Posted on 04/22/2009 11:16:36 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
... Every half-millennium or so an event occurs in our history that changes the basis of society. The Romans come, the Romans go. The Normans come; and between their arrival in 1066 and the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 there is one seismic event after which society sets off (after a false start or two) on an entirely new course: the Reformation in England. When the Convocation of Canterbury of the Church in England agreed in March 1531 to accede to Henry's demands about church governance that included the clergy's recognition of him as head of the English church, it also triggered a process of such profound economic and political change that even today there is still dispute about the extent of the consequences. Let me add my three ha'porth: without the Reformation we would not have had what Seeley called "the expansion of England", we would not have had a middle class educated and powerful enough to initiate the industrial revolution, we would not have had the empire we did, and would not have had the land and sea power that kept us free from invasion and foreign influence: not to mention the theological consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Tell me, Romulus, what is the difference between what Christ saw in the temple of Jerusalem when he drove out the money changers profiting on animal sacrifices during the Passover and what Martin Luther saw when he went to Rome and saw indulgences being sold at the behest of Leo X? I see a lot of similarities...
“whereas the Catholic countries were treating false ideas (Earth is the center of the solar system) as dogma, and therefore those who challenged these ideas were either tortured, imprisoned, or put to death.”
The first part reminds me of Global Warming.
England??? Leading the way??? WHAT history are you reading?? Certainly not planet earth's. The countries "leading the way" were Catholic (Spain, Portugal and France). The main PROTESTANT country in the effort was Holland. England was completely a "Johnny come lately" to the field (see "America--discovery of").
“The Albigenses certainly shouldn’t have been crusaded against. But they were not forerunners of todays fundamanalists or evangelicals.
In fact, they were gnostics and Manicheans, not Christians by any logical use of the term. They had a great many doctrines wildly at variance with the Bible and Protestantism.”
NOBODY should have been crusaded against, by any church that calls itself Christian! JesuNEVER commanded us to saughter people.
As for the Albigenses, heresy was only attributed to them in order to kill them, because their way of life was seen as a threat by the Vatican. They were not Manichean or Gnostic. They practiced a pure Christian life that was a judgement against the paganism of the dark and middle ages. It was the established church that was heretical. That’s why the Reformation.
Sorry I clipped the “s” off of the name of Jesus! Typo
I’m going to preview my posts after this. It’s “slaughter”, not saughter.
Seems to me to be a great argument for keeping government out of religion and religion out of government.
Sorry, but you are wildly in error with regard to the Albigenses. Certainly lies were told about their practices and beliefs, but the facts are sufficient to show that they were not Christians. Perhaps the most obvious being their beliefs that the God of the OT was actually Satan and that the material world and everything in it is inherently evil. It seems fairly obvious that they were heavily influenced, perhaps indirectly thru Manichaenism, by eastern religions such as Buddhism.
Possibly you are confusing them with the Waldenses and other groups in the same general area at the time and later who were indeed forerunners of Protestantism. These groups were also persecuted violently by the Church.
1600 - rough parity between the world’s major civilizations: Islam, India, China, Europe.
1800 - Europe was far in advance, as the others had remained about where they were in 1600.
By 1800 England, by that time the UK, was indeed the leading nation, and they continued to widen that lead during the 19th century. Well, until near the end when Germany and the USA came on like gangbusters.
I think what you said is what I mean when I tell people that I pray God confound the godless Marxists. Only His power and might can take the evil they do and use it for His Purposes and Glory. God be praised!
“the facts are sufficient to show that they were not Christians.”
No facts that I know of. How about you? If they were not Christians, then their exemplary lives would not have been a threat to the Vatican’s stronghold on religion and society itself. Their communites were bright spots of learning, productivity, morality and loyalty to the civil authorities.
But because that was true in a Europe of immorality and superstition, and because the Albigenses were spreading their doctrine through missionary efforts, the Popes felt that their establishment system was threatened.
All I can suggest is that you do a little research on the Albigenses/Cathars and their beliefs.
You seem to think that only Christians can lead virtuous lives. This is quite in conflict with Scripture and with the various Church Fathers, all of whom assumed pagans and others could lead and had led such lives.
What Christianity teaches is that even the most virtuous life is ultimately futile. Without faith in Christ it will not lead to anything ultimately beneficial. True Christians are not so arrogant as to assume that only Christians can lead virtuous, even holy, lives.
“His basic motivation was what he felt to be the absolute need for a legitimate male heir. “
While it is no doubt true he wished for a male heir, it was the Catholic Church favoritism of Spain over England that sealed the deal.
Henry did what he had to do to save England, and by doing so, centralized power devolved from Rome, giving rise to the nation state out of necessity.
Removing central political power from Rome was the best thing for western civilization, I don’t think many Catholics would disagree. Rome screwed themselves politically on that score, and thank goodness for it.
Actually, Rome never had all that much political power, certainly not by the time in question.
It was the very fact that Rome really wasn’t all that politically powerful that made its control over issues involving the critical succession so intolerable to many Englishmen.
Why should they submit their country’s future peace so tamely to the control of such a powerless foreign power?
Every Catholic country throughout history has specialized in corruption, filth, superstition and ignorance. Whenever real Christianity poked its head up, the Popes shot it down.
As for paganism, the Catholic church has embodied that ever since Constantine and Sylvester invited the pagans to flock into the church with their idols.
Lovely sentiments.
Here are some of the names Catholicism has called Christians:
Cathars
Novatians
Prisciliannists
Paulicians
Thonraks
Bogomils
Bulgarians
Patarenes
Albigenses
Nazarenes
Nestorians
Petrobrussians
Henricians
Good Men
Poor Men Of Lyons
Waldenses
Vaudois
Evangelie
Spirituali
Passagini
Josepini
Arnoldistae
Speronistae
Weavers
Beghards
Beghines
Brethren
The Poor In Life
Apostles
Anabaptists
Schwestrionen
The Poor
Hussites
Taborites
Moravians
Utraquists
Calextines
Bohemian Brethren
Jednota Bratrska
Unita Fratrum
Mennonites
Mennonite Brethren
Lollards
Wycliffites
Picards
Corner-Preachers
Deceivers
Heretics
Bush Preachers
Sectaries
Hutists
Gospellers
Those Of The Religion
Huguenots
Independents
Congregationalists
Baptists
Brownists
Prebyterians
Particular Baptists
Quakers
Shakers
Friends
Evangelicals
Pietists
Spenerites
Quietists
Methodists
Stonettes
Campbellites
Disciples
Churches of Christ
Stundists
Plymouth Brethren Exclusives
Open Brethren
Culdees
Funndamentalists
Evangelicals
Holy Rollers
Dunkers
Meanwhile it calls itself “Christian”.
I presume you had a typo and you believe that Catholicism has called this list “non-Christian.”
You could probably add others, like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.
A good many of the groups you list would not be considered Christian by most Protestants.
That Catholicism opposed or persecuted a group does not automatically mean that group is NOT heretical by objective analysis.
I can see that you are not interested in politically incorrect reports; history that the Catholic propaganda machine has not “revised”.
I am perfectly willing to admit that the Church tampered with much history. However, their ability to do so dropped off dramatically in recent centuries, and is essentially non-existent today. Modern research today relies largely on original documents that flew well below the Church’s radar.
If you reject all historical documents from before, say, 1500, how do you decide anything about that era? Or do you just operate on the assumption that anybody who got crosswise with the Church were just Southern Baptists before their time?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.