• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw a documentary on the History Channel about Henry the 8th and his break from the Catholic Church. It was interesting to see how his actions gave a "green light" to the Reformation.

I was wondering, after this guy made a mockery of the Papacy and the Sacrament of Marriage, and after he murdered his new wife, how did the "Church of England" have any credibility with the everyday folks in England?

Were there other factors that supported this new Church, like there were with Luther in Germany?

Thanks
 

dignitized

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2005
24,931
759
✟29,618.00
Soul: Henry VIII went off the deep end. I'm not sure that he was ever very stable. I have heard theories that he was Manic-depressive although I doubt such claims are provable.

I agree with Wolseley on this though - the split Between England and Rome is rooted more in politics than doctrine. Henry wanted a male heir. His dead brothers widow whom he was stuck married to due to a papal dispensation which allowed, what was thought of by many as an incestuous relationship. Henry asking for the marriage to be dissolved was not unheard of and I'm sure would have been granted thus preventing the reformation in England except for three facts.

1. Mary was the aunt of the king of Spain.

2. If Henry died without a male heir England would go to Philip of Spain under the laws of succession.

3. Philip had an army sitting on the Popes door step and had promised to use it if the Pope allowed His [Philips] aunt to be dishonoured.

Hence, we now have the church of England because England would not be a providence of Spain.
 
Upvote 0

Defender of the Faith 777

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2002
1,121
4
Visit site
✟2,076.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
"Huh" is right!  I this post was actually posted by accident.  Usually, I read a post or section of it, then respond, then read more, and respond.  I actually hadn't finished Wolsely's post, and wrote that. 

When I finished that, I read the second half and decided to get rid of it, and pressed "stop" at the top of the screen. 

I thought Wolsely said that the Reformation in Germany was for political reason.  He did not, it was my error.

 

Christians aren't perfect; just forgiven.  :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

Defender of the Faith 777

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2002
1,121
4
Visit site
✟2,076.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
I agree with that Wolsely.

I have done my homework, and the corruption of that man was great.

But the true Reformation started way long before Henry VIII.

The first "Protestants" were Augustine if you must, then John Wycliffe, then John Hus, and then Luther. Luther was just the first to live and tell about it.
 
Upvote 0

ZiSunka

It means 'yellow dog'
Jan 16, 2002
17,006
284
✟53,767.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by s0uljah
I saw a documentary on the History Channel about Henry the 8th and his break from the Catholic Church. It was interesting to see how his actions gave a "green light" to the Reformation.

I was wondering, after this guy made a mockery of the Papacy and the Sacrament of Marriage, and after he murdered his new wife, how did the "Church of England" have any credibility with the everyday folks in England?

Were there other factors that supported this new Church, like there were with Luther in Germany?

Thanks

Freedom was probably the biggest factor. Many, many people felt strongly dissatisfied with the Catholic church and longed to have freedom of religion. When Henry VIII published the Bible in English, people were grateful for the opportunity to see for themselves what it had to say. When they saw that the pope and the church structure were not mandated by the Bible, they eagerly threw off the Catholic church and everything that went with it.

You have to keep in mind that the church at that time was not like it is now. The church had it's finger in every pie, every aspect of human life, and the daily life of every human, whether they were welcomed or not. It was burdensome at that time.

Thankfully, Catholicism has changed a great deal since then. It is less of a political force than it was, less of an oppressor than it was.
 
Upvote 0

Defender of the Faith 777

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2002
1,121
4
Visit site
✟2,076.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
That is true.

What defines "Protestant" though?

To me, "sola gratis", unconditional election, total depravity, limited atonement (I'm not sure if he wrote on this one, though it wouldn't make sense if he didn't), perseverance of the saints, and irresistable grace sounds very, very Protestant and very against Catholic theology to the superlative degree.

I would call Augustine what we call nowadays a "Reformed"Christian. He certainly didn't believe as the Catholic church taught.
 
Upvote 0
When they saw that the pope and the church structure were not mandated by the Bible, they eagerly threw off the Catholic church and everything that went with it.

But it does mandate those things. Only if you interpret it a certain way can this be denied. So, who is right?
 
Upvote 0

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
73
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟43,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
To Lambslove:

To the best of my knowledge, Henry VIII had nothing to do with the Bible being published in English. Wycliffe, a Catholic who was later at odds with the Church, did A translation of the Bible in English, but I don't think Henry really CARED about the Bible or the Church...HOW many wives did Henry have? He was more concerned with procreation and having an heir for the Crown.

King JAMES was the Bible guy. And by the time he came along, England had been Catholic, Anglican, Catholic, and then Anglican again....as well as the breeding grounds for Methodism and Puritanism.

It IS true that the Catholic Church went hand in hand with politics throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. But Anglicanism and Protestantism were also heavily into the political game, too. God's word, whether in Greek, Latin, English, German, or any other language has always been used to batter people over their heads, to get them to conform to somebody's politics.


Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

ZiSunka

It means 'yellow dog'
Jan 16, 2002
17,006
284
✟53,767.00
Faith
Christian
Well, that wasn't the question. The question was, why did the church of england prosper even though Henry VIII was such a despot. Evidently, the people didn't see the pope mentioned in the Bible the same way you do. And because the church was so oppressive, they eagerly and joyfully decided to leave the church and embrace the only alternative. A church led by a despot was preferable to a church led by a thousand despots (and it's hard to argue that the Catholic church at that time was anything else).
 
Upvote 0

ZiSunka

It means 'yellow dog'
Jan 16, 2002
17,006
284
✟53,767.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by VOW
To Lambslove:

To the best of my knowledge, Henry VIII had nothing to do with the Bible being published in English. Wycliffe, a Catholic who was later at odds with the Church, did A translation of the Bible in English, but I don't think Henry really CARED about the Bible or the Church...HOW many wives did Henry have? He was more concerned with procreation and having an heir for the Crown.

King JAMES was the Bible guy. And by the time he came along, England had been Catholic, Anglican, Catholic, and then Anglican again....as well as the breeding grounds for Methodism and Puritanism.

It IS true that the Catholic Church went hand in hand with politics throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. But Anglicanism and Protestantism were also heavily into the political game, too. God's word, whether in Greek, Latin, English, German, or any other language has always been used to batter people over their heads, to get them to conform to somebody's politics.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

You're almost right. But Wycliffe way preceded Henry VIII, and the catholic church persecuted him dearly for his efforts. Wycliffe's Bible was published only underground to prevent the catholic church from retaliated against the publishers and the people who owned one.

Henry VIII sponsored the very first English tranlation that was widely available to the public. He did so specifically to prevent an uprising against him for divorcing Catherine. He wanted the people to see that the pope didn't have any God-given authority over the English.

And King James was not the first English translation, just the first that was printed and available for all people to buy. The Duoay Rhiems was the very first English translation, but it was not brought out widely until after the KJV was made available.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by lambslove
Well, that wasn't the question. The question was, why did the church of england prosper even though Henry VIII was such a despot. Evidently, the people didn't see the pope mentioned in the Bible the same way you do. And because the church was so oppressive, they eagerly and joyfully decided to leave the church and embrace the only alternative. A church led by a despot was preferable to a church led by a thousand despots (and it's hard to argue that the Catholic church at that time was anything else).

Quite good points!

However, I would be more concerned with the truth of the theology than the personal behavior of the leaders, wouldnt you?
 
Upvote 0

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
73
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟43,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Wycliffe was disciplined/persecuted (depending on your POV) not for his translation efforts, but for his overt disrespect for Catholic teachings. He actually rejoiced in his condemnation from Rome, for he felt that gave him more time to devote to his translation.

Wycliffe's teachings which Rome decried:
The Condemned Conclusions of John Wycliffe

1. That the material substance of bread and of wine remains, after the consecration, in the sacrament of the altar.
2. That the accidents do not remain without the subject, after the consecration, in the same sacrament.
3. That Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar identically, truly and really in his proper corporeal presence.
4. That if a bishop or priest lives in mortal sin he does not ordain, or consecrate, or baptize.
5. That if a man has been truly repentant, all external confession is superfluous to him or useless.
6. That it is not founded in the gospel that Christ instituted the mass.
7. That God ought to be obedient to the devil.
8. That if the pope is fore-ordained to destruction and a wicked man, and therefore a member of the devil, no power has been given to him over the faithful of Christ by any one, unless perhaps by the Emperor.
9. That since Urban VI, no one is to be acknowledged as pope; but all are to live, in the way of the Greeks, under their own laws.
10. To assert that it is against sacred scripture that men of the Church should have temporal possessions.
11. That no prelate ought to excommunicate any one unless he first knows that the man is excommunicated by God.
12. That a prelate thus excommunicating is thereby a heretic or excommunicate.
13. That a prelate excommunicating a clerk who has appealed to the king, or to a council of the kingdom, on that very account is a traitor to God, the king and the kingdom.
14. That those who neglect to preach, or to hear the word of God, or the gospel that is preached, because of the excommunication of men, are excommunicate, and in the day of judgment will be considered as traitors to God.
15. To assert that it is allowed to any one, whether a deacon or a priest, to preach the word of God, without the authority of the apostolic see, or of a Catholic bishop, or of some other which is sufficiently acknowledged.
16. To assert that no one is a civil lord, no one is a bishop, no one is a prelate, so long as he is in mortal sin.
17. That temporal lords may, at their own judgment, take away temporal goods from churchmen who are habitually delinquent; or that the people may, at their own judgment, correct delinquent lords.
18. That tithes are purely charity, and that parishoners may, on account of the sins of their curates, detain these and confer them on others at their will.
19. That special prayers applied to one person by prelates or religious persons, are of no more value to the same person than general prayers for others in a like position are to him.
20. That the very fact that any one enters upon any private religion whatever, renders him more unfitted and more incapable of observing the commandments of God.
21. That saints who have instituted any private religions whatever, as well of those having possessions as of mendicants, have sinned in thus instituting them.
22. That religious persons living in private religions are not of the Christian religion.
23. That friars should be required to gain their living by the labor of their hands and not by mendicancy.
24. That a person giving alms to friars, or to a preaching friar, is excommunicate; also the one receiving.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1382wycliffe.html



Peace be with you,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

Defender of the Faith 777

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2002
1,121
4
Visit site
✟2,076.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Originally posted by VOW
To Lambslove:

To the best of my knowledge, Henry VIII had nothing to do with the Bible being published in English. Wycliffe, a Catholic who was later at odds with the Church, did A translation of the Bible in English, but I don't think Henry really CARED about the Bible or the Church...HOW many wives did Henry have? He was more concerned with procreation and having an heir for the Crown.

King JAMES was the Bible guy. And by the time he came along, England had been Catholic, Anglican, Catholic, and then Anglican again....as well as the breeding grounds for Methodism and Puritanism.

It IS true that the Catholic Church went hand in hand with politics throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. But Anglicanism and Protestantism were also heavily into the political game, too. God's word, whether in Greek, Latin, English, German, or any other language has always been used to batter people over their heads, to get them to conform to somebody's politics.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

LOL! I don't know how many wives he had either. He did have kids, it was just always his wives' faults that they were girls or something.

I'm not quite sure about that order: I think that AFTER King James the order of Catholic, Protestant, Catholic, Protestant started. There was Henry (Protestant), James (Catholic I believe, but a serious homosexual), Charles, then Bloody Mary (Catholic). In the end with Oliver Cromwell, the Church of England resulted, known as the Anglican church, or the Episcolpalean church here in America. It was a mix of Catholicism with Protestantism. And no person devout to their faith was pleased with it.

I do object; fertile ground for Puritanism was Germany, Switzerland, and the modern-day Netherlands. But I'm pretty sure that England was Anglican pretty much. It was dominated by the Anglicans and the Baptists came by and were killed by them, so they moved to the Americas. They were known as the Puritans, and back then, Baptists were very Calvinist. Things have changed a little.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.