Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[benedictus2]

Read Denny, or Littledale, al;so read Orthodox Theologians, read your own Church canons, Scripture has to be interpreted as the Church tells us, the Holy Roman Church says it has to be understood through the filter of the early/holy Fathers,

And as we have shown, the early Church Father’s interpretation support the Catholic interpretation.

Anglicans used to say through the Greek Fathers!]

Why only the Greek Fathers? History shows that the English Church was part of the Western, not the Eastern Church.

They give you no support except possibly, negatively,by saying nothing! Without being rude, your own views are not important , as indeed neither are mine! Just give it us from the fathers, don’t loose your temper or try to bully! Read the literature I’ve quoted!

And we have.

What is all that to do with the Bishop of Rome assuming the mantle of Peter?

How about the fact that we show succession from Peter onwards.

If Judas’s position was an office that needed to be filled then so is Peter’s.

Apart from the question of whether Peter was at Rome,

Only the uninformed questions that these days.

or how long he stayed there, he also was instrumental in forming other great Patriarchies, wasn’t he?

Yes, he did, he also founded the Patriarchate of Antioch.

Read what Pope Gregory told ALexandria about S.Peter and his Seat?

How about you tell us what exactly you are referring to here. It would be good if you could give a link so we can verify it as well.

S.James the First Bishop of jerusalem and 'Brother of Our Lord and Saviour was the Chairman of the Jerusalem Council and gave the summing up!

All James did was agree with Peter’s conclusions. He was not the one who made the decision. Peter did that because it was to Peter that the revelation about the gentiles was made.

I quite agree, what you have to realise, is that the Roman Church isn’t the Catholic Church and never was!

But she was. At the beginning there were 3 Patriarchates : Rome, Alexandria and Antioch in that order. Rome was always the prime see.

Initially it was no more than the ,‘Suburbicarian Church of Rome’,

Nope, Rome was always the Prime see.

the see of that city and a few towns round and about! It grew later to take in all of lower Italy and the three islands.

Perhaps at the very beginning when Peter first set it up yes, but once the ecclesial structure was organize, Rome always had primacy.

Later still as I understand it was made to cover all Italy, that was because the Empire moved to Constantinople! It was simply a,’ particular ’ church in the sense of the Pauline use of the term!

Sorry but no. Rome always had primacy that is why when the Empire moved to Constantinople, the Patriarch there thought that Constantinople should become the prime see.

Who is arguing? But again you are still no more than a sect, because at the Council of Trent,

As I said before if any, it is you who are a sect. Look at the statistics and the state of the imploding Anglican Church.

Here is a definition of sect from the free dictionary

**1. ** A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
**2. ** A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.

All these definitions apply to the Anglican Church but not to the Catholic Church.

The Anglican Church is a group of people forming a distinct unit within the a larger group (the Church) by virtue of certain refinements (Kind is head of church and the protestant doctrines).

The Anglican Church is a religious body that has separated from a large denomination (the Catholic Church).

you changed the apostolical system of Church order by your bishops surrendering their rights and responsibility on to the shoulders of the papacy!

Which interestingly enough, the kings of England, even Henry VIII, recognized.

Don’t you think it is laughable to argue from that standpoint considering that Kind Henry recognized that the Pope indeed had the right to grant decrees of nullity?

Read Littledale or Even any of the commentaries on that Council by Romans!]

How about you give an example here if you have read him. Or maybe give a link to the said commentary.

 

[benedictus2]

Because, oddly enough, Henry was making as small a change as he could. He took the Church in England private. All other changes, elsewhere, were more radical. Only one made the Church a national erastian Church.

GKC

You think making the English Church erastian is less radical than what happened in other parts of Europe?

 

[GKC]

You think making the English Church erastian is less radical than what happened in other parts of Europe?

Yes.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

Yes.

GKC

Why?

 

[GKC]

Why?

Other than that one change, nothing else necessarily would have changed. Under Henry, little did.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

Other than that one change, nothing else necessarily would have changed. Under Henry, little did.

GKC

But that is just the problem with it. That one change actually has major repercussions because even though he did not exercise this prerogative, he actually did have a right to change doctrine if he is the head of the Church.

And as you have already mentioned, Edward and Elizabeth made good use of that prerogative. Once you let the nose of the camel in, the rest follows because it is a one piece camel.

 

[GKC]

But that is just the problem with it. That one change actually has major repercussions because even though he did not exercise this prerogative, he actually did have a right to change doctrine if he is the head of the Church.

And as you have already mentioned, Edward and Elizabeth made good use of that prerogative. Once you let the nose of the camel in, the rest follows because it is a one piece camel.

But that required that the potentiality be actualized. A change such as in European reform was such a change, ab intio. Henry made the smallest change he could, that achieved the goal of removng a foreign influence over national polity.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

But that required that the potentiality be actualized. A change such as in European reform was such a change, ab intio. Henry made the smallest change he could, that achieved the goal of removng a foreign influence over national polity.

GKC

And there was nothing set forward that the potentiality will NOT be actualized.

It would be like giving free reign to a dictator. At most, all you can hope for is that the dictator will be benevolent and wise and will not abuse the power but there is always that great possibility that he will.

The small change is not really so small because it is all encompassing. It rests the power on this monarch and this change is as big or small as the monarch wills.

 

[GKC]

And there was nothing set forward that the potentiality will NOT be actualized.

It would be like giving free reign to a dictator. At most, all you can hope for is that the dictator will be benevolent and wise and will not abuse the power but there is always that great possibility that he will.

The small change is not really so small because it is all encompassing. It rests the power on this monarch and this change is as big or small as the monarch wills.

But it was the smallest change possible. And change was coming.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

For all of your howling, I am still a bit amazed at the continued evasion shown concerning this wonderful writing attributed to Henry VIII where he defends the Sacraments, the Papacy, the Pope - in effect the entire Catholic Church.

I guess a lot depends on how you define transition - as in moving from one state to another. Here are a few examples that come to mind - let me know if any strike a bell…

Transition #1 - from simple and sinful man who was a fisherman to selection as an Apostle with a name change

Transition #2 - from having to pay his own way to Christ paying the Temple Tax for him and not the other Apostles.

Transition #3 - from not being publicly recognized by God the Father - to having God the Father give him the correct answer to Christ’s question on “Who do you say that I am?”

Transition #4 - from being one of the Twelve to being the Christ appointed leader - and given the Keys as a symbol of this unique leadership

Transition #5 - from boasting he would never deny Christ to being encouraged by Christ that after his denial he would strengthen the other Apostles.

Transition #6 - from being confused and cowardly to being a powerhouse for the Word of God after Pentecost where he preached to and baptized over 3.000 in Jerusalem.

And, yes, there are even more transitions. These were all recognized and their obvious conclusion supported by Henry VIII - that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ - the Cornerstone - on the foundation of Peter. Giving abundant evidence that the Church of Christ is held together by God and not sinful men.

Interestingly enough, the ECF - and, that would be the Early Catholic Church Fathers - supported and defended the Primacy of Peter. Here are just four examples the URL where there are several others:catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9707frs.asp

Clement of Alexandria
**
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] ( Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian**

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” ( Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” ( Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” ( Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Luther had his problems - and they were initially confroted and refuted by Henry VIII - but, note, Luther’s issue were basically dealing with Chruch doctrine and publicly corrupt men in high Church office. Henry, conversely, was motivated by dynastic rule seasoned with lust. Henry built his church on the bones of those he murdered for not agreeing with him - and this is the man who decided that he would be the head of his own church so he could marry as he pleased. A role model, indeed!

There seems to be some confusion on how and when the Catholic Church actually got to England. I believe GKC characterized this history as ‘murky waters’ … but, the relevant facts and obvious conclusion are well established: The Catholic Faith - with the authority of the Pope was well established and respected during the early monarchys of England. Henry VII was a Catholic monarch loyal to the Pope as were both of his sons. Henry VIII defended the Catholic Church from Protestant attacks - but, was blinded by his pride and lost his way. And, that is the way it was.

God bless

 

[GaryTaylor]

I understand quite well the status of Peter within the early Church, what you and your friends , ‘still,’ have not done is to give any proof whatsoever of this transition. Proof from either Holy Tradition or from scriptures.

And who do you think these ECH are? Certainly not the elect in the Angelican Church. Thats a Fact! How many time is Peter mentioned in Scrpture as apposed to the next apostle John? Almost 5X more. You’ve read the the scripture verse, theres no need to refrain. And this statement of your is incorrect. Who has the authority protestnats with Sola Scriptura?

Yes please, so that your comrades can see your inadequate understanding of Church history!.

Inadequate? The only thing your listening to here is yourself.

Enthusiasm without knowledge!.

Describes you perfectly. You don’t even acknowledge the first 7 ecumenical councils, How could you?

He was no more than a catholic bishop doing a bishop’s work, but when he over stepped himself as he did when he twice interfered in the African Church, he was told in no uncertain way to mind his own business. Both S.Cyprian and later S.Augustine were amongst the Councils who told Rome to clear off!.

Once again you don’t have a clue what your talking about. Why do you think Augustine wrote The City of God. Romes authority was never in question by Augustine. Matter if fact Catholic dogma which is historically intelligible without reference to his teaching relating directly to Rome.

How you connect this with Peters time baffles me, how you figure one has to with the other is amazing? Peter was dead before Nero died. Augustine lived 354-430, Saint Cyprian was bishop of Carthage the beginning of the 3rd century?

Read, The Early Church and the Bishop of Rome! Father Puller!

Your joking right? Do you realize when these were published, and the education of those who published them, an their intention?

RIchard Littledale I assume your referrring to? He was pubishished in 1889 And the moral of the story was reasons for “not” joining the Catholic Church? Wonderful reading you doing there.

He recognised the status quo, no more! But remember for four or five hundred years Catholic Europe had been at loggerheads regarding the status of the papacy within the Church! Several Councils had discussed the matter and the power of the papacy was under threat

Obviously you haven’t read the Council of Nicaea or the Council of Chalcedon concerning the Bishop of Rome. Who was considered the Archbishop at Chaledon? The Bishop of Rome

Council of Chalcedon. The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451 … of the Bishop of Constantinople would be defined, as … and be second in rank, after the Bishop of Rome.

How ever, you should really think twice before using Henry’s weakness’s as a stick to beat the English, John XII, in the NInth Century was the offspring of one pope and the pope’s own daughter. John was also his mother’s lover and they openly lived together until the Roman Populace threw them out.

This is fundamentalist thinking which fools you, Catholicism is Christianity in its earliest and purest form? Catholicism is the only Christian Church that can trace its roots directly back to the days of Jesus and the Apostles and most important Peter. Christian/Protestant denomination branch off from this point. Your stuck …Their, in pre moderm man period! And obviously hopelessly.

Got a news flash for everyone out there who’s claiming that Catholics aren’t Christians. We worship God and Him Alone. We believe that the only means of salvation is through the Precious Blood of Jesus, shed on the Cross as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. We are baptized, Blood-bought believers in Jesus Christ who follow God’s commandments and scarements and look to Him as the Author and Finisher of our faith.

If we aren’t Catholic, then the rest of you who are trying to co-opt the Name of Christ for your own purposes don’t stand a chance. And it says a whole lot for your love of Jesus and your Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Bluegoat]

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

You asserted that British Christianity has it’s origins in missionaries sent from Rome. Your links do nothing to support that. There is no evidence.

I am not particularly interested in doing the work of proving something to you. Here is a suggestion - read a book on the Reformation, and when you are done, you will know more about it. GKC however, who is more patient than I, did in fact give you three or four quotes with references.

There is no evidence of your assertion, which is all I said. I don’t know what you are talking about with regarding to evading hard questions on infant baptism etc, , since none of them have come up in this discussion, nor are they related to this point. Perhaps you are trying to distract people from the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is too bad that your dishonest and manipulative way of discussing obscures the rest of what could be an interesting discussion, some other people here, who seem to be honest enough in their Catholic faith, might like to have.

I’m seriously thinking of putting you on ignore, which is something I’ve never done before. You are making Catholicism look bad, which is too bad.

 

[seamusmohr]

Here’s the Scripture verse’s which also add to the FACT of apostolic succession.

Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Were not these things said to all apostles?

Isaiah 22:22 " I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."

Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Revelations 1:18 “I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades”

Revelations 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

The above tell us nothing to the point on which we are debating, they are simply an exercise in wishful thinking on Rome’s part!
…

Matthew 16:18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

1. Origen.Held that the Rock was every faithful disciple of Christ!
   “But if you you think that the whole church was built by God, upon Peter alone, what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or each of the apostles. Or should we venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter but shallprevail against the other apostles and those that are perfect”?
2. Cyprian.’ Certainly , the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship of dignity and power.’

3.Jerome.’ But you say the Church is founded upon Peter although the same thing is done in an other place upon all the apostles and all receive the kingdom of heaven and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all,"…

1. Chrysostom. explains the words thus," …that is upon the rock ".visiting Peter, not as needing anything from him nor of his voice but as being his equal in honour’.
2. Cyril of Alexander. “Calling, I suppose, nothing else the Rock, in allusion to his name, but the immovable and firm faith of the disciple on which the Church is founded.”
3. S.Hilary: “Upon this rock of the confession is the building up of the Church…This faith is the foundation of the Church!”

7.S. Ambrose; ‘Faith then is the foundation of the Church, for not the human person of S.Peter but of faith it is said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’.

1. Pope Gregory I ,'Establish your faith upon the rock of the Church, that is the confession of the Blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles."

Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone”

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood”

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I thought I had all these scripture verse’s together but apparently not. My intention here is just to place them all in one place for view. Sorry

It now becomes your responsibility instead of claiming “denial” “denial” to prove through the ECF that the Church wasn’t given to Peter by Christ as the leader of the Apostles. Your claim brings no fact just denial? And give authority to who the King? Let us be serious here now. Its been fun playing with you but reality is in the drivers seat. Now of which YOU can prove.

God Bless, Gary

See for yourself above!

Littlemore,
Denny
and Butler’s Handbook of the papacy! All good catholics!

 

[GaryTaylor]

The above tell us nothing to the point on which we are debating, they are simply an exercise in wishful thinking on Rome’s part!
…

1. Origen.Held that the Rock was every faithful disciple of Christ!
   “But if you you think that the whole church was built by God, upon Peter alone, what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or each of the apostles. Or should we venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter but shallprevail against the other apostles and those that are perfect”?
2. Cyprian.’ Certainly , the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship of dignity and power.’

3.Jerome.’ But you say the Church is founded upon Peter although the same thing is done in an other place upon all the apostles and all receive the kingdom of heaven and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all,"…

1. Chrysostom. explains the words thus," …that is upon the rock ".visiting Peter, not as needing anything from him nor of his voice but as being his equal in honour’.
2. Cyril of Alexander. “Calling, I suppose, nothing else the Rock, in allusion to his name, but the immovable and firm faith of the disciple on which the Church is founded.”
3. S.Hilary: “Upon this rock of the confession is the building up of the Church…This faith is the foundation of the Church!”

7.S. Ambrose; ‘Faith then is the foundation of the Church, for not the human person of S.Peter but of faith it is said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’.

1. Pope Gregory I ,'Establish your faith upon the rock of the Church, that is the confession of the Blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles."

Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone”

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood”

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I thought I had all these scripture verse’s together but apparently not. My intention here is just to place them all in one place for view. Sorry

It now becomes your responsibility instead of claiming “denial” “denial” to prove through the ECF that the Church wasn’t given to Peter by Christ as the leader of the Apostles. Your claim brings no fact just denial? And give authority to who the King? Let us be serious here now. Its been fun playing with you but reality is in the drivers seat. Now of which YOU can prove.

God Bless, Gary

I just went through Richard Littlemore with you are you joking?

Who was Christ speaking to in Matthew, was it not Peter who He said he would build his church upon? Who did he give the Keys to? was it not Peter.

The fact the other Apostles have authority is a NO-Brainer. Of course they do. But they were not picked by Christ to build the Church upon as Peter was.

16:19 was spoken to Peter not all the Apostles. You better go back re-read Matthew. Read 16:16 to 16:19 and then tell me who Christ is taking to. The RCIA class comprehends this. I find it facinating you don’t.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seasmusmohr,

You’re on: back this statement up! You are claiming there were eleven other sets of keys - and all the Apostles had the same authority as Peter. Let us see the proof. And, pleae do not confuse Matt 18:18 with Matt 16. The Keys Peter received were unique to the unique posiiton that Christ placed Peter over.

It is time to start producing some objective data to match your opinions.

Oh, and I am still waiting for your response to Henry VIII defending the Catholic Church - so just queue this post up behind your pending response on Henry so that that they stay in reasonable order. Hopeflly, you will not chose to evade both questions.

God bless

Didn’t all the Apostles receive the same keys, though at a different time and date?

“THIS IS THE FAITH OF THE FATHERS”?
No one is disputing this, but the man was a bishop who had an enormous contribution to make! Nothing else, it still had to be put before the bishops and fathers, there was nothing taken for granted, it only proves he wasn’t another Honorius! Further more the really pertinent bit to our discussion was uttered by the deacon, the stamping and cheering was given to record the bishops agreement with the statement. Further, the date was 451! Four hundred years after Christ 's death, or Peter’s Promotion, not exactly contemporary!
Neither is Phillip exactly a free agent! He is a servant of Leo! Will not do friend! Finally it was the pope at this timeLeo who first claimed the exaggerated status of the papacy, again some four hundred years after the time. Might work for you and your team , but not for anyone who reads Church History!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Considering that you have been ignoring what I have been talking about - this will not be any real change in your established behavior. There is a quote about some people cause joy wherever they go - and some whenever they go. Make your own choice.

Note: I did not talke about ‘infant baptism’, I was addressing the consistency of Catholic teaching through the centuries and as shown in the Catholic Chruch in England. These same truths: NECESSITY FOR BAPTISM, Real Presence, Penance, Primacy of Peter, etc. were all present in the Catholic Church through out the world - and that includes England.

Your fariytale is that because there is no written evidence that the actual origins of the Catholic Church in England were not established directly by Rome until 598 with Augustine of Canterbury en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury that they just did not exist is pure smoke. Benedictus2 stated that they were associated and you did not respond. I am telling you that there was something present - accountable to Rome - prior to 598 for this to get started … but, that is just a guess on my part. Where you are sputtering is that after 598AD the relationship with the authority of the Pope over the Catholic Church in England is quite clear - and this goes all the way to Henry VIII. Your howlings that this Catholic Church united to the Pope just happened - but, there were really Anglicans there all along has no proof - just the products of a wishful imagination.

And, yes, Bluegoat, I know exactly what I am talking about - and have provided evidence for you. Do you recall, I am still waiting for you to respond to Henry VIII’s written defense of the Sacraments, the Primacy of Peter and the Pope himself?

Wheher you chose to respond or not, the issues remain - the authority of the Pope was present in England prior to Henry VIII’s attempt to take over the spiritual leadership of the chruch and form his own church so he could marry as often as he chose.

God bless

You asserted that British Christianity has it’s origins in missionaries sent from Rome. Your links do nothing to support that. There is no evidence.

I am not particularly interested in doing the work of proving something to you. Here is a suggestion - read a book on the Reformation, and when you are done, you will know more about it. GKC however, who is more patient than I, did in fact give you three or four quotes with references.

There is no evidence of your assertion, which is all I said. I don’t know what you are talking about with regarding to evading hard questions on infant baptism etc, , since none of them have come up in this discussion, nor are they related to this point. Perhaps you are trying to distract people from the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is too bad that your dishonest and manipulative way of discussing obscures the rest of what could be an interesting discussion, some other people here, who seem to be honest enough in their Catholic faith, might like to have.

I’m seriously thinking of putting you on ignore, which is something I’ve never done before. You are making Catholicism look bad, which is too bad.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

Actually, it wasn’t the smallest change possible - murdering hundreds of other-wise loyal subjects (like St. Thomas More) who would not go along with the king’s folly, destroying the monesteries that took care of the poor, homeless and sick - so that their wealth could be consficated, and making a mockery of marriage. Henry could have accepted the fact that he was validly married to Catherine and had a living heir to the throne in Mary.

There is always going to be change - but, the change you are proposing as inevitable is a lot to swallow. And, really, creating the Church of England was not something that had to be.

But, if you would part another historical ‘curtain’ for me … considering that Henry had two of his wives murdered - I have always wondered why he did not murder Catherine before he tried to create his own church?

God bless

But it was the smallest change possible. And change was coming.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

ng this wonderful writing attributed to Henry VIII where he defends the Sacraments, the Papacy, the Pope - in effect the entire Catholic Church.

What do you expect Henry to do, he was a CATHOLIC, He had been baptised in to the Catholic Church and was buried by it! That’s the way for most of us!

Somewhere you have got hold of the wrong part of the stick! The fact is a, for my part Henry and the Pope were mixed up in some disgusting monetary transaction where the pope and his court, were to allow Henry a way out of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon!
there were political and we are told spiritual matters involved. It seems to me however that
the proceedings were disgraceful on both sides. The real business of the matter is when the Pope reneges on the bargain,Henry neither gets his money back or loses his lawful wife and becomes the laughing stock of europe. He then, along with the Church in England tells the pope that according to the Catholic and Council canons he has no authority outside his own see. Certainly not in England , this is only in mundane matters such as
Interestingly enough, over riding English Law and interfering in Commonwealth matters. The pope , however remembers quite well that for some 400 or so yrs his predecessors have been chased by a series of General Councils and various popes were seen of, imprisoned and at least one ran away!Also, he remembers the Orthodox Church left on more or less the same principal! He then sulk, this to me is the story of the English Reformation.

the ECF - and, that would be the Early Catholic Church Fathers - supported and defended the Primacy of Peter. Here are just four examples the URL where there are several others:catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9707frs.asp

Clement of Alexandria
**
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] ( Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
"
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” ( Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Luther had his problems - and they were initially confroted and refuted by Henry VIII - but, note, Luther’s issue were basically dealing with Chruch doctrine and publicly corrupt men in high Church office. Henry, conversely, was motivated by dynastic rule seasoned with lust. Henry built his church on the bones of those he murdered for not agreeing with him - and this is the man who decided that he would be the head of his own church so he could marry as he pleased. A role model, indeed! \quote]

Usually I have opinions about most things, about Luther, I know nothing. I do know that they used to shout at ROMAN Catholics, “Where was your Church before Trent!?”
As for Henry’s viciousness, Henry was probably mental owing to an accident when jousting and the poor health he suffered.Regarding his cruelty which was very real, it is estimated he killed 70,000 men, in his viciousness. Whilst the German Emperors, Killed 150,000,[Eng & Rome, Dugan.} these would be Lutherans I suppose, as a refinement whilst henry achieved fame as a hangsman, The Emperor was noted for his refinements, he buried many alive. Either way it doesn’t say much for catholicism does it?

There seems to be some confusion on how and when the Catholic Church actually got to England. I believe GKC characterized this history as ‘murky waters’ … but, the relevant facts and obvious conclusion are well established: The Catholic Faith - with the authority of the Pope was well established and respected during the early monarchys of England.

GKC,? it is one of GKC’s failings, being always right, one of his less endearing characteristics. Murky Waters indeed. We do know that british Bishops were at Nicea, the most important Council the Church has held! That was in 315 ? We know that they supported Athanasius in his struggle against the Arian Heresy! It was in 597? give & take a year that Augustine came here so there had been a 500 year interval before the Roman Church took an,(Recorded,) interest in the goings on of the One , true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in this country! As I said in an earlier post, it is well documented that the Roman Mission did a runner, after Augustine’s Death, under pressure from Pagans. They were only here a few yerars leaving only a deacon behind.
It was the ancient church that brought us out of the struggle with both Saxon and British Catholics evangelising .

Henry VII was a Catholic monarch loyal to the Pope as were both of his sons. Henry VIII defended the Catholic Church from Protestant attacks - but, was blinded by his pride and lost his way. And, that is the way it was.

Did you know that in 1791, the Roman Hierarchy wrote to the English Government proclaiming themselves ,“Dissenting Protestant Catholics”? Now, as far as I know no Anglican Synod or Council, has ever proclaimed themselves
as Protestants, it is funny that you people who use the word in an unpleasant manner accusing without proof ,should be the ones to use it and indeed proclaim it?
God bless**

 

[GKC]

“The fact is a, for my part Henry and the Pope were mixed up in some disgusting monetary transaction where the pope and his court, were to allow Henry a way out of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon!..”

Tell me more of these monetary transactions.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

“The fact is a, for my part Henry and the Pope were mixed up in some disgusting monetary transaction where the pope and his court, were to allow Henry a way out of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon!..”

Tell me more of these monetary transactions.

GKC

I presume it was the costs or fees, that Henry had paid out to the Papal Court! Look at ‘England & Rome’, also, do not miss Collier, Vol 4,5, Not the one with notes by some other fellow, I have that, not as good. They were both disgusting men!

Interestingly, what was Katherine of Aragon like? She was very popular and had lots of sympathy going for her. Must read more about her, just got to make sure it isn’t from the Vatican printing House!