usual suspect wrote:

> Rat wrote:

<snip>

>>>> 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,

No, Humpty Dumpty -- when discussing the history of the 16th and
17th centuries, it is not. Protestant is a specific historical
term in that context, and if you are not willing to accept the
language of reputable scholars in the field, then you might as
well call Henry a space alien or an Antedeluvian, or whatever other
strange term you invent, but your term will have no historical
meaning anyone familiar with the period would recognize.

Get back to me when you have read a book or two.

<snip>

>>> 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

Yes, Nitwit -- Henry disagreed with the Protestants on every one of
those issues, coming down firmly on the Roman side of the controversy,
except for the issue of the Pope's authority in England, where again,
as I said, his dissent was not based on Protestant grounds, but on much
earlier Constantinian grounds. Henry supported transubstantiation. He
forbade priests to marry (leading Cranmer to have to hide his wife ),
and he did not believe in sufficiency of Scripture. He was not Protestant.

> <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.

But you are incorrect to do so. You are inventing a new meaning for
Protestant which is not historically valid for the period.

> <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.

*LOL* That rich, coming from someone who doesn't even know what
Protestant means.

> <snip>

>>> Your church *is* a radical Protestant denomination,

>> Absolutely not.

> Absolutely, yes.

Absolutely not.

<snip>

Rat