s/o Christians worshiping Jesus

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2013 21:44:46 GMT -5 2curlydogs said:

Also, habs, was it you who recommended "Absolute Monarchs" by John Julius Norwich? I had put it on hold from the library ages ago and it came up this past weekend, so I'm reading that now, ironically enough. I'd just finished up "Basilica" by R. A. Scotti (highly recommend, btw), so it was a well timed transition.

That wasn't me. I shill for G.J Meyer's The Tudors. lol

I will put both of those on my list.

Henry did pen a rousing defense of Catholicism. Even, shit, I totally see him on The Tudors instead of remembering dude's real name. Sir Thomas More! (thank you, wikipedia) anyway, More was impressed with the whole dealio. I do think everyone expected him to tire of Anne. Catherine was pretty much the perfect queen except for the IF business. She was well connected, conducted herself with grace, was a devoted wife, well loved by the people, a knowledgeable mind, and even kept shit together when Henry ran off a warmongering. Comparatively speaking, what was Anne? 

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2013 21:49:08 GMT -5 2curlydogs said:

Jan 29, 2013 21:41:02 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Defender of the Faith!  That's what I was trying to remember.  This time period seriously fascinates me.

I think what's amazing is how it really could have gone either way but for a few things happening differently or not happening.  All the deal making and such...

It sort of cracks me up that the British Crown uses that title to this day. 

Yes. If Anne had capitulated and just be come his "maîtresse en titre" as Henry had asked (which maybe she might have if she didn't have her sister Mary as an example). Or if Clement had just gone ahead and annulled the marriage from the get go... it would be interesting to see what had happened. Or if Anne weren't a reformer at heart herself, would it have gone towards full separation from the Roman church?

See, this is why I think people who say they hate history had shitty teachers who just made them memorize dates of important battles.  History is AWESOME.

Tudor history is particularly fascinating because of the wee bits that could have easily changed everything.

However, with the exception of a male heir having survived Catherine or Henry having faith in a succession via Mary, to me, pretty much every conclusion suggests a a protestant future for England regardless.

Pretty much every wife following Anne had reformer leanings. Katherine Howard doesn't count as she was nothing more than a silly child. Poor baby. Poor, dumb, baby.

[Deleted]

[eclaires]

That's true, habbsies... the seeds of discontent were definitely already in place, and I think there would have been a battle at some point regardless.

I think I read somewhere, too, that part of the draw for Henry was the money the Church had in England and England was desperate for money.

[Deleted]

Yup. Henry VII left his son a shitton of money because Henry VII was a notorious skinflint. However, the only thing Henry VIII was obsessed with more than an heir was leaving behind a reputation of a glorious king which included winning back much of the lands England had previously controlled before and during the War of the Roses. He wanted Agincourt, Aquitaine, etc and he wanted to tell France to go fuck themselves. He offered money and troops and shit to anyone who seemed inclined to help him with either goal. So by the time he was trying to marry Anne, he'd spent tons and for nothing.

I think at that point, he was desperate to stick it to someone.

The other issue was that by then, everyone knew they had to have some kind of progress to show Henry or eventually, he'd put their asses in the tower and have their bodies carried out the back. So Wosley, Cromwell, and Cranmer seemed (imo) to just be making up shit to do since they could only do so much to advance Henry's cause. None of them could make Clement give up the annulment and they certainly couldn't get back any French lands.

[2vermont]

Jan 29, 2013 21:34:40 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Jan 29, 2013 21:14:09 GMT -5 foundmylazybum said:

::Runs in::
Girl. I didn't go to Catholic school and I knew this! I'm barely religious..at all...and I got what you are putting down.

I <3 you, just so you know!  

The thing is there *was* more to the story about the elephant, so despite everyone's issue with my "usual", I will continue to look for the whole story especially when dealing with anti-Catholic rhetoric (even if that anti-Catholic rhetoric is warranted for the time period).  What I find "usual" is the inevitable turn towards the corruption of the Church.  It actually wasn't really necessary in this thread at all which is probably what bugged me in the first place.

[2vermont]

Jan 29, 2013 20:09:01 GMT -5 teflep said:

I need to go back through, but the Church was, and still is, corrupt in many ways. Money and hoarding can do that for sure. They do a lot of good, but they have their issues as well. Why is this a serious discussion. Focus on other points.

Because smock felt it necessary to bring up just how "liberal" the Church was in the Middle Ages.

And yes, there was corruption and will always be corruption because men sin....Pope or not.   

[eclaires]

You absolutely cannot have a discussion about the Reformation, Henry's annulment and that time period without discussing what was going on in the Catholic Church at the time.

Whether there were 500 elephants or 1, I don't care. It is arguing over something that doesn't make or break whether the Catholic Church was corrupt at that time. They were. Period.

And the idea that many Catholics in this thread see that and are somehow being anti-catholic is laughable, but unsurprising coming from you. I don't condemn the church for what went on during that time period, but I see no reason to defend it or argue over tiny details that don't make a difference in the overall picture. Church history is rich, fascinating, and in many ways, beautiful. But it is also ugly at times and refusing to admit that or discuss it by arguing over the number of elephants and suggesting there is more to the story is ridiculous. That is precisely what I object to and what I mean by "usual Catholic apologist bullshit."

[smock]

Go back and read the post, 2v. I was arguing that the church was NOT liberal in the Renaissance. And then I pointed out that lots of popes were acting extravagantly--and buying exotic animals to add to their growing menagerie which included a gifted elephant.

I'm not in this post to promote some anti-catholic agenda at all. I'm here to tell amusing stories. And Renaissance Catholics were quite good at separating their faith from the actions of their popes. See, for example, Dante. Who claimed that multiple popes were burning in hell for their sins, and yet was deeply devout.

Some popes acted more like extravagant princes than humble shepherds. Regardless of the exact number of elephants and their provenance, that's what happened.

So please, point out the other falsehoods you feel people are peddling here. Please. Because if you're going to keep harping on one elephant, there isn't much left to say.

[Deleted]

This would be akin to getting offended if one said that R Kelly pees on underaged girls.

"But it was only ONE girl so you're totally not telling the whole side."

[smock]

Ha, perfect analogy habbsies! Except Leo might be offended. "I only PAINTED that boy gold, I swear!"

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2013 9:16:17 GMT -5 smock said:

Ha, perfect analogy habbsies! Except Leo might be offended. "I only PAINTED that boy gold, I swear!"

No one ever died from a little pee on their leg, Leo.

[2curlydogs]

Jan 29, 2013 22:19:03 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Jan 29, 2013 21:49:08 GMT -5 2curlydogs said:

It sort of cracks me up that the British Crown uses that title to this day. 

Yes. If Anne had capitulated and just be come his "maîtresse en titre" as Henry had asked (which maybe she might have if she didn't have her sister Mary as an example). Or if Clement had just gone ahead and annulled the marriage from the get go... it would be interesting to see what had happened. Or if Anne weren't a reformer at heart herself, would it have gone towards full separation from the Roman church?

See, this is why I think people who say they hate history had shitty teachers who just made them memorize dates of important battles.  History is AWESOME.

Tudor history is particularly fascinating because of the wee bits that could have easily changed everything.

However, with the exception of a male heir having survived Catherine or Henry having faith in a succession via Mary, to me, pretty much every conclusion suggests a a protestant future for England regardless.

Pretty much every wife following Anne had reformer leanings. Katherine Howard doesn't count as she was nothing more than a silly child. Poor baby. Poor, dumb, baby.

Jane Seymore has always been portrayed in histories as Catholic...ish.  Whether she genuinely was or her family was just presenting her that way as a contrast to Anne's reformer leanings, I've never been able to suss out.  I lean towards the latter, just because Somerset was so hot for reform by the time Edward got to the throne.

And, eclaires, I totally get you.  I mean, I had some very dry-ass history teachers in my 20-odd years in Catholic schools but, for the most part, they were excellent and were able to educate by telling a story, not making us memorize dates.  It's why my "history" genre shelf on Goodreads has the second largest number of books with "historical-fiction" coming in first.

After all, in the creed it's small-c "catholic".  You can't be a universal church without exploring and respecting history in it's entirety.

[Deleted]

2curly, I wonder if Jane had any real thoughts in either direction.

[teflep]

Jan 30, 2013 5:31:31 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Jan 29, 2013 20:09:01 GMT -5 teflep said:

I need to go back through, but the Church was, and still is, corrupt in many ways. Money and hoarding can do that for sure. They do a lot of good, but they have their issues as well. Why is this a serious discussion. Focus on other points.

Because smock felt it necessary to bring up just how "liberal" the Church was in the Middle Ages.

And yes, there was corruption and will always be corruption because men sin....Pope or not.   

They weren't liberal, but they weren't conservative or, really, even that Catholic.  They were corrupt and money-hungry.  Some did great work, but they were not in St. Peter's.  Money and power are corrupting for sure. 

[teflep]

Jan 30, 2013 10:12:42 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

2curly, I wonder if Jane had any real thoughts in either direction.

I'm going to go with no, if she knew what was good for her.

[2curlydogs]

Jan 30, 2013 10:14:07 GMT -5 teflep said:

Jan 30, 2013 10:12:42 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

2curly, I wonder if Jane had any real thoughts in either direction.

I'm going to go with no, if she knew what was good for her.

Yeah, it's hard to tell.  From what little we know of her private interaction with Henry - I'm thinking of her, for example, trying to intervene on Princess Mary's behalf - it could have been motivated for reasons of religion or just kindness of character.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2013 10:14:07 GMT -5 teflep said:

Jan 30, 2013 10:12:42 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

2curly, I wonder if Jane had any real thoughts in either direction.

I'm going to go with no, if she knew what was good for her.

HA! Pretty much.

I think Jane is the only one of Henry's wives we don't really have a good read on. I suppose it was because she set right to work on that whole heir thing and then kicked the bucket. 

Although, to form such a close relationship with Mary, if she had any reformer leanings, she must have kept that shit on lockdown.

[teflep]

Jan 30, 2013 10:32:44 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jan 30, 2013 5:31:31 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Because smock felt it necessary to bring up just how "liberal" the Church was in the Middle Ages.

And yes, there was corruption and will always be corruption because men sin....Pope or not.   

Smock was clearly presenting that as a teaser in a "have I got a story for you!" tone. Furthermore, several posters here have been discussing their love of history when it is presented through stories and character sketches... the way this entire post has been, the way Smock was doing.

You are being unnecessarily combative and belligerent in what has been a fun post on history, not a manifesto of anti-Catholic commentary.

To be fair, it is not always like this so I get some defensiveness. Plus, being Catholic even makes me a little annoyed when I think back to this time in history. My faith could have done so much more, so much better, but greed often prevailed in Rome. It can be a hard pill to swallow.

[Deleted]

Personally, a black female, I would be hard pressed to hold anyone's ancient history against the current believers/practitioners unless that ideology was apart of the current church/nation/ethnicity's make up.

No one has clean hands. It would be a silly expectation.

But also admit that I often tend to think that it's society that often dictates religion and not vice versa.

[smock]

There's a new book on Henry's divorce that focuses on what was happening at Clement's court, for those who are interested. It's called The Divorce of Henry VIII: The Untold Story from Inside the Vatican by Catherine Fletcher.

I haven't read it myself, but it sounds interesting! It's about Henry's diplomat in Rome and the behind-the-scenes negotiating with the church.

[2curlydogs]

Jan 30, 2013 10:52:39 GMT -5 smock said:

There's a new book on Henry's divorce that focuses on what was happening at Clement's court, for those who are interested. It's called The Divorce of Henry VIII: The Untold Story from Inside the Vatican by Catherine Fletcher.

I haven't read it myself, but it sounds interesting! It's about Henry's diplomat in Rome and the behind-the-scenes negotiating with the church.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand, added to my Goodreads list.  I love detailed studies like this.  It was part of what made Basilica so fascinating.

ETA: I need to read David Starkey's "Henry: Virtuous Prince" once of these days.

[eclaires]

Ahhhhhhhh, so need to get that. I need a new book to read, anyhow. Also, I think those of us interested in this need to have a Tudor time period book club, lol.

[2curlydogs]

Jan 30, 2013 11:31:35 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

Jan 30, 2013 10:57:07 GMT -5 2curlydogs said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand, added to my Goodreads list.  I love detailed studies like this.  It was part of what made Basilica so fascinating.

ETA: I need to read David Starkey's "Henry: Virtuous Prince" once of these days.

i so want to look at your goodreads list now.

PM me.  My real name is on it, or I'd link everyone to it.

[sydney02]

Regarding Henry, there is a lot of conflict in what I've read about him being the founder of the Episcopal church. From Episcopal.org, it states that Henry founded the Church of England, however wanted England to remain Catholic. Which is why he was the "Defender of the Faith".

In our church, when you are going through the confirmation classes, the correct answer to who started the Episcopal church is Jesus. 


Yet he's credited in so many areas with being the founder of the Episcopal church. Would this meme "In the church started by a man...." be accurate? I don't know how to post a pic. The meme is in the link below.

lifeondoverbeach.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/the-episcopal-church/

[2curlydogs]

Jan 30, 2013 14:16:03 GMT -5 sydney02 said:

Regarding Henry, there is a lot of conflict in what I've read about him being the founder of the Episcopal church. From Episcopal.org, it states that Henry founded the Church of England, however wanted England to remain Catholic. Which is why he was the "Defender of the Faith".

In our church, when you are going through the confirmation classes, the correct answer to who started the Episcopal church is Jesus. 


Yet he's credited in so many areas with being the founder of the Episcopal church. Would this meme "In the church started by a man...." be accurate? I don't know how to post a pic. The meme is in the link below.

lifeondoverbeach.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/the-episcopal-church/

To the bolded - Yeah, no. Like I had said, Henry was given that title by Pope Clement as a "thank you" for his response to Martin Luther's "95 Theses".  Then, after the split, the monarchy just kept it.

He was, however, a traditionalist at heart.  His version of the Church of England was essentially Catholicism (see his Six Articles) with himself as the head of the Church and the pope merely Bishop of Rome.  And this was a very politically-based decision (with a fair amount of his own egomania thrown in), not a theological one.

Same thing with the Dissolution - it was politically and financially motivated.  Cromwell - who was a hot reformer - just put the gloss of closing down these 'houses of iniquity' as a mostly faux rationale (there was corruption within the monastic system, but not nearly to the extent that it was portrayed...and monasticism was largely dying anywhere).

[sydney02]

Jan 30, 2013 10:52:00 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

But also admit that I often tend to think that it's society that often dictates religion and not vice versa.

I agree. This is what I mentioned earlier. That churches tend to reflect the populace of the area they are located. Not the other way around.

Which is why I did find it....strange, that when searching for the most liberal church I could find, everything pointed back to Lutheran or Episcopal, the first two Protestant churches. I was expecting to find some newer denomination or a non-denominational that was accepting of gay people but that wasn't the case. 

[Deleted]

Henry was the founder of the Anglican church but not the founder of the Anglican faith, if that makes sense.

And at the risk of repeating myself, neither the Lutherans nor the Episcopalians have been traditionally liberal and as others have said, there is more to being a liberal church than one's stance on gay marriage.

This is where my frustration comes and why I keep telling you to read some books on the topic. You keep positing completely wrong information, saying you're merely asking questions, and then repeating wrong information in the form of a lecture.

[sydney02]

Jan 30, 2013 14:27:11 GMT -5 2curlydogs said:

Jan 30, 2013 14:16:03 GMT -5 sydney02 said:

Regarding Henry, there is a lot of conflict in what I've read about him being the founder of the Episcopal church. From Episcopal.org, it states that Henry founded the Church of England, however wanted England to remain Catholic. Which is why he was the "Defender of the Faith".

In our church, when you are going through the confirmation classes, the correct answer to who started the Episcopal church is Jesus. 


Yet he's credited in so many areas with being the founder of the Episcopal church. Would this meme "In the church started by a man...." be accurate? I don't know how to post a pic. The meme is in the link below.

lifeondoverbeach.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/the-episcopal-church/

To the bolded - Yeah, no. Like I had said, Henry was given that title by Pope Clement as a "thank you" for his response to Martin Luther's "95 Theses".  Then, after the split, the monarchy just kept it.

He was, however, a traditionalist at heart.  His version of the Church of England was essentially Catholicism (see his Six Articles) with himself as the head of the Church and the pope merely Bishop of Rome.  And this was a very politically-based decision (with a fair amount of his own egomania thrown in), not a theological one.

Same thing with the Dissolution - it was politically and financially motivated.  Cromwell - who was a hot reformer - just put the gloss of closing down these 'houses of iniquity' as a mostly faux rationale (there was corruption within the monastic system, but not nearly to the extent that it was portrayed...and monasticism was largely dying anywhere).

When I began attending the Episcopal church a couple of years ago, I had no idea how much controversy there was from a political standpoint. When you are doing the confirmation classes, the church touches on these issues but most of the teachings are from the theological standpoint. So to get to the truth, there needs to be a lot of digging and it's very hard to find information that is not biased.

Plus factor in all of the misinformation such as the Catholic church wanting to defend the sanctity of marriage so much that they denied Henry his divorce. So then he said "Screw you" and started his own church. When that's not really how it was at all. While I'll admit I don't have quite the passion for this time in history that you all do, I do love history, and when I do read it, I want to be reading the truth. Not someone's biased interpretation of what they think the truth is. And unfortunately, that's a lot of what is out there. Finding the truth on the origins of Christianity requires finding a source that is not religious based, crazy as that sounds.

[2curlydogs]

Jan 30, 2013 15:33:59 GMT -5 sydney02 said:

While I'll admit I don't have quite the passion for this time in history that you all do, I do love history, and when I do read it, I want to be reading the truth. Not someone's biased interpretation of what they think the truth is. And unfortunately, that's a lot of what is out there. Finding the truth on the origins of Christianity requires finding a source that is not religious based, crazy as that sounds.

Except I think discounting religious sources altogether also limits your viewpoint.  Just because the source is religious or spiritual doesn't mean it can't be objective.

Screw it. When my "Hour of Development Power" is over (I've got two bloody templates to convert and then I'm DONE! MUAAHAHAHAHAAAA), I'm going to post my recommended reading list.  eclaires mentioned something like a Tudor book club, so it'll be like that, but broader.  Others can obviously feel free to contribute.