St. Thomas More, King Henry VIII, and English History/Ecclesiology

We are not talking about disbelief, but about you saying that the approval of the Pope was a necessity for orthodoxy.

You were given the evidence. You can spin it in any way you want but the burden is on you to gel it with your assumption of what Roman catholicism is.

At Trent. And as to what, see the Catechismus Romanus.

 

Friend whether or not one goes to Rome as they do say, is the individual choice, not mine! But we're not about to decide which omnibus to travel on. We are members of Christ and Children of God and when various of my friends have abandoned the Anglican Communion, there has never been loss of friendship, certainly in on my part. Even so there has to be an open , comparatively flat pathway . Over the last forty years in my experience the instruction in Christ 's Revelation , which is the major matter of The Church, has been abysmal certainly on the Anglican part. If we read scripture, the Pauline Epistles, we are told to ,'Mind the Deposit,' yet Rome has added greatly to the Deposits, i.e. There have been doctrines added to Rome's Belief on Jurisdiction and Infallibility, without any real discussion by The Catholic Bishops and the question of the Magisterium, or Authority within the Body of Christ has been distorted out of all proportion. Now we expect this from our Calvinist friends, we don't accept it, but we live with it, because it has been going on so long, it is like a yoke around the shoulder.But with Rome, ,fellow catholics, the struggle is Insidious, the officials act in an evil way to carry out something with no intentions of the outcome being good. It is no surprise that our Catholic forefathers referred to the Romanists as evening wolves or Romish Rangers. The fact is they have been aided and abetted in my opinion for past decades by our own clergyeither through poor characture!
(Emphasis not mine!)

 

- @Spherelink

Be specific. What was the first error? When was this apostasy?

Papal supremacy was declared before the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, at the Council of Florence (which the Orthodox leadership accepted at one point) in the 15th century.

"We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church." - Council of Florence

 

- @highchurchman

Maybe not explicitly (though one could argue about Matthew 16:18-19), but there's plenty of implicit evidence.

See the passage that I posted from Vladimir Solovyov. It begins to explain that the Pope is, historically, the promoter of orthodoxy, and other leaders have not been.

Much of this is correct (as far as I know, anyway), but none of it disproves papal infallibility.

Really? If not for the Pope, there would have never been an English Christendom! The majority of Britain was pagan before the Pope made evangelization efforts.

Even if he did say that, he has no promise of infallibility. And St. Augustine certainly seemed to disregard that statement, as did Sts. Laurence of Canterbury, Theodore of Canterbury, Dunstan, and Thomas Becket!

How does a king disagreeing with a pope invalidate the pope?

Also, did Pope St. Pius V actually call for Elizabeth I's assassination? I know not of that. As far as I know, he merely released Catholics from their obedience to her in Regnans in Excelsis.

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

We know papal Supremacy was put forward before the Trent, there's no doubt about it, it wasn't accepted though and it was combated in the Latin Councils of the West which later Rome tried to elevate from General councils to Ecumenical ones, but which they can't do. Why? Because Orthodoxy wasn't invited and as a consequence, they were no more than simply regional conferences being confined to westerners. This applies also to the First Vatican . The Council of Florence? The pressure on the Greeks,(truly Roman,) was immense, it was their last chance before Islam, I must confess, the Bishop of Rome's response was better ours, but it was still not an Ecumenical Council. As soon as the Greco/ Romans got home the majority of the clergy said it was a mistake and that was it!

'The question of whether the Roman Primacy, formulated as it was at he First Vatican Council and also unfortunately at the Second, can have a place at all ,[ in Orthodox ecclesiology] ..... has therefor to be answered with an emphatic no.....As soon as the pope began to regard his episcopal power as basically different from the power of all the other bishops it was no longer possible for him to remain in communion with the Orthodox Church..... Orthodox thought leads to a radical rejection of the primacy of Rome in matters od Jurisdiction and in the question of infallibility.'

S.Harkianakis. Orthordox Theologian.

All this is so much ,'pants,' as the advert had it.
You have still to grapple with the additions made to scripture, with lack of proof from the same source and with nothing from the Seven Councils or History!

 

]

There were pagans after Augustine as well. All but one of Augustine's bishops fled to Gaul when the Pagans made a concerted effort against Christianity. The Church was restored by Bishops from the native Church in the main. They had the help of Irish, North British and Southern British Clergy. i.e. Catholic Clergy! Only one of Augustine's men, a Deacon stayed put. If you are interested, the Irish Clergy were anti-papal till about eleven hundred. It was some chap named Malachi , who was responsible for the slip back. The first Roman Mission was a great failure.

The above question is like asking if we think Hitler knew what went on in Auschwitz?
What do you think would have happened had it been successful? That Eliza would have been sent to the back of the class. The women in the Tudor Family were of a world class standard where intelligence was called for.
Elizabeth's cousin Queen Jane and her own Mother Anne Boleyn had both been executed only a few years ago and I've never heard of retirement homes for ex Queens *. Not only would she have probably died , but the country would have been immersed into a fratricidal war against Trentists and subject to foreign invasion. If you study the Bull you will find that it allowed foreigners to make slaves of the English. The Bishop of Rome claimed ,'Paramount temporal jurisdiction and suzerainty,' over England. Don't forget that Bishop Fisher advised his brother bishops to swear obedience to the King,in causes ecclesiastical and spiritual.'

*Some years prior to this a Queen of Naples had been quietly smothered in her bed. The Spanish King and the popes knew what they were doing!

 

This is true enough, who can object as long as the pope stuck to Catholic theology , the Bishop of Rome has been Primate of the West since the early Church, but it has been simply a Primacy of Honour. It has been those times when the Bishop of Rome started to advance his political Empire that caused trouble.

But in simply Ecclesiastical causes the Bishop of Rome had no authority in England and this because not only the Monarchy detested the Papal Court but the parliament as well.

During Saxon times whilst we were still in Communion with Orthodoxy,Edgar the Pacific a Celtic ruler and an Anglican saint ,claimed he was the Pastor of Pastors and the Representative of Christ upon Earth. He claimed the right toDoctrinal loyalty to the Pope, since at least the missionary efforts of St. Augustine of Canterbury, has always been present in England. ?Also the right
appoint Bishops, without any external interference, to call Ecclesiastical councils and preside over them in person and without consulting the Papal See. He told S. Dunstan and the clergy that it was the duty of the King to examine the morals of the seculars and regulars.

For five hundred years whilst the pope was in struggle with the European Conciliarists, the Norman Monarchs of England were conducting anti papal legislation with a vengeance and supported the Catholics against the Papal Additions.

No Bishop or Abbot was allowed to visit Rome, no Papal Bull, constitution or letter could be received in the Kingdom without permission and inspected. A papal legate , or, nuncio could not set foot on English soil without permission.

In 1115 Pope Paschal complained bitterly that there was no communication between the English King, the Bishops and the Papacy and all concerns of the National Church were settled in house without his knowledge or consultation. During the reign of King John,(who is disliked even today,) “The English Church was delivered in to the hands of the papacy and the church fell in to the hands of strangers!”


“Doctrinal loyalty to the Pope,” might well indeed be present but it wasn't obvious.England & Rome. Dunbar Ingram. Pge 1/ 10. Eccles.Hist. Of England Bk. 2

 

Why are you making me repeat? It was at Trent. When Trent was ratified.

The Council of Florence dictated that it had the power to depose Popes.

 

Matthew Olson. Not to rub salt in to the wounds?

In 1521 when Henry the VIII wrote his book against Luther in support of Leo X. He was rewarded with the splendid title, Defender of the Faith!

Henry showed a copy of the publication to Thomas More . This good Anglican advised Henry 'Not to advance the pope's authority too much,lest he should diminish his own."
Further, Archbishop Bramhall, the Irish Archbishop, stated, 'That Henry the VIII, did cast no branch of papal power out of England but that which was diametrically repugnant of the ancient laws of the land.'




Dunbar Ingram . Pg14. England & Rome. Google.

 

- @highchurchman

For now, let's focus on the Council of Florence. So, the temporal "pressure" on the Orthodox supposedly justifies them pulling a doctrinal bait-and-switch?

We'll see.

By the way, on your whole Celtic theory....

"The idea of a 'Celtic Church' is roundly rejected by modern scholars due to the lack of substantiating evidence. Indeed, there were distinct Irish and British church traditions, each with their own practices, and there was significant local variation even within the individual Irish and British spheres. While there were some traditions known to have been common to both the Irish and British churches, these were relatively few. Even these commonalities did not exist due to the 'Celticity' of the regions, but due to other historical and geographical factors. Additionally, the Christians of Ireland and Britain were not 'anti-Roman'; the authority of Rome and the papacy were venerated as strongly in Celtic areas as they were in any other region of Europe. Caitlin Corning further notes that the 'Irish and British were no more pro-women, pro-environment, or even more spiritual than the rest of the Church.'"

(from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity)

It sure is interesting that His Excellency didn't follow this supposed advice -- as I recall, he was martyred by Henry VIII.

Again, the actions of a government against an entity do not prove that entity wrong. My government (U.S.) slaughters children with drones on a pretty regular basis -- is it right? NO!

I was already aware of this. In fact, I watched a documentary on Henry VIII just the other day, and this fact was mentioned in it. St. Thomas More (a Catholic who died in defense of the Papacy) was referring to the temporal language that Henry applied to the Papacy, if I remember correctly.

Am I supposed to be impressed that an Anglican leader would defend Anglicanism?

 

- @Spherelink

What, exactly, out of the Council of Trent, that was unique to it, was wrong? This is very important. The Council just reinforced beliefs that were already around. When did the Church first teach supposed error as doctrine?

Quote?

 

It added articles of faith. Like, actual new articles of belief, the Tridentine creed.

The Council's job is not to reinforce the beliefs that were already around.

 

- @Spherelink

Article 1 -- done before the Council, by a pope; already believed and taught by Church Fathers (see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Filioque_controversy#Procession_of_the_Holy_Spirit)
Article 2 -- already believed and taught by Church Fathers
Article 3 -- already believed and taught by Church Fathers
Article 4 -- This is where Protestants would disagree most. Is this the big moment of apostasy? Still, believed and taught by Church Fathers.
Article 5 -- already believed and taught by Church Fathers
Article 6 -- already believed and taught in Judaism (loosely), by the Church Fathers (more strictly than by Jews), and in the Middle Ages (even more strictly, terminology-wise)
Article 7 -- already believed and practiced
Article 8 -- already believed and practiced (see Second Council of Nicaea)
Article 9 -- already believed and practiced in the Middle Ages (though I would disagree with the word "selling" on the page provided -- the text does not support that)
Article 10 -- already believed and taught by Church Fathers
Article 11 -- natural conclusion, doubles-down on past rulings
Article 12 -- natural conclusion, doubles-down on past rulings

Again, what was the EXACT definition that caused apostasy, and when was it actually first defined?

I think that Councils can define their own jobs, thank you very much.

 

Yeah and they don't need you to tell them that they should rubberstamp the opinions floating around at the time. Would you want a Church council to rubberstamp today's opinions? The Council's job is to state the truth.

Again, really? Are you serious? Ok in the Trent Creed alone you have Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Most of these were directly opposed by the Church Fathers and Scripture, and the few like prayer to the saints had spotty acceptance (meaning some advocated them and some didn't) and they were never raised to the level of an article of faith. The complete articles of the Christian faith are contained in the 3 Creeds, as derived from Scripture itself.

 

- @Spherelink

I didn't advocate that. That is a strawman. Councils do, of course, frequently "pick sides" and make judgments on public debates, though -- that's why we have them.

I've answered your claims. Show me where the Church Fathers and Scripture "directly oppose" all of those things.

Article 4 is even backed up by the Athanasian Creed, which reads in one part:

"At [Christ's] coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire."

And at the end, the Creed says:

"This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved."

Really? Matthew 16:18-19 and "feed my sheep" (John 21:17, terminology mentioned by the Council of Florence) seem pretty clear to me.

How is Tradition inherently flawed, by the way? Scripture is simply a part of the written portion of Tradition.

 

The sole thing you mentioned concerning the council of Trent was that it codified some common opinions floating around at the time. Maybe you should've used a different justification for the council.

Feel free to study Anglican and broadly non-Papal literature on this topic, or even do a search here.

Lol no it isn't, not the heretical teaching on justification by Works.

They seem pretty clear to me too. And they don't teach the submission to the Pope.

No, it isn't.

 

- @Spherelink

Again: "Councils do, of course, frequently 'pick sides' and make judgments on public debates, though -- that's why we have them."

And go through volumes of information? Give me specifics. I'm not doing your work for you.

Again: "At [Christ's] coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire."

Explain this quote, then, if it truly does not defend justification by faith and works.

Explain.

Explain.

 

If you wanted to make the case that Councils pick sides and are supposed to pick the truth, you could've. You however made the emphasis on Trent codifying some popular opinions, and there was even a special mention of the word popular. As if the popularity of an opinion gave the bona fides for its orthodoxy. The council's job is to pick the side of truth, always, but in Trent, it went with popular opinion and into heresy.

Actually that's what I wanted to say: "I'm not doing your work for you." You are here on an anglican forum. If you aren't aware of elementary anglican arguments about the Papacy or purgatory or justification or catholicity, et al., and if you can't be bothered to do a search and make an effort on your own, then I won't scour things on your behalf. You need to show the good faith that you are interested and willing to learn, which you hadn't so far.

Oh all men shall absolutely give an account of their works. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. Faith without works is dead.

We preach the idea of salvation by faith and works. We are justified by faith only, as Scripture teaches in about 15-20 passages.

We can hold to the primacy of the See of Rome, as an honorable institution and a point of unity in the Church. After the See of Rome has required obsequious submission from the bishops of the world, and declared itself infallible, it has become a source of tyranny, and the mystery of iniquity in Christianity, which Popes like John Paul II and Francis are thankfully undoing.

Scripture is the inspired Word of God. Tradition (in a best-case scenario) is an honorably fallible practice of pious churchmen. We ought to honor the latter, and fall on our knees before the former.

 

- @Spherelink

I never used the word "popular" (CTRL + F -- search for it). You're setting up straw men to knock down. What's true isn't always popular (in fact, it often isn't), and what's popular isn't always true. I get that, and so does the Church. You have not proved that the Council is heretical.

I am quite aware of the typical arguments. But none of them prove that the Church Fathers and Scripture oppose the Articles of the Tridentine Creed.

Have you studied the arguments for the Papacy, for Purgatory and Indulgences, for Justification by Faith & Works, etc.?

I'm willing to learn, but you're not proving your positions true.

YES!

Could you explain how it is that you find these two sentences uncontradictory? The second sentence can be true, depending on how far you take it, but I don't want to make any assumptions off-the-bat. We might agree here!

By definition, tyranny is "oppressive" and "unjust" -- you have not yet proven that this describes the Papacy.

By definition, iniquity refers to "injustice" and "immorality" -- same problem.

The Pope, doctrinally speaking, can never be accurately described as unjust. But we're still discussing this -- maybe you'll somehow win me over.

Again, the Bible is a portion of the written Tradition (capital 'T'). It was written by Church Fathers (meaning, of course, early Christian leaders)! And without Councils, we would have no clue as to the Bible's total composition.

Some quotes on the authority of the Church Fathers (from here: http://answeringprotestants.com/quotes/):

“We do not invent new formulas as our opponents charge, but we confess the statements of the fathers. Nor do we make up terms according to our own ideas, for this is a presumptuous thing to do, the work and invention of a heretical and deranged mind. But what has been understood and stated by the saints, that we reverently adduce as our authority.” – St. Maximus the Confessor (Theological and Polemical Opuscula)

“An apostolic and ancient tradition has prevailed in the holy churches throughout the world, so that those who are inducted into the hierarchy sincerely refer everything they think and believe to those who have held the hierarchy before them. For…all their running would be in vain if an injustice were to be done to the faith in any respect.” – St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (Synodical Epistle)

“I could also tell you of other things, which Christ did not say. But what is the point of that? As we have received from the holy fathers, so we believe, because they were taught these things from God.” – John V of Jerusalem (Against Constantinus Cabalinus on the Images)

 

[If I understand aright,it was Rome that applied the ,'Bate & Switch'. It was very obvious to them that time would bring the Turks and they wanted help. When Rome applied pressure before and during the Council of Florence some there did what I would probably have done, that is succumbed. But even so there was heavy opposition from the more conservative Orthodox and it was virtually rejected when they arrived back at Constantinople. I for one can't blame them

The genesis of the Church in Britain is without doubt,'shrouded in mists,' as my old teacher used to say, but they have found Christian artifacts in Manchester, Lancashire dating to early 2nd, Cent.S.Alban, is now said to have been killed in 205, not a century later.


The idea of a 'Celtic Church' is roundly rejected by modern scholars due to the lack of substantiating evidence. Indeed, there were distinct Irish and British church traditions, each with their own practices, and there was significant local variation even within the individual Irish and British spheres. While there were some traditions known to have been common to both the Irish and British churches, these were relatively few. Even these commonalities did not exist due to the 'Celticity' of the regions, but due to other historical and geographical factors. Additionally, the Christians of Ireland and Britain were not 'anti-Roman'; the authority of Rome and the papacy were venerated as strongly in Celtic areas as they were in any other region of Europe. Caitlin Corning further notes that the 'Irish and British were no more pro-women, pro-environment, or even more spiritual than the rest of the Church.'"
By the way, on your whole Celtic theory....
(from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity)[/QUOTE]


The genesis of the Church in Britain is without doubt,'shrouded in mists,' as my old teacher used to say, but they have found Christian artifacts in Manchester, Lancashire dating to early 2nd, Cent.S. Alban, is now said to have been killed in 205, not a century later as thought. But the essential thing is that British Bishops were found at a host of general Councils including the great one Niceae 325. Constantine the Emperor affirmed its presence there, as did S.Athanasius. The British Bishops were at several others in and about the same time.i.e. Sardica and Ariminium.
In Cornwall, where I used to holiday ,in better times, there was a British Church ,or its ruins, in the sand about half a mile away. Where I live in Lancashire there are plenty of pre Augustine sites, indeed pre Saxon sites.
The Catholics in Britain were not anti-Roman as far as the State was concerned and probably not anti the Suburbicarian Church of Rome they were anti-papal political adventuring , by S.Gregory and Augustine.
I'm not quite clear who the lady you mention is, or what the question of 'pro woman, pro-environment ',is about in this context, but I do know that the later Celts were anti Roman in their outlook. One Bishop visiting Rome refused to eat with his hosts.
..Many thanks for your reference to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity).
I was cautioned many years ago on relying to much on modern apologists and wiki! Is that where the lady came from?


Again, the actions of a government against an entity do not prove that entity wrong. My government (U.S.) slaughters children with drones on a pretty regular basis -- is it right? NO!
I admire and agree with your stand on drones, and regularly oppose the U.K. Government's attitude.