Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

No intrusion at all… Yes, there is a strong suspicion that St. Thomas More may have added a new meaning ot ‘Ghost Writer’ here … but, the bottom line is that ‘Hank’ did not share the page of authoriship with anyone - and, if there were other writers, they had the good sense not to mention it. The DF award for writing this rebuttal to those leading like Luther leading the revolt was Henry’s alone.

Unlike a later English monarch, King James (who, to the best of my knowledged did not lift a pen to write any of the pages known as the King James Bible) who was honored by having this English translantion named after him - Henry really did claim authorship.

Considering how he repudiated the Catholic Church, the Papacy and the Pope - one just has to wonder if he was lying when he claimed to have written Assertio or lying when he claimed to be head of his own church. And, then how would one really know?

God bless

Ghost writer indeed. But More is not the only candidate for the title, and likely there were several. Authorship by committee, as it were. But for their patron, Hank. And Hank, in all likelihood, vetted the thing, overall. He had a fair theological education and a straight-forward, though not subtle, grasp of issues. Overall, the ASSERTIO reflects that tone.

And again, the ASSERTIO is not the sum total of the story of why he received the DEFENSOR FIDEI title. An interesting tale, which I could tell, if desired.

No, James VI/I wrote nary a word of his Version. It was a committee, again. But he told them to get it done. It was a part of the infighting in the sectarian world of 17th century England. But it was truly James’ translation. He just didn’t write a word of it.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Welcome back Bluegoat,

Nice of you to share your opinion on the subject.

Well, let’s see what we have … we have documentaton of Christianity springing up throughout the Roman Empire from the 1st Century onward. Here is an interesting link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christian_missions

Documentation is a bit weak for a 2nd Century (167AD) figure named Lucius of Britain… there is at least some doubt about his existence en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_of_Britain.

Ah, and in 250AD St. Denis is sent by Rome to establish the Catholic Faith in Paris … yes, I know this is not part of England … but, considering the distance, I thought you may like to see the Pople is hard at work sending missionaries out

Then we have documentation of Augustine of Canterbury being the first Archbishop of Canterbury in 598AD (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury) sent by Pope St. Gregory the Great (and he wasn’t called Great for nothing: newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm

So, in the interest of trying to provide an informed opinion, it just does not seem reasonable that some type of so-called Christian group (pre-Anglican, I guess…) just developed independently - on its own and survived the Roman departure from Britain and had no contact, authority, mission or communictions with the Pope in Rome. Yet about 212 miles away (current distance form Paris to London) the Pope is in contact with St. Denis and the others who are there to spread the Catholic Faith. Well, I guess that is what makes your posts so intersting - while we may not know what happened, opinion is against the Pope having done anything - much less anything good, eh, Bluegoat?

For me the the proof is that when 598AD came around and Augustine was appointed Archbishop by the Pope - he had a place to go to. He also worked hard to spread the Catholic Faith. Now, 564 years would pass by before Thomas Becket would take over at Canterbury - and, in all honesty, during these many years not everything was as black and white involving the Church and the State. But, at no time from 598 - 1162 did the King of England set up his own independent church - and, really - that is the bottom line.

Actually, from the URLs I have given you, there is a direct line from Rome to all part of the globe as missions are established to spread the Catholic faith. Should you disagree with any of this historical material - please feel free to share some links that actually support your view.

God bless

There is no evidence that a Pope sent a missionary to Britain in that period - in fact there is little evidence of Popes doing much of that kind of thing at all, it is an anachronistic claim IMO. Christianity appeared in Britain quite early, perhaps as early as it was in Rome. Some think it came from the East directly, or perhaps with the Roman soldiers that Claudius sent around 47AD.

 

[seamusmohr]

Again you make statements without any proof, I mean the "loyal to the pope statement!’
Church tradition tells us that the British (Catholic) Bishops, replied to Augustine’s uncouth behaviour with a statement telling him,"Be it known and declared that we all, individually and collectively, are in all humility prepared to defer to the Church of God and to the Bishop of Rome and to every and sincere and godly christian , so far as to love everyone according to his degree, in perfect charity and to assist them all by word and in deed in becoming the children of God. But as for any other obedience, we know none that he who you term the pope or bishop of bishops, can demand. The deference we have mentioned we are ready to pay to him as to every other Christian , but in all other respects our obedience is due to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon, who is alone under God our ruler to keep right in the way of Salvation. ( Bishop Collier, vol 1, Sir H. Spelman, pp108/ Conciliar , Haddan and Stubbs. vol 1 p122 )

As for the papal mission? It collapsed after some few years and all the papal bishops , but one, withdrew back to the Continent after being attacked by the Pagans and Penda, the Briton .The Church in Britain was renewed by the old Bishops from the North and Ireland only, joining with the Continent after recovering the country, or much of it to the traditional faith.

. And, really, I think that is an important point that needs to be presented in trying to understand what it was that was driving Henry from loyal Catholic Prince - to despotic and murdering attempted usurper of religion and belief in his kingdom.

I have already told you, that the English Church had been at odds from before 1066, at the greedy and grasping behaviour of the Roman See in the ecclesiastical sphere of religion, no where was there any dispute about the spiritual teaching of tyhe Church. It was disgust at the grasping policies of the papacy in looting English money, destined for the furtherance of the Body of Christ and siphoning it off to pay for the chiefly family wars of the papacy! Henry did nothing that any other of his time did, he simply did it better. The law of the papacy was not allowed to function in England, neither were papal functionaries allowed to land here or serve without English permission. As for his looting the Monasteries, most of the European Kings did that, henry simply made a full job of it. He wasn’t to my mind as greedy and selfish as the pope! “The popes claimed a paramount temporal jurisdiction and suzerainty in England that was not to be born” ! All Henry did was to enforce full a law that all other monarchs , except, King John gad subscribed to but never to the extent it should have been.

{quote]In my opinion, there needs to be more light than heat in your presentation. How about beginning with some documentation that we can access on the net to substantiate that Protestants really formed the Catholic Church in England - right under the Pope’s nose! Now, that is an example of a major “…figment of your fertile imagination”

I have never claimed that the Church in England had anything to do with protestants at any time! You are letting you imagination run away with you, to quote S.John of Kronstadt, you are exhibiting symptons of enthusiasm at the expense of knowledge! Both your friends carry the same attittude, but there’s reason for you to follow them!

According to one historical source, “Catholic Christianity was established in what are now England and Wales in the 1st centuries AD, and in 597, the first authoritative papal mission, establishing a direct link from the Kingdom of Kent to Rome and to the Benedictine form of monasticism, was carried into effect by Augustine of Canterbury.”

As I have explained the ,‘Mission to Kent,’ was a flop, because at the first time of trouble the bishops and clergy, all but one Deacon, James, did a runner back to the Continent.as for the claim about the benedictines, I grant you all that, but there were plenty of monasteries in the Church at that time in britain, when the mission ran, one of the things that frightened them was the slaughter of 2000 monks at Chester amongst them being the man who it is claimed wrote the letter of the British Bishops. Dineen his name from Bangor Abbey!
Regarding ,'Burden of Proof, it is Roman Claims and additions Rome make to the deposit of Faith that you have to prove, not I or any other catholic. Wer are made Catholics by baptism and teaching. The teaching is from the Revelation of Christ, recorded in to scripture and which is completed, interpreted as well as explained by the Holy Fathers in Council. i.e. The Seven Ecumenical Councils.

God bless.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

Yes, I confess … I could not resist that bit of mischief on St. More being a ‘Ghost Writer’.

Ah, now, do I detect a bit of historical ‘gossip’ about the untold story of 'Hank’s" award from the Pope? The suspense is killing me…

Pray … part the curtain - that allows for only a straight forward grap of what went on (‘Hank’ signed his name to the work, sent a nice note dedicating it to the Pope, it was read and it contained no heresies - and the Pope awarded him the DF.) “Enquiring minds want to know…” Ah, but do try and stay within the 6,000 character limit…

God bless

Ghost writer indeed. But More is not the only candidate for the title, and likely there were several. Authorship by committee, as it were. But for their patron, Hank. And Hank, in all likelihood, vetted the thing, overall. He had a fair theological education and a straight-forward, though not subtle, grasp of issues. Overall, the ASSERTIO reflects that tone.

And again, the ASSERTIO is not the sum total of the story of why he received the DEFENSOR FIDEI title. An interesting tale, which I could tell, if desired.

No, James VI/I wrote nary a word of his Version. It was a committee, again. But he told them to get it done. It was a part of the infighting in the sectarian world of 17th century England. But it was truly James’ translation. He just didn’t write a word of it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

Yes, I confess … I could not resist that bit of mischief on St. More being a ‘Ghost Writer’.

Ah, now, do I detect a bit of historical ‘gossip’ about the untold story of 'Hank’s" award from the Pope? The suspense is killing me…

Pray … part the curtain - that allows for only a straight forward grap of what went on (‘Hank’ signed his name to the work, sent a nice note dedicating it to the Pope, it was read and it contained no heresies - and the Pope awarded him the DF.) “Enquiring minds want to know…” Ah, but do try and stay within the 6,000 character limit…

God bless

No problem, I think. I’ve done it before.

From my files:

Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry pouted.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”. The last looks like they were running out of ideas.

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played supporting the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo (his copy bound in Henry’s favorite cloth of gold), a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: Defensor Fidei . Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish to Henry’s prize such as* Gloriosus* or* Fidelissimus*, but Leo vetoed it.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Paul III took it back, but Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1544. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

History is fun.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

Thank you for not only a most intersting story - but a truly enjoyable read!

God bless

No problem, I think. I’ve done it before.

From my files:

Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry pouted.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”. The last looks like they were running out of ideas.

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played supporting the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo (his copy bound in Henry’s favorite cloth of gold), a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: Defensor Fidei . Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish to Henry’s prize such as* Gloriosus* or* Fidelissimus*, but Leo vetoed it.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Paul III took it back, but Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1544. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

History is fun.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

Thank you for not only a most intersting story - but a truly enjoyable read!

God bless

You are very welcome. It comes, in this form, from my favorite source: me.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

I am not really sure just where to begin - apparently you really have nothing to add to Henry’s defense of the Sacraments, Papacy and the Pope himself. OK. Hey, I can deal with that… So, let’s move on …

Is it too much to ask for a reference that is provided in a URL. Apparently, I just do not have the library you do - and, really, given filter of your anti-Catholic glasses - I would simply want to verify what you provide. It is really that simple. Note the number of references that I provide to you - many are from public domain sites just so you can see that there isn’t a hidden agenda. Kindly get with the program - if you are going to insist that there was a mavrick bunch of bishops that showed no loyalty to the Pope but were not in schism or heresy - you need to show more than lengthy quotes. There are rumors that certain groups actually manipulaed text to say what they wanted … and lo! Centuries later we have the legitimate stylistic heirs to the Gnostic Gospels - which were really just frauds.

You may be interested in knowing that Nestorious - the Archbishop of Constantinople - was sacked for heresy in 430AD by the Pope (power to do this was delegated by Pope Sixtus III to Cyril) There is really a lot more to it than that, here is an interesting link: newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm. Do you really think a Pope would not dismiss bishops who were disloyal to him?

So, you have determined that the “Mission to Kent” was a flop. And, what criteria did you use? Even by earthly standards Thomas Edison had found over 100 ways of how NOT to make a light bulb before he invented the designed that turned night into nearly day for the world. I submit that the County of Kent would not hold the famous Canterbury Cathedral were it not for the continued efforts of the Catholic Church. Just look around - at least prior to the terrorism begun by Henry VIII aginst those who wanted to worship according to their conscience and not the king’s whim. Evidence of the Catholic Faith - and of loyalty to the Pope was quite plain and obvious. Howl as you might - all Henry was interested in after totaly obedience was the money he coveted from the Cathoic Church in wealth, lands and buildings. When he died, the poor were truly without food or home and despoiled and crumbling monestaries were his rememberances.

Finally, you really run the risk of dislocating your tongue the way it is distending your cheek on this burden of proof approach. For almost 2,000 the claim of Matt 16:18 identifying the leadership of the Successor of Peter has been taught In 1534, Henry had Parliament passed an act declaring that the monarch was now the Head of the Church of England… and this requires no further explanation from you?! By any standard, such a radical change from established practice clearly places the burden on the one making the change. Besides in the course of law, it is the Plantiff - the one protesting an action who is required to demonstrate that his opponent has done something wrong. Basically, the Defendant has nothing to prove.

Now, in the event you want to change your mind and actually respond to my post on Henry’s defense of the Catholic Church - I would certainly enjoy reading it. You may find Cardinal Newman’s insights of value.

God bless

God bless

I have never claimed that the Church in England had anything to do with protestants at any time! You are letting you imagination run away with you, to quote S.John of Kronstadt, you are exhibiting symptons of enthusiasm at the expense of knowledge! Both your friends carry the same attittude, but there’s reason for you to follow them!

As I have explained the ,‘Mission to Kent,’ was a flop, because at the first time of trouble the bishops and clergy, all but one Deacon, James, did a runner back to the Continent.as for the claim about the benedictines, I grant you all that, but there were plenty of monasteries in the Church at that time in britain, when the mission ran, one of the things that frightened them was the slaughter of 2000 monks at Chester amongst them being the man who it is claimed wrote the letter of the British Bishops. Dineen his name from Bangor Abbey!
Regarding ,'Burden of Proof, it is Roman Claims and additions Rome make to the deposit of Faith that you have to prove, not I or any other catholic. Wer are made Catholics by baptism and teaching. The teaching is from the Revelation of Christ, recorded in to scripture and which is completed, interpreted as well as explained by the Holy Fathers in Council. i.e. The Seven Ecumenical Councils.

God bless.

 

[Bluegoat]

Welcome back Bluegoat,

Nice of you to share your opinion on the subject.

Well, let’s see what we have … we have documentaton of Christianity springing up throughout the Roman Empire from the 1st Century onward. Here is an interesting link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christian_missions

Documentation is a bit weak for a 2nd Century (167AD) figure named Lucius of Britain… there is at least some doubt about his existence en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_of_Britain.

Ah, and in 250AD St. Denis is sent by Rome to establish the Catholic Faith in Paris … yes, I know this is not part of England … but, considering the distance, I thought you may like to see the Pople is hard at work sending missionaries out

Then we have documentation of Augustine of Canterbury being the first Archbishop of Canterbury in 598AD (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury) sent by Pope St. Gregory the Great (and he wasn’t called Great for nothing: newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm

So, in the interest of trying to provide an informed opinion, it just does not seem reasonable that some type of so-called Christian group (pre-Anglican, I guess…) just developed independently - on its own and survived the Roman departure from Britain and had no contact, authority, mission or communictions with the Pope in Rome. Yet about 212 miles away (current distance form Paris to London) the Pope is in contact with St. Denis and the others who are there to spread the Catholic Faith. Well, I guess that is what makes your posts so intersting - while we may not know what happened, opinion is against the Pope having done anything - much less anything good, eh, Bluegoat?

For me the the proof is that when 598AD came around and Augustine was appointed Archbishop by the Pope - he had a place to go to. He also worked hard to spread the Catholic Faith. Now, 564 years would pass by before Thomas Becket would take over at Canterbury - and, in all honesty, during these many years not everything was as black and white involving the Church and the State. But, at no time from 598 - 1162 did the King of England set up his own independent church - and, really - that is the bottom line.

Actually, from the URLs I have given you, there is a direct line from Rome to all part of the globe as missions are established to spread the Catholic faith. Should you disagree with any of this historical material - please feel free to share some links that actually support your view.

God bless

If you want to believe such a questionable conclusion, I can’t stop you.

As GKC said, it is a murky subject. My point was simply that your assertion that Christianity in Britain came from Rome has no actual evidence. There are a variety of theories, and few clear answers unless you begin from the position of an ideologue.

 

[GKC]

If you want to believe such a questionable conclusion, I can’t stop you.

As GKC said, it is a murky subject. My point was simply that your assertion that Christianity in Britain came from Rome has no actual evidence. There are a variety of theories, and few clear answers unless you begin from the position of an ideologue.

Moorman, in a popular but good one volume history of the Church in England, has as his first sentence “The exact date when the Christian message first came to England is unknown”. Wakeman (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, first sentence: " No one knows when the Church was first planted in Britain…" Jennings, and Carpenter, in their books, say much the same. Thomas, who takes an archeological approach, in his CHRISTIANITY IN ROMAN BRITAIN TO AD 500 (and whose late sister was a friend of mine) is more detailed, scholarly and even more skeptical. The origin and genealogy of the Church in the isles, whence it came, and why, and when, is simply…murky. But come it did. And was organized on diocesan lines by roughly 300 AD.

Beats me.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Ah, Bluegoat,

How good of you to share your insights with us. You delight us with your unsubstantiated opinions and propose them as all but solid fact. I respond with references for historical events and draw inferences and I am an ideologue?

Really, Bluegoat, if you insist of spinning out your slanted opinions on every conceivable variation on how the Catholic Church is wrong and evade hard questions such as the consistency of Catholic doctrines like: necessity for baptism, Real Presence, Sacrament of Penance, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and Mary being the Mother of God, contrasted with Protestant splintering, how can you be taken seriously?

You certainly do not have to believe the Catholic Church is the Chruch founded by Christ with the promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail - but, if you are going to argue against this, please provide more than your anti-Catholic opinons. If you think I have drawn a questionable conclusion - then articulate it and then set out your argument so it can be honeslty examined.

God bless

If you want to believe such a questionable conclusion, I can’t stop you.

As GKC said, it is a murky subject. My point was simply that your assertion that Christianity in Britain came from Rome has no actual evidence. There are a variety of theories, and few clear answers unless you begin from the position of an ideologue.

 

[benedictus2]

**B]Who told you that? Or did it come out of a lucky bag?
The Anglican Church is no more than the ancient Catholic Church in this country, not the whole church, but a communion of Catholic Believers. **

The Anglican Church started in the 1500s so most definitely not the ancient church. The Catholic Church IN England IS the ancient Church, not the Church OF England.

S.Dorotheus of Tyre tells us that the Church was brought to Britain by S.Aristobulos who was the first bishop.

Who all belonged to the Catholic Church and this Church still exists today and it is not the Anglican Church.

Here’s something for you to think deeply about.

If as you say that King Henry was always considered the head of the Church why did he have to go to Pope Clement to get the decree? After all if he was always head of the church, he did not need the Pope for that did he?

Secondly, if as you claim the Anglican Church is the same it always was, well then how come prior to King Henry’s illegal grab for ecclesial power, the Church in England was always in communion with the See of Rome?

You see, the problem that Anglican’s face is that unlike Lutherans who at least had a doctrinal issue with the Church, King Henry’s didn’t. As TomQualey pointed out earlier, he even dedicated his work to the Pope. He was even defending orthodox teaching against Lutheran error. He therefore clearly acknowledged the primacy of the Pope.

**Also, who ever said that the Magisterium was organized by the Pope? According to modern sources he is the magisterium, ‘or authority,’ . **

He, in union with the bishops form the magisterium although by himself, he can make magisterial pronouncements that are infallible if it is ex-cathedra.

He isn’t however to traditional catholics, that is the bishop in Council, Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Yes, the bishops but he by himself by virtue of the keys given to Peter.

Certainly not me, possibly a figment of your fertile imagination!

Actually it is your imagination that is fertile and has been running riot as attested to by your replies that are all over the place and which you cannot substantiate.

No one said Constantine voted! Again you’r setting up dollies , just to knock them down

Not setting up dollies, just showing the error in your thinking.

You were arguing along the lines that the Emperor is the head of the church hence the reason why Constantine was the one who called the council. So I pointed out to you the error. If he was indeed the head of the church then he would have had a say in the council wouldn’t he? You were even giving glowing adjectives about the council as being the greatest council ever.

Sure it was a council that needed to be called but guess what, the Arian heresy was mostly happening in the Eastern Churches, the western Church did not fall to this heresy.

But it was at an Ecumenical Council and the Tome had to be scrutinised, studied and officialy accepted by the Catholic Bishops before it could be published as Catholic Doctrine! The fact that Leo, The Polisman,] had written bore no weight, he was just another bishop!

And he is another bishop but the prime among bishops.

As Steve Ray wrote: “We may find differing interpretations of Peter’s primacy, which we should expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy. Irenaeus may challenge the appropriateness of a decision by Victor, but he never challenges Victors authority to make the binding decision. “

 

[benedictus2]

You still refuse to answer in a valid form any of the questions posed. Nit picking errors such as you mention will not serve, it only emphasises the barrenness of modern Roman Scholarship at least at this level!

Oh please, I answered that several posts ago when I gave those links. Have you read them. All the answers are there for you to read but here you are carrying on the pretence of not having been answered sufficiently.

Rebut any points in those links and we can continue.

Again , I ask you where is the proof that the Papacy inherited the mantle of S.Peter, in any other way than was common to all Catholic Bishops,

I gave them to you in those links. Man, please learn how to read. It is tiresome this continuous demanding of an answer that was already given.
Do you want me to cut and paste all those documents here? Are you incapable of clicking on a link? I just might do that later. That should force you to finally read.

Here’s another bit of info for you, there was even an Englishman who became Pope. From 1154 to 1159 Nicholas Breakspear tended to the faithful as Pope Adrian IV.

So the English Church was most definitely Catholic before it became Anglican. The Anglican Church IS NOT Catholic.

Certainly the early fathers d,on the whole didn’t believe it, I have quoted you Launoy, a Jesuit on the subject, but from yourself and friends, NOTHING!

As I mentioned above, no Church Father ever questioned the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Now the Anglican Church hold the Council of Chalcedon as binding. What did the Council Fathers say when the doctrinal definition of the hypostatic union was accepted? They acclaimed: “Peter has spoken through Leo”.

So my friend, I am sorry to say that you have got no leg to stand on on any of your arguments.
The biggest problem is that the founder of your Church,** the murderous King Henry, recognized the Primacy of the Pope until he decided that he wanted to get rid of his wife! And that is the biggest problem for you.**

You know what, I have a rather illogical friend who will not leave the Anglican Church and yet he told me that he believes the Anglican Church was founded in sin.

 

[benedictus2]

Hank held the tile for 14 years. From the Act of 1534 until his death in 1547. And he did indeed consider himself head of the Church in England; that was a part of his theory of the role, the royal sovereignty, of a Christian prince, that God set no higher authority in a Christian realm than the sovereign.

Exactly my point.

But he was not primarily concerned with what the Church believed, as what it did, politically

And as I said before, that is beside the point, because having apportioned for himself the title, he has given himself the right, should he so wish, to concern himself with it.

And Elizabeth exercised this moving the doctrine towards Protestantism.

. And in that the Church, pre-Henry, had conflicted directly with the throne for centuries, resulting in those acts and decrees I’ve mentioned. Such a conflict was inevitable, to the extent that the Church functioned in the secular realm, politically.

Again all this is beside the point because whatever the reasons behind and for it, the fact remains that he has declared himself head of the Church with all the attendant rights and privileges whether he chose to exercise them or not.

 

[benedictus2]

Are you actually serious? You’ve been given Bible Quotes at least 20, ECF quotes, links to support the ECF. Quotes from Roman Historians, Jewish Historians. Obviously you just are not trying to hear any of it… Its called a closed mind!

The fact is your in denial and the reason your in denial is to promote your own agenda of thinking. Which is obviously in error.

Keep reading the truth and reality will dawn on you sooner or later.

BTW Launoy is lost and in error. Read the Jesuit monthy news report. There is no denial from the Society of Jesus on Apostolic Succession. The only issue which ever arose was during the JP-II papacy with Arrupe, who was General of JS at the time. And the issues which arose over Marxism in South America. Which then caused others like Fr Malichi Martin to produce works of contempt against the church.

But there has “never” been any denial of the roots of the CC, the seat of Peter, Bishop of Rome as “defined” at NIcaea or Apostolic Succession.

The Jesuits are called “The Popes Men” they are all Catholics. The fact that a heretic appears now and again is not new. You found a needle in the haystack and want to claim the abomination as the norm? Pleaze! You’ll have to do much better that that.

GT

Excellent!

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

I think the last thing Benedictus2 has done is to set up dollies (is that British for ‘straw man’? ) Anyway - here is a solid brick coming through your opaque glass argument: the saints that founded the Catholic Church in England - were all Catholics who were loyal to the Pope who sent them there. There are two things missing from your post - the first is a genuine sense of the history you are waving around - there really weren’t any Protestants back then. Honest.

My favorite English saint is Thomas Becket - who had a personal knowledge of how the crown really operated and chose to follow the Pope. Here is a link you may not have read: newadvent.org/cathen/14676a.htm The king was convinced that he was in charge of church and had Becket murdered - but, you know that did not change anything - except the king confessed to the crime, did the penance the Pope had identified and ultimately backed away from trying to be the spiritual head of the Church (a position already occupied by the Pope).

My second favorite English saint is John Cardinal Newman who had quite a profound sense of history and the role of the Catholic Church throughout the world - and especially in England. Here is a link you may enjoy: newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm

The second thing your posts have been missing is a response about Henry VIIIs defense of the Catholic Church, the Sacraments, the Pope and his role in actually combating Protestantism (specifically as identified by Luther) when it was just starting. The Pope was quite impressed with the king’s writings - and, actually, I submit, you should be equally impressed. While I do not expect the favorable impression to go for the content - the amazement would be more focused on what hubris can produce when Henry did not get his way. And, really, I think that is an important point that needs to be presented in trying to understand what it was that was driving Henry from loyal Catholic Prince - to despotic and murdering attempted usurper of religion and belief in his kingdom.

In my opinion, there needs to be more light than heat in your presentation. How about beginning with some documentation that we can access on the net to substantiate that Protestants really formed the Catholic Church in England - right under the Pope’s nose! Now, that is an example of a major “…figment of your fertile imagination”…

According to one historical source, “Catholic Christianity was established in what are now England and Wales in the 1st centuries AD, and in 597, the first authoritative papal mission, establishing a direct link from the Kingdom of Kent to Rome and to the Benedictine form of monasticism, was carried into effect by Augustine of Canterbury.” And, here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales. As I see it, the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your position in a meaningful manner and not just howl about called upon to do so.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Good stuff Tom. Hope Seamus reads this.

 

[benedictus2]

There is no evidence that a Pope sent a missionary to Britain in that period - in fact there is little evidence of Popes doing much of that kind of thing at all, it is an anachronistic claim IMO. Christianity appeared in Britain quite early, perhaps as early as it was in Rome. Some think it came from the East directly, or perhaps with the Roman soldiers that Claudius sent around 47AD.

I am not quite sure which post you are referring to here. I don’t think it was the one above this one.

Anyway, which period are you referring to?

 

[GKC]

Exactly my point.

And as I said before, that is beside the point, because having apportioned for himself the title, he has given himself the right, should he so wish, to concern himself with it.

And Elizabeth exercised this moving the doctrine towards Protestantism.

Again all this is beside the point because whatever the reasons behind and for it, the fact remains that he has declared himself head of the Church with all the attendant rights and privileges whether he chose to exercise them or not.

Beside your point, yes. Not beside my point. Which is what Henry was primarily doing. That is, what the history involved was.

Edward’s protectors made the move to Protestantism. Elizabeth moved back to the center.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

If you want to believe such a questionable conclusion, I can’t stop you.

As GKC said, it is a murky subject. My point was simply that your assertion that Christianity in Britain came from Rome has no actual evidence. There are a variety of theories, and few clear answers unless you begin from the position of an ideologue.

And if it did not come from Rome prior to the 400s, it was certainly united to Rome.

 

[GKC]

And if it did not come from Rome prior to the 400s, it was certainly united to Rome.

Could be.

GKC