Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[GKC]

“GKC,? it is one of GKC’s failings, being always right, one of his less endearing characteristics. Murky Waters indeed”

I have many compensatory endearing qualities, though. Being always right is a burden.

We don’t know that Bishops from Britain were at Nicea, though it’s possible. What we know is that the Church in England supported the Council decisions.

We do know that British bishops were at Arles and, Arminium, at the very least.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

“GKC,? it is one of GKC’s failings, being always right, one of his less endearing characteristics. Murky Waters indeed”

I have many compensatory endearing qualities, though. Being always right is a burden.

We don’t know that Bishops from Britain were at Nicea, though it’s possible. What we know is that the Church in England supported the Council decisions.

We do know that British bishops were at Arles and, Arminium, at the very least.

GKC

About three years ago a Manchester Romanist, a priest wrote an article for the Catholic Messenger he states that at least one british priest was there! Who am I to doubt him?

Collier, the Non Juror, without parallel to my mind said that according to his studies most Catholics Bishops received an invitation, or at least, the invitations were sent out, and he asks why not the Britons? They certainly didn’t object to travelling abroad? If they couldn’t afford the Emperor paid! I like your Church in England,!

By the way, we’re getting another dog, next month! At least my nephew is and unless I’m a poor judge of these things, I imagine I’ll be left with it during the day!@

I would rather I still had Fred!,“Luckyfredsdad,” indeed!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmorh,

Thank you for responding.

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!

Let me tell you what I expected Henry to do: to stick with what he wrote (or, at least what was attributed to him!) He defended the Primacy of Peter and then when the king is thwarted by the Pope, claims the Pope is just a local bishop. Really, Seamusmorh, this is a profound inconsistency.

By the way, did you really mean to say that Catholic Church burried Henry VIII? I honeslty thought it was the Church of England.

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.

Do you have any objective references (attached to an URL) to substantiate this claim of Henry trying to buy a decision and the Pope (almost) offering to sell the same?

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.

My point, Seamusmorh, is that not only is there this glaring inconsistency - but, you seem to endorse it. Henry proclaimed the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church - and then rejects his own statement. You appear to say that this is the way things should be - the Pope is just a local bishop and has no authority over the Catholic Church in England. Well, then, who did? If you claim it was the bishops who chose to break with Rome rather than lose their heads as John Cardinal Fisher (1535) did - you still have to address Henry taking over the role of head of his own church. There is the problem - he first acknowledges the Pope as the leader, runs into a wall when confronts this leadership and then (under penalty of death) demands he is now the leader of this brand new church.

Have you had a chance to read any of the works of John Cardinal Newman?

 

[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!

I know nothing of these monetary transactions, and would learn, if they indeed are anything in the bribe/quid pro quo realm. Considering I’ve been studying Henry’s Great matter for 10 years or so, I am skeptical. Name Collier’s opus.

For Catherine. try Mattingly’s CATHERINE OF ARAGON. For a book to make all sides mad, Froude’s THE DIVORCE OF CATHERINE OF ARAGON. Just the title makes my jaws clench.

GKC

 

[GKC]

About three years ago a Manchester Romanist, a priest wrote an article for the Catholic Messenger he states that at least one british priest was there! Who am I to doubt him?

Collier, the Non Juror, without parallel to my mind said that according to his studies most Catholics Bishops received an invitation, or at least, the invitations were sent out, and he asks why not the Britons? They certainly didn’t object to travelling abroad? If they couldn’t afford the Emperor paid! I like your Church in England,!

By the way, we’re getting another dog, next month! At least my nephew is and unless I’m a poor judge of these things, I imagine I’ll be left with it during the day!@

I would rather I still had Fred!,“Luckyfredsdad,” indeed!

As to the dog, good luck. I know what you mean: giving your heart to a dog to tear.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Seamusmorh,

Thank you for responding.

VOL.4&5 of jeremy Collier’s Ecclesiastical History! Google Books.
Also, England and Rome, same source!

Best I can do! There are others, but I can’t remember them.

You have to remember that in England the pope was looked on as a despoiler of the Church for money! It was as early as Henry II that the Bishops and clergy of England were discussing breaking off Communion with Rome on the question of the Papacy’s misappropriation. That is why the Pope had very little support, initially, in England. A lot didn’t like young Edwards protestant ideas, but probably new he wouldn’t last long with his sickness.

As for responding? I always try to respond to all letters, but I have trouble at the moment and I can only sit for a few moments and have to stand mostly. If I have missed any of yours, it is not through bad maners, or lack of interest. It is the pain.

 

[benedictus2]

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

GKC

A “small” change with sweeping consequences as I have illustrated so in reality it is not a “small” change.

Putting the powers on one man who has no right to that power is not a small change. One can liken it to a tiny cut on the wrist that severs the artery.

If say the President of the United States would decree that he is the spiritual head of the protestant churches in America, would that be considered a small change?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

How about this one from the BBC

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml

In that article, it traces the history of Christianity in Britain first from St Columba from Ireland then to the mission of Augustine’s mission in 597.

Either way, the Christianity that came to Britain was united to Rome because the Christianity that arrived in Ireland was Western not Eastern.

I am not particularly interested in doing the work of proving something to you.

He did the work and gave references which everyone can read. The references from wikipedia attest to this unless you do not consider wikipedia a good enough reference.

Here is a suggestion - read a book on the Reformation, and when you are done, you will know more about it.

Tom does know about it. We have been on similar threads together where Protestants have advanced their defense of the reformation.

Explanations of why things happened however does not go to the heart of the matter, that is the desirability and rightness of what happened.

Would such a book prove that the doctrine of the reformation is correct? If not, all it will do is give the motivations of the personalities of the time without actually coming to truth.

GKC however, who is more patient than I, did in fact give you three or four quotes with references.

And we also gave a lot of quotes. GKC has done a good job of giving the historical background and the motivations of the personalities involved. He has not however proven that what happened was in line with what Christ willed for His Church.

According to GKC he was not trying to justify, he was trying to explain the reasons. And as I said before, explanations do not exculpate the wrong.

Perhaps you are trying to distract people from the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

From reading his posts he has a lot of clue on the matter. Now this will move forward if you will actually be able to muster a rebuttal of the points he has raised.

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.

Why do you think he is dishonest? Please cite a reason. Why is he manipulative? Please give a reason.

If anything, I find you less than honest because in this post, you could have in fact rebutted some of the points and yet you have not done that.

Instead of crying uncle, rebut with facts. That is all that is required.

I’m seriously thinking of putting you on ignore, which is something I’ve never done before.

And that would be childish. If you are sure of your grounds, you would counter with facts and good rebuttals. That is all that is required of you – sound rebuttals. Show Tom where he is wrong. Since you are convinced of your position then that should be a walk in the park for you.

You are making Catholicism look bad, which is too bad.

Quite the contrary, Tom is defending it well. He provided links to his assertions. Now if you truly have issues with his post then you will go like this: “your post is wrong because of such and such proof”.

All that is needed from you is a well reasoned rebuttal.

 

[GKC]

A “small” change with sweeping consequences as I have illustrated so in reality it is not a “small” change.

Putting the powers on one man who has no right to that power is not a small change. One can liken it to a tiny cut on the wrist that severs the artery.

If say the President of the United States would decree that he is the spiritual head of the protestant churches in America, would that be considered a small change?

Poor analogy. As opposed to making a form of Europeaan reformation, yes, a small change.

We are not going to make any progress on this.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

You have to remember that in England the pope was looked on as a despoiler of the Church for money! It was as early as Henry II that the Bishops and clergy of England were discussing breaking off Communion with Rome on the question of the Papacy’s misappropriation.

Okay you need to clarify here what you mean. Misappropriation of the funds or misappropriation of the authority of the Papacy.

If the latter, were they able to prove that the Papacy was misappropriated?

If they were and you know the proof, then please provide it here.

That is why the Pope had very little support, initially, in England. A lot didn’t like young Edwards protestant ideas, but probably new he wouldn’t last long with his sickness.

Whether the Pope had support or not is beside the point. The question is whether he had authority. And it seems he did, and the king recognized that authority because he went to the Pope for the dispensation to allow him to marry Catherine and he went to the Pope for the decree of nullity.

It would be like American’s disagreeing with Obama and hating Obama but whether they like it or not he is the President.

As for responding? I always try to respond to all letters, but I have trouble at the moment and I can only sit for a few moments and have to stand mostly.

I pray that the Lord fill you with his healing and ease any pain. May our Blessed Mother keep you in her embrace.

 

[GKC]

How about this one from the BBC

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml

In that article, it traces the history of Christianity in Britain first from St Columba from Ireland then to the mission of Augustine’s mission in 597.

Either way, the Christianity that came to Britain was united to Rome because the Christianity that arrived in Ireland was Western not Eastern.

He did the work and gave references which everyone can read. The references from wikipedia attest to this unless you do not consider wikipedia a good enough reference.

Tom does know about it. We have been on similar threads together where Protestants have advanced their defense of the reformation.

Explanations of why things happened however does not go to the heart of the matter, that is the desirability and rightness of what happened.

Would such a book prove that the doctrine of the reformation is correct? If not, all it will do is give the motivations of the personalities of the time without actually coming to truth.
And we also gave a lot of quotes. GKC has done a good job of giving the historical background and the motivations of the personalities involved. He has not however proven that what happened was in line with what Christ willed for His Church.

According to GKC he was not trying to justify, he was trying to explain the reasons. And as I said before, explanations do not exculpate the wrong.

From reading his posts he has a lot of clue on the matter. Now this will move forward if you will actually be able to muster a rebuttal of the points he has raised.

Why do you think he is dishonest? Please cite a reason. Why is he manipulative? Please give a reason.

If anything, I find you less than honest because in this post, you could have in fact rebutted some of the points and yet you have not done that.

Instead of crying uncle, rebut with facts. That is all that is required.

And that would be childish. If you are sure of your grounds, you would counter with facts and good rebuttals. That is all that is required of you – sound rebuttals. Show Tom where he is wrong. Since you are convinced of your position then that should be a walk in the park for you.

Quite the contrary, Tom is defending it well. He provided links to his assertions. Now if you truly have issues with his post then you will go like this: “your post is wrong because of such and such proof”.

All that is needed from you is a well reasoned rebuttal.

Nor can one prove that it was God’s will to retain the type of Church intrusion in the secular, national government that was emerging. And I would not try. History is what interests me. What happened and why. And what might have been an alternate outcome. In this case, the counterfactual assumptions necessary to see anything other than what happened are beyond me .Nation states as they emerged, were not going to allow continued intrusion in internal governance by external powers. At some time, the split would occur. It, in fact, was with Henry.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

Poor analogy.

How?

As opposed to making a form of Europeaan reformation, yes, a small change.

But as you yourself showed, it became a form of European reformation under Edward so therefore this so called small change is not so small at all. The potential for a big change is inherent in this small seed of change and is part of the kernel. It just so happened that Elizabeth was slightly less inclined.

This is the point that you are not getting. The fact that Edward has the authority to move this way and Elizabeth that way means that this is built-in to that so called “small change”.

And that is nothing more than what Protestant pastors have arrogated for themselves - the right to make decisions on doctrine.

As I have pointed out, the major problem with this small change is that it is too subjective and up to the whim of the monarch. History has already proven that.

We are not going to make any progress on this.

GKC

We just might.

 

[GKC]

How?

But as you yourself showed, it became a form of European reformation under Edward so therefore this so called small change is not so small at all. The potential for a big change is inherent in this small seed of change and is part of the kernel. It just so happened that Elizabeth was slightly less inclined.

This is the point that you are not getting. The fact that Edward has the authority to move this way and Elizabeth that way means that this is built-in to that so called “small change”.

And that is nothing more than what Protestant pastors have arrogated for themselves - the right to make decisions on doctrine.

As I have pointed out, the major problem with this small change is that it is too subjective and up to the whim of the monarch. History has already proven that.

We just might.

No, I think not. We are talking past one another.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

Nor can one prove that it was God’s will to retain the type of Church intrusion in the secular, national government that was emerging.

And I never argued for that. As I have said before in a reply to you (or maybe to seamus), that has to be curtailed. But that is not what is at issue here. The question is whether the king is rightly the head of the church, whether Christ wanted a secular king to be the head of the Church.

And I would not try. History is what interests me. What happened and why. And what might have been an alternate outcome. In this case, the counterfactual assumptions necessary to see anything other than what happened are beyond me .Nation states as they emerged, were not going to allow continued intrusion in internal governance by external powers. At some time, the split would occur. It, in fact was with Henry.

And you have given quite a few brilliant posts on the matter. Enlightening from the perspective of history and the machinations and foibles of the personalities involved. I really appreciate that.

But what we are addressing here is a denial of the authority of the Pope as regards the Church. As corrupt and probably depraved as they were, it does not alter the fact that they had authority and this authority came from Christ. That they misused it is without a doubt but the authority nonetheless, is there.

 

[GKC]

And I never argued for that. As I have said before in a reply to you (or maybe to seamus), that has to be curtailed. But that is not what is at issue here. The question is whether the king is rightly the head of the church, whether Christ wanted a secular king to be the head of the Church.
And you have given quite a few brilliant posts on the matter. Enlightening from the perspective of history and the machinations and foibles of the personalities involved. I really appreciate that.

But what we are addressing here is a denial of the authority of the Pope as regards the Church. As corrupt and probably depraved as they were, it does not alter the fact that they had authority and this authority came from Christ. That they misused it is without a doubt but the authority nonetheless, is there.

Your asessment is very kind.

And among the misuse was in attempting to be a secular power themselves, and to use the sacred power to intrude upon other secular powers. Given the intertwined relationship of Church and state in society then, the only approach to the Church’s denial of or intrusion into, the authority of the state was to shift the linked power to the state. No other paradigm was imaginable, as the Englasih nation state was emerging.

GKC.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The argument I hear is that Christ would never want a monarch having his hand in the cookie jar of ecclesiastical decision-making. What about Constantine the Great? Nicaea was his baby and, despite being quite a blood-thirsty killer who had no compunction about killing and liquidating even those close to him, he made some pretty good move ecclesiastically? He overall had a lot of influence and power over the Church.

I don’t want to speak for GKC as he makes his points more succinctly and eloquently than I do, but I think the crux of his posts is that the papacy got so intertwined and imbedded into the secular world in Europe that there was no precedent for it. Citizenship in most of Europe was one’s baptism. Papal courts and the curia decided matters of justice all over the place. The education system, war, peace, trade, taxes, so many things were decided or related to the papacy that it was truly an overstepping of the bounds of the pope in so many ways.

Take Pope Innocent III. He deposed King John in England because of the argument about investitures. The pope bestowed the realm of England to Philip of France. The pope told Philip to take England as it was now his. King John had to kneel at the feet of the pope’s legate and declare that he held his crown over England thanks to the pope.

The Pope crowned Charlemagne holy roman emperor despite there being a legitimate roman emperor in the East.

Annates, corruption in the monestaries, and then the gradual evolution of Peter’s Pence from being “voluntary” to forced, there are so many cases of papal intrusions into England’s history.

The pope also was quite lacking in savvy in excommunicating Elizabeth I and allowing papal nuncios to declare anyone who executed Elizabeth to be absolved and lauded. Not only was it deplorable but the pope’s excommunicating the Queen actually hurt his cause in England as the recusants supporting the Catholic Church in England were drowned out by the anger of the English people furious over the excommunication of their Queen. It forced the English people to decide between Queen/the Crown and the religion of Catholicism. Any Catholic who upheld the papal decree was viewed as unpatriotic and seditious.

I see a lot of problems with the history of the papacy in England. The sad fact of the English Reformation is that, despite Henry’s strong case for a decree of nullity in the light of precedents, Henry VIII was overall a disgusting figure in more ways than one. His cruelty, his selfishness, and his power-mongering despoiling the monestaries, etc. overshadow the desire to clean up the Church and reform it in the British Isles. Had it been a better king with more earnest love for truth for truth’s sake and less greedy ambitious hooliganism, the English Reformation would be taken more seriously by some.

 

[benedictus2]

The argument I hear is that Christ would never want a monarch having his hand in the cookie jar of ecclesiastical decision-making. What about Constantine the Great? Nicaea was his baby and, despite being quite a blood-thirsty killer who had no compunction about killing and liquidating even those close to him, he made some pretty good move ecclesiastically? He overall had a lot of influence and power over the Church.

Constantine may have convened and provided the hospitality for the council but he was not part of the voting. He was never the head of the Catholic Church.

I don’t want to speak for GKC as he makes his points more succinctly and eloquently than I do, but I think the crux of his posts is that the papacy got so intertwined and imbedded into the secular world in Europe that there was no precedent for it. Citizenship in most of Europe was one’s baptism. Papal courts and the curia decided matters of justice all over the place. The education system, war, peace, trade, taxes, so many things were decided or related to the papacy that it was truly an overstepping of the bounds of the pope in so many ways.

True, and that certainly had to end. But to say that one must make one’s self head of the church for that to end is ludicrous.

Take Pope Innocent III. He deposed King John in England because of the argument about investitures. The pope bestowed the realm of England to Philip of France. The pope told Philip to take England as it was now his. King John had to kneel at the feet of the pope’s legate and declare that he held his crown over England thanks to the pope.

The Pope crowned Charlemagne holy roman emperor despite there being a legitimate roman emperor in the East.

Annates, corruption in the monestaries, and then the gradual evolution of Peter’s Pence from being “voluntary” to forced, there are so many cases of papal intrusions into England’s history.

The pope also was quite lacking in savvy in excommunicating Elizabeth I and allowing papal nuncios to declare anyone who executed Elizabeth to be absolved and lauded. Not only was it deplorable but the pope’s excommunicating the Queen actually hurt his cause in England as the recusants supporting the Catholic Church in England were drowned out by the anger of the English people furious over the excommunication of their Queen. It forced the English people to decide between Queen/the Crown and the religion of Catholicism. Any Catholic who upheld the papal decree was viewed as unpatriotic and seditious.

I see a lot of problems with the history of the papacy in England. The sad fact of the English Reformation is that, despite Henry’s strong case for a decree of nullity in the light of precedents, Henry VIII was overall a disgusting figure in more ways than one. His cruelty, his selfishness, and his power-mongering despoiling the monestaries, etc. overshadow the desire to clean up the Church and reform it in the British Isles. Had it been a better king with more earnest love for truth for truth’s sake and less greedy ambitious hooliganism, the English Reformation would be taken more seriously by some.

And all this may be true but what does have to do with whether it is legitimate to establish one’s self as head of the Church?

 

[benedictus2]

Your asessment is very kind.

And among the misuse was in attempting to be a secular power themselves, and to use the sacred power to intrude upon other secular powers. Given the intertwined relationship of Church and state in society then, the only approach to the Church’s denial of or intrusion into, the authority of the state was to shift the linked power to the state. No other paradigm was imaginable, as the Englasih nation state was emerging.

GKC.

Well that is not quite true because the other countries were able to wrestle the power from the Pope without the kings declaring themselves head of the church.

 

[GKC]

The argument I hear is that Christ would never want a monarch having his hand in the cookie jar of ecclesiastical decision-making. What about Constantine the Great? Nicaea was his baby and, despite being quite a blood-thirsty killer who had no compunction about killing and liquidating even those close to him, he made some pretty good move ecclesiastically? He overall had a lot of influence and power over the Church.

I don’t want to speak for GKC as he makes his points more succinctly and eloquently than I do, but I think the crux of his posts is that the papacy got so intertwined and imbedded into the secular world in Europe that there was no precedent for it. Citizenship in most of Europe was one’s baptism. Papal courts and the curia decided matters of justice all over the place. The education system, war, peace, trade, taxes, so many things were decided or related to the papacy that it was truly an overstepping of the bounds of the pope in so many ways.

Take Pope Innocent III. He deposed King John in England because of the argument about investitures. The pope bestowed the realm of England to Philip of France. The pope told Philip to take England as it was now his. King John had to kneel at the feet of the pope’s legate and declare that he held his crown over England thanks to the pope.

The Pope crowned Charlemagne holy roman emperor despite there being a legitimate roman emperor in the East.

Annates, corruption in the monestaries, and then the gradual evolution of Peter’s Pence from being “voluntary” to forced, there are so many cases of papal intrusions into England’s history.

The pope also was quite lacking in savvy in excommunicating Elizabeth I and allowing papal nuncios to declare anyone who executed Elizabeth to be absolved and lauded. Not only was it deplorable but the pope’s excommunicating the Queen actually hurt his cause in England as the recusants supporting the Catholic Church in England were drowned out by the anger of the English people furious over the excommunication of their Queen. It forced the English people to decide between Queen/the Crown and the religion of Catholicism. Any Catholic who upheld the papal decree was viewed as unpatriotic and seditious.

I see a lot of problems with the history of the papacy in England. The sad fact of the English Reformation is that, despite Henry’s strong case for a decree of nullity in the light of precedents, Henry VIII was overall a disgusting figure in more ways than one. His cruelty, his selfishness, and his power-mongering despoiling the monestaries, etc. overshadow the desire to clean up the Church and reform it in the British Isles. Had it been a better king with more earnest love for truth for truth’s sake and less greedy ambitious hooliganism, the English Reformation would be taken more seriously by some.

Well done. In points, better than I have expressed this, now or earlier.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

. The question is whether the king is rightly the head of the church, whether Christ wanted a secular king to be the head of the Church.
The King being head of the Church is not right, the head of the Church is the Holy Ghost the Comforter and the earthly authority are the bishops. Every Bishop is complete in himself and they rule collectively through the Councils, the ultimate authority are the Seven Ecumenical Councils. “They have supreme power, that is the Bishops assembled in a General Council may interpret scripture and by their authority suppress all them that shall disobey.” (“Field, Of the Church!”) The Papacy was however head of the Roman Church and also King of a large part of Northern Italy! Why is there to be a line drawn up between him and ,or them and Henry? GKC, has pointed out the short time henry spent with the official title and we have to remember that the Church in England limited his authority ,by inserting the words,“As far as the Law of Christ allows.” (Or some such confection. The matter again raised its headtwo years later, but the initial insertion w asn’t with drawn. The Pope’s monarchical headship went on from about 800 ad, till 1870.

But what we are addressing here is a denial of the authority of the Pope as regards the Church. As corrupt and probably depraved as they were, it does not alter the fact that they had authority and this authority came from Christ.