is not at liberty to change the once for all divine deposit of faith. The HS works through the councils, just as He did in the book of Acts, to guide the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Finally, a viewpoint I’ve often seen expressed, sometimes in explicit but more often in inexplicit terms, is that, when Christ ascended into heaven, he may have continued to “be with [us] always” but he did not continue to police the actions of the church on earth in all matters. That is, the argument goes that human error and human free will led to the primacy of the papacy in all matters. The reformers coming along and protesting various abuses of the church, while perhaps a work of the Holy Spirit (though I’ve yet to hear a Protestant claim this), was also an act of human free will, protected by God but which God did not prevent from causing factions, again as a way of preserving human free will. To put that as simply as I can: The first 1500 years were guided by God, but not policed by him. Human beings screwed things up, as human beings always do. When the reformers came along, this was a social, religious, and political development of social, religious, and political causes, all of them human, if divinely influenced on occasion for the benefit of the truth.

Yes, of course. People are always in need of reform, including bishops. However the teachings of Jesus are not. The biggest part of the problem were not Luther’s complaints, most of which were valid, but his decision to change the doctrine of the Apostles to fix it.

So, God does not divinely protect the visible church on Earth.

This notion absolutely blows my mind. That he would leave the Church orphaned, after He promised He would not…

When did God stop protecting His Word?

What kind of shepherd does not protect His flock? Boggles the mind.

Or do you not believe He put His Word in the Church, as well as the Scripture?

What is the powerful Jesus doing in the book of Revelation, if not divinely protecting His Church on earth?

What happened when Ananias and Sapphira lied to the HS?

He keeps the Bible incorrupt and He protects His followers, but He does not prevent doctrinal errors from arising. It’s not a happy thought, but it’s the explanation I’ve always run into.

How is it that he protects His followers, but not the Church? I think such a perspective can only come from a deficient understanding of the Church.

How did He keep the Bible incorrupt, if He does not keep His Church incorrupt? The Bible was kept by the Church! The Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth! How can you be a pillar if you are in sand?

I agree, though, that He does not keep errors from arising. There is a reason for that:

1 Cor 11:19-20
19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Now, if Jesus does not divinely keep HIs Holy Bride, the Church from error, then how can what is genuine be recognized?

 

[TracyR]

Well…I’m going to dwelve into this…coming from a 20+ year tradition as a Protestant…before I came back home last year.

As a Protestant…it was really easy to ignore the first years before the reformation. We tended to gloss over a lot of that…not getting too deep into it…other then obviously that the CC had really gone wrong which was “fixed” by Luther. It’s interesting that Radical brought up the real presence because actually Luther did not have a problem with the real presence…

Things such as the Catholic bible vs.“our” bible…well the Catholics added of course…

We did not believe that Peter was the start of the Church…we prefered to concentrate on Paul…

But once I started investigating history…well…that’s part of what started me home.

Of course some (not all) Protestants do not view Catholics as christian…

But then of course it’s going to depend on what denomination of Protestant you talk about…some have more developed theology then others.

Yup. Growing up in the Protestant faith most of my life ( I was baptised Catholic but that was about all , I have no memory going to church with my family only in a couple of CAtholic schools I attended throughout my childhood).
Protestants generally gloss over the first 1500 yrs. Mention very little about Catholics at all , if ever. And really religion in their eyes always was just really was but was finally evangelized when Luther came along. I knew very little real history growing up. It was actually not until I had started homeschooling and read a history book ( actually from a secular curriculum) that it opened my eyes and I learned that what I had been taught going to some Protestant schools too was wrong. As a child learning it was like history didn’t start until the Reformation anyways.

History is so easy to change and misconstrue. Unless you truely take the time to study history deeply then you will only see it in the eyes of the person from whom you’ve read the history from.
My favorite saying is : “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”- Cardnial Newman

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Lovesa
So, God does not divinely protect the visible church on Earth.

Are you serious? Oh well! So much for Jesus’ promises!

 

[Protestant101]

Friend your opinion is NOT that of the CC.

And if not, then Catholics agree that non-Catholic Christians have access to the Father through Christ.

Access YES! … SAME ACCESS NOT EVEN CLOSE

I would be surprised to learn that this was the true teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If it is; I would like to see where. Do you have specific references from official writings?

 

[Protestant101]

That’s a very interesting perspective, but you used it to deflect my question.
I will address yours when you address mine.

I have no means within my power to keep track of even half of the posts and questions and other points that come to me through this forum, and others I belong to. I do my best to answer to ones I think are priorities, according to ideas stated here by other members. If I miss something you don’t have to waste time accusing me of “deflecting” or “refusing” or any other similar thing. Kindly recap the question and link to the post concerned, and then I have something to reply to.

 

[Protestant101]

Yes, of course. People are always in need of reform, including bishops. However the teachings of Jesus are not. The biggest part of the problem were not Luther’s complaints, most of which were valid, but his decision to change the doctrine of the Apostles to fix it. How did He keep the Bible incorrupt, if He does not keep His Church incorrupt? The Bible was kept by the Church! The Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth! How can you be a pillar if you are in sand?

The Bible was discovered by the Church; not written by.

Historically; the Church has always been allowed to “fall” from truth to error. It depends upon the individual and corporate decisions of the congregation being looked at. All Churches have equality on that count; while all of our respective churches also have the privilege of being “one in Christ;” making us all equal in Christ. Your church has no more “status” before God than anyone else.

 

[Protestant101]

Hello t qualey

I will share just a few thoughts tonight re “the first church;” and we can take it from there:

One Church In All Ages

There was one Church in Old Testament times, there is one Church now in the present dispensation, and there will be one Church in the millennial dispensation, and all the members of the Church in all the dispensations constitute the one Church.

There have been those who have denied these truths concerning the Church and I would challenge you to explain why the church did not start before AD32 or whenever one would want to say that the Roman Catholic Church actually did start.

Psalms 22 says: "I will declare Thy name unto My brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise Thee”. "Brethren/congregation here means “church.”

This passage is actually quoted in Hebrews 2, where we read: “Both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying. I will declare Thy name unto My brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto Thee”. Thus, Psalm 22 teaches the doctrine of the Church. It teaches that all believers are Christ’s brethren, and that He praises the Father in the midst of the Church.

When our Lord Jesus Christ said, “Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” That “Rock” was God. [Christ.] Here, He mentioned the Church long before the apostle Paul was converted. Then we read in Acts 8 of the persecution of the Church in Jerusalem. We read in 1 Corinthians 15:8, 9, that the apostle himself says:

“Last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God”.

How can it be said, then, that there was no Church until it was revealed to the apostle Paul after his conversion, when he himself expressly declares that in his unconverted days he persecuted the Church of God?

Some wrongly contend that there was no Church at all prior to the apostle Paul! All that is contrary to the teaching of Scripture, and is therefore dangerous heresy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

OK. The Early Church was the Catholic Church with the leader of the Catholic Church being in Rome. The Early Church Fathers(ECF) were the Early Catholic Church Fathers. As I appreciate the documentable history there were basically only three groups around at the beginning of the 1st Century when Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18): Pagans, Jews and Catholics. Here is a brief list of these ECFs and how they addressed the authority of the pope: catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

So, when you say you have studied the ‘Early Church’, do you mean the early Catholic Church? If so, fine, but, if not, then what group are you talking about?

I think it best to get this matter resolved before going further.

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?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would be surprised to learn that this was the true teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If it is; I would like to see where. Do you have specific references from official writings?

The CCC, Doctrine and Dogma of the Catholic Church been around a very long time.

To acknowledge that God is the Author of life thus everything here in essense belongs to Him would make us one of the same.

The difference becomes the Sacrements of the Church and the Church itself. Which of course comes from Jesus Christ till the end of time. Just use the search engine for Catechism of the Catholic Church. Same message been being promoted from the early centurys till this decade.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Lovesa]

This notion absolutely blows my mind. That he would leave the Church orphaned, after He promised He would not…

When did God stop protecting His Word?

What kind of shepherd does not protect His flock? Boggles the mind.

Or do you not believe He put His Word in the Church, as well as the Scripture?

What is the powerful Jesus doing in the book of Revelation, if not divinely protecting His Church on earth?

What happened when Ananias and Sapphira lied to the HS?

As for the last one, that happened in Bible times. It’s an exception, so to say. After the Bible wasn’t being written anymore, that’s when the intervention ends, I guess.

And “What kind of sheperd does not protect his flock?” I don’t know. It’s the biggest issue I have with my faith, and I’ve never been able to solve it. Not knowing for sure you’re right about the Bible isn’t fun, but it’s usually seen as a test of faith or something when I’ve asked a pastor about it.

How is it that he protects His followers, but not the Church? I think such a perspective can only come from a deficient understanding of the Church.

I’d have to modify that to a “different understanding of the Church” to agree, but yeah. The followers=invisible church. He protects this. This is incorrupt. The visible church? It gets its nudges, sure, but its on its own mostly.

How did He keep the Bible incorrupt, if He does not keep His Church incorrupt? The Bible was kept by the Church! The Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth! How can you be a pillar if you are in sand?

Yes, but God supposedly swooped into a corrupt setting and kept His Word from being corrupted. He is capable of literally anything, so it’s not hard to believe, I don’t think. It’s a mystery, in other words.

I agree, though, that He does not keep errors from arising. There is a reason for that:

1 Cor 11:19-20
19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Now, if Jesus does not divinely keep HIs Holy Bride, the Church from error, then how can what is genuine be recognized?

I love that passage. It seems to me to validate the idea of different congregations.

We can’t know. We can’t. It’s just what we deal with, searching for the truth, trying to figure out which denomination is right. I don’t know a Lutheran who doesn’t admit he/she might be totally wrong, but that his/her conscience guides him/her to the church they’re in, so they stay.

Oh, & the official stance on recognizing the genuine? Look for it in the Bible. Interpretation may vary.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

Thank you for your post and interest in participating. Let me address a couple of the items you raised that I have taken from the following paragraph. If I don’t limit myself, I get way past the 6,000 character limit…

To put that as simply as I can: The first 1500 years were guided by God, but not policed by him. Human beings screwed things up, as human beings always do. When the reformers came along, this was a social, religious, and political development of social, religious, and political causes, all of them human, if divinely influenced on occasion for the benefit of the truth. So, God does not divinely protect the visible church on Earth. He keeps the Bible incorrupt and He protects His followers, but He does not prevent doctrinal errors from arising. It’s not a happy thought, but it’s the explanation I’ve always run into.

As I recall, there was no Divine Policeman in the Garden. God freely made man (and in His Own Image, no less) and the rest of Creation out of nothing. He gave man a free will. And, as St. Paul would say, “…in the fullness of time, He sent His son…” (Gal 4:4) And, Christ founded His Chruch (Matt 16:18) on Peter promised to send the Spirit of Truth to guide His Church to all truth (John 13:14) and promised not to leave us orphans (John 14:18). God’s Divine Guidance of the Catholic Chruch did not stop in the 16th Century - it has been on-going and will continue to be so.

No doubt about it, the Protestant Rebellion brought with it a lot of non-theological trappings. But, God has continued to protect the visible church on earth from the most terrible force we can not even imagine - the Gates of Hell. The Devil is a powerful spirit - totally dependent on God for his existence - and totally intent to destroy what God holds dear - human beings. So, when you look around - the visible church has been protected from teaching destructive error (e.g., Scripture Alone, Faith Alone, etc.) and has maintained the teachings handed down by the Apostles.

God DOES “…prevent doctrinal errors from arising in the Catholic Church…” and being taught as the truth. I have given you the Scriptural verses that back that statement up. But, please note, this guarantee was made by Christ to the Apostles - the First Bishops of the Catholic Church. The Bishops, in union with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church throughout the world) make official doctrine. An example of such a Doctrine was the establishment of the Canon of Scripture. The Bible you hold (even though it is in an abridged form) can be traced directly back to the Catholic Church in about 400AD. Prior to this, there was no guarantee that the books (scrolls, actually) people were reading, were, in fact, inspired. You claim your Bible is the '…inerrant Word of God…" and I am telling you how it got that way. Luther pridefully and sinfully removed Scripture from the Bible in direct violation of God’s command (Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:19) because they did not agree with his view of how religion should be. This is the basic reason why the so-called Protestant Bible is shorter than the Catholic Bible - inspired books and portions of books have been removed.

You are most correct in that the thoughts you have expressed are truly ‘not happy’ and I have every confidence you have run into many expressions of such thoughts prior to coming to CAF. You will be reading posts from others waving the banner proclaiming such unhappiness is what God has given us - and you will then see those proponents of human religion and the traditions of man refuted.

Evaluate everything and learn all you can. We will be judged based on the how we have responded to the Grace of God.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

As for the last one, that happened in Bible times. It’s an exception, so to say. After the Bible wasn’t being written anymore, that’s when the intervention ends, I guess.

Do you have a Scripture verse that says “after the Bible wasn’t being written anymore, that’s when the intervention ends”?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Bible was discovered by the Church; not written by…

The Bible was written and translated by Catholics, which continued to remain constant till Erasmus. Of course even Luther used the translation of Erasmus to further translate into German. But discovered no, it was a conscious effort.

Historically; the Church has always been allowed to “fall” from truth to error. It depends upon the individual and corporate decisions of the congregation being looked at. …

The Deposit of faith has always remained the same. The fact that errors exist only indicates humans are involved.

All Churches have equality on that count; while all of our respective churches also have the privilege of being “one in Christ;” making us all equal in Christ…

So every one of these Protestant denominations has the priviledge of “being one in Christ”? I believe you believe this, but I also believe its 100% false. We all know theres only one Mystical Body of Jesus Christ called the Catholic Church. There are others who believe they have found the truth. And they may well have found a part truth. But there is something lacking in all of them. And thats the “total” truth.

Who gave this authority to the Protestants or anyone else? Certainly wasn’t Jesus Christ or the Apostles or the Bishops of the CC? Sounds to me like its a responsibility taken upon oneself? Which would also be a great indicator in the continued error of denominations which continue to fracture. False thinking leads way to more error.

Your church has no more “status” before God than anyone else.

Our Church is Gods Church, “the Catholic Church” started by Jesus Christ and his best Friends the Apostles. Then came your church 1500-years later led by a man named Luther. Have your read his writtings? Now there’s an eduction in behavior and psychology.

That would be your opinion, but since the Bible indicates otherwise. I believe its best to stick with the Apostles and Jesus Christ instead of your opinion. But your intitled to your “opinion”. Of course there is no fact to back it up, for the simple reason there was no Protestant Church before the reformation. Which in essense coined the phrase “Protest” thus Protestant. Sounds to me pretty much what is still going on. Lots of Protesting but little success.

What comfirms the Protestant church as a success? Which one of the denominations has the “real” truth? Or wouldn’t you argree they all have a partial truth? Thus all lacking the “real truth” Not hard to figure out is it? They can’t all be right, but they could sure all be wrong.

God Bless, Gary

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101,

Welcome back… You know, it is just not the same without you… I mean, just where else are we treated to such creativity … Let me explain…

The Bible was discovered by the Church; not written by.

There are certain DISCOVERIES that have stayed in my mind over the years:

1492 Columbus DISCOVERS Americia
1628 Harvey DISCOVERS the circulation of blood
1848 Gold DISCOVERD in California
1970 I DISCOVERED my future wife and married her

I would so much like to add the date when the Bible “, was discovered…” and who was this awesome yet unknown soul who made such a wonderful ‘;discovery’. Can you answer these questions? I have a bit of a fuzzy vision of someone like the fictional “Indiana Jones” moving a stone or point to a group of ancient cly jars and saying, “X marks the spot!”

As I recall … the Catholic Church did not ‘write’ the Bible - it wrote the Canon of Scripture which identified which were the books inspired by God (and which were not) and the order in which these inspired books would appear. In fact, here is a brief list of what the Catholic Church did and when/where it took this action:

“Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)” Here is the link for even more informaiton: catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm

Historically; the Church has always been allowed to “fall” from truth to error.

I guess you will need to provide a couple of references to back that statement up. What you are writing and what I am reading may be two different matters. The Catholic Church has made many errors caused by human leaders failing to fully follow the Gospel (sort of like Peter, the First Pope), being pre-occupied with greed, lust and the five other deadly sins, and making errors in such things a economics and geography. No argument there. But, when you spake of ‘truth’ - then I understand you to be talking about doctrine - and if you are claiming that the Catholic Church has or is teaching error - you will need to specifically what it is you are talking about.

Note: John 13:16 specificaly identifies Christ promising to sent the Spirit of Truth to show us all Truth. If you believe Christ - then, His Church - the one He is sending His Spirit to - The Catholic Church - can not teach error. If it did, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed a long time ago.

All Churches have equality on that count; while all of our respective churches also have the privilege of being “one in Christ;” making us all equal in Christ. Your church has no more “status” before God than anyone else.

If that were true, P101, then Christ would have said something like, “Do your own thing” or words to that effect. What historically happened however is quite different - Christ chose 12 men to be His Apostles - He did not chose the Nation of Israel. Out of this group of 12, God the Father chose Peter by giving him the answer to Christ’s question (Matt 16). God the Son, verbally identified His Father’s choice and appointed Peter as the one in charge and gave him the Keys as a sign of that authority. There were not 11 others sets of keys.

We are not of equal standing before the Bar. Those who follow Christ will be judged differently than those who do not. Of those who follow Christ, those who are faithful members of the Church He founded on Peter will be judged differently from those who are not. It really is NOT just a big club of Jesus fans. Here is a link that will provide additional information on this idea. catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

 

[seamusmohr]

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

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.

I agree, but they are as relevant as the comments regarding Henry’s sex life! Further the comments regarding Henry can be seen to cover a lack of knowledge,or paucity of thought regarding the wider subject! It is childish of our opponents to imagine that the matter of the English Reformation and the Church in England was guided by no other object than Henry’s lust!