Wisdom From A Protestant

[Crusader_4]

This guys site is great.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Apr 30 2004, 04:30 PM'] but weren't the original anglicans all catholic priests but left, just like the orthodox. if the orthodox have the apostolic tradition, why don't the anglicans? just wundrin'... [/quote]
The Orthodox were originally Catholic. When they split from the Church, they retained the Apostolic Succession unbroken to this day. So they have validly ordained bishop and priests. And therefore they have valid sacraments.

When the Anglicans split, they maintained the Apostolic Succession only until the reign of Edward VI. He was thoroughly Protestant and changed the rite of ordination. Under the "Edwardian Ordinal" it was no longer stated or believed that priests offered sacrifice. No sacrifice, no valid priesthood. Once broken, they couldn't restore it.

That's the very definition of a priest: one who offers sacrifice.

That's why Protestant clergy are called "ministers" or "pastors." Protestants don't believe in sacrifice. Episcopalians and Anglicans still insist on calling their clery "priests" but they're not. They're just copy-cat Catholics.

Anglican/Episcopalian priests are ordained "de novo" (anew, for the first time) if they convert.

The need to offer sacrifice is human nature -- buried deep in the human psyche -- and is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You can read about the sacrifice in the the "Teaching of the 12 Apostles" in the first century.

Thomas Seabury brought the beliefs of the Church of England to the U.S. in the 1700s and renamed it "Episcopalian." But there's no allegiance to the Queen.

[Ellenita]

There were also political reasons why the Anglican church had to secure the original split with Catholic church - there had been wholesale ransacking of the catholic church and monastries which had started during Henry VIII's reign, with the result that alot of the men in power owed their fortunes to stolen money. It was important to them that the break with the Pope, and ultimately apostolic succession was total and complete.

Thomas Cromwell (a relative of Oliver Cromwell), Thomas Cranmer, (who became arch bishop of Canturbury and re wrote the liturgy) and William Cecil (who was in power under Elizabeth I, and who had Mary, the Catholic queen of Scotland, murdered), were three of the main players who set about systematically destroying the Catholic church in England, to the extent that a priest celebrating Mass could be put to death. Many were martyred.

Hilaire Belloc writes about the central players in his book 'Characters of the Reformation' - it's a good read! It's also helpful in understanding why the anglican church came about. It's interesting that he says that Pope Clement VII, when faced with making the decision about granting Henry VIII the divorce could have played politics which would have meant that England would have remained Catholic, but it would also have resulted in ultimately undermining the authority of the Pope and the Catholic church. Belloc says as a historian he is loathe to use the term 'supernatural intervention' but in this case he is convinced that God intervened.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='May 1 2004, 01:55 PM'] It's interesting that he says that Pope Clement VII, when faced with making the decision about granting Henry VIII the divorce could have played politics which would have meant that England would have remained Catholic, [/quote]
Whether England would have given birth to the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire under Catholic rule is a different matter..

[Ellenita]

Agreed, RandomProddy .......however I might not argue that they were necessarily good things......the pay off was too great and sadly we see the fruits of it now, increasing secularisation on one hand and the growth of Islam on the other - will we even be a Christian country in 50 years time?!

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='May 3 2004, 12:51 AM'] Agreed, RandomProddy .......however I might not argue that they were necessarily good things......the pay off was too great and sadly we see the fruits of it now, increasing secularisation on one hand and the growth of Islam on the other - will we even be a Christian country in 50 years time?! [/quote]
50 years? I don't think this country is Christian today..

[PedroX]

Random Proddy,

The UK allowed Catholicism in order to build the Industrial Revolution and the Empire. It needed more men to fight in the army, and produce capital. Without Catholics, I'm not sure it could have been accomplished.

Another question would be: Could England have become the first representative democracy if the monarchy had remained Catholic?

peace...

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='PedroX' date='May 4 2004, 02:46 AM'] Random Proddy,

The UK allowed Catholicism in order to build the Industrial Revolution and the Empire. It needed more men to fight in the army, and produce capital. Without Catholics, I'm not sure it could have been accomplished. [/quote]
As the saying goes up in the North of England: "the English design it and the Irish build it".

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='PedroX' date='May 4 2004, 02:46 AM'] Another question would be: Could England have become the first representative democracy if the monarchy had remained Catholic? [/quote]
We started it under Catholicism.

"1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the [b]English Church[/b] shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever."

first clause from the "Great Charter" (Magna Carta), which layed down some of the law of the land to which the King couldn't contradict.

This was dated....

..

1215

[url="http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html"]http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html[/url]

[PedroX]

Random Proddy,

Good Call on the Magna Carta, but not quite what I was asking.

The Magna Carta did not really establish a representative democracy, or better yet a parlimentarian monarchy. Do you think that the development of representative parliament and the comparative decline of the monarchy were a result of a Protestant Reformation? I have long puzzled over this, and am uncertain whether the seeds were indeed sown by the Magna Carta, or by the Reformation. Any thoughts?

Any other blokes want to weigh in on this? (Adeotious, Ellenita, Don John?)

peace...

[RandomProddy]

I really can't say with any authority, I'm a mathematician not a historian..

[Ellenita]

Well I've been easily swayed by Hilare Belloc's argument which I have found facinating! He is very clear that the link between the decline of the monarchy and the balance of power moving to parliament was as a result of the protestant reformation which, incidently, he attributes not so much to religious conviction for the majority of the nobles, but on the acquiring of fortunes from ransacking the Catholic church. In fact he is rather more sympathetic towards Henry VIII and Elizabeth I than I would have expected, saying that both were not convinced that it was neccessary to completely break with the Pope, that they were weak personalities and that they were in fact victims themselves of ambitious individuals out for their own gain. Given that I have had a lifetime of English protestant interpretation of history, this has made me see both Henry and Elizabeth in a different light!

It's interesting that land, property and politics dominated the other European monarchs at the same time which prevented them from forming alliances on the basis of their common Catholic faith. If they had united rather than fought each other, it is unlikely England would have been able to stand against them.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='May 4 2004, 06:15 PM'] Well I've been easily swayed by Hilare Belloc's argument which I have found facinating! He is very clear that the link between the decline of the monarchy and the balance of power moving to parliament was as a result of the protestant reformation which, incidently, he attributes not so much to religious conviction for the majority of the nobles, but on the acquiring of fortunes from ransacking the Catholic church. In fact he is rather more sympathetic towards Henry VIII and Elizabeth I than I would have expected, saying that both were not convinced that it was neccessary to completely break with the Pope, that they were weak personalities and that they were in fact victims themselves of ambitious individuals out for their own gain. Given that I have had a lifetime of English protestant interpretation of history, this has made me see both Henry and Elizabeth in a different light!

It's interesting that land, property and politics dominated the other European monarchs at the same time which prevented them from forming alliances on the basis of their common Catholic faith. If they had united rather than fought each other, it is unlikely England would have been able to stand against them. [/quote]
Ellenita, I also love Hillaire Belloc's explanation of all this. You mentioned earlier his book [i]Characters of the Reformation[/i] which is a GREAT book. I really loved it, and I want to read it again more thoroughly ... I just had time to skim it when I had it.

[PedroX]

Ellenita,

You bring an interesting arguement from Mssr. Belloc. I have never heard anyone state that Henry VIII was a victim before. I suppose Cramner was the evil hand behind the throne?

I might find it a bit more believable of Elizabeth I (Good Queen Bess!) than I do of Henry. I think he is right in attributing the nobles capitulation to greed (and, unfortunately the Bishops as well). However, Henry knew full well what he was doing, and did so for greed, and sex, nothing more and nothing less.

peace...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='PedroX' date='May 4 2004, 06:52 PM'] I suppose Cramner was the evil hand behind the throne? [/quote]
If I remember correctly, Belloc pins it squarely on Anne Boleyn and her desire to be queen. He paints Henry as falling victim to Anne's manipulative ways, along with his own selfish greed.

[Ellenita]

Yes, he sees Anne Boleyn as the main person who manipulates Henry, but also says that Thomas Cromwell (great uncle of Oliver Cromwell) and Cranmer were controlling Henry politically, and I think there is alot of truth to that since the complete break with the Pope was not pushed through during Henry's reign which doesn't add up if you see him as a detirmined man with absolute rule.

It's an interesting portrayal of Henry since, certainly in English history, we are taught that Henry was a strong man who fell in love with Anne partly as a result of a love less marriage. Belloc suggests the opposite is true - that Henry and Catherine on the whole had a good marriage by royal standards, but that he became infatuated with Anne who refused to become his mistress. Henry was weak and gave into her demands and his own sinful desire, but was reluctant to set Catherine or the catholic faith aside.

I've found this reading of history makes more sense of the liturgy of the anglican church.......the differences between the anglican and catholic church always puzzled me given that the anglican liturgy mirrors the catholic liturgy to some considerable degree.

You need to remember that I am undoing a lifetime of being raised within a biased educational system when it comes to English history/religion when you read my posts!!

[Crusader_4]

Where are these articles on the site i would b highly interested in reading them and commenting on them since i am an English History buff to some extent

[PedroX]

It is true (apparently) that Anne would not become Henry's mistress, but held out for mariage. However, it is also true that Henry had been wanting and trying to exert undue influence over the church for sometime. The oath of loyalty was simply the last step in a long line of greed. (Btw the English tradition of monarchy exerting power over the church goes back to Thomas A'Becket).

However, I find it hard to accept the thesis that anybody but Henry made the decisions or that he was unduly influenced. Henry was an amazingly strong willed, intelligent and conniving man.

peace...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='PedroX' date='May 4 2004, 10:52 PM'] However, I find it hard to accept the thesis that anybody but Henry made the decisions or that he was unduly influenced. Henry was an amazingly strong willed, intelligent and conniving man.

peace... [/quote]
Yeah, Belloc draws him in a totally different light, more as a weak man overly susceptible to the exertion of outside pressures. I've not done much reading about Henry, so can't really comment on how others perceived his character.

But Belloc's whole premise is that Henry's weak character, combined with his greed/lust and the desires of those around him, led to the English Reformation, without which the Protestant Reformation as a whole never would have succeeded.

I'm getting the book, hopefully ... I'll let you read it when it comes, if you like.