What's your religion?

[Erc]

Presbyterian / U.C.C. myself.

Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestant by the quiz, what a surprise.

[Banana Republic]

CofE

[??????????]

CofE

The heretic church.

[Gabu]

CofE

The heretic church.

OMG BURN HIM

[Banana Republic]

CofE

The heretic church.

Thanks, I'm sorry I provoked you , twat

[??????????]

CofE

The heretic church.

Thanks, I'm sorry I provoked you , twat

My point is that the Church of England was founded in sin. The sins of Henry VIII. His belief that he had the RIGHT to divorce is more of his own vanity then any belief in true scripture. He was like the kid who never got what he wanted and got pissed and said, "I'm taking my ball and going home."

[ilikeverin]

Let's see if I can make a name of what my religion really is

Umm... let's see, Christian, Agnostic, Deist, New Age...

New Chrignosist!  Chrignosist Age!  Ageistian Age!  New Deinotian!

If you really want to get specific, substitute 'Astrology' for 'New Age' and you can get Astrochrignosist, Chrignosistology, Ageistianology, or Astrodeinotian

Here's the OFISHAL SURVAY:
0.      CHRIGNOSISTOLOGY! (2983749837%)
1.    Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants  (100%)
2.    Liberal Quakers (88%)
3.    Unitarian Universalism (83%)
4.    Reform Judaism (79%)
5.    Orthodox Quaker (71%)
6.    Bahá'í Faith (60%)
7.    Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (60%)
8.    Neo-Pagan (57%)
9.    Seventh Day Adventist (57%)
10.    Sikhism (56%)
11.    Orthodox Judaism (55%)
12.    New Age (55%)
13.    Eastern Orthodox (55%)
14.    Roman Catholic (55%)
15.    Secular Humanism (53%)
16.    Mahayana Buddhism (52%)
17.    Islam (51%)
18.    Theravada Buddhism (50%)
19.    New Thought (47%)
20.    Scientology (47%)
21.    Hinduism (39%)
22.    Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (37%)
23.    Jainism (37%)
24.    Nontheist (36%)
25.    Taoism (36%)
26.    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (33%)
27.    Jehovah's Witness (23%)

[Beet]

I'm converting to CHRIGNOSISTOLOGY!

[ilikeverin]

I'm converting to CHRIGNOSISTOLOGY!

I HAVE A CONVERT!

[Emsworth]

My point is that the Church of England was founded in sin. The sins of Henry VIII. His belief that he had the RIGHT to divorce is more of his own vanity then any belief in true scripture. He was like the kid who never got what he wanted and got pissed and said, "I'm taking my ball and going home."

I think it would be naive to suggest that Pope Clement VII acted from the purest of motives. His decision to deny Henry VIII an annulment was partially based, no doubt, in his fear of the Holy Roman Emperor. There were, after all, theological doubts relating to the validity of Henry's marriage to Catherine; she had previously been married to Henry's elder brother, Arthur.

[Peter]

I think it would be naive to suggest that Pope Clement VII acted from the purest of motives. His decision to deny Henry VIII an annulment was partially based, no doubt, in his fear of the Holy Roman Emperor. There were, after all, theological doubts relating to the validity of Henry's marriage to Catherine; she had previously been married to Henry's elder brother, Arthur.

I was under the impression Henry had to seek special Papal dispensation to marry Catherine, so how he could then turn around and claim some years later his marriage was annullable on the basis it was doctrinally invalid is beyond me.

[Emsworth]

I think it would be naive to suggest that Pope Clement VII acted from the purest of motives. His decision to deny Henry VIII an annulment was partially based, no doubt, in his fear of the Holy Roman Emperor. There were, after all, theological doubts relating to the validity of Henry's marriage to Catherine; she had previously been married to Henry's elder brother, Arthur.

I was under the impression Henry had to seek special Papal dispensation to marry Catherine, so how he could then turn around and claim some years later his marriage was annullable on the basis it was doctrinally invalid is beyond me.

Pope Julius II did grant a papal dispensation, but there were some complications. The Pope first granted the dispensation in a private brief, but later did so again in a bull; I understand, moreover, that it was charged that the dispensation was illegally obtained in the first place.

[??????????]

I think it would be naive to suggest that Pope Clement VII acted from the purest of motives. His decision to deny Henry VIII an annulment was partially based, no doubt, in his fear of the Holy Roman Emperor. There were, after all, theological doubts relating to the validity of Henry's marriage to Catherine; she had previously been married to Henry's elder brother, Arthur.

I was under the impression Henry had to seek special Papal dispensation to marry Catherine, so how he could then turn around and claim some years later his marriage was annullable on the basis it was doctrinally invalid is beyond me.

Pope Julius II did grant a papal dispensation, but there were some complications. The Pope first granted the dispensation in a private brief, but later did so again in a bull; I understand, moreover, that it was charged that the dispensation was illegally obtained in the first place.

I'm not to keen on English history Pete and Em so thanks for giving me more info about it.

[J. J.]

CofE

The heretic church.

Thanks, I'm sorry I provoked you , twat

My point is that the Church of England was founded in sin. The sins of Henry VIII. His belief that he had the RIGHT to divorce is more of his own vanity then any belief in true scripture. He was like the kid who never got what he wanted and got pissed and said, "I'm taking my ball and going home."

You've missed another factor.  England had just had a civil war and Henry's claim on the throne was very weak.  Without an heir, the country could have very easily slipped back into one.  It was more of a (wise) political decision and a (good) economic one, as the "Peter's Pence" was draining money from the economy.

Aside from legitmate theolgical reasons, as Emsworth pointed out, there were political ones.  Rome had just been taken by the Most Catholic King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, who's (most Lutheran) German troops looted and desecrated numereous Churches, raped nuns, killed numerous priests as well as killing off the entire Swiss Guard, and had taken the Pope prisoner.  Catharine of Aragon had another name for Charles V, "Uncle Charlie."

Politically, the Pope could not act, at least not without losing his tiara and the head underneath it.

Actually, there were other examples of Papal annulments.  The King of France, Louis XII, married Jeanne of Valois, who proved to be barren.  A Papal annulment was granted.  Jeanne was later cannonized, showing there were no moral grounds for the annulment. 

Interestingly, the pope that finally ruled against Henry VIII, was Paul III, who fathered four illegitimate children.  :-)  BTW my source for that was:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0220.htm

States, is the the "Old Time Religion" you wish to return to?

[Emsworth]

You've missed another factor.  England had just had a civil war and Henry's claim on the throne was very weak.

I am afraid that I must contradict this point of view. Henry VIII's father, Henry VII, did indeed have a very weak claim on the throne due to a potentially illegitimate lineage. Henry VII, however, consoldiated his position admirably well; his son had no succession problems at all.

However, you are absolutely correct that there were political reasons. If Henry VIII did not produce an heir, succession questions would indeed have been raised. The issue of papal revenue (first fruits, Peter's Pence, etc.) was certainly an important one. 

[J. J.]

You've missed another factor.  England had just had a civil war and Henry's claim on the throne was very weak.

I am afraid that I must contradict this point of view. Henry VIII's father, Henry VII, did indeed have a very weak claim on the throne due to a potentially illegitimate lineage. Henry VII, however, consoldiated his position admirably well; his son had no succession problems at all.

I'm referring more to the dynastic claims, as evidenced that in 70 years, there were no more Tudors.  Even with two surviving direct children, Edward VI's death set off a fairly large succession problem, with rival claims being fought over.

It was imperative that their be male succession, from the country's viewpoint.  It wasn't a matter of sin, but a matter of state. 

[Emsworth]

It was imperative that their be male succession, from the country's viewpoint.  It wasn't a matter of sin, but a matter of state. 

I absolutely agree; I was just disagreeing, perhaps pedantically, on the point that Henry VIII's own claim was insecure.

[MasterJedi]

I'm Catholic