S
StTommyMore
Guest
I know enough about Anglicanism to realize that Thomas Cranmer was little more than an amoral, bootlicking criminal.
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Oops Cranmer…
Ooooh, I get it and I am sorry. I shouldn’t have assumed; scratch that question brother.
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
That’s a nasty, snarky uncalled for blast. Is there a reason why you are being so unprovokingly hostile?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I’m not going to defend Thomas Cranmer here but will say that we should always try to be charitable towards one another. “Who was Thomas Cranmer?”, would be a good title for another thread. It is a somewhat provocative user name for a Catholic forum. There are a lot of Catholics who probably don’t know who this is, definitely not a friend of the Church in the 1500’s, King Henry the VIII’s man. That’s another topic.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Tommy,
While I think your adjectives were a touch much and over-the-top, I agree that Cranmer was not a great guy. Your description was interesting LOL
That being said, I’m not a Cranmer fan by a long-shot (not the poster, the real Cranmer
). I think he was an opportunist. I loathed the way he sold Catherine of Aragon down the river, backed up Hank with constant divorces and a steady supply of turning the other cheek with mass murders as well. His permitting Catholic priests, bishops, and other clergy to be drawn and quartered, ripped in pieces and genitals/organs sliced open is appauling for sure.
His marriage to Osiander’s wife’s niece in Germany while still a Catholic priest in good-standing was pretty under-handed and showed a lack of a commitment to his oath. I didn’t like his Eucharistic theology which he changed about six times during his journey as “archbishop.” He was a minimalist, a Calvinist with huge interaction between men like Martin Bucer and other Continental Reformed characters, his penning the Black Rubrics showed a hostility to Catholicism, his permitting the monasteries to be plundered and chalices and patens melted down for their gold, allowing altars to be pulverized and replaced with wood “communion tables” irritates me, etc.
I hate that Cranmer knew Anne Bolyn was guilty of charges against her, wrote a letter to Henry appealing to his sense of mercy for Anne, and yet quickly allowed her to go to the Tower of London and he went ahead and pronounced their marriage null and void and watched her get executed.
He was an iconoclast and hated any type of crucifix, iconography, roods, you name it. He forbade elevation of the Holy Eucharist, went from believing in transubstantiation to a type of Lutheran presence to Calvin’s view then finally more of a Zwinglian nothing view.
He was a confirmed Calvinist and the company he kept whether it was Ridley, Cromwell, Peter Martyr, or Bucer all are disturbing.
His recantation and then recantation of his recantation never impressed me at his martyrdom either. Cranmer is my least favorite Anglican of all time. He had a superb writing ability, hence the lovely wording of the Book of Common Prayer. His style is sometimes subtle, but other times bold and beautiful. There are parts of the BOCP that I find stunningly lovely. It’s a rich piece of literature for the Christian to be sure. But when I read the 39 Articles and get a taste for Cranmer, I’m turned off to be sure. Not a fan.
While I think your adjectives were a touch much and over-the-top, I agree that Cranmer was not a great guy. Your description was interesting LOL
That being said, I’m not a Cranmer fan by a long-shot (not the poster, the real Cranmer
). I think he was an opportunist. I loathed the way he sold Catherine of Aragon down the river, backed up Hank with constant divorces and a steady supply of turning the other cheek with mass murders as well. His permitting Catholic priests, bishops, and other clergy to be drawn and quartered, ripped in pieces and genitals/organs sliced open is appauling for sure.His marriage to Osiander’s wife’s niece in Germany while still a Catholic priest in good-standing was pretty under-handed and showed a lack of a commitment to his oath. I didn’t like his Eucharistic theology which he changed about six times during his journey as “archbishop.” He was a minimalist, a Calvinist with huge interaction between men like Martin Bucer and other Continental Reformed characters, his penning the Black Rubrics showed a hostility to Catholicism, his permitting the monasteries to be plundered and chalices and patens melted down for their gold, allowing altars to be pulverized and replaced with wood “communion tables” irritates me, etc.
I hate that Cranmer knew Anne Bolyn was guilty of charges against her, wrote a letter to Henry appealing to his sense of mercy for Anne, and yet quickly allowed her to go to the Tower of London and he went ahead and pronounced their marriage null and void and watched her get executed.
He was an iconoclast and hated any type of crucifix, iconography, roods, you name it. He forbade elevation of the Holy Eucharist, went from believing in transubstantiation to a type of Lutheran presence to Calvin’s view then finally more of a Zwinglian nothing view.
He was a confirmed Calvinist and the company he kept whether it was Ridley, Cromwell, Peter Martyr, or Bucer all are disturbing.
His recantation and then recantation of his recantation never impressed me at his martyrdom either. Cranmer is my least favorite Anglican of all time. He had a superb writing ability, hence the lovely wording of the Book of Common Prayer. His style is sometimes subtle, but other times bold and beautiful. There are parts of the BOCP that I find stunningly lovely. It’s a rich piece of literature for the Christian to be sure. But when I read the 39 Articles and get a taste for Cranmer, I’m turned off to be sure. Not a fan.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
And BTW, we might all want to, periodically, tell people what SS means around here! Some folks who are new to this forum might think we’re have a discussion on Nazism 
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
With all of the information floating about around here, somehow Thomas Cranmer’s death (along with two other noteworthy Anglicans) hasn’t been expounded upon. I wouldn’t exactly call the “Three Blind Mice” the humanity killings of the millenium under the iron fist of the Catholic, Bloody Mary the queen.Tommy,
While I think your adjectives were a touch much and over-the-top, I agree that Cranmer was not a great guy. Your description was interesting LOL
That being said, I’m not a Cranmer fan by a long-shot (not the poster, the real Cranmer
His marriage to Osiander’s wife’s niece in Germany while still a Catholic priest in good-standing was pretty under-handed and showed a lack of a commitment to his oath. I didn’t like his Eucharistic theology which he changed about six times during his journey as “archbishop.” He was a minimalist, a Calvinist with huge interaction between men like Martin Bucer and other Continental Reformed characters, his penning the Black Rubrics showed a hostility to Catholicism, his permitting the monasteries to be plundered and chalices and patens melted down for their gold, allowing altars to be pulverized and replaced with wood “communion tables” irritates me, etc.
I hate that Cranmer knew Anne Bolyn was guilty of charges against her, wrote a letter to Henry appealing to his sense of mercy for Anne, and yet quickly allowed her to go to the Tower of London and he went ahead and pronounced their marriage null and void and watched her get executed.
He was an iconoclast and hated any type of crucifix, iconography, roods, you name it. He forbade elevation of the Holy Eucharist, went from believing in transubstantiation to a type of Lutheran presence to Calvin’s view then finally more of a Zwinglian nothing view.
He was a confirmed Calvinist and the company he kept whether it was Ridley, Cromwell, Peter Martyr, or Bucer all are disturbing.
His recantation and then recantation of his recantation never impressed me at his martyrdom either. Cranmer is my least favorite Anglican of all time. He had a superb writing ability, hence the lovely wording of the Book of Common Prayer. His style is sometimes subtle, but other times bold and beautiful. There are parts of the BOCP that I find stunningly lovely. It’s a rich piece of literature for the Christian to be sure. But when I read the 39 Articles and get a taste for Cranmer, I’m turned off to be sure. Not a fan.
S
schaick
Guest
John 15:26 (New International Version)
26"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26 (King James Version)
26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:26 (Young’s Literal Translation)
26`And when the Comforter may come, whom I will send to you from the Father – the Spirit of truth, who from the Father doth come forth, he will testify of me
Almost always comes up in conversations like this so included the information.
I have for some time and on many different threads been asking what traditions the Catholics hold that I do not have that are required for my salvation. It is amazing all are always found in the Holy Bible.
Can you show me some Sacred Tradition that is not mentioned in the Holy Bible that I need for my salvation?
That all Priests and Bishops must remain unmarried?
Do I need to believe in purgatory?
Mary’s perpetual virginity? Her assumption?
Paying money and Indulgences?
That a Pope is infallible when seated in Peter’s chair?
If the early universal Church had come up with these would there would have been a question in following them?
Catholics too believe that all of the books of the bible were recorded by the close of the 1st century. Did the CC determine the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of the books from the bible? This will help understand your unique perspective, or is it your contention that none of the 27 books of the NT were ever questioned as canon from the 1st century to the 4th century?
The universal Church did not become the Catholic Church until sometime later? It was such a grqadual change that many different dates cited - sometime in 200AD, 300AD,etc. After those early dates the Catholic Church was well on it’s way to becomng what is is today.What???
Because there were hard copies out there. We know when a Book was added or changed.Why trust that the CC safeguarded the sacred writings, but distrust the CC regarding other things? Please be specific, unlike your last response to my last post. Much appreciated.
Deuteronomy 4
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Isaiah 40
8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever."
Proverbs 30
5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
**Psalm 119 **
89 Your word, O LORD, is eternal;
it stands firm in the heavens.
Matthew 24
35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away
Mark 13
31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Revelation 22
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
Most mere Christians want proof.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Who came first, Queen Mary or King Henry VIII? Answer, King Henry VIII.
Was Queen Mary the head if the Catholic Church? Answer, no.
Was King Henry VIII the head of the Anglican Church of England? Answer, yes.
Was Thomas Cranmer an Anglican Bishop when Henry VIII was King? Answer, Yes.
Is the Protestant Bible named after a former King of England? Answer, yes, King James.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I started another thread here, titled, “Who was Thomas Cranmer?” The topic of this thread is, "Sola scriptura
G
guanophore
Guest
It seems you are mixed up, Rightly, or should I say wrongly?
The principle of looking at fruits to discern the authenticity of the person’s walk with God applies to individuals.
To see the error of your approach, we can use the example of Judas. Judas did not demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit. Will you judge the Teaching of Jesus by HIs failure to appropriate it?
In the same way, it is inappropriate to judge the Teaching of Jesus preserved infallibly in the Catholic Church by looking at the conduct of those who have departed from it.
Do you think it would be valid for me to look at the congregation of which you are a part, and when I find one who does not live according to it’s teachings, judge the teaching as deficient in Truth? I think not.
Actually, it is quite a disrespectful approach, because it applies an inappropriate standard.
I think we can all agree that there have been members of every congregation, just as Jesus had Judas, that betray what is taught. If you wish to judge the Teachings by fruit, then it would be necessary to look at the fruit of those who follow them, wouldn’t you agree?
I know the other 11 Apostles believed what Jesus taught was true, but on the night of His crucifixion, they all ran away. As a fruit inspector, how do you assess that?
Your spiritual ancestors certainly have, but it would not be right to blame this on your “church” anyhow. It requires individual persons to persecute and to hurt. It is not proper to blame an entire congregation for the wrong acts of a few.
It is very important. However, if I were to inspect the fruit of those in your community, I am sure I could find some that fall short, and in so doing, I could blame the Teachings. That would be out of order, though.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, one of the times. Are you honestly going to take the position that Jesus is not annointed, and is not a king, because those particular words are not used in this verse?
This is one of the major flaws of extracting doctrines from a handful of verses.
The baptism of John served to reveal the Messiah (annointed one) to Israel. This happened publicly when Jesus entered the river to be baptized by John, a prophet from the priestly line of Levi who had been sent to announce and prepare the way for the annointed One. The lengths some people will go to reject the Catholic Church is phenomenal.
If we were to trace your spiritual ancestry, we would find it littered with incidents of horrific persecution and murder of those that believe differently. These acts are ubiquitous. There are plenty of local Catholic parishes that have never persecuted anyone either, but that does not mean it did not happen.
These heinous acts are an outgrowth of the fallen human nature. One cannot measure the Truth of what is taught by those who depart from it.
It is hard to know, but I suspect that were it not for the abuses, which Luther initially tried to warn Rome about, there may not have been a Lutheran Reformation.
Jon,why did ML say the following:
Yes, he was very concerned with what he viewed as abuses within the priesthood - private masses and the like. Here is what he wrote in Smalkald, which is part of the Lutheran confessions:
“Therefore, as the ancient examples of the Church and the Fathers teach us, we ourselves will and ought to ordain suitable persons to this office; and, even according to their own laws, they have not the right to forbid or prevent us. For their laws say that those ordained even by heretics should be declared [truly] ordained and stay ordained [and that such ordination must not be changed], as St. Jerome writes of the Church at Alexandria, that at first it was governed in common by priests and preachers, without bishops.”
And from the Augsburg Confession, approved, but not solely written by him:
*“Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” *
Clear support for the ordained priesthood.
continued
Why did he say the following:
*“And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. 3] Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1:31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. 4] We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.” *
Then, in the Formula of Concord, while written after Luther, clearly expresses the beliefs of the Lutheran reformers,
We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein".
and also:
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients,* I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.** However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; *
Luther preached late into life from them all.
"I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text… It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. … they [his critics] do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
Alone does not appear in English translations because it is not necessary to convey the meaning.
More later, Joe. And I will PM you.
Blessings, my friend.
Jon
On the first part, we agree that we, without the power of the Holy Spirit, are in bondage to sin, death, and the devil. I suspect, though not certain, his comments about bondage to the will of God that those truly filled with saving grace through faith are captive to Him, but that does not deny the free will of the regenerate to deny Christ. Again, from Smalkald:
*“And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. 3] Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1:31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. 4] We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.” *
Then, in the Formula of Concord, while written after Luther, clearly expresses the beliefs of the Lutheran reformers,
We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein".
Luther himself didn’t label them disputed. That happened centuries before Luther.
The full quote is: In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces
and also:
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients,* I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.** However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; *
“Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25. For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses.”
Luther preached late into life from them all.
Luther and Lutherans embrace them all, too. That doesn’t mean that, throughout the history of the Church, there hasn’t been doubts and disputes about them. Its what theologians do.
UnderstandLuther’s reasons for the inclusion of “allein”, and why “alone” does not appear in any English translations. Luther’s is a translation.
"I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text… It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. … they [his critics] do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
Alone does not appear in English translations because it is not necessary to convey the meaning.
More later, Joe. And I will PM you.
Blessings, my friend.
Jon
J
JHow
Guest
I take it it’s not “Solid State”?And BTW, we might all want to, periodically, tell people what SS means around here! Some folks who are new to this forum might think we’re have a discussion on Nazism
G
guanophore
Guest
OK, then prove it? Show me in the bible alone where the bible says: All the traditions important to our salvation have been recorded in the New Testament, otherwise it’s not to be believed, according to your premise that it must be in the bible to be believed?
If you think that all the Traditions of the Catholic Church are found in the Bible,then I hope you will keep asking, because they are not, which means that you are still lacking some important information. One of the major ones is the index, or the list of books that belong in the Bible. This list was derived from Catholic Sacred Tradtiion, and is not found in the bible. Others include the hypostatic union, and the Trinity, also words not found in scripture.
On the other hand, it is not “amazing” that catholic sacred tradition is refelcted in scripture, since the NT is a 100% product of that Tradition.
I posted the question your were asked to make it clear that your response was a dodge.
If you think that all the Traditions of the Catholic Church are found in the Bible,then I hope you will keep asking, because they are not, which means that you are still lacking some important information. One of the major ones is the index, or the list of books that belong in the Bible. This list was derived from Catholic Sacred Tradtiion, and is not found in the bible. Others include the hypostatic union, and the Trinity, also words not found in scripture.
On the other hand, it is not “amazing” that catholic sacred tradition is refelcted in scripture, since the NT is a 100% product of that Tradition.
One of the Catholic Sacred Traditions is that it is not proper to extract and excise an abridged version of the gospel from the Scriptures, and determine for oneself what is essential for salvation. Jesus through the Apostles taught that all that He did and taught is relevant for us, and that what is needed for salvation was divinely committed by Him once for all to the Church. He gave that Church gifts to lead us to heaven, and the authority to feed and care for His sheep. It is through the Church that we learn what is needed for our salvation.
This is a strawman, schaick. This is a discipline, not a doctrine, and it is a false statement, as there are plenty of married priests.
You will if you get there.
These are doctrines of the faith. If you wish to have an abridged faith, then you will not have access to all the gifts that God has put in place for you. It is your loss.
Must you believe that there are abuses of faith by persons claiming to be Christians? It is not a doctrine of the faith, but it certainly behooves a person to exercise wisdom, and know whey they are being hoodwincked by the faithless wolves.
Clearly you have a misunderstanding of both the gift of infallibility, and what it means to be seated in Peter’s Chair. I hope your hostility will not prevent you from staying at CAF long enough to correct your ignorance.
The faith of the early Church is Catholic, and is the same faith preserved in the Catholic Church today. In neither case do they “come up with” doctrine. Doctrine is to be RECEIVED from those to whom it was committed. This is done through the Apostolic succession. That is one of those Catholic Sacred Traditions your were lookin’ for.Code:**If the early universal Church had come up with these would there would have been a question in following them?**
schaick;7033178:
It is the other way around. After the Reformation, it became clear that there were members of the universal church that were not visibly Catholic. The Church founded by Christ is Catholic, and has been described as such by the successors of the Aposltes since the first century.
It is true that the Church has been growing since Pentecost into a large mustard tree. But a mustard tree only can grow from a mustard seed. It was Catholic the day it was founded, and still is today.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, preserved by Cathlolics for Catholics. You did not answer the question, though (again). "Why trust that the CC safeguarded the sacred writings, but distrust the CC regarding other things? "
Schaick, my dear misuguided brother. The Bible is a Catholic book. Quoting Catholic verses to us will not further the cause of your protestations. All you will get for your trouble is a hearty AMEN! I believe in the Word of God!
The Catholic Church wrote, promulgated, canonized and eventually published the HOly Bible. IT was Catholics who added the chapters and verses to the texts, and arragned the books as you have them today (except for the seven removed during the Reformation). The Catholic Church added to the Bible,for sure! These things, in addition to 27 documents (letters and gospels) that the Church called the New Testament.
If you don’t believe God can guide the Church infallibly, then you have no foundation to believe your bible at all.
1
1234
Guest
By “Bible”, of course you mean the New Testament. The Old Testament belongs to the Jews, who have guarded it since it was written. It is written in Hebrew. The first five books are known as the Torah, portions of which are read at Jewish services.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
It was the Catholic Church that closed the Canon on the Old Testament in the 4th century. Learn your history.
G
guanophore
Guest
The NT especially, but the Jews did not have a closed canon at the time of Jesus. It was the Aposltes, who used the Alexandrian Septuagint, that led the Church to choose this collection of works to bind together with the 27 books of the NT, forming the Bible. At that point, the Church took over the responsbility of preserving and promulgating the text. As Jesus said, “salvation is of the Jews!”
- Status