Pope Francis- Another positive change
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Gil, please, don't facilitate Blackstool in his evasion. Let's stay on track.
How bout it, Alf? 1541, 1605? Which "started it?"
Henry VIII's Dissolution of the Monasteries was an inevitable conclusion brought about by the corrupt institutions, and the pre-reformed Roman Church that backed them.
Henry VIII did not act alone in breaking from the Roman Church, but acted on the tide of protest sweeping across Europe at the Protestant Reformation. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and many others were earlier incensed at the corruption in the Church of Rome and broke away from Rome because of its corruption, forming the protestant movement (those who protested against the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church). Part of this corruption was the selling of indulgences - 'guarantees' of a set number of years off purgatory in return for large sums of money. Luther regarded the Church's claim of 'no salvation outside the Church' as a lie, and accepted Jesus' teaching and Biblical evidence that we are saved by Grace, and not by belonging to a man-made institution.
With regard to Henry, who professed the Christian faith all his life, his main concern was that the monasteries in England, part of the Church of Rome, were also becoming dens of corruption and power and betraying the Lord's name in whom they were set up. His subjects were almost rioting in the streets because of the problems there and the money that the monasteries extorted from the faithful. Something had to be done.
Henry went down in history as an unpleasant man but he was a strong and decisive king, and a lover of the arts, a skilled musician and a benevolent and wise man unless betrayed, when he acted with the decisiveness that is expected of a strong ruler. The dissolution of the monasteries was an inevitable conclusion brought about by the corrupt institutions, and the pre-reformed Roman Church that backed them. Therefore Henry closed the monasteries across the country and imprisoned or executed those who stood in his way. This incensed the Pope.
The decision of the pope not to annul Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon (to enable him to marry Anne Boleyn) was not the cause of the split as many believe, but provided Henry, at last, with the excuse he needed to ignore the authority of the pope. Far from being a 'heretic' and 'anti-Roman' as many would have him, Henry lived and died a Catholic, despite the pope excommunicating him as revenge for his non-acceptance of his authority. However, his split from Rome meant that Henry now declared Jesus Christ as the head of the Church (and not the pope) with himself as 'Supreme Governor' on earth, and the Archbishop of Canterbury its spiritual leader (to this day Anglicans still believe that Jesus, rather than a human being in Rome as Catholics believe, is the Head of the Church and that the monarch is the Supreme Governor and that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual leader).
Although Edward VI, Henry's ailing son, was a protestant, his reign was short-lived because of his death very young. He was replaced by Henry's elder daughter Mary, a Catholic. She reigned with abject terror (earning her the name 'Bloody Mary') who imprisoned and executed many - including women, children and priests - who dared defy the 'Holy' Catholic Church, which represented, supposedly, Christ's forgiveness and love.
After her welcome death her younger sister took over, Elizabeth I, who restored Protestantism to the country - not because the beliefs were different - they weren't, mostly, but the attitude, openness, honesty and love shown was certainly different after the corruption of the Catholic Church as it was then, and certainly different from how Mary interpreted it. The Nicene Creed was still used in its entirety in the new Church of England, as it still is today even in my own church. But the empire-building nature and power base of the catholic Church was removed. As a result of Henry's split, services in the new Church of England were said in English for the first time thanks to the Book of Common Prayer. The Bible became translated into English so that anyone who could read was able to read the scriptures without having to rely on a priest to tell them. Elizabeth's successor, James, was responsible for the Authorised version of the Bible (the 'King James' Version) still in use today.
England break with the Catholic Church
Last edited:
Sorry, dude.
Oh, that's the Henry you were referring to. Yeah, a total epitome of morality and social genius he was.
Last edited:
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Lovely Spam! wonderful Spam!
Lovely Spam! wonderful Spam!
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
That British enough for you, Alf?
Now, let's get back to it. Which is earlier, 1541 or 1605?
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Lovely Spam! wonderful Spam!
Lovely Spam! wonderful Spam!
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
That British enough for you, Alf?
Now, let's get back to it. Which is earlier, 1541 or 1605?
No probs. Thanks, amigo.
The Gunpowder Plot, and the other nefarious activities of Catholics in England before that, such as the reign of the Catholic tyrant Queen Mary I, were the catalysts of English distrust of Catholics.
The fact that a minority of Catholics may have been incensed by the Dissolution of the Monasteries is immaterial. The Dissolution was the right thing to do. Henry VIII was right to close those Catholics dens of vice, immorality and sin. I mean, people were rioting in the streets in protest at these Catholic institutions, so closing them was hardly an unpopular act.
Henry VIII was England's greatest tyrant.
His destruction of the monastaries was propelled by pure greed.. by taking over landholdings of these institutions which were anything but corrupt.. and were a vital stimulant to local economies. He, with his daughter Elizabeth, then instituted a persecution against the Catholic Church which equated membership with treason for which the punishment was hanging, drawing and quartering.. by which many martyrs were minted.. 40 of whom are recognized as Saints and patrons of England and Wales.
Henry was a patholigical paranoid sadist and megalomaniac... and his daughter was a chip off the old (executioner's) block. Henry had NO interest in Protestanism.. did not understand or care about Luther's tenets.. he considered himself a Catholic to his death.. but one with no obligation to Rome. Catholicism remained a vital force within England.. to the present day.. although was forced underground by the vicious persecutions of Henry VIII, Elizabeth 1 and Oliver Cromwell.
A major challenge to the Protestant England was the revitalization of the Latin Church by way of the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation, while Luther's Protestant Church fractured and fractured again and again.. and quickly took on the role of apologists for political causes and power. A condition that remains in force today.. as the Church of England has become a champion of homosexuality, abortion, contraception, divorce.. the whole cruddy post structural West.
His destruction of the monastaries was propelled by pure greed.. by taking over landholdings of these institutions which were anything but corrupt.. and were a vital stimulant to local economies. He, with his daughter Elizabeth, then instituted a persecution against the Catholic Church which equated membership with treason for which the punishment was hanging, drawing and quartering.. by which many martyrs were minted.. 40 of whom are recognized as Saints and patrons of England and Wales.
Henry was a patholigical paranoid sadist and megalomaniac... and his daughter was a chip off the old (executioner's) block. Henry had NO interest in Protestanism.. did not understand or care about Luther's tenets.. he considered himself a Catholic to his death.. but one with no obligation to Rome. Catholicism remained a vital force within England.. to the present day.. although was forced underground by the vicious persecutions of Henry VIII, Elizabeth 1 and Oliver Cromwell.
A major challenge to the Protestant England was the revitalization of the Latin Church by way of the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation, while Luther's Protestant Church fractured and fractured again and again.. and quickly took on the role of apologists for political causes and power. A condition that remains in force today.. as the Church of England has become a champion of homosexuality, abortion, contraception, divorce.. the whole cruddy post structural West.
Last edited:
Good! Now you're actually addressing the question.
The way out of this is to say "I was wrong to say that the Gunpowder Plot was the start of the Catholic/Anglican hostility in England. But the situation is much more complex than a mere 'who started it', and the people who eventually became Anglicans under Henry VIII and his successors had every right to be sick and tired, even violently so, of the Catholic church."
See, that way you get to continue the main thread of your argument without futilely and ridiculously defending a statement that was simply factually wrong, as I was forced to, at some length, point out.
Wisdom is in the ears that hear, grasshopper.
And yet they thought the married Henry was cool, even with all those mistresses and his gluttony? The guy was the apex of hedonism, not morality. But then I guess Brits have always been a bit odd. Seems to be a bit of a climate issue, sometimes too much rain and yet sometimes those mad dogs and Englishmen ......
Anyway, http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensofengland/thetudors/henryviii.aspx
The Catholics were much more violent and nasty than the Protestants. Just read about Mary I.
Mary I killed people just because they weren't Catholics. Elizabeth I didn't kill people because they were Catholics.
One of them was was more tyrannical and less tolerant than the other - and that was the Catholic one.
The Catholics started the whole thing. THEY are to blame for the distrust felt towards Catholics by the English for centuries, and why they weren't eligible to vote until the 1820s.
You make it sound as though Henry was unusual in being a monarch with mistresses.
You'll be hard-pressed to find a male monarch who DIDN'T have mistresses.
Henry VIII was one of the greatest monarchs England has ever had. In the early years of his reign he was young, athletic, handsome, well-educated and popular (and yet his ignorant detractors overlook these years and focus on the later years when illness caused him to become overweight).
He was a great writer of books and music - he wrote Greensleeves - and loved playing sports such as tennis and jousting.
He was an accomplished player of many musical instruments. He even, in many ways, founded the Royal Navy. At the start of his reign England had just five warships. By the end of it she had 52.
Henry also broke England away from the corrupt, immoral and sinful Catholic Church giving the country religious independence and away from unwanted interference by the Pope.
Henry was a great monarch.
He was that. An incredibly well-educated, liberal (in the classical sense), and intelligent monarch.
His only great drawback was an insistence on a healthy son. If I had a time machine, I'd go back to when Henry was on his deathbed, and whisper in his ear "Fear not! Your daughter will be the greatest monarch England (and Britain) have ever had!"
Ah, so that makes it all moral and right then and excuses being a hypocrite.
Yep. I read that.
Yep I read that, too. The dude that acted as if he were holier than the RCC was really into weapons of mass destruction, huh.
Uhuh. Suuuuure he was. Butterflies make great monarchs, too.
More Catholic than the Pope - By Michael D’Antonio | Foreign Policy
Just the beginning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23524804
Just the beginning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23524804
Last edited:
In his first months in office, Francis has reached out to women, Muslims, atheists, and now gays with insistent gestures of humility. He has also promised a dialogue with victims of abuse, reforms at the Vatican Bank, and greater commitment to the poor. Possessing the same singular power as John Paul II and Benedict, he seems to be wielding it without concern for a backlash. His maturity -- he is 76 -- may have something to do with his aura of calm confidence. But he can also draw strength from the knowledge that he was elected by the very men who owed their place in the College of Cardinals to Benedict and John Paul II -- even if the cardinals are now having second thoughts about their pope, there's little they can do to rein him in.
On the specific issue of homosexuality and Catholicism, the pope has begun a discussion that will continue in parishes worldwide and may lead, over the long term, to a revision of official teaching. More generally, by enthusiastically wading into controversial issues, Francis is clearly rejecting the "remnant church" approach to the modern world. He's not interested in withdrawing and prefers, instead, to swim in the stream of history. Here, finally, is a pope willing to grapple with the implications of a social trend -- the increasing acceptance of homosexuality -- that threatens to relegate the church to irrelevance. Unlike his predecessor, Francis is not content to wait out the millennia with his head in the sand until Catholic orthodoxy once more becomes in vogue. Rather, this is a pope eager to explain how this ancient church should fit into a changing world.
For 30 years, conservative church leaders have stood by and watched as the Church failed to end its sex abuse crisis and the scandal afflicting the Vatican bank. They have watched while the people of the industrialized West, including those in that most Catholic of countries, Ireland, have abandoned the Church in droves. Issues like homosexuality, the status of women, and the desire of many priests to be married, were never going to be addressed successfully by men who could not reach out with authentic warmth. Francis, the man they selected, seems up to the task. As he pursues it, the old guard appointed by John Paul and Benedict may feel he is leaving them behind. But he will be catching up to modern Catholics who believe the equality of persons as well as souls.Long live Pope Francis.
This pope like any other manager is purely institutional furniture. I wonder if he helped load the choppers?
“Washington's Pope”? Who is Pope Francis I? Cardinal Jorge Mario ...
“Washington's Pope”? Who is Pope Francis I? Cardinal Jorge Mario ...
No, it wasn't.
Henry needed a son and heir, just like every other monarch. Do you have any idea how the British line of succession actually works? The first duty of any monarch's wife was to produce a SON.
Elizabeth II is the greatest monarch we've ever had.
A king having mistresses was perfectly normal in those days. I don't know why Henry VIII is being singled out. Some kings even had affairs with MEN behind their wives' backs.
I mean, why don't you attack Charles I for shagging Charles Villiers behind his wife Henrietta Maria's back? Why not attack that notorious gay monarch Edward II for having affairs with TWO men - Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser - whilst he was married? These were gay affairs which led to him being murdered by having a red hot poker shoved up his anus at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire in 1327.
The most notorious womanizing English monarch was Charles II (not Henry VIII) - who was known as the Merry Monarch. Among his list of mistresses are included: Lucy Walter, Barbara Villiers, Louise de Kérouaille, Hortense Mancini, Nell Gwyn, Mary Davis, Winifred Wells, Jane Roberts, Mrs. Knight, Mary Bagot (widow of Charles Berkeley, 1st Earl of Falmouth) and Elizabeth, Countess of Kildare.
And yet, for some reason, you single out attack Henry VIII for being some sort of tyrant who liked mistresses, even though having mistresses was the norm rather than the exception.
English royal mistress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An English royal mistress is the unofficial title used to refer to a person who was the lover, but not wife, of the king of England either before or after his accession to the throne. Female lovers were, by convention, the most easily acknowledged, and often became influential individuals. However, there appear to have also been male love interests to monarchs, both male and female, who also wielded considerable influence. However, as this was not an official position of any kind, the influence of all Royal lovers was precarious, linked inextricably with their ability to hold the monarch's interest.
The primary reason a king would take a mistress seems to be the fact that royal marriages were rarely, if ever, based on love alone. Most often, English monarchs made a dynastic match, first for the production of heirs of royal blood and second for the treaties and huge dowry that often accompanied such brides. Compatibility was rarely considered in the contracting of these marriages.
Often, these brides were stringently instilled with a sense of chastity that often developed into sexual frigidity. To a king whose sexual appetites were often nurtured by friends and father-figures from a young age, this was a difficult barrier to surmount. This, added to the fact that often there was no physical attraction between the two royal partners, creates a situation which, to the sensibilities of the time, necessitated the establishment of a royal mistress
What a strange thing to say.
Again, weird.
Last edited:
Actually, yes. I know how it has worked, and how it has failed. I know how Bolingbroke claimed the throne, and I know how the War of the Roses started, and ended. I know Henry VII was not "next in line" under primogeniture, but he had the prerequisites for the throne, i.e., one drop of royal blood and a big army.
I also know how gavelkind and tanistry work. Further, I know that the way these things work is actually changeable by the sitting monarch (Henry VIII did so), and nowadays by Parliament. The current succession seems to have put off for a couple more generations the question of whether Britain will continue with "boys first" or will go to a straight eldest-child system.
I am inclined to agree. She has managed the transition from the forelock-tugging days to the modern era with class and grace. Still, Liz I had her points, like preserving English sovereignty and cementing the English sense of nationhood.
Meanwhile...
When does our hope for Francis become denial? | National Catholic Reporter
From the article:
"The response to the papal plane ride has set up an interesting challenging. How do we remain people of hope with a deep admiration for much of what the pope says and does while also not losing our prophetic edge in fighting for true justice for women, LGBT people, sexual abuse survivors and those suffering from lack of access to contraception?
"If we cannot be honest about what this pope believes, and if we refuse to criticize him when criticism is justified, we could run the risk of giving the Vatican public relations machine exactly what it wants: a return to the days when the pope was an object of affection, adulation and unequivocal goodwill -- no questions asked."