The Reformation...reforming to What?

[Radical]

Radical,

to correct you above, Mary the Mother of God was sinless and fully human.

well IMHO you are half right…nicely done

Also, I’d appreciate your response to post #105. Thank you.

Radical, how do you reconcile scripture in saying the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth? If I was atheist and looking to convert to Christianity, what church out of 1000’s would fulfill these words?

how are you interpreting “pillar and bulwark of truth”? Do pillars support? Do bulwarks defend? If so, I would look for a church that supports the gospel and defends the gospel…they aren’t too hard to find. Your church could even qualify now, but IMHO it doesn’t enjoy any sort of monopoly.

 

[Radical]

Maybe Radical is checking on the references…

oh yeah…you wanted some Tertullian references…here are some that i provided more than a year ago:

To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not–when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? … Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them? …… If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess. Against Marcion IV .19

Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, "What are mother and brothers to me? " And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave Others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour’even because they listened to the word (of God)'He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours’for God’s work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Isreal remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s “womb and paps,” but designating those as more “blessed who hear the word of God.” On the Flesh of Christ 7

She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of opening the womb, wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband’s co-operation or not; it was the same sex that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. On the Flesh of Christ 23

Turning now to the law, which is properly ours— that is, to the Gospel— by what kind of examples are we met, until we come to definite dogmas? Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest;…For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that (body)? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. On Monagamy 8

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Throwing up a smoke screen while evading issues that you do not agree with is hardly a logical argument. It is not a matter that you do not accept an interpretion simply because you do not agree with it. Rather, produce some evidence of what is wrong, rather then just merely dismissing it as a burdensome.

So, you, “…see dogmas as man’s efforts to expalain God’s nature using logic…” and this is a failure in your view? Well, just what kind of Protestat are you Radical to have no dogmas at all? Seriously, every item in the Nicene Creeed (newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm) is there because these topics were subject to heretical attacks. Based on your argument - they prove nothing and are worth even less. But, every Protestant religion I know of believes in at least some of these logically arrived at beliefs… so just what is it you are saying?

Your misunderstanding of Gen 17:8 is noteworthy. You are the one claiming that Abram’s descendants do not have the land. Can you provide a reference that backs this statement of your? As I see it, your understanding of the OT is rather limited to misapplied proof-texts while missing the big picture about love and obedience. Here is a link that may be helpful: frtommylane.com/bible/enjoying_paul_old_testament/01_partc_importance_of_ot.htm

I understand that many Protestant groups do not have a hierarchy, and falsely claim that such is not Biblical. I have already given you the reference for Peter establishing the position of Deacon - and Deacons are members of the Hierarchy. Here are two links that may prove helpful::

scripturecatholic.com/biblical_basis.html

catholicapologetics.org/

Now to claim that the Deacon’s job was not to spread the word misses more than one point - actually, they were established so the apostles ‘…did not have to wait on tables…’ but, look at the criteria that was used to select these men - none of them had previous experience at any of Jerusalem’s fine restaurants - at least as far as we know! But, just take a look at Acts 7 for the inspired work of St. Stephen in spreading the Word to the Jewish leaders!

Truly Radical, you seem to just thrown your opinion around without any regard for validity or even establishing references to substantiate your statements. It truly seems that if you do not like something then it is not to be believed. You may argue about Peter being the First Pope - but, not only did Christ put him in charge, Christ gave him the power to bind and lose. You seem to totally dismiss this as being meaningful and then complain about changes that you find non-scriptural. Scripture does not contain everything - it does not even contain all that Jesus did (John 21:25) - and this is the why there is Sacred Tradition.

God bless

and? First, I don’t accept your interpretation of the passage…second, I see the dogmas as man’s efforts to explain God’s nature using logic and Greek philosophy with reference to scripture….and not revelation from God.
in Gen 17:8 God promised to give land to Abram and his descendants as an everlasting possession…but it hasn’t been an everlasting possession. As such, by your logic, God is a liar who has deceived millions and millions of people. There really isn’t any middle ground here - you either believe what He said, or you don’t……either that or your understanding of scripture is just bad. Further, I suspect that you are also identifying the hierarchy of an institution as the Church and that is also wrong.
the deacons job wasn’t one of spreading the word…though they, like all Christians could do that. Also, the apostles were directly involved which is what I seek.
saying it just doesn’t make it so

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Actually, I just did not want Tertullian references - but those of the Early Chruch Fathers - and Tertullian was just one of many. Please - spare yourself all of that work - instead of all that copying, just provide the link. This is also a good way to avoid errors in transcribing.

I guess you forgot that there were many other Early Chruch Fathers that believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - and I have given you the references. I appreciate you getting this material from Tertullian - but, please stop and consider what I previously told you: none of the ECF was infallible - and all of them put together were infallible.

This is not to dismiss the contributions made by each and every one - including Tertullian - but, for a doctrine to be infallible, it must be issued under the authority of the Pope - and the ECF also believed in the Primacy of Peter - and here is a referece for that: freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1778742/posts

Each and every ECF can and did make mistakes! Every one of them tried to do their best and that is to be appreciated - but, for a doctrine to be without error, it must really be from the authority of the Pope, for it is the Pope, when speaking on matters of Faith and morals, speaks with the authority of Christ. Here is a link to identify this was what the Early Church Fathers wrote: catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html

God bless

oh yeah…you wanted some Tertullian references…here are some that i provided more than a year ago:

To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not–when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? … REDUCED FOR BREVITY…

 

[Porknpie]

well IMHO you are half right…nicely done

how are you interpreting “pillar and bulwark of truth”? Do pillars support? Do bulwarks defend? If so, I would look for a church that supports the gospel and defends the gospel…they aren’t too hard to find. Your church could even qualify now, but IMHO it doesn’t enjoy any sort of monopoly.

Truth can not vary by definition, so certain churches must hold more truth than others, or in the Catholic teaching, it holds the fullness of truth. Sadly, some churches teach abortion, contraception and euthenasia are ok and they read the same gospel. Some teach homosexuality is ok and deny Christs true presence in the Eucharist and baptism despite clear teachings in the bible, and Christ’s own words in teaching on the Eucharist and baptism.

So if I were atheist, finding a church that “supports the gospel” can lead me to a lot of different churches and imho, wildly different views on truth, both in faith and in morals. The books of bible while inspired and infallible were put together in a canon by the church to be used for reading at Mass. It was not put together as a compendium of all faith which is why tradition and the magisterium become so important, because the bible needs both to be interpreted correctly. So if I were aethiest, I would look for a church, Catholic by name that has all three: bible, tradition and magisterium so that I could be assured that on faith and morals I was being taught the fullness of truth.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Porknpie,

I thought that concept of the Bible being, ‘…a compendium…’ was pretty good! One of the major problems with Sola Scriptura and the resulting personal interpretation of Scripture - is everyone claiming to have ‘the truth’ when they all contradict one another. The term for the result of this process is: chaos!

The ‘hunt’ for the ‘perfect church’ the one that ‘follows everything in the Bible’ is a quest doomed to failure - since the Catholic Church is rejected. All of those who still claim to be on this ‘search’ are confronted with churches founded by men (Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, and their thousands of splintering groups) on the traditions of men. And if any one really doubts this - just look around: truth is one, error is multiple.

But, you lost me on this one, Porknpie - why would an atheist search for any group that ‘supports the gospel’?

God bless

Truth can not vary by definition, so certain churches must hold more truth than others, or in the Catholic teaching, it holds the fullness of truth. Sadly, some churches teach abortion, contraception and euthenasia are ok and they read the same gospel. Some teach homosexuality is ok and deny Christs true presence in the Eucharist and baptism despite clear teachings in the bible, and Christ’s own words in teaching on the Eucharist and baptism.

So if I were atheist, finding a church that “supports the gospel” can lead me to a lot of different churches and imho, wildly different views on truth, both in faith and in morals. The books of bible while inspired and infallible were put together in a canon by the church to be used for reading at Mass. It was not put together as a compendium of all faith which is why tradition and the magisterium become so important, because the bible needs both to be interpreted correctly. So if I were aethiest, I would look for a church, Catholic by name that has all three: bible, tradition and magisterium so that I could be assured that on faith and morals I was being taught the fullness of truth.

 

[ahs]

oh yeah…you wanted some Tertullian references…here are some that i provided more than a year ago:

Perfect, this is exactly what I’m getting at in this thread. I’ll assume someone has provided these to you to use to argue a point rather than you actually reading Tertullian’s works. Had you read them you would have seen, and hopefully been respectful enough to acknowledge, that although Tertullian believed all Doctrine should be tested and proved (by the Church, by the way, not by Scripture…since the NT had yet to be defined, I guess) that he untimately yeilded to the Authority of the office (the Bishops and Pope).
catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy
catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors
catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

So this helps to show my point. What I believe is that the “reformers” did exactly what you have been taught to do and what you have just done. These days it’s called “cherry-picking” and I think it makes for a good visual:
A fella sees a cherry tree and how brown and hard it is and the leaves don’t really appeal to him either. So, when the supple red cherries turn up, he picks one and uses it to argue against the tree, showing how the cherrry’s soft red juicy state contradicts the tree and speaks, per se, against the tree. Yet in doing this, he fails to recognize that the cherry is dependant upon the tree for its existence. The cherry could not exist apart form the tree. Oh sure, the analogy could eventually fail in that the tree had to come from the seed of the cherry…but that individual cherry would never exist without that tree producing it. The other thing the fella fails to notice, or ignores, is that once the flesh is eaten off the cherry, it’s core resembles the tree from which it came…brown and hard.

If the “reformers” were falling back on the teachings of the ECF’s, why only SOME of their positions and not others. Tertullian is a great example. Why accept his arguments on Mary but reject his arguments on Papal Authority? And why accept the opinions of a man on the merit that he was a ECF while his words seem to agree with your position, but reject them when they don’t on the basis that he is fallible? Again, everything is subjected to opinions and interpretations of the person seeking to prove a point. Is this what Christ wanted? No, it’s not. That’s why he gave ONE man the Keys to the Kingdom, and why He established ONE Church and prayed that His ONE Church would remain as ONE and HE and the Father are ONE.

The “reformers” broke from the Church…whether you agree with their theology or not, they took what was A Church and broke it into many. Instead of working on the corruption from inside the Church through the Authority that all the ECF’s taught and submitted to…they rejected the Authority and decided they knew better and could fix it themselves. That’s where they went wrong, IMHO.

tqualey brings up a good point that shows exactly the harm that this did. “100 years ago, the Catholic Church and virtually every Protestant denomination spoke out against contraception, abortion, sterilization, homosexual behavior and euthansia. Look around and, besides the Catholic Church that still condemns these abominations - where are the Protestant groups on this issue?” In other words, all of Christianity has opposed these evils for over 1,900 years. Who has held true to these Christian beliefs without wavering? Which church stands against them still besides the Catholic Church? And by what authority were these evils accepted as good? The Scripture speaks against them, so they obviously have not adhered to any aurthority they place on Scripture. Or perhaps was the Bible simply re-interpreted to keep up with the times…more correctly understood by modern people who are a little smarter than those when Christianity had just begun?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ahs,

Excellent post

Now, for my boldness … but, after re-reading Radical’s last couple of posts … let me offer - or at least attempt to answer - that last question about how doctrine has appeared to change on certain moral issues within the past 100 years.

"You see … … just like Paul wrote in 1Tim about the church **at that time ** we can easly see that the issue of abortion was not really there (probably due to inadequate technoloy) but infantacide was all over the ancient world, Sterilization of females was another non-issue but eunichs abounded … and, yes there was homosexual behavior back then - and Paul does use harsh words … but, I am confident that it is really quite different from homosexual behavior practiced today, So, I think the argument has been made that there are things that are new under the sun… and these new aborations have nothing to do with those old ones that appear in the Bible! "

But, I admit this, as a logical arugment. has a conspicuous limp - hey, Radical - do you think you could take your logical presentation of the 1st Century Catholic Church in 1Tim as limited to that particular ancient Chruch - and apply that same logic to what appears to be this change in morality we currently see being taught by the various Protestant groups?

And, Radical, if you need a jump start on references - here are two links from Wiki. While this is a cricitized source … it should give you some information from which you can launch out to prove your point.

Here is a link that identifies the divergence in teachings about abortion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion

Here is a link that identifies the divergence in teachings about homosexual behavior.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

Again, great post, Ahs!

God bless

Perfect, this is exactly what I’m getting at in this thread. I’ll assume someone has provided these to you to use to argue a point rather than you actually reading Tertullian’s works. Had you read them you would have seen, and hopefully been respectful enough to acknowledge, that although Tertullian believed all Doctrine should be tested and proved (by the Church, by the way, not by Scripture…since the NT had yet to be defined, I guess) that he untimately yeilded to the Authority of the office (the Bishops and Pope).
catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy
catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors
catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

So this helps to show my point. What I believe is that the “reformers” did exactly what you have been taught to do and what you have just done. These days it’s called “cherry-picking” and I think it makes for a good visual:
A fella sees a cherry tree and how brown and hard it is and the leaves don’t really appeal to him either. So, when the supple red cherries turn up, he picks one and uses it to argue against the tree, showing how the cherrry’s soft red juicy state contradicts the tree and speaks, per se, against the tree. Yet in doing this, he fails to recognize that the cherry is dependant upon the tree for its existence. The cherry could not exist apart form the tree. Oh sure, the analogy could eventually fail in that the tree had to come from the seed of the cherry…but that individual cherry would never exist without that tree producing it. The other thing the fella fails to notice, or ignores, is that once the flesh is eaten off the cherry, it’s core resembles the tree from which it came…brown and hard.

If the “reformers” were falling back on the teachings of the ECF’s, why only SOME of their positions and not others. Tertullian is a great example. Why accept his arguments on Mary but reject his arguments on Papal Authority? And why accept the opinions of a man on the merit that he was a ECF while his words seem to agree with your position, but reject them when they don’t on the basis that he is fallible? Again, everything is subjected to opinions and interpretations of the person seeking to prove a point. Is this what Christ wanted? No, it’s not. That’s why he gave ONE man the Keys to the Kingdom, and why He established ONE Church and prayed that His ONE Church would remain as ONE and HE and the Father are ONE.

The “reformers” broke from the Church…whether you agree with their theology or not, they took what was A Church and broke it into many. Instead of working on the corruption from inside the Church through the Authority that all the ECF’s taught and submitted to…they rejected the Authority and decided they knew better and could fix it themselves. That’s where they went wrong, IMHO.

tqualey brings up a good point that shows exactly the harm that this did. “100 years ago, the Catholic Church and virtually every Protestant denomination spoke out against contraception, abortion, sterilization, homosexual behavior and euthansia. Look around and, besides the Catholic Church that still condemns these abominations - where are the Protestant groups on this issue?” In other words, all of Christianity has opposed these evils for over 1,900 years. Who has held true to these Christian beliefs without wavering? Which church stands against them still besides the Catholic Church? And by what authority were these evils accepted as good? The Scripture speaks against them, so they obviously have not adhered to any aurthority they place on Scripture. Or perhaps was the Bible simply re-interpreted to keep up with the times…more correctly understood by modern people who are a little smarter than those when Christianity had just begun?

 

[Porknpie]

Hi, Porknpie,

I thought that concept of the Bible being, ‘…a compendium…’ was pretty good! One of the major problems with Sola Scriptura and the resulting personal interpretation of Scripture - is everyone claiming to have ‘the truth’ when they all contradict one another. The term for the result of this process is: chaos!

The ‘hunt’ for the ‘perfect church’ the one that ‘follows everything in the Bible’ is a quest doomed to failure - since the Catholic Church is rejected. All of those who still claim to be on this ‘search’ are confronted with churches founded by men (Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, and their thousands of splintering groups) on the traditions of men. And if any one really doubts this - just look around: truth is one, error is multiple.

But, you lost me on this one, Porknpie - why would an atheist search for any group that ‘supports the gospel’?

God bless

My point of starting with an aethiest is - my assumption - is that they would not necessarily be predisposed to any particular faith. The key question that I would want to know in my quest for what church to belong to is which church held the “fullness of truth” as faith and morals vary from church to church. Truth itself does not vary and IF I were an aethiest looking to convert to Christianity, I would want to find the truth and attend the church that taught the truth. As I said, the canon established in 380+ AD was put together to have an infallible set of readings to be used at Mass, the Eucharist! Profitable for teaching certainly but it was never intended to be used as the sole knowledge for salvation. The magisterium and tradition are especially needed to interpret the bible and without it, you run into what we have today, a “chaos” of 1000’s of churches, each having a different perception of what the “truth” is

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Porknpie,

Sounds good to me!!

God bless

My point of starting with an aethiest is - my assumption - is that they would not necessarily be predisposed to any particular faith. The key question that I would want to know in my quest for what church to belong to is which church held the “fullness of truth” as faith and morals vary from church to church. Truth itself does not vary and IF I were an aethiest looking to convert to Christianity, I would want to find the truth and attend the church that taught the truth. As I said, the canon established in 380+ AD was put together to have an infallible set of readings to be used at Mass, the Eucharist! Profitable for teaching certainly but it was never intended to be used as the sole knowledge for salvation. The magisterium and tradition are especially needed to interpret the bible and without it, you run into what we have today, a “chaos” of 1000’s of churches, each having a different perception of what the “truth” is

 

[Contarini]

we can easly see that the issue of abortion was not really there (probably due to inadequate technoloy) but infantacide was all over the ancient world,

Actually abortion was a very common practice in the Greco-Roman world, and Christians uniformly and emphatically condemned it. The Didache is the first piece of evidence to this effect.

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

I was in error on that - thanks for the correction

God bless

Actually abortion was a very common practice in the Greco-Roman world, and Christians uniformly and emphatically condemned it. The Didache is the first piece of evidence to this effect.

Edwin

 

[Prosmith]

The Reformers, or at least Luther, claimed to be fighting abuses in the Church. Why, then, did Luther not address the abuses without trying to change Doctrine? But then again, Luther did not claim to ONLY be fighting abuses, he also claimed that many of the Church’s Doctrines were wrong.

But what did he, and other Reformers, base this on? The Papacy, the Sacrament of Penance(aka Reconciliation/Confession), Scripture AND Tradition, etc…were rejected by all the Reformers…but on what precedent, or on based on what standard, on what authority?

And the main point I’d like to drive home is this: Either the Reformers “reformed” back to what Christianity had been from the beginning…in which case we should see some early Christian writings that support their doctrines…or they changed what Christianity had always been…in which case we should be able to see some proof of their authority to do this. Right?

The whole point was to reform the Church back to its originality which was the New Testament and the traditions of the Apostles. I believe that modern day Evangelicals are as equally off base as what the Roman church became during the middle ages.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Prosmith,

I think the most charitable view I can muster is that Luther started out with good intentions of stopping the obvious abuses that were going on. But, there was a shift - and not necessarily a gradual one in Luther’s thinking and actions (in 1517 the 95 Theses was nailed to the door and in 1520 the papal bull, Exsurge Domine, excommunicating Luther was signed. Here is a link: papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm) It may be argued that matters quickly got out of Luther’s control - but, he did his best to continue throwing rhetorical ‘gasoline’ on this raging fire of revolt. And for this he bears significant responsibility. He, however, was not the only one with fuel buckets at the ready to add to this fire.

And as you will recall, moving against Luther’s heresies was something that Henry VIII was very interested in when he wrote Assertio Septem Sacramentorum 1519-1521 ( archive.org/stream/assertioseptem00henruoft/assertioseptem00henruoft_djvu.txt ) which was warmly recieved by Pope Leo X who awarded Henry the Fidei Defensor title in 1521). Had Henry not had the wandering and lustful eye he is credited with - this would have been a great tale instead of the tragic mess it degenerated into. It has appeared to me that while Luther was focused (at least initially) on doctrinal matters, Henry was focused on every skirt in Court and wanted a male heir as sign that his line would continue. The refusal of the Pope to see things Henry’s way combined with Henry’s desire to get the money from Church property (he was really quite poor at running the financial aspects of a kingdom) lead to his break with Rome.

These two men, however, fail to demonstrate your point that they wanted to have, “…the Chrug back to its originality which was the NT and the traditions of the Apostles”. Luther broke with the NT and Sacred Tradition on several areas, the Seven Sacraments is a good start because it was the topic that Henry attacked Luther’s heresies on. Henry broke with the NT and Sacred Tradition on the establishement of Peter as the foundation for Christ’s Church (that Henry publicly admitted until he found it no longer convenient and then made himself ‘pope’ so he could get the women of his dreams).

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, every one involved in revolting from Rome - failed to follow the NT and Sacred Tradition - I don’t want you to think that I am just picking on Luther and Henry.

Do you some evidence that you can link to that actually supports the claim you have made? If so, please share it.

God bless

The whole point was to reform the Church back to its originality which was the New Testament and the traditions of the Apostles. I believe that modern day Evangelicals are as equally off base as what the Roman church became during the middle ages.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Prosmith,

I think the most charitable view I can muster is that Luther started out with good intentions of stopping the obvious abuses that were going on. But, there was a shift - and not necessarily a gradual one in Luther’s thinking and actions (in 1517 the 95 Theses was nailed to the door and in 1520 the papal bull, Exsurge Domine, excommunicating Luther was signed. Here is a link: papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm) It may be argued that matters quickly got out of Luther’s control - but, he did his best to continue throwing rhetorical ‘gasoline’ on this raging fire of revolt. And for this he bears significant responsibility. He, however, was not the only one with fuel buckets at the ready to add to this fire.

And as you will recall, moving against Luther’s heresies was something that Henry VIII was very interested in when he wrote Assertio Septem Sacramentorum 1519-1521 ( archive.org/stream/assertioseptem00henruoft/assertioseptem00henruoft_djvu.txt ) which was warmly recieved by Pope Leo X who awarded Henry the Fidei Defensor title in 1521). Had Henry not had the wandering and lustful eye he is credited with - this would have been a great tale instead of the tragic mess it degenerated into. It has appeared to me that while Luther was focused (at least initially) on doctrinal matters, Henry was focused on every skirt in Court and wanted a male heir as sign that his line would continue. The refusal of the Pope to see things Henry’s way combined with Henry’s desire to get the money from Church property (he was really quite poor at running the financial aspects of a kingdom) lead to his break with Rome.

These two men, however, fail to demonstrate your point that they wanted to have, “…the Chrug back to its originality which was the NT and the traditions of the Apostles”. Luther broke with the NT and Sacred Tradition on several areas, the Seven Sacraments is a good start because it was the topic that Henry attacked Luther’s heresies on. Henry broke with the NT and Sacred Tradition on the establishement of Peter as the foundation for Christ’s Church (that Henry publicly admitted until he found it no longer convenient and then made himself ‘pope’ so he could get the women of his dreams).

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, every one involved in revolting from Rome - failed to follow the NT and Sacred Tradition - I don’t want you to think that I am just picking on Luther and Henry.

Do you some evidence that you can link to that actually supports the claim you have made? If so, please share it.

God bless

Comments only.

Hank certainly wrote a portion of the Assertio, such as the first chapter. How much in toto was his work is open to debate.

The Assertio played a part in Hanks receiving the Defensor Fidei title, but the full tale is lots more complicated and interesting.

Hank’s hormones played a significant part in the whole affair, but not a solo part. Dynastic stuff, as you mention, and politics, mixed in

GKC.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

History is always far more interesting then the little synoptic blurbs that we normally read and then quote. You did catch my interest about Hank receiving the Defensor Fide title - do you happen to have a link you can share specific to this item … or, in its absence… maybe a little synoptic blurb on it…

Yes, as I understand it, St. Thomas Moore was the major ghost-writer in the Assertio - but, who actually wrote what may be one of those items lost to history.

By the way - any idea what happened to Radical? He has a number of posts he has yet to respond to - and, I did not want him falling too far behind.

God bless

Comments only.

Hank certainly wrote a portion of the Assertio, such as the first chapter. How much in toto was his work is open to debate.

The Assertio played a part in Hanks receiving the Defensor Fidei title, but the full tale is lots more complicated and interesting.

Hank’s hormones played a significant part in the whole affair, but not a solo part. Dynastic stuff, as you mention, and politics, mixed in

GKC.

 

[GKC]

I’ll repost my fascinating account of the title and how it came to be, if I can find it. It is derived, not from anything on line, but from a selection of my preferred sources: books. Comes mainly from several bios of Hank.

More is a good bet for a major player, in the Assertio saga, but I’ve seen other guesses, too.

Radical I’ve never been introduced to.

GKC, off to look in the archives.

Hi, GKC,

History is always far more interesting then the little synoptic blurbs that we normally read and then quote. You did catch my interest about Hank receiving the Defensor Fide title - do you happen to have a link you can share specific to this item … or, in its absence… maybe a little synoptic blurb on it…

Yes, as I understand it, St. Thomas Moore was the major ghost-writer in the Assertio - but, who actually wrote what may be one of those items lost to history.

By the way - any idea what happened to Radical? He has a number of posts he has yet to respond to - and, I did not want him falling too far behind.

God bless

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

History is always far more interesting then the little synoptic blurbs that we normally read and then quote. You did catch my interest about Hank receiving the Defensor Fide title - do you happen to have a link you can share specific to this item … or, in its absence… maybe a little synoptic blurb on it…

Yes, as I understand it, St. Thomas Moore was the major ghost-writer in the Assertio - but, who actually wrote what may be one of those items lost to history.

By the way - any idea what happened to Radical? He has a number of posts he has yet to respond to - and, I did not want him falling too far behind.

God bless

Well, here’s one of them. I can never find all the stuff I look for in my files. There was a longer one, somewhere, but this is the story.

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

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

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

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”

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

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

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

History. Complicated.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

Fascinating!

It would seem that nothing is ever easy - if it looks that way, something was left out!

God bless

Well, here’s one of them. I can never find all the stuff I look for in my files. There was a longer one, somewhere, but this is the story.

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

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

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

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”

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

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

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

History. Complicated.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

Fascinating!

It would seem that nothing is ever easy - if it looks that way, something was left out!

God bless

History. Complicated. Fun.

GKC