Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[benedictus2]

No, it doesn’t You need to lay the calendar against it, to see why.

However it was that the Church came to England (and scholarship knows not the details) it was present and organized into dioceses, prior to AD 300.

Where did this bishops come from?

Hence, 3 bishops, with known names, of known sees, were at Arles in 314. St Columba’s mission to Scotland was in …you tell me. And you will note that the mention at your link refers to a certain Irish tone to what St Columba brought.

Where did Irish Christianity come from?

This opens a whole other can of worms, as to who and where and when and I will pass. (Hint: it sometimes can involve the word “Celtic” and it doesn’t interest me).

Regardless, what was the root of Celtic Christianity? Was it more western or eastern? Who brought Christianity to Ireland?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nobody to my knowledge in here has argued that? Edward and Liz made big changes to the Church, some for better, several for the worse. But I think GKC makes an important point, and that is the rise of nation-states. Europe was growing away from the Medievel model of monarchs and papal legates dictating to secular powers how things have to be. If Europe was ever going to emerge from the Dark Ages and toward democracy, the Catholic Church must be ejected from the equation. The Reformation laid the ground work for the rise of nations and political changes. As GKC pointed out, this was destined to happen anyway and the landscape changes necessitated that the pope’s role change or that he be taken out of the picture completely. Arguably England did the best in the Reformation. At least they retained episcopacy, even though you consider it illegitimate. They maintained sacramental theology, anglo-catholicism in some parts, a strong theological tradition yielding men like Thomas Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes, and they didn’t go to the extremes of Calvinism or other groups. To this day, despite the liberalism in some quarters, Anglicanism is closer to Catholicism than other churches for the most part, and many greatly respect it. England could’ve done worse…

Personally I don’t like the idea of ANY politician being the head of the Church. I can’t fathom Obama, Bush, Regan, Clinton, and the gang leading an American Church. Terrifying notion. But I understand that those times necessitated a change toward nationhood and that the pope’s intriguing with the Holy Roman Empire and refusing Henry’s declaration of nullity request was very, very, very foolish on the pope’s part. It ended up biting him in the hiney and causing great strife. He had granted nullity decrees to other monarchs for much less in the past. Ask GKC. He has a zillion examples!

History is complicated…so I’ve been told

So you did not understand my point then?

Let’s put it this way.

Henry made himself head of church which made the monarchs that followed him head of church.

Do you think Edward and Elizabeth would have been able to make the changes that they did were it not for the fact that by virtue of the Henry’s having made the king of England head of Church?

If Henry had not made this change, would Edward and Elizabeth been able to make those changes if all they were were heads of state?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure why you keep asking about whether it was Western or Eastern, ben?

Where did this bishops come from?

Where did Irish Christianity come from?

Regardless, what was the root of Celtic Christianity? Was it more western or eastern? Who brought Christianity to Ireland?

 

[seamusmohr]

Henry VIII - a recognized Catholic Prince with a standing army who had just written a defense of the Sacraments, Primacy of Peter and the Pope himself - was fearful of the Lutherans (Germans) taking over England or the Catholic Church in England - so he established his own church, made himself the head of this church while murdering faithful Catholic clergy and laymen. These actions were designed to stop any invasion from Lutherans.
If this is a correct restatement of your post - would you kindly provide a reference from a URL that can be accessed.
Thank you and God bless.

. I. As far as I know, there was no standing army in England under Henry, or indeed till Charles II. There were at the time of the English Civil War some 1000, troops to guard the King and the Forts on the sea coast! Henry had to hire ItaliAn Mercenaries, as far as I know.

1. According to H. Gee, whose book we read at school before the last war. I can’t give you an url, I have my own copy. He is a writer on the style of GKC, steady but irritating!I’m not sure about the Lutheran invasion, rather I imagine something on the stile of converts!

 

[benedictus2]

Nobody to my knowledge in here has argued that? Edward and Liz made big changes to the Church, some for better, several for the worse. But I think GKC makes an important point, and that is the rise of nation-states. Europe was growing away from the Medievel model of monarchs and papal legates dictating to secular powers how things have to be. If Europe was ever going to emerge from the Dark Ages and toward democracy, the Catholic Church must be ejected from the equation. The Reformation laid the ground work for the rise of nations and political changes. As GKC pointed out, this was destined to happen anyway and the landscape changes necessitated that the pope’s role change or that he be taken out of the picture completely. Arguably England did the best in the Reformation. At least they retained episcopacy, even though you consider it illegitimate. They maintained sacramental theology, anglo-catholicism in some parts, a strong theological tradition yielding men like Thomas Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes, and they didn’t go to the extremes of Calvinism or other groups. To this day, despite the liberalism in some quarters, Anglicanism is closer to Catholicism than other churches for the most part, and many greatly respect it. England could’ve done worse…

Personally I don’t like the idea of ANY politician being the head of the Church. I can’t fathom Obama, Bush, Regan, Clinton, and the gang leading an American Church. Terrifying notion. But I understand that those times necessitated a change toward nationhood and that the pope’s intriguing with the Holy Roman Empire and refusing Henry’s declaration of nullity request was very, very, very foolish on the pope’s part. It ended up biting him in the hiney and causing great strife. He had granted nullity decrees to other monarchs for much less in the past. Ask GKC. He has a zillion examples!

History is complicated…so I’ve been told

And all that is beside the point. As I said before, that may explain the deeds, the foibles and what happened but it does not excuse what happened. It does not make it right.

GKC tries to downplay this as being a small change when it is not, because as we have seen, there was potential for a big change which did eventuate.

What we are trying to establish here is whether the Anglican Church can rightly claim to be a branch of Catholicism or not. And from everything that we have seen, it is not.

So therefore we are still left with this: the Anglican Church was illegally constituted.

We are not here arguing about what you have written about.

You can write as much explanation for what happened but it still does not justify what happened. GKC has said as much.

While everything you and GKC have written have been enlightening from the point of history, it still does not in anyway prove that:

1. 
   *]King Henry was right in what he did;
   *]The king was rightly the head of the Church;
   *]The Church of England is a branch of the Catholic Church.
   
   And if it failed to prove all those then the Anglican Church is not the English branch of the Catholic Church, one that has been illegally established.
   
   As for being closer to the Catholic Church, which part of Anglicanism? There are many variants. My friend belongs to a totally liberal branch one would think he is in a evangelical revivalist one.
   
   It is interesting too, that the Anglican Church was the first one to approve artificial contraception.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m not sure why you keep asking about whether it was Western or Eastern, ben?

Then you need to go back to the previous claims that it was not Roman, that it was not in union with Rome.

 

[seamusmohr]

]

Rubbish, Christ said that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter to us? I have already told you that the genesis of of the Church in Britain, by Roman Sources, is credited to be within a short time of the Crucifixion. The Latin Councils of the Middle Ages, it is in Holy Tradition!!

I don’t think you will find anything in scripture in support of this. If you had said Christ then you would have been able to make a case./
S.Dorotheus of Tyre,Martyr said the Church was brought by S.Simon Zelote , 'brother of Christ, also our first bishop is said by the Orthodox and by traditional Anglicans to have been S.Aristobulos.

If the earthly authority are the bishops, then you acknowledge that there office of the apostles were passed on in the bishops.

You are clutching at straws. I acknowledge that Peter was first apostle, prime apostle, but no more’ You talk about the See of Peter? Which out of the three was that ? Alexandria, Antioch or Rome. This latter he shared the foundation of with Paul , besides which, when the Bishop of Alexandria write to gregory of Rome 597 App. He was reproved and told that S.Peter spoke from all three Sees. Neither does the fact of Peter being first bishop mean a great deal,what you have got to supply are the instances in scripture or tradition, that give to the Bishop of Rome the superior jurisdiction he claims or whatever it is that gives him a claim to infallibility! I must say, that practical study of the history of the subject gives no proof foe either.

We acknowledge all that and we claim as traditional catholics that the magisterium within the Catholic Church was passed from Christ to the Apostolic College as we see in Scripture and by the Apostles on to the bishops in Council.

If you acknowledge that, then you acknowledge that the office of St Peter as prime apostle has been passed. Earlier you have already acknowledged that St Peter was prime apostle. If he was indeed prime apostle, then his see is the prime see which means that his successor is the prime bishop]

We most certainly do not accept your latter claim, that is what you have yet to prove friend on both counts. Gregory the Great in a letter to his oppo in Alexandria, reproved him for saying that Rome was Peters See. Gregory pointed out that Peter was involved in three Sees, so he asked why should only one be picked out? Further more , by the same token, Peter spoke through all the three, not just one!

 

[GaryTaylor]

"You said in a previous post that it was never right that king be head of the Church. Above, I agreed with you that Popes also exercised secular powers.

Now what Henry did was not “carrying the matter to its logical conclusion” because declaring one’s self head of the Church is NOT a logical conclusion of the Pope arrogating for himself secular powers because this had nothing to do with logic…Cory "

…

This is really the Point. We have arrived at the point of where we are “today”. The fact the Kings/Emperiors have involved themselves with the Church in the past has no bearing on the situation with the Angelican Church. It makes nothing right, it continues the church on a path of error. Saying it looks like a horse, sounds like a horse, so it must be a horse, in this case is a facade of the real thing. Obviously you don’t take the CCC Dogma or Doctrine of the Church serious. And I understand this, I could clearly remember a time when I had doubt.

England or the Angelican Church isn’t the only place world wide this is happening, World wide we could point out conflicts between government, Kingdoms, Dictators, etc. From Nero right up till today. We were talking about Russia on another thread. No different.

If your not the elect of the church, then you simply have no business involved in their business. For example in the case of Constantine if you are invited to attend the Council, then thats all well and fine. There have been tyrannts and there have been very good Christian emperors.

But when you walk away with an idea of “greed” “power” thinking “Well I could do this”. Then who’s will are your serving but your own? Who are you, and what authority do you have by God the Father? Who gave you the authority but “you”.

Man by large is still refusing to accept that there is anymore to this but what he can achieve, take, steal or defeat by war. So many have this vague idea of God and exactly what he will or won’t accept. Did you ever think that the commandments, the Sermon on the Mount was given out of love. Because God so loved the World… No different than you scolding a child who rides their bike into the road. You do it out of love.

The fact is apparently hard for many to accept, the Pope is the successor to Peters Chair.

We have error throughout the world, one doesn’t make another right.

In the end this becomes a body count of Souls. You could go Gods way which is also not easy. The pick up your Cross and follow me doesn’t assure a Rose Garden, but it assures eternal salvation. So, even following the correct path, the path God the father gave to His Son with the Cross involves a body count.

But the opposite path involves the greater body count, now we are talking Nations destroyed and its just a matter of time. Not only do we lose more Souls on this path but we have no certainly of their salvation. Its a gamble, its a guess in mans mind thinking he has it right. Thats what your counting on?

Mans own intellect has him still connecting mand to Lucy from 35 thousand years ago? Mans intellect will continue himself on a path of alcoholism till it kills him. At some point you have to give this up to God and to His Son and to His Church. And Gods not handing out a likes and dislikes survey. Frankly there not a concern there of what you desire or don’t like. You do this and you move on in eternity.

I don’t how long most of you been alive, but I assure you at some point its going to dawn on you this life here on earth? Its a drop of water in the ocean. And by the moment we live by Gods Mercy. It counts for nothing, it counts only for the choice you make in Free-Will with God and His church. We owe the future generations a better world than this. WE have been going around in this circle way to long now. Hasn’t it yet become obvious were on the eve of destruction?

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

]

Rubbish, Christ said that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter to us? I have already told you that the genesis of of the Church in Britain, by Roman Sources, is credited to be within a short time of the Crucifixion. The Latin Councils of the Middle Ages, it is in Holy Tradition!!

 

[seamusmohr]

*B]

You were claiming that the Christianity in Britain was not Romand.
So I gave the link to the BBC document and this explanation:
In that article, it traces the history of Christianity first from St Columba from Ireland then to the mission of Augustine’s mission in 597.
So unless, you can refute that point, then sorry, but it does support Tom’s and my point, not yours.\quote]

S.Columba 597? Was an Irish saint who helped restore Catholic Christianity when the Roman,Augustinian’ Bishops ran away!

Who do you believe? The BBC, or S.Dorotheus of Tyre (303 AD.Catholic Saint and Martyr?)

Tertullian said, (roughly,) That what was first was pure, what came last was corrupt!

Tertullian AD 155 -222 said also,'the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman Arms, have received the religion of Christ!"

John Newman said something similar, speaking from memory, If its new its protestant and if its old its true! (rough Trans.)
Archbishop Bramhall, the Anglican Catholic Bishop of Armagh also made the same point.
I have pointed out before that Father Estelles a Roman Catholic Priest claIm that British Bishops, one at least, was at Nicaea 325AD.

Forget the BBC**.

 

[benedictus2]

Rubbish, Christ said that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter to us?

And what has that got to do with your acknowledgement that the Anglican Church was illegally constituted?

I have already told you that the genesis of of the Church in Britain, by Roman Sources, is credited to be within a short time of the Crucifixion. The Latin Councils of the Middle Ages, it is in Holy Tradition!!

You have made an assertion without any support.
According to Wikipedia:

Christianity had first arrived in the British Isles around 200 AD during the Roman Empire. (Archbishop Restitutus and others are known to have attended the council of Arles in 314.) Christianity developed roots in Sub-Roman Britain and later Ireland, Scotland and Pictland. The Anglo-Saxons (Germanic pagans who progressively seized British territory) during the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries established a small number of kingdoms and evangelization was carried out by the successors of the Gregorian mission and by Celtic missionaries from Scotland

S.Dorotheus of Tyre,Martyr said the Church was brought by S.Simon Zelote , 'brother of Christ, also our first bishop is said by the Orthodox and by traditional Anglicans to have been S.Aristobulos.

And that tradition conflicts with other traditions. Some say he died in Samaria, others say he died in Edessa, and others Lincolnshire.

There is no way of verifying that tradition.

You are clutching at straws. I acknowledge that Peter was first apostle, prime apostle, but no more’

Read this slowly.

If the bishops were rightfully successors of the apostles through the office of bishop, then it follows that the successor of Peter who you acknowledge to be prime apostle is also the prime bishop of all the succeeding bishops. Get that?

You talk about the See of Peter? Which out of the three was that ? Alexandria, Antioch or Rome.

Rome. Alexandria was not established by Peter but Antioch was.

Can you tell me where those two patriachates are now? The greater majority of people in Alexandria and Antioch are Muslims.

Would Christ have allowed His Church to be a tiny minority in predominantly Muslim country?

This latter he shared the foundation of with Paul , besides which, when the Bishop of Alexandria write to gregory of Rome 597 App. He was reproved and told that S.Peter spoke from all three Sees.

Perhaps at the beginning. But that changed. Very early in the piece with the advance of Islam, these patriarchates became almost non-existent

Neither does the fact of Peter being first bishop mean a great deal,

Well it is a great deal because it was a great deal to Christ. Do you think Christ’s choices are of no consequence, a “ no big deal”. Every single choice of Christ is of paramount importance.

what you have got to supply are the instances in scripture or tradition, that give to the Bishop of Rome the superior jurisdiction he claims

Since there are no bishops of Rome at that time what we have to establish here is the Primacy of Peter. But you have already agreed that he is prime apostle at the beginning of your post so why would I need to explain that again?

 

[benedictus2]

Back to square one with you. The 451 Council acknowledges The Bishop of Rome as First and Constantinople as Second. Do you realize the Orthodox church acknowledges this? Just as the acknowledge the Bishop of Rome the “proto” at 325 Nicaea.

That needed to be highlighted. Perhaps seamus will then give that some serious thought.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matthew-Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matthew-And Jesus answering said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens.

" In context this relates to Paul… For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

Matthew-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.

"In context John-And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)

Matthew-And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens.

" In context Revelation-“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.”

"In context Isaiah-“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.”

The scripture gives us the Apostolic Succession, do you agree with this? With “Peter” being the primary Apostle as foretold in the above scriptire verse agree’d?

And again your not reading scripture with St Paul. Paul spoke to Christ and asked Christ if He would please not send him to Rome, since he himself persecuted so many Christians. Christ told Paul “Then I will send you where they do not know you”.

The fact that Paul died and is buried in Rome is also true. But this has nothing to do with the evangelization Paul put in or that he was an Apostle. Matthew clarifys for us who holds the Keys of the Kingdom. Look at the rest of the Apostles. Did they not also travel to far land unknown to Christianity like India with Timothy. I don’t see the point?

Agreee or disagree?

God Bless, Gary

 

[benedictus2]

S.Columba 597? Was an Irish saint who helped restore Catholic Christianity when the Roman,Augustinian’ Bishops ran away!

Which part of this are you not getting?

Whether Augustine or Saint Columba, both were united to Rome. Read that slowly to get that.

Who do you believe? The BBC, or S.Dorotheus of Tyre (303 AD.Catholic Saint and Martyr?)

It is not a choice of BBC or S Dorotheus but between BBC or you.
You are claiming that it was from St Dorotheus of Tyre but you have not given us any proof of that. I did a quick google and I am assuming you are referring to “the Synopsis” but that claim regarding that on the Synopsis is in conflict with two other traditions.

Tertullian said, (roughly,) That what was first was pure, what came last was corrupt!

Such sayings cannot be applied willy nilly. The Arian heresy came before the dogmatic pronouncement of Christ’s true nature. Would you say that that Arian heresy is more correct and pure and the dogmatic pronouncement corrupt?

Tertullian AD 155 -222 said also,'the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman Arms, have received the religion of Christ!"

Here’s a commentary regarding that phrase from Tertullian from this website tertullian.org/works/adversus_judaeos.htm

*However it should be said that the sentence is a rhetorical one, and the remoteness of Britain is perhaps a literary commonplace **(after all at this date Britannia had been a Roman province for nearly two centuries!) ***While Britain may be of special interest to us, it was hardly so to Tertullian, forming only a couple of words in a lengthy but vague sentence in a work devoted to something else entirely.

It would be unsafe to conclude from this passage that Tertullian had anything more than anecdotal knowledge of Christianity in Britain. But then again, it would equally be unsafe to say that he did not - who knows? Interesting, not improbable, but really suggesting only that at least some Christians thought they could safely say this without risk of dishonesty.

John Newman said something similar, speaking from memory, If its new its protestant and if its old its true! (rough Trans.)

The more exact wording is this:
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

Archbishop Bramhall, the Anglican Catholic Bishop of Armagh also made the same point.
I have pointed out before that Father Estelles a Roman Catholic Priest claIm that British Bishops, one at least, was at Nicaea 325AD.

So what if they were in Nicea? The question is were they in communion with Rome. If so then the foundation in Britain is definitely Roman, i.e. Western, i.e. in communion with Rome. So when they were in Nicea they were in union with the Pope.

Forget the BBC.

I would if you can come up with something more credible.

 

[seamusmohr]

"You said in a previous post that it was never right that king be head of the Church. Above, I agreed with you that Popes also exercised secular powers.

Now what Henry did was not “carrying the matter to its logical conclusion” because declaring one’s self head of the Church is NOT a logical conclusion of the Pope arrogating for himself secular powers because this had nothing to do with logic…Cory "

The English Church said quite clearly in Henry’s first move, We acknowledge H.M to be the singular protector and supreme lord and so far as the LAW of.Christ Allows, supreme head of the English Church… (1531 AD.) Later on it was renewed, but Henry had already stated the intention was not to claim that the intent of the words to give the Crown authority ,“to see that the spiritual authority discharged its functions for the good order and peace of society” (His. of the Church in England.(O.Wakeman.)
…

This is really the Point. We have arrived at the point of where we are “today”. The fact the Kings/Emperiors have involved themselves with the Church in the past has no bearing on the situation with the Angelican Church. It makes nothing right, it continues the church on a path of error. Saying it looks like a horse, sounds like a horse, so it must be a horse, in this case is a facade of the real thing. Obviously you don’t take the CCC Dogma or Doctrine of the Church serious. And I understand this, I could clearly remember a time when I had doubt.

**The point is that you are looking at the CAtholic Church from today, you expect it to move in a fashion dictated by TV and the wider media!
If the ordinary man, fell out with the Roman Church, it was the galleys, or the garrot, in Spain the Auto da Fe, in England ,under henry, you sat on a chair after being hung, then renewed,While sat there , you had you 30ft, or so of intestines taken out and paraded in front of the wondering masses!
The Fact to remember is that the English were Catholics and had kept the faith with and inspite of Henry. Whilst Rome terrorised the Continent!
**

The fact is apparently hard for many to accept, the Pope is the successor to Peters Chair.

**All you need to do is prove it from ,"Revelation, Scripture and Holy Tradition!
**

I applaud your belief, but we follow the teachings of Christ through His Body the Church!
Seumasmohr.

 

[benedictus2]

**The English Church said quite clearly in Henry’s first move, We acknowledge H.M to be the singular protector and supreme lord and so far as the LAW of.Christ Allows, supreme head of the English Church… (1531 AD.) **

Now all you need to prove is that such a declaration is in accord with Scripture and the will of Christ.Book, Chapter and Verse citation would be good. **
**The point is that you are looking at the CAtholic Church from today, you expect it to move in a fashion dictated by TV and the wider media!
If the ordinary man, fell out with the Roman Church, it was the galleys, or the garrot, in Spain the Auto da Fe, in England ,under henry, you sat on a chair after being hung, then renewed,While sat there , you had you 30ft, or so of intestines taken out and paraded in front of the wondering masses!
The Fact to remember is that the English were Catholics and had kept the faith with and inspite of Henry. Whilst Rome terrorised the Continent! **
**Your thinking is so muddled and muddy. Please stick to the matter at hand. Do you think throwing all that out there will distract us? Sorry, but no it doesn’t.
**
**All you need to do is prove it from ,"Revelation, Scripture and Holy Tradition! **
**Nope, you are the one that needs to do that. And we have been waiting patiently long enough.

I applaud your belief, but we follow the teachings of Christ through His Body the Church!
Seumasmohr.

No you don’t. You follow a man made structure. One made by a man called Henry.

 

[seamusmohr]

in sin.

Back to square one with you. The 451 Council acknowledges The Bishop of Rome as First and Constantinople as Second. Do you realize the Orthodox church acknowledges this? Just as the acknowledge the Bishop of Rome the “proto” at 325 Nicaea.

Do waken up! Even I acknowledge that the Pope is primus of the West! But this is a long way from saying that he’s God’s Vice Regent on Earth! If you study what was said you will realise that it was a political appointment, nothing to do with religion, other than the catholic church in its organisation mirrored the state. That’s where the terms, Diocese and Vicar are gained from!
As for the Orthodox Church acknowledging Rome? Well as Primus of the West OK, otherwise those I spoke to in Both Constantinople and Palestine refer to you as Protestants…

"

 

[GKC]

Where did this bishops come from?

Where did Irish Christianity come from?

Regardless, what was the root of Celtic Christianity? Was it more western or eastern? Who brought Christianity to Ireland?

To all your questions, no one knows. But all (fragmentary) evidence suggests it came from Britain to Ireland. Point is, St. Columba is not the origin in Britain.

GKC

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well said Cory, and thats where we stand at the moment.

I’m sorry I see it exactly the same way as her.

Nonetheless.

Let me take this a step further for you. During the pontificate of JP-II. The Jesuits had a serious fall out over S. America and Marxism. Many walked away from the CC though today they are back.

But in the process many books were written by Fr. Malichi Martin for example. Who was advisor to Two Popes and taught at the Pontifical Institute in Vatican City, and was a Exorcist in N.E. for over 20-years, read the Third Secret etc. While he had much to say about the CC. There was never any denial about the Apostolic Succession. MOF Martin wrote on the Conclaves and the history of every single Pope from Peter foward.

You want a non bias opinion from someone who was highly upset with the CC at the time. Read his works. But the Apostolic Succession cannot be, nor has it ever been denied effectively. Its a fact of History how could it be. Thats the bottom line.

I’ve been on this forum going on two years, and I still have yet to see anyone disprove the Apostolic Succession, and I’ve seen many with PHDs come here and speak. Your case is weak as any I’ve seen. With no presentation of consistant intellectual proof. To inject Henry into the Catholic Church is no different that injecting any King or Ruler. Its bears no fruit in Gods KIngdom. The conclaves chose who sits in Peters chair. And in the Conclave the Holy Spirit decides on who sits in that seat.

Which Conclave did Henry attend in the Catholic Church? I can’t re-call in history his election at any conclave?

 

[GKC]

. I. As far as I know, there was no standing army in England under Henry, or indeed till Charles II. There were at the time of the English Civil War some 1000, troops to guard the King and the Forts on the sea coast! Henry had to hire ItaliAn Mercenaries, as far as I know.

1. According to H. Gee, whose book we read at school before the last war. I can’t give you an url, I have my own copy. He is a writer on the style of GKC, steady but irritating!I’m not sure about the Lutheran invasion, rather I imagine something on the stile of converts!

No standing army, for Hank. He had a couple of standing regiments, and a sort of national guard, but nothing significant. Standing army follows Charles II.

GKC, steady, irritating.