View Single Post
  #634 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Henry VIII

degeneRat & Sewer wrote:
> Words, Humpty Dumpty, words -- obviously mean to you only what you
> want them to mean, not anything having any relationship to reality.


I use words appropriately. You don't.

>> ...[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;


From whence did the "royal permission" come?

> 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.


NOTE. Hehe.

>> 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. *


A point I have repeatedly made and you repeatedly denied.

> 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.


In the sense and to the extent that they protested, they are protestants.

>> However because of his actions Henry VIII laid the foundations of
>> Protestantism in England which

> NOTE


Laid the foundations of ProtestantISM. That applies to doctrine, not the
mere act of protest. I stand by my use of the term.

> * * 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.


I did not make any claim that Henry VIII did anything different. My only
claim is that he is a Protestant insofar as he broke with Rome.

>> 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"?


Your progenitors.

>> 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.


No. He protested and broke with Rome, and is a protestant in that sense
of the word.

> The Orthodox Church
> broke with Rome over doctrinal and organizational issues; that did not
> make it Protestant.


Some Orthodox think Romanists are Protestants, and they may be correct
in the broader meaning the word.

>> Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
>> Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.

>
> Popularly, not correctly.


No, correctly. Words can have broad and narrow meanings. I have been
emphatic in distinguishing between the two. You have obstinately refused
to cede the legitimacy of any such distinction which is why this whole
discussion of semantics is amusing me.

> <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.


*yawn*

> <snip>
>
>>> He was not Protestant.

>
>> Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.

>
> Thank you. I agree. That was my point.


No, you self-absorbed WHORE, it was not.

> Protestant/reformed mean the same thing here.


No, I very carefully and CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY distinguished between
the two when calling Henry a protestant.

> "protestant" may mean something else,


No, it DOES mean something else -- something which you seem to have
previously not known or considered. Face it, you are hardly the
intellectual giant you think you are.

> but it is not the word I am using, or the term I intend to
> use.


The world doesn't revolve around child-abandoning *******s in Santa Fe.
I deliberately distinguished between protestant and reformed, and you
failed to accept such a legitimate distinction.

<...>

> You agree.


No, you don't understand the definitions of protestant beyond what you
intend it to mean -- which is a narrow definition. I repeatedly and
clearly distinguished between that definition and the broader meaning of
the word. I am correct, and you are nothing but a sophist ignorantly
quibbling over semantics.


<snip self-absorbed delusions of grandeur>