How come some Protestants really believe

That is somewhat an understatement

Henry was not a protestant. He didn’t make any protestant changes. He was even given the tile of ‘Defender of the Faith’ for his book on the Catholic Sacraments. Yes, he denied Rome’s authorities. He closed down the monasteries because he wanted their money. He was almost certainly schismatic. He wasn’t a heretic.

Henry VIII received a dispensation from the pope to marry Kathryn of Aragon. (she had been married to Henry’s late older brother). For the pope to have annulled Henry VIII’s marriage to her he (the pope) would have had to dispense with the original dispensation. As I understand it, that could not be done under Canon law.

:stuck_out_tongue:

Henry was not a protestant. He didn’t make any protestant changes. He was even given the tile of ‘Defender of the Faith’ for his book on the Catholic Sacraments. Yes, he denied Rome’s authorities. He closed down the monasteries because he wanted their money. He was almost certainly schismatic. He wasn’t a heretic.

I never used the word heretic. :wink: And he was awarded the title DOF before he broke with Rome. All in all, his protests against Rome certainly paved the way for Protestantism in England. There is no denying that.

The understanding is that Henry should never have been given the original dispensation to marry Catherine. Henry VIII had a good case to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. This was not forthcoming because Catherine’s relatives back in Aragon and Castille together with their ally at the time, France, applied pressure on the pope to refuse the annulment.

I know you didn’t use the word ‘heretic’. I was pointing out that Henry broke away from Rome (schism) but he retained the Catholic Church as people had always known it. He didn’t introduce Protestant theology (heresy).

I don’t think he’d much chance of it after his breaking away from Rome.:smiley:

I would accept that Henry’s breaking away from Rome might have paved the road for the politically-minded protestants to be able to push the Church in England along the protestant route during Edward VI’s reign.

I don’t think we can say the original dispensation was not rightfully given. I have no doubt politic pressure was brought to bear, but I don’t think we can simply say that the pope made his decision based on who Catherine’s relatives were. The English were rather foreign in the way they thought about themselves, and the rest of Europe thought the same about them. They couldn’t “play ball” like the more southern nations. It was as much a problem of national character differences as anything else, IMHO, that lent itself to the difficulties the pope had with dealing with Henry. It’s the same today. Americans–USA Americans, that is, think very differently from S. Americans or Europeans or Asians, etc. Knowing how to deal with all these different cultural differences is truly hard. I don’t envy any man on the papal throne who has to sort it all out. :slight_smile:

Anyway, we’ve gone way off topic, for which I humbly apologize to the OP and the moderator. :blush:

Yeah, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the Pope at the time was a prisoner of Catherine’s nephew, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who sacked Rome. :shrug:

It was no doubt part of the political pressure Clement VII had to deal with, but Charles regretted his actions in the sack of Rome and the imprisoning of the pope. As is usual in these cases, it was a complicated issue in a complicated time. Still, we cannot say that Clement was forced to make his decision by Charles or anything other than canon law. There is no hard evidence besides conjure to come to that conclusion.

Again, though, this is way off topic.

I’ve started a new thread on this topic here.

Point one is not historically accurate. See Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, the best bio on hank I know of ( and he’s a hobby of mine for years). Point 2 is accurate in that he had a variety of mistresses, Elizabeth Blount, one of Catherine;s ladies in waiting, who handed him his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy, later to lay a small part in Hank’s maneuvers to find a suitable heir to his throne.

Cartoon history is very common.

GKC

hello-- except for the “on line” catholic forum’s i have found very few catholics who have a scripture knowledge and understanding, and can talk about it,

where as when i talk to evangelical or , protestant church goers-- they have a intelligent understanding of why they believe what they believe - and how -what they believe is true.

and they get excited about – getting people"saved" and coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

where as this is not the culture and atmosphere of the catholic church – in which i was “raised in”

and evangelical and other do enjoy quoting scripture, to demenstrate that they are not “dummies”

just as the catholic bible savy people here – like to quote scripture to put a protestant or “who-ever” in their prospective “place”

becasue as every one on the catholic answers forum knows "we catholics have the fullness of the 7 sacrament’s’ which the other demoniation only has 2 of them-- baptism and communion…

but out side of the “on line” forum-- it is rare to find a catholic with any scripture knowledge knowledge …

because they are “catholic” because they were born catholic

The fact that Henry’s coffin exploded at his funeral has a completely scientific natural explanation, it was not a sign of God’s displeasure with Henry.

Bodies were not embalmed at the time and a decomposing body gives off a lot of gasses. The lead coffin he was in could only expand so much and it exploded from the accumulated gasses.

There is no historical evidence that the coffin exploded. Lacey Baldwin Smith’s HENRY VIII:THE MASK OF ROYALTY, suggests that the body was embalmed before being moved. No other of my bios of Hank supports the exploding coffin idea.

GKC

I fully agree.

It’s one thing if the OP’s aunt was bragging about kids memorizing verses. (And that’s something which the OP hasn’t really said, anyway, and so I don’t think it’s anyone’s business here to judge this lady whom we don’t know.) But to dismiss Bible memorization by kids is utterly silly. Kids have to memorize all sorts of things. If I were raising Catholic children, they’d absolutely be taught to memorize parts of the Bible. I can say from my own experience that’s it’s an invaluable gift to have those memorized parts–Psalms, passages from the prophets, parts of the NT—surface seemingly unbidden at times when I need to lean on them, meditate on them, or calm or exhort myself with them.

Now, darn it, I wish my parents had made me take piano lessons, too.

That wont wash as its not true, Henry broke from Rome and in doing so he made every English person sign a document to the effect that he Henry was Head of the Church “in England” NOT HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ENGLAND. If that was the case he would not of broken off ties with Rome, and cut of heads of Priests, Nuns, Monks, and any Catholic that was loyal to Rome got there head chopped, but if you agreed that Henry was Head of the Church in England and he was now making the Rules and Regulations as he saw fit you kept your life, why did he chop the head of (one of many) of his Chancellor St. Thomas Moore his best friend because he said that he could not agree that Henry was Head of the Church or any Church in England, But as a loyal Catholic it was the Pope that was head of the Catholic Church. At the Home Page of the Catholic Forum there is an article regards Henry - read it , says exactly what I am saying. He was one evil, adulterer, who had sex with his second wife’s sister Anne Boleyn, who also gave him a daughter and he cut her head off for not giving him a son, look what he did to England to marry that woman who was his Mistress ( and had slept with her sister) he ruined England pulled down every Monastery, Convent, and a lot of Church’s anything to do with being “Catholic”. There was a Papal Nuncio in England at the time if he wanted to keep communication going, but he dispatched him back to Rome and went into a fury when Cardinal Pole stayed in Rome as he wanted him back to England to cut off his head, as Cardinal Pole sent him a very straight letter and pulled no punches.
A mad Tyrant who should have been removed from the Throne of England.

Yo!

That thread lives over here. :onpatrol:

(Sigh).

GKC

The key point I was making was that Henry VIII was not a protestant. He did not found a Protestant denomination.

I can’t accept the veracity of your historical facts. There is a glaring error in those facts. Execution by having your head chopped off was for the likes of royalty. The rest of the population were executed by hanging.

Then, after him (following Edward’s brief reign), his Catholic daughter Mary was as bad, if not worse. They didn’t call her ‘Bloody Mary’ for nothing as she hung, burned and decapitated those who wouldn’t follow Rome. Then her sister Elizabeth took the reins and started executing people who were loyal to Rome. The poor people of England didn’t know whether they were coming or going.

Henry VIII, Mary I, and Elizabeth I all executed people left right and centre for not obeying their decrees on religious loyalty. It wasn’t really about religion, it was about loyalty to the Sovereign and doing what the Sovereign commands. If it wasn’t about religion they’d be executing people for disobeying something else (just like Henry VIII’s father, Henry VII did, and he was a loyal Catholic ruling a country united in its Catholicism).

Most of the assertions are inaccurate.

So it goes.

GKC

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.