Words, Humpty Dumpty, words -- obviously mean to you only what you
want them to mean, not anything having any relationship to reality.
usual suspect wrote:
<snip>
> ...[A] great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal
> permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538
> Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches
> acquire a copy of the English Bible. The central position of scripture
> in Protestant belief made it vital to make the text available, and an
> official version gave the English Bible the stamp of approval.
> Cromwell's Injunctions also took a strong line against images, and
> centres of pilgrimage.
Cromwell, not Henry; churches, not individuals. Cromwell WAS a supporter
of the continental reformers/Protestants, which was why he wanted Henry
to marry a German Protestant princess, a tactic which backfired for him
and the Protestants in England disastrously.
It's interesting the Cromwell funded the publication and distribution of
those Bibles, too. He's been given a bum rap by a lot of popular fiction.
> These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially
> sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII.
Pretty small "high watermark".
> The King was a keen
> theologian, and was prepared to incorporate evangelical ideas into his
> new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't comfortable with the
> alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed most of his previous
> policies.
> http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
> ----------
Yes -- he reversed his policies.
> King Henry VIII was initially opposed to the ideas of Luther. he was
> praised by the pope for a pamphlet that he wrote in 1521 that criticised
> the German monk. However after the Split with Rome many of the things
> that Luther said should happen, did happen in England. Henry VIII
> ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much money and land
> from the church.
NOTE
> * However Henry did this for political gains, not because
> he supported the ideas of Luther. *
NOTE
Also, the Roman church had many internal protests against abuses by
the hierarchy and the religious orders. By your definition, St. Francis
was a "Protestant" and the founder of the Cistercians was a
"Protestant." Since both of them are Roman saints, I don't think the
Roman church agrees with you on that.
> However because of his actions Henry
> VIII laid the foundations of Protestantism in England which
NOTE
* * under the
> rule of Edward and Elizabeth would transform England from a Catholic to
> a Protestant nation.*
NOTE
Not under the rule of Henry. Which was what I said.
> By 1603 the Protestant Reformation in this country
> was complete.
> http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/pro...eformation.htm
> ----------
> Henry VIII (1491-1547), king of England (1509-1547), the image of the
> Renaissance king as immortalized by German artist Hans Holbein, who
> painted him hands on hips, legs astride, exuding confidence and power.
> Henry VIII had six wives, fought numerous wars in Europe, and even
> aspired to become Holy Roman Emperor in order to extend his control to
> Europe. He ruthlessly increased the power of royal government, using
> Parliament to sanction his actions. Henry ruled through powerful
> ministers who, like his six wives, were never safe in their positions.
> His greatest achievement was to initiate the Protestant Reformation in
> England....Viewed by some as the embodiment of the warrior king who
> restored England’s honor, by others as a tyrant who ruled by the
> chopping block, the life of Henry VIII has been a source of continuous
> fascination. Catholic writers pictured him as the devil,
> English
> Protestants credited him as the founder of their religion.
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...enry_VIII.html
> ------------
Who are these "English Protestants"?
> When he sought to nullify his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon
> because of the lack of a male heir, it was clear that Rome would not
> support him, so in 1531, Henry broke with the Catholic Church and set up
> a (Protestant) National Church in England under his supreme leadership.
> http://renaissance-faire.com/Renfair...enry-VIIIA.htm
> ------------
Not (Protestant) or Protestant. Merely non-Roman. The Orthodox Church
broke with Rome over doctrinal and organizational issues; that did not
make it Protestant.
> Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
> Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.
Popularly, not correctly.
<snip>
> That isn't the issue, Rat. Not everyone considered every aspect of
> the Reformation to be radical -- Rome even started some reforms in
> areas, e.g., the sale of indulgences.
Yes -- after the Reformation pushed the Romans into the
Counterreformation.
<snip>
>> He was not Protestant.
> Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.
Thank you. I agree. That was my point. Protestant/reformed
mean the same thing here. "protestant" may mean something else,
but it is not the word I am using, or the term I intend to
use. Henry was not a Protestant. You agree.
You are the most niggling, sophistical person I have ever
read. You present material AGAIN (as in the homosexual
animal controversy) which supports my position -- because my
position is correct -- and evidently don't even realize you
are doing so.
<snip>
> First, doctrinally: he did dabble in reformed doctrine for a
> while but he did return to a conservative Catholicism sans the papacy.
> <snip>
As I said.
Rat