Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pope sends direct message to Ben

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • C0ckney
    replied
    not really. it's clear that the kind of church henry wanted was little different from the catholic church.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    henry wanted to break the church of rome's power in england. however, his own religious views were very much in line with catholic beliefs. the six articles, the attempt to suppress english bibles and the prayer book he issued, are good evidence for this.
    Executing faithful Catholics who believed (and taught) in the indissolubility of Marriage, is evidence to the contrary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    It sounds like he looted Catholic holdings and took control politically, but made no real doctrinal changes beyond what was required to take political control (Pope out, Henry in). I.e., exactly what C0ckney said.
    Umm, last I checked, making yourself the head of the church is a 'tiny' doctrinal change. If there was no doctrine, why execute people like More in 1535, who had served you (and faithfully), for years?

    Leave a comment:


  • C0ckney
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    False, false, false, false, false.

    Dissolution of the Monasteries stripped the Church of everything it owned in England.

    The Act of Supremacy (There's that word, AGAIN) was passed in 1534, and within 7, 8 years, Henry had helped himself to everything. Same year the Treasons act was passed. More was executed in 1535.
    henry wanted to break the church of rome's power in england. however, his own religious views were very much in line with catholic beliefs. the six articles, the attempt to suppress english bibles and the prayer book he issued, are good evidence for this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elok
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    False, false, false, false, false.

    Dissolution of the Monasteries stripped the Church of everything it owned in England.

    The Act of Supremacy (There's that word, AGAIN) was passed in 1534, and within 7, 8 years, Henry had helped himself to everything. Same year the Treasons act was passed. More was executed in 1535.
    It sounds like he looted Catholic holdings and took control politically, but made no real doctrinal changes beyond what was required to take political control (Pope out, Henry in). I.e., exactly what C0ckney said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikolai
    replied
    You converted Ben, perhaps Henry did too. No doubt about Henry being a bad whatever though. Catholic, protestant...he did badly in both camps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    henry was strongly influenced by his advisers, so he was a catholic in early life
    Ahh yes, so he wasn't a 'real' Catholic but a fake one.

    the real moves towards a protestant church of england, were made by henry's son edward VI.
    False, false, false, false, false.

    Dissolution of the Monasteries stripped the Church of everything it owned in England.

    The Act of Supremacy (There's that word, AGAIN) was passed in 1534, and within 7, 8 years, Henry had helped himself to everything. Same year the Treasons act was passed. More was executed in 1535.

    Leave a comment:


  • C0ckney
    replied
    Originally posted by Elok View Post
    Here is what I know of Henry VIII:

    -fat dude, face like a ham
    -had a lot of wives, killed most of them
    -started his own church because the Pope wouldn't let him divorce a politically-connected wife
    -father to Elizabeth, Mary and Edward
    -generally a bit of a bastard

    That's pretty much it. But I can still tell BK is making all of this up, because his entire argument consists of "Henry was a bad guy, and may have been lying, therefore this extremely large figure can be assumed to have died without any supporting evidence." Also, what's this crap about having people worship him? I thought the Anglican church, when he created it, was basically just Catholics with the King as their head instead of the Pope.
    yeah i think most people can see that ben is making it up, but he used the figure a few times in this thread and no one challenged him, so i thought i'd set the record straight. more fool me, i know.

    henry was strongly influenced by his advisers, so he was a catholic in early life, when he was surrounded by catholic advisers (cardinal wolsey in particular). he wanted to get a divorce (well an annulment in fact, he had married his brother's widow, with a special dispensation from the pope), the pope refused. henry then came under the influence of lutherians, like cromwell and crammer, who wanted to use henry's desire for a divorce to further the protestant cause. herny got his annulment and the pope was stripped of all his power in england by a series of acts of parliament, which made the king and parliament supreme in all legal matters, stopping payment of peter's pence and limiting the amount clergy could pay to rome (IIRC the limit was 5%).

    in terms of the theology, at first it was very similar to the catholic church. however, the changes unleashed a wave of radical protestant thought and acts and henry, who really wanted just to get his annulment and stop the pope interfering in english affairs, became alarmed by this and moved to stamp it out. he passed the six articles, affirming various points of catholic theology, and had a few protestants executed for refusing the accept them. he also tried to clamp down on bibles in english, with limited success.

    the real moves towards a protestant church of england, were made by henry's son edward VI.
    Last edited by C0ckney; October 16, 2013, 18:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    you have cited no positive evidence whatever
    As usual, cited evidence has been ignored. I'm sorry you don't like the source, but it is evidence and it is cited evidence in favor. You may disagree with the source but your disagreement (and distaste), doesn't make it wrong.

    He was trying to wipe out Catholic resistance. Actually going to Mass would, given the circumstances, be taken as a sign of public defiance/disloyalty
    And the reason why he couldn't tolerate defiance is because he believed he was the head of the Church. Not Christ. Defiance towards the faith was disrespect and defiance towards him.

    Again, I haven't read a lot about him, but I get the impression he did not give that many damns about spiritual matters. What with the endless divorces and all.
    There's citations of him defending the sancitity of marriage when writing to his sister.

    Basically Henry VIII went off the rails when he hit 37 without a legitimate male heir, and Catherine hit 40. After that it was 20 years of consistantly chasing after that one thing to the exclusion and sacrifice of everything else.

    Probably one of the biggest midlife crises in history.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elok
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    Which is why I cited a book which made this claim (among others)? If I were making it up, why would I bother?
    Don't ask me how your mind works, man. All I know is, you have cited no positive evidence whatever, despite repeated prompting.

    If it were just about that - why execute people for going to mass? Makes no sense to me. I can see stripping private property from Catholics and rewarding it to your friends and using it for wars against the evil papists. But executing your own citizens for refusing to participate in Anglican services, both Catholic and not? It makes no sense to me, unless it's all about making yourself the centre and the head of it all.
    He was trying to wipe out Catholic resistance. Actually going to Mass would, given the circumstances, be taken as a sign of public defiance/disloyalty. I've never heard any indication that he created the AC for any reason beyond political control of the clergy. Again, I haven't read a lot about him, but I get the impression he did not give that many damns about spiritual matters. What with the endless divorces and all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    But I can still tell BK is making all of this up, because his entire argument consists of "Henry was a bad guy, and may have been lying, therefore this extremely large figure can be assumed to have died without any supporting evidence."
    Which is why I cited a book which made this claim (among others)? If I were making it up, why would I bother?

    Also, what's this crap about having people worship him? I thought the Anglican church, when he created it, was basically just Catholics with the King as their head instead of the Pope.
    If it were just about that - why execute people for going to mass? Makes no sense to me. I can see stripping private property from Catholics and rewarding it to your friends and using it for wars against the evil papists. But executing your own citizens for refusing to participate in Anglican services, both Catholic and not? It makes no sense to me, unless it's all about making yourself the centre and the head of it all.

    Doom of Mandos thing
    You're on the right track. Right track, wrong game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elok
    replied
    No. I'm trying to work out the symbolism here, but it seems somebody stole Henry's magic gems, and Henry got unreasonably butthurt over it, so...the Pope (?) cursed Henry's family, with the result that Elizabeth killed her sister. It might not make much sense to you and me, but it's still more likely than seventy thousand missing dead Englishmen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guynemer
    replied
    Originally posted by Elok View Post
    It's a Doom of Mandos thing, you wouldn't understand.
    Manos, the Hands of Fate?

    Leave a comment:


  • Elok
    replied
    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
    Kinslayer?
    It's a Doom of Mandos thing, you wouldn't understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • giblets
    replied
    Ben worships the Pope.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X