degeneRat wrote:
>>> You have some kind of beef with Henry VIII, evidently -- or you just
>>> have a beef with me and want to be contrary.
>
>> No, I'm striving for historical and doctrinal accuracy. Too bad you
>> don't share my standards.
>
> I'm glad I don't share your standards. They are pathetic.

Ha!!!!!!

You condone and approve of bestiality and pedophilia. Your standards are
marginal even within your peculiar, radical strain of Anglicanism.

<...>
>>> What I AM saying -- which was
>>> absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
>>> being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
>>> time.
>
>> What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called "Reformers,"
>> at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's doctrines.
>> However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not Protestant -- this
>> is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman Catholics.
>
> Not all of them -- certainly not by most historians either.

Bullshit.

> I doubt you
> would find one reputable historian who would claim Henry was a follower
> of any of the Protestant factions on the Continent at the time.

Strawman -- I distinguished between reformed doctrine and protestantism
in general. See for yourself:

>> Protestant is a rather general term for one who protests, and that is
>> certainly what Henry did. He didn't accept the counsel originally
>> offered him in the matter and "shopped" for a bishop until he found
>> one who'd engage in the sophistry he did to break with Rome.

Sound familiar "little type A in the arroyo"?

<...>
>> The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and Luther
>> had historical precedents.
>
> It certainly was radical, in a wide variety of ways.

Like your list of 350 benefits for straight couples, I suppose you
cannot name ONE.

> Everyone at the
> time considered it radical, both on the Roman and the non-Roman side.

No! What was the initial response by the papists at the Diet of
Augsburg? It *wasn't* that the teachings were novel or radical, it was
that they were true. Indeed, Eck agreed with most of the Augsburg
Confession -- there were, of course, some areas of disagreement which
remain to this day. The whole purpose at Augsburg was to show that the
evangelicals were not engaged in radical teachings. They proved it. The
differences were left to transubstantiation, marriage of priests,
primacy of the pope, sufficiency of Scripture, etc. -- IRONICALLY,
NITWIT, THE SAME THINGS YOUR CHURCH REMAINS DIVIDED OVER WITH ROME! lol

<snip>
>>> Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
>>> including Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
>>> Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
>>> Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
>>> doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.
>
>> Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter
>> compared to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.
>
> Er...doesn't this contradict your earlier claim he was a Protestant?

NO, dimwit. I distinguished between reformed (specifically doctrinal)
and protestant (more general protest against Rome). NITWIT.

<snip>
>> Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is
>> quite general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is
>> in terms of doctrine.
>
> I'd disagree.

I know, but it's because you don't understand Christian doctrine.

<snip>
>>> We're not a Protestant denomination in the same way the Presbyterians
>>> or Baptists, or low-church Lutherans are, however. Here we follow
>>> another Via Media. We have the Apostolic Succession for our clergy
>>> (although it came through Scotland, not England). We are more like
>>> the Orthodox in being Catholic but non-Roman than were are like the
>>> more radical Protestant denominations.
>
>> Your church *is* a radical Protestant denomination,
>
> Absolutely not.

Absolutely, yes. Consider how many of your fellow churchmen overseas
have had to break fellowship for your apostacies. Consider how many here
in the US are compelled to either dust their feet (very fitting
Scriptural allusion given the circumstances) or remain and fight. You
harbor bishops who are agnostics and quite possibly atheists (Spong) and
now ordain divorced clerics who shack up with men (Robinson). You are
very, very radical even within Anglicanism.