Anglicanism a reformation view

[MoreCoffee]

(continuation)

I hasten to pass on to the Sacraments. None, none, not two, not one, O holy Christ, have they left. Their bread is poison; and as for their baptism, though it is still true baptism, nevertheless in their judgment it is nothing, it is not a wave of salvation, it is not a channel of grace, it does not apply to us the merits of Christ, it is a mere token of salvation (Calvin, Instit. iv. 15). Thus they have made no more of the baptism of Christ, so far as the nature of the thing goes, than of the ceremony of John. If you have it, it is well; if you go without it, there is no loss suffered; believe, you are saved, before you are washed. What then of infants, who, unless they are aided by the virtue of the Sacrament, poor little things, gain nothing by any faith of their own? Rather than allow anything to the Sacrament of baptism, say the Magdeburg Centuriators (Cent. v. 4.), let us grant that there is faith in the infants themselves, enough to save them; and that the said babies are aware of certain secret stirrings of this faith, albeit they are not yet aware whether they are alive or not. A hard nut to crack! If this is so very hard, listen to Luther’s remedy. It is better, he says (Advers. Cochl.), to omit the baptism; since, unless the infant believes, to no purpose is it washed. This is what they say, doubtful in mind what absolutely to affirm. Therefore let Balthasar Pacimontanus step in to sort the votes. This father of the Anabaptists, unable to assign to infants any stirring of faith, approved Luther’s suggestion; and, casting infant baptism out of the churches, resolved to wash at the sacred font none who was not grown up. For the rest of the Sacraments, though that many headed beast utters many insults, yet, seeing that they are now of daily occurrence, and our ears have grown callous to them, I here pass them over.

There remain the sayings of the heretics concerning life and morals, the noxious goblets which Luther has vomited on his pages, that out of the filthy hovel of his one breast he might breathe pestilence upon his readers. Listen patiently, and blush, and pardon me the recital. If the wife will not, or cannot, let the handmaid come (Serm. de matrimon.); seeing that commerce with a wife is as necessary to every man as food, drink, and sleep. Matrimony is much more excellent than virginity. Christ and Paul dissuaded men from virginity (Liber de vot. evangel.). But perhaps these doctrines are peculiar to Luther. They are not. They have been lately defended by my friend Chark but miserably and timidly. Do you wish to hear any more? Certainly. The more wicked you, are, he says, the nearer you are to grace (Serm. de. pisc. Petri). All good actions are sins, in God’s judgment, mortal sins; in God’s mercy, venial. No one thinks evil of his own will. The Ten Commandments are nothing to Christians. God cares nought at all about our works. They alone rightly partake of the Lord’s Supper, who bury consciences sad, afflicted, troubled, confused, erring. Sins are to be confessed, but to anyone you like; and if he absolves you even in joke, provided you believe, you are absolved. To read the Hours of the Divine Office is not the function of priests, but of laymen. Christians are free from the enactments of men (Luther, De servo arbitrio, De captivilate Babylon).

I think I have stirred up this puddle sufficiently. I now finish. Nor must you think me unfair for having turned my argument against Lutherans and Zwinglians indiscriminately. For, remembering their common parentage, they wish to be brothers and friends to one another; and they take it as a grave affront, whenever any distinction is drawn between them in any point but one. I am not of consequence enough to claim for myself so much as an undistinguished place among the select theologians who at this day have declared war on heresies: but this I know, that, puny as I am, I run no risk while, supported by the grace of Christ, I shall do battle, with the aid of heaven and earth, against such fabrications as these, so odious, so tasteless, so stupid.

Saint Edmund Campion - Martyred in 1581 at the command of Elizabeth I of England.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Albion (Post #11):

...and shame on anyone who would borrow such a hate-filled message, making it his own, and posting it at Christmas time when other members here are extending messages of good will towards all Christians.

MoreCoffee (Post #12):

Seems to me that Saint Edmund Campion - executed at Elizabeth's order, martyr for the faith of Jesus Christ - was the one who was victim of the haters because he was the one murdered at the hand of the state by the head of the church of England in 1581 AD.

Does the timing of his execution have anything to do with Christmas? … No. Maybe Albion has a point.

==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================

Albion (Post #13):

So what? It's off topic for one thing. Plus, you deliberately posted the hate-filled writings of this minor figure in history in order to attack another Christian church. That's the fact whether Edmund was a martyr, as you want to see him, or just another politician who bet on the wrong party and suffered the consequences usually meted out by both Catholic and Protestant governments in those days for the crime of treason.

MoreCoffee (Post #15):

Yes, well, that is just blather - repeated Anglican propaganda to excuse killing Catholics in the 16th century.

Doesn’t history show that for hundreds of years before that, the Church of Rome had been torturing and murdering people in their hundreds and thousands (hundreds of thousands?) over time? – people whose only “crime” was wanting to worship God in spirit and in truth? – people who did not feel comfortable being confined within a corrupt political entity such as that “church” was?

Weren’t the Romish persecutions continuing in parallel with the “killing Catholics in the 16th century”?

The demonstrated imbalance of perception is regrettable, official until recent times, undeniably typical, and it would seem unofficially still encouraged.

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee (Post #15):


Doesn’t history show that for hundreds of years before that, the Church of Rome had been torturing and murdering people in their hundreds and thousands (hundreds of thousands?) over time? – people whose only “crime” was wanting to worship God in spirit and in truth? – people who did not feel comfortable being confined within a corrupt political entity such as that “church” was?

No. Your numbers are grossly exaggerated. And no, Catholic Church bishops and priests were not the civil authority in England but under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I the King/Queen was the head of the "Church of England" and hence directly responsible for the persecution of Catholics and their martyrdom.

It is true that a number of people were killed because they were found to be heretics in England under Catholic monarchs but it was the civil authority and not the Catholic Church that both decided and administered the punishment for heresy. The Catholic Church tried heretics to determine of they taught heresy and then the guilty were handed over to the state to be punished.

Weren’t the Romish

What's Romish?

persecutions continuing in parallel with the “killing Catholics in the 16th century”?

The demonstrated imbalance of perception is regrettable, official until recent times, undeniably typical, and it would seem unofficially still encouraged.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sophism

NINTH REASON
SOPHISM

It is a shrewd saying that a one-eyed man may be king among the blind. With uneducated people a mock-proof has force which a school of philosophers dismisses with scorn. Many are the offences of the adversary under this head; but his case is made out by four fallacies chiefly, fallacies which I would rather unravel in the University than in a popular audience. The first vice is [Greek: skiamachia], with mighty effort hammering at breezes and shadows. In this way: against such as have sworn to celibacy and vowed chastity, because, while marriage is good, virginity is better (1 Cor. vii.), Scripture texts are brought up speaking honourably of marriage. Whom do they hit? Against the merit of a Christian man, a merit dyed in the Blood of Christ, otherwise null, testimonies are alleged whereby we are bidden to put our trust neither in nature nor in the law, but in the Blood of Christ. Whom do they refute? Against those who worship Saints, as Christ’s servants, especially acceptable to Him, whole pages are quoted, forbidding the worship of many gods? Where are these many gods? By such arguments, which I find in endless quantity in the writings of heretics, they cannot hurt us, they may bore you.

Another vice is [Greek: logomachia], which leaves the sense, and wrangles loquaciously over the word. Find me Mass or Purgatory in the Scriptures, they say. What then? Trinity, Consubstantial, Person, are they nowhere in the Bible, because these words are not found? Allied to this fault is the catching at letters, when, to the neglect of usage and the mind of the speakers, war is waged on the letters of the alphabet. For instance, thus they say: Presbyter to the Greeks means nothing else than elder; Sacrament, any mystery. On this, as on all other points, St. Thomas shrewdly observes: “In words, we must look not whence they are derived, but to what meaning they are put.”

The third vice is [Greek: homonumia], which has a very wide range. For example: What is the meaning of an Order of Priests, when John has called us all priests? (Apoc. v. 10). He has also added this: we shall reign upon the earth. What then is the use of Kings? Again: the Prophet (Isaias lviii.) cries up a spiritual fast, that is, abstinence from inveterate crimes. Farewell then to any discernment of meats and prescription of days. Indeed? Mad therefore were Moses, David, Elias, the Baptist, the Apostles, who terminated their fasts in two days, three days, or in so many weeks, which fasting, being from sin, ought to have been perpetual. You have already seen what manner of argument this is. I hasten on.

Added to the above is a fourth vice, Vicious Circle, in this way. Give me the notes, I say, of the Church. The word of God and undefiled Sacraments. Are these with you? Who can doubt it? I do, I deny it utterly. Consult the word of God. I have consulted it, and I favour you less than before. Ah, but it is plain. Prove it to me. Because we do not depart a nail’s breadth from the word of God. Where is your persecution? Will you always go on taking for an argument the very point that is called in question? How often have I insisted on this already? Do wake up: do you want torches applied to you? I say that your exposition of the word of God is perverse and mistaken: I have fifteen centuries to bear me witness stand by an opinion, not mine, nor yours, but that of all these ages. I will stand by the sentence of the word of God: the Spirit breatheth where it will (John iii. 8). There he is at it again; what circumlocutions, what wheels he is making! This trifler, this arch-contriver of words and sophisms, I know not to whom he can be formidable: tiresome he possibly will be. His tiresomeness will find its corrective in your sagacity: all that was formidable about him facts have taken away.

Saint Edmund Campion - executed for the Faith of the saints in 1581 by Elizabeth I of England, persecutor of Christians.

 

[MoreCoffee]

TENTH REASON
ALL MANNER OF WITNESS
This shall be to you a straight way, so that fools shall not go astray in it (Isaias xxxv. 8).
Who is there, however small and lost in the crowd of illiterates, that, with a desire of salvation and some little attention, cannot see, cannot keep to the path of the Church, so admirably smoothed out, eschewing brambles and rocks and pathless wastes! For, as Isaias prophesies, this path shall be plain even to the uneducated; most plain therefore, if you choose, to you. Let us put before our eyes the theatre of the universe: let us wander everywhere: all things supply us with an argument. Let us go to heaven: let us contemplate roses and lilies, Saints empurpled with martyrdom or white with innocence: Roman Pontiffs, I say, three and thirty in a continuous line put to death: Pastors all the world over, who have pledged their blood for the name of Christ: Flocks of faithful, who have followed in the footsteps of their Pastors: all the Saints of heaven, who as shining lights in purity and holiness have gone before the crowd of mankind. You will find that these were ours when they lived on earth, ours when they passed away from this world. To cull a few instances, ours was that Ignatius, who in church matters put no one not even the Emperor, on a level with the Bishop; who committed to writing, that they might not be lost, certain Apostolic traditions of which he himself had been witness. Ours was that anchoret Telesphorus, who ordered the more strict observance of the fast of Lent established by the Apostles. Ours was Irenaeus, who declared the Apostolic faith by the Roman succession and chair (lib. iii. cap. 3). Ours was Pope Victor, who by an edict brought to order the whole of Asia; and though this proceeding seemed to some minds, and even to that holy man Irenaeus, somewhat harsh, yet no one made light of it as coming from a foreign power. Ours was Polycarp, who went to Rome on the question of Easter, whose burnt relics Smyrna gathered, and honoured her Bishop with an anniversary feast and appointed ceremony. Ours were Cornelius and Cyprian, a golden pair of Martyrs, both great Bishops, but greater he, the Roman, who had rescinded the African error; while the latter was ennobled by the obedience which he paid to the elder, his very dear friend. Ours was Sixtus, to whom, as he offered solemn sacrifice at the altar, seven men of the clergy ministered. Ours was his Archdeacon Lawrence, whom the adversaries cast out of their calendar, to whom, twelve hundred years ago, the Consular man Prudentius thus prayed:
What is the power entrusted thee,
And how great function is given thee,
The joyful thanks of Roman citizens prove,
To whom thou grantest their petitions.
Among them, O glory of Christ,
Hear also a rustic poet,
Confessing the crimes of his heart
And publishing his doings.
Hear bountifully the supplication
Of Christ’s culprit Prudentius.

Ours are those highly-blest maids, Cecily, Agatha, Anastasia, Barbara, Agnes, Lucy, Dorothy, Catherine, who held fast against the violent assault of men and devils the virginity they had resolved upon. Ours was Helen, celebrated for the finding of the Lord’s Cross. Ours was Monica, who in death most piously begged prayers and sacrifices to be offered for her at the altar of Christ. Ours was Paula, who, leaving her City palace and her rich estates, hastened on a long journey a pilgrim to the cave at Bethlehem, to hide herself by the cradle of the Infant Christ. Ours were Paul, Hilarion, Antony, those dear ancient solitaries. Ours was Satyrus, own brother to Ambrose, who, when shipwrecked, jumped into the ocean, carrying about his neck in a napkin the Sacred Host, and full of faith swam to shore (Ambrose, Orat. fun. de Satyro).

Ours are the Bishops Martin and Nicholas, exercised in watchings, clad in the military garb of hair cloths, fed with fasts. Ours is Benedict, father of so many monks. I should not run through their thousands in ten years. But neither do I set down those whom I mentioned before among the Doctors of the Church. I am mindful of the brevity imposed upon me. Whoever wills, may seek these further details, not only from the copious histories of the ancients, but even much more from the grave authors who have bequeathed to memory almost one man one Saint. Let the reader report to me his judgment concerning those ancient blessed Christians, to what doctrine they adhered, the Catholic or the Lutheran. I call to witness the throne of God, and that Tribunal at which I shall stand to render reason for these Reasons, of everything I have said and done, that either there is no heaven at all, or heaven belongs to our people. The former position we abhor, we fix therefore upon the latter.

(continued)

 

[MoreCoffee]

(continuation)

Now contrariwise, if you please, let us look into hell. There are burnt with everlasting fire, who? The Jews. On what Church have they turned their backs? On ours. Who again? The heathen. What Church have they most cruelly persecuted? Ours. Who again? The Turks. What temples have they destroyed? Ours. Who once more? Heretics. Against what Church are they in rebellion? Against ours. What Church but ours has opposed itself against all the gates of hell? When, after the driving away of the Hebrews, Christian inhabitants began to multiply at Jerusalem, what a concourse of men there was to the Holy Places, what veneration attached to the City, to the Sepulchre, to the Manger, to the Cross, to all the memorials in which the Church delights as a wife in what has been worn by her husband. Hence arose against us the hatred of the Jews, cruel and implacable. Even now they complain that our ancestors were the ruin of their ancestors. From Simon Magus and the Lutherans they have received no wound. Among the heathen, they were the most violent who, throughout the Roman Empire, for three hundred years, at intervals of time, contrived most painful punishments for Christians. What Christians? The fathers and children of our faith. Learn the language of the tyrant who roasted St. Lawrence on the gridiron:
That this is of your rites
The custom and practice, it has been handed down to memory:
This the discipline of the institution,
That priests pour libations from golden cups.
In silver goblets they say
That the sacred blood smokes;
And that in golden candlestick, at the nightly sacrifices,
There stand fixed waxen candles.
Then is it the chief care of the brethren,
As many-tongued report does testify,
To offer from the sale of estates,
Thousands of pence.
Ancestral property made over
To dishonest auctions,
The disinherited successor groans,
Needy child of holy parents.
These treasures are concealed in secret,
In corners of the churches;
And it is believed the height of piety
To strip your sweet children.
Bring out your treasures,
Which by evil arts of persuasion
You have heaped up and hold,
Which you shut up in darkling cave.
Public utility demands this,
The privy purse demands it, the treasury demands it,
That the soldiers may be paid for their services,
And the commander may benefit thereby.
This is your dogma, then:
Give every man his own.
Now Caesar recognises his own
Image, stamped on the coin.
What you know to be Caesar’s, to Caesar
Give; surely what I ask is just.
If I am not mistaken, your Deity
Coins no money,
Nor when he came did he bring
Golden Jacobuses[3] with him;
But he gave his precepts in words,
Empty in point of pocket.
Fulfil the promise of the words
Which you sell the round world over.
Give up your hard cash willingly,
Be rich in words.
(Prudentius, Hymn on St. Lawrence).
Whom does this speaker resemble. Against whom does he rage? What Church is it whose sacred vessels, lamps, and ornaments he is pillaging, whose ritual he overthrows? Whose golden patens and silver chalices, sumptuous votive offerings and rich treasure, does he envy? Why, the man is a Lutheran all over. With what other cloak did our Nimrods[4] cover their brigandage, when they embezzled the money of their Churches and wasted the patrimony of Christ? Take on the contrary Constantine the Great, that scourge of the persecutors of Christ, to what Church did he restore tranquillity? To that Church over which Pope Silvester presided, whom he summoned from his hiding-place on Mount Soracte that by his ministry he might receive our baptism. Under what auspices was he victorious? Under the sign of the cross. Of what mother was he the glorious son? Of Helen. To what Fathers did he attach himself? To the Fathers of Nice. What manner of men were they? Such men as Silvester, Mark, Julius, Athanasius, Nicholas. What seat did he ask for in the Synod? The last. Oh how much more kingly was he on that seat than the Kings who have ambitioned a title not due to them! It would be tedious to go into further details. But from these two [Emperors, Decius and Constantine], the one our deadly enemy, the other our warm friend, it may be left to the reader’s conjecture to fix on points of closest resemblance to the one and to the other in the history of our own times. For as it was our cause that went through its agony under Decius, so our cause it was that came out triumphant under Constantine.[5]
Let us look at the doings of the Turks. Mahomet and the apostate monk Sergius lie in the deep abyss, howling, laden with their own crimes and with those of their posterity. This portentous and savage monster, the power of the Saracens and the Turks, had it not been clipped and checked by our Military Orders, our Princes and Peoples,—so far as Luther was concerned (to whom Solyman the Turk is said to have written a letter of thanks on this account), and so far as the Lutheran Princes were concerned (by whom the progress of the Turks is reckoned matter of joy),—this frantic and man-destroying Fury, I say, by this time would be depopulating and devastating all Europe, overturning altars and signs of the cross as zealously as Calvin himself. Ours therefore they are, our proper foes, seeing that by the industry of our champions it was that their fangs were unfastened from the throats of Christians.

(continued)

 

[MoreCoffee]

(final continuation)

Let us look down on heretics, the filth and fans and fuel of hell[6] the first that meets our gaze is Simon Magus. What did he do? He endeavoured to snatch away free will from man: he prated of faith alone (Clen. lib. i. recog.; Iren. l. 1, c. 2). After him, Novatian. Who was he? An Anti-pope, rival to the Roman Pontiff Cornelius, an enemy of the Sacraments, of Penance and Chrism. Then Manes the Persian. He taught that baptism did not confer salvation. After him the Arian Aerius. He condemned prayers for the dead: he confounded priests with bishops, and was surnamed “the atheist” no less than Lucian. There follows Vigilantius, who would not have the Saints prayed to; and Jovinian, who put marriage on a level with virginity; finally, a whole mess of nastiness, Macedonius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Eutyches, the Monothelites, the Iconoclasts, to whom posterity will aggregate Luther and Calvin. What of them? All black crows,[7] born of the same egg, they revolted from the Prelates of our Church, and by, them were rejected and made void.

Let us leave the lower regions and return to earth. Wherever I cast my eyes and turn my thoughts, whether I regard the Patriarchates and the Apostolic Sees, or the Bishops of other lands, or meritorious Princes, Kings, and Emperors, or the origin of Christianity in any nation, or any evidence of antiquity, or light of reason, or beauty of virtue, all things serve and support our faith. I call to witness the Roman Succession, in which Church, to speak with Augustine (Ep. 162: Doctr. Christ. ii. 8), the Primacy of the Apostolic Chair has ever flourished. I call to witness those other Apostolic Sees, to which this name eminently belongs, because they were erected by the Apostles themselves, or by their immediate disciples. I call to witness the Pastors of the nations, separate in place, but united in our religion: Ignatius and Chrysostom at Antioch; Peter, Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, at Alexandria; Macarius and Cyril at Jerusalem; Proclus at Constantinople; Gregory and Basil in Cappadocia; Thaumaturgus in Pontus; at Smyrna Polycarp; Justin at Athens; Dionysius at Corinth; Gregory at Nyssa; Methodius at Tyre; Ephrem in Syria; Cyprian, Optatus, Augustine, in Africa; Epiphanius in Cyprus; Andrew in Crete; Ambrose, Paulinus, Gaudentius, Prosper, Faustus, Vigilius, in Italy; Irenaeus, Martin, Hilary, Eucherius, Gregory, Salvianus, in Gaul; Vincentus, Orosius, Ildephonsus, Leander, Isidore, in Spain; in Britain, Fugatius, Damian, Justus, Mellitus, Bede. Finally, not to appear to be making a vain display of names, whatever works, or fragments of works, are still extant of those who sowed the Gospel seed in distant lands, all exhibit to us one faith, that which we Catholics profess to-day. O Christ, what cause can I allege to Thee why Thou shouldst not banish me from Thine own, if to so many lights of the Church I should have preferred mannikins, dwellers in darkness, few, unlearned, split into sects, and of bad moral character!

I call to witness likewise Princes, Kings, Emperors, and their Commonwealths, whose own piety, and the people of their realms, and their established discipline in war and peace, were altogether founded on this our Catholic doctrine. What Theodosiuses here might I summon from the East, what Charleses from the West, what Edwards from England, what Louises from France, what Hermenegilds from Spain, Henries from Saxony, Wenceslauses from Bohemia, Leopolds from Austria, Stephens from Hungary, Josaphats from India, Dukes and Counts from all the world over, who by example, by arms, by laws, by loving care, by outlay of money, have nourished our Church! For so Isaias foretold: Kings shall be thy foster-fathers, and queens thy nurses (Isaias xlix. 23).

Listen, Elizabeth, most powerful Queen, for thee this great prophet utters this prophecy, and therein teaches thee thy part. I tell thee: one and the same heaven cannot hold Calvin and the Princes whom I have named. With these Princes then associate thyself, and so make thee worthy of thy ancestors, worthy of thy genius, worthy of thy excellence in letters, worthy of thy praises, worthy of thy fortune. To this effect alone do I labour about thy person, and will labour, whatever shall become of me, for whom these adversaries so often augur the gallows, as though I were an enemy of thy life. Hail, good Cross. There will come, Elizabeth, the day, that day which will show thee clearly which have loved thee, the Society of Jesus or the offspring of Luther.

I proceed. I call to witness all the coasts and regions of the world, to which the Gospel trumpet has sounded since the birth of Christ. Was this a little thing, to close the mouth of idols and carry the kingdom of God to the nations? Of Christ Luther speaks: we Catholics speak of Christ. Is Christ divided? (1 Cor. i. 13). By no means. Either we speak of a false Christ or he does. What then? I will say. Let Him be Christ, and belong to them, at whose coming in Dagon broke his neck. Our Christ was pleased to use the services of our men, when He banished from the hearts of so many peoples—Jupiters, Mercuries, Dianas, Phoebades, and that black night and sad Erebus of ages. There is no leisure to search afar off, let us examine only neighbouring and domestic history. The Irish imbibed from Patrick, the Scots from Palladius, the English from Augustine, men consecrated at Rome, sent from Rome, venerating Rome, either no faith at all or assuredly our faith, the Catholic faith. The case is clear. I hurry on.

Witness Universities, witness tables of laws, witness the domestic habits of men, witness the election and inauguration of Emperors, witness the coronation rites and anointing of Kings, witness the Orders of Knighthood and their very mantles, witness windows, witness coins, witness city gates and city houses, witness the labours and life of our ancestors, witness all things great and small, that no religion in the world but ours ever took deep root there.

These considerations being at hand to me, and so affecting me as I thought them over that it seemed the part of insolence, nay of insanity, to renounce all this Christian company and consort with the most abandoned of men, I confess, I felt animated and fired to the conflict, a conflict wherein I can never be worsted until it comes to the Saints being hurled from heaven and the proud Lucifer recovering heaven. Therefore let Chark, who reviles me so outrageously, be in better conceit with me, if I have preferred to trust this poor sinful soul of mine, which Christ has bought so dearly, rather to a safe way, a sure way, a royal road, than to Calvin’s rocks or woodland thickets, there to hang caught in uncertainty.

Saint Edmund Campion - Martyr (died 1581)

 

[Josiah]

.


The RC Denomination was born out of the State. The proto-denomination to the RCC, EOC and OOC was created by the Roman Empire - of, for and by the Roman Empire (it didn't exist outside the Empire), created by the Roman Empire in its own image. The Emperor called and lead the early Ecumenical Councils and the denomination was funded by the Empire. It was BORN out of the mandate of Church/State being one. True, as that Empire "fell", this very, very strong link largely desolved in the WEST (it continues to this day in some form in the East, as we see in the RUSSIAN Orthodox Church, the GREEK Orthodox Church, etc.).

What King Henry VIII did was simply return to the roots of the RCC. A bishop in Italy has nothing to do with England. The church in the Roman Catholic state has nothing to do with the English State. King Henry VIII simply did what the Eastern Church did before and after him: See the State (that kingdom, etc) and the church within it as essentially one thing. He agreed with RCC doctrine but not with the mandate that the Roman Empire still existed and the Pope was now the Emperor over English.

I don't agree with King Henry (I hold to a very strict separation of church and state) but I find it funny that a CATHOLIC, of all people, would object to Henry's very historic, very Catholic stance. I think it comes down to just one thing: The RC Denomination loosing power and money. Personally, I think that's also the RCC's objection to Luther, I think it had little to do with theology but with a fear that it would (and largely did) loose a LOT of POWER and MONEY in northern Europe. What motivated the RCC in those days was only that: power.... money..... Lording it over others as the Gentiles do.






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

CONCLUSION

You have from me, Gentlemen of the University, this little present, put together by the labour of such leisure as I could snatch on the road. My purpose was to clear myself in your judgement of the charge of arrogance, and to show just cause for my confidence, and meanwhile, until such time as along with me you are invited by the adversaries to the disputations in the Schools, to give you a sort of foretaste of what is to come there. If you think it a just, safe, and virtuous choice for Luther or Calvin to be taken for the Canon of Scripture, the Mind of the Holy Ghost, the Standard of the Church, the Pedagogue of Councils and Fathers, in short, the God of all witnesses and ages, I have nothing to hope of your reading or hearing me. But if you are such as I have pictured you in my mind, philosophers, keen-sighted, lovers of the truth, of simplicity, of modesty, enemies of temerity, of trifles and sophisms, you will easily see daylight in the open air, seeing that you already see the peep of day through a narrow chink. I will say freely what my love of you, and your danger, and the importance of the matter requires. The devil is not unaware that you will see this light of day, if ever you raise your eyes to it. For what a piece of stupidity it would be to prefer Hanmers and Charks to Christian antiquity! But there are certain Lutheran enticements whereby the devil extends his kingdom, delicate snares whereby that hooker of men has caught with his baits already many of your rank and station. What are they! Gold, glory, pleasures, lusts. Despise them. What are they but bowels of earth, high-sounding air, a banquet of worms, fair dunghills. Scorn them. Christ is rich, who will maintain you: He is a King, who will provide you: He is a sumptuous entertainer, who will feast you; He is beautiful, who will give in abundance all that can make you happy. Enrol yourselves in His service, that with Him you may gain triumphs, and show yourselves men truly most learned, truly most illustrious. Farewell. At Cosmopolis, City of all the world, 1581.

THE END.

Saint Edmund Campion - martyred for his faith in Jesus Christ December 1581 at the order of Queen Elizabeth of England

[Footnote 1: Cf. Newman, Lectures on Anglican Difficulties, Lect. xii.: “I say, then, the writings of the Fathers, so far from prejudicing at least one man (J.H.N.) against the modern Church, have been singly and solely the one intellectual cause of his having renounced the religion in which he was born and submitted himself to her.”]
[Footnote 2: Richard Cheyne, Anglican bishop of Gloucester, to whom there is extant a letter from Campion, dated 1 November, 1571.]
[Footnote 3: The Latin is Philippos.]
[Footnote 4: Seems to refer to the first Protestant bishops, mighty hunters (Genesis x. 9) after place, and, to secure it, all too ready to alienate the manors and possessions of their see.]
[Footnote 5: I have here paraphrased, as any literal translation would have been hopelessly obscure to most modern readers. Campion could but hint darkly his comparison of the Elizabethan persecution to the Decian. The Latin runs: Etenim, ut nostrorum illa fuit Epistasis turbulenta, sic nostrorum haec evasit divina Catastrophe. Epistasis is “the part of the play where the plot thickens” (Liddell and Scott). Catastrophe is “the turn of the plot” (Id.).]
[Footnote 6: Faeces et folles et alumenta gehennae.]
[Footnote 7: Mali corvi.]

 

[MoreCoffee]

That the teaching of the pretended reformers contradicts reason.

I have put off the showing of the absurdities which are in the doctrine of our adversaries to the end of the treatise an the rules of faith, these absurdities being a consequence of their believing without rule and sailing without compass. And [put off showing] that they have not the efficacy of the doctrine of Catholicism; for not only are they not Catholics, but cannot be, effecting the destruction of the body of Our Lord, instead of acquiring new members for it.

Also when Luther says (Apud. Cochl., ann. 1523) that infants in Baptism have the use of their understanding and reason, and when the synod of Wittenberg (Ann. 1536. L. 3: Miscell tract.) says that infants in Baptism have movements and inclinations like to the movements of faith and charity, and this without understanding :-is not this to mock God, nature, and experience?

And when it is said that “in sinning we are incited, pushed, necessitated by the will, ordinance, decree, and predestination of God,”-is this not to blaspheme against all reason, and against the majesty of the supreme goodness ? Such is the fine theology of Zwingle [de prud. 5, 6], Calvin (Instit. I. 17, 18; de Praed.; Instruct. contra Lib.), and Beza (contra Castal.). ” But,” says Beza, “you will say that they Gould not resist the will of God, that is, the decree; I acknowledge it: but as they could not so they would not: they could not wish otherwise, I own, as to the event and working (energiam), but yet the will of Adam was not forced.” Goodness of God, I call you as my witness! You have pushed me to do evil; you have so decreed, ordained, and willed; I could not act otherwise, I could not will otherwise, -what fault of mine is there? O God of my heart! chastise my will, if it is able not to will evil and wills to will it; but if it cannot help willing evil, and thou art the cause of its impossibility, what fault of mine can there be? If this is not contrary to reason, I protest that there is no reason in the world.
The law of God is impossible, according to Calvin and the others (Calv. ant. Sess. conc. Tr.; Luther de lib. Christ.): what follows, except that Our Lord is a tyrant who commands impossible things? If it is impossible, why is it commanded?

Works, good as ever they may be, rather deserve hell than Paradise: shall then the justice of God, which will give to every one according to his works, give to every one hell?
This is enough, but the absurdity of absurdities, and the most horrible unreason of all is this: that while holding that the whole Church may have erred for a thousand years in the understanding of the Word of God, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin can guarantee that they understand it aright: this absurdity is greater when a mere wretched minister (ministrot), while preaching as a word of God that all the visible Church has erred, that Calvin and all men can err, dares to pick and choose amongst the interpretations of the Scripture that one which pleases him, and to certify and maintain it as the Word of God: and you yourselves carry the absurdity still further when, having heard that everybody may err in matter of religion -even the whole Church- without trying to find for yourselves some other religion amongst a thousand sects, which all boast of rightly understanding the Word of God, and rightly preaching it, you believe so obstinately in the minister who preaches to you, that you will hear no more? If everybody can err in the understanding of the Scripture, why not you and your minister? I wonder that you do not always walk trembling and shaking: I wonder how you can live with so much assurance in the doctrine which you follow, as if you could not err, and yet you hold as certain that every one has erred and can err.

The Gospel soars far above all the most elevated reasonings of nature, it never goes against them, never injures them nor dissolves them: but these fancies of your evangelists obscure and destroy the light of nature.

Saint Francis De Sales - 16th and 17th century

 

[Josiah]

.


The RC Denomination was born out of the State. The proto-denomination to the RCC, EOC and OOC was created by the Roman Empire - of, for and by the Roman Empire (it didn't exist outside the Empire), created by the Roman Empire in its own image. The Emperor called and lead the early Ecumenical Councils and the denomination was funded by the Empire. It was BORN out of the mandate of Church/State being one. True, as that Empire "fell", this very, very strong link largely desolved in the WEST (it continues to this day in some form in the East, as we see in the RUSSIAN Orthodox Church, the GREEK Orthodox Church, etc.).

What King Henry VIII did was simply return to the roots of the RCC. A bishop in Italy has nothing to do with England. The church in the Roman Catholic state has nothing to do with the English State. King Henry VIII simply did what the Eastern Church did before and after him: See the State (that kingdom, etc) and the church within it as essentially one thing. He agreed with RCC doctrine but not with the mandate that the Roman Empire still existed and the Pope was now the Emperor over English.

I don't agree with King Henry (I hold to a very strict separation of church and state) but I find it funny that a CATHOLIC, of all people, would object to Henry's very historic, very Catholic stance. I think it comes down to just one thing: The RC Denomination loosing power and money. Personally, I think that's also the RCC's objection to Luther, I think it had little to do with theology but with a fear that it would (and largely did) loose a LOT of POWER and MONEY in northern Europe. What motivated the RCC in those days was only that: power.... money..... Lording it over others as the Gentiles do.






.

Anglicanism was born very differently than the other "first wave" Protestant communities (Lutheranism and Reformed). And theologically, it struggled to find itself - beginning RC, then strongly Calvinist,and finally a blend of all the above.

Looking at conservative, traditional, "39 Artlicles" Anglicanism, I find something of great value, something I hold in esteem. I like MUCH in Anglicanism (especially in its worship tradition). The theology is a bit too Calvinists for my liking but that's okay (it's not Lutheran, lol). Anglicanism is also responsible for much mission work and much of the world is Christian today because of this faith community.




THAT said and meant.... a bit of satire....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9BR55nA2U





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Anglicanism was born very differently than the other "first wave" Protestant communities (Lutheranism and Reformed). And theologically, it struggled to find itself - beginning RC, then strongly Calvinist,and finally a blend of all the above.

Looking at conservative, traditional, "39 Artlicles" Anglicanism, I find something of great value, something I hold in esteem. I like MUCH in Anglicanism (especially in its worship tradition). The theology is a bit too Calvinists for my liking but that's okay (it's not Lutheran, lol). Anglicanism is also responsible for much mission work and much of the world is Christian today because of this faith community.

The 39 articles are fundamentally Calvinistic except for ecclesiology and the sacraments. For example:

Article XVII

Of Predestination and Election

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

While Henry VIII was still living the church of England had different articles of religion; just six of them

Statute of Six Artic1es, 1539

An Act abolishing diversity in Opinions

Where the King's most excellent Majesty is by God's Law Supreme Head immediately under him of this whole Church and Congregation of England, intending the conservation of the same Church and Congregation in a true, sincere, and uniform doctrine of Christ's Religion, calling also to his blessed and most gracious remembrance as well the great and quiet assurance, prosperous increase, and other innumerable commodities which have ever ensued, come, and followed of concord, agreement, and unity in opinions, as also the manifold perils, dangers, and inconveniences which have heretofore in many places and regions grown, sprung, and arisen of the diversities of minds and opinions, especially of matters of Christian Religion; And therefore desiring that such an unity might and should be charitably established in all things touching and concerning the same, as the same, so being established might chiefly be to the honour of Almighty God, the very author and fountain of all true unity and sincere concord, and consequently redound to the common wealth of this his Highness's most noble realm and of all his loving subjects and other resiants and inhabitants of or in the same: Hath therefore caused and commanded this his most high Court of Parliament, for sundry and many urgent causes and considerations, to be at this time summoned, and also a Synod and Convocation of all the archbishops, bishops, and other learned men of the clergy of this his realm to be in like manner assembled; And forasmuch as in the said Parliament, Synod, and Convocation there were certain articles, matters, and questions proponed and set forth touching Christian Religion The King's most royal Majesty, most prudently pondering and considering that by occasion of variable and sundry opinions and judgments of the said articles, great discord and variance hath arisen as well amongst the clergy of this his realm as amongst a great number of vulgar people his loving subjects of the same, and being in a full hope and trust that a full and perfect resolution of the said articles should make a perfect concord and unity generally amongst all his loving and obedient subjects; Of his most excellent goodness not only commanded that the said articles should deliberately and advisedly by his said archbishops, bishops, and other learned men of his clergy be debated, argued, and reasoned, and their opinions therein to be understood, declared, and known, but also most graciously vouchsafed in his own princely person to descend and come into his said high Court of Parliament and Council, and there like a prince of most high prudence and no less learning opened and declared many things of high learning and great knowledge touching the said articles, matters, and questions, for an unity to be had in the same; Whereupon, after a great and long deliberate and advised disputation and consultation had and made concerning the said articles, as well by the consent of the King's Highness as by the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and other learned men of his clergy in their Convocation and by the consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled -it was and is finally resolved, accorded, and agreed in manner and form following, that is to say;

First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ's mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man;

Secondly, that communion in both kinds is not necessary ad salutem, by the law of God, to all persons; and that it is to be believed, and not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under the form of the bread, is the very blood; and with the blood, under the form of the wine, is the very flesh; as well apart, as though they were both together.

Thirdly, that priests after the order of priesthood received, as afore, may not marry, by the law of God.

Fourthly, that vows of chastity or widowhood, by man or woman made to God advisedly, ought to be observed by the law of God; and that it exempts them from other liberties of Christian people, which without that they might enjoy.

Fifthly, that it is meet and necessary that private masses be continued and admitted in this the King's English Church and Congregation, as whereby good Christian people, ordering themselves accordingly, do receive both godly and goodly consolations and benefits; and it is agreeable also to God's law.

Sixthly, that auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God:. . . It is therefore ordained and enacted.. . .

VI. And be it further enacted... that if any person or persons... contemn or contemptuously refuse, deny, or abstain to be confessed at the time commonly accustomed within this realm and Church of England, or contemn or contemptuously refuse, deny, or abstain to receive the holy and blessed sacrament above said at the time commonly used and accustomed for the same, that then every such offender.. shall suffer such, imprisonment and make such fine and ransom to the King our Sovereign Lord and his heirs as by his Highness or by his or their Council shall be ordered and adjudged in that behalf; And if any such offender ... do eftsoons... refuse... to be confessed or to be communicate... that then every such offence shall be deemed and adjudged felony, and the offender... shall suffer pains of death and lose and forfeit all his... goods, lands, and tenements, as in cases of felony.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

By the time that saint Edmund Campion was martyred at the order of Elizabeth I of England in 1581 AD the following was law:

Elizabeth I's Act of Supremacy (1559) - original text
BY DAVID ROSS, EDITOR

An acte restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same. Most humbly beseech your most excellent majesty your faithful and obedient subjects, the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons in this your present parliament assembled, that, where in time of the reign of your most dear father of worthy memory, King Henry VIII, divers good laws and statutes were made and established, as well for the utter extinguishment and putting away of all usurped and foreign powers and authorities out of this your realm and other your highness's dominions and countries, as also for the restoring and uniting to the imperial crown of this realm the ancient jurisdictions, authorities, superiorities, and pre-eniinences to the same of right belonging and appertaining; by reason whereof we, your most humble and obedient subjects, from the five-and-twentieth year of the reign of your said dear father, were continually kept in good order, and were disburdened of divers great and intolerable charges and exactions before that time unlawfully taken and exacted by such foreign power and authority as before that was usurped, until such time as all the said good laws . . . in the first and second years of the reigns of the late King Philip and Queen Mary . . . were . . repealed . . . ;' by reason of which act of repeal your said humble subjects were eftsoons brought under an usurped foreign power and authority, and vet do remain in that bondage, to the intolerable charges of your loving subjects, if some redress by the authority of this your high court of parliament with the assent of your highness be not had and provided: may it therefore please your highness, for the repressing of the said usurped foreign power and the restoring of the rights jurisdictions, and pre-eminences appertaining to the imperial crown of this your realm, that it may be enacted by the authority of this present parliament that the said act . . . and all and every branch, clauses, and articles therein contained, other than such branches, clauses, and sentences as hereafter shall be excepted, may from the last day of this session of parliament, by authority of this present parliament, be repealed, and shall from thenceforth be utterly void and of none effect . . .

And to the intent that all usurped and foreign power and authority,spiritual and temporal, may forever be clearly extinguished and never to be used nor obeyed within this realm or any other your majesty's countries, may it please your highness that it may be further enacted by the authority aforesaid that no foreign prince,person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, shall at any time after the last day of this session of parliament use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm or within any other your majesty's dominions or countries that now be or hereafter shall be, but from thenceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm and all other your highness's dominions forever, any statute, ordinance, custom, constitutions, or any other matter or cause whatsoever to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding . . . ; and that your highness, your heirs, and successors, kings or queens of this realm, shall have full power and authority . . . to exercise . . . all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, and preeminences in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within these your realms. . . .

And for the better observation and maintenance of this act, may it please your highness that it may be further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all and every archbishop, bishop, and all and every other ecclesiastical person and other ecclesiastical officer and minister, of what estate, dignity, pre-eminence, or degree soever he or they be or shall be, and all and every temporal judge, justicer, mayor, and other lay or temporal officer and minister, and every other person having your highness's fee or wages within this realm or any your highness's dominions shall make, take, and receive a corporal oath upon the Evangelist, before such person or persons as shall please your highness, your heirs or successors, under the great seal of England to assign and name to accept and take the same, according to the tenor and effect hereafter following, that is to say-

"I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm and of all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the queen's highness, her heirs, and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges, and authorities granted or belonging to the queen's highness, her heirs, and successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm: so help me God and by the contents of this Book." . . .

And for the more sure observation of this act and the utter extinguishment of all foreign and usurped power and authority, may it please your highness that it may be further enacted by the authority aforesaid that, if any person or persons dwelling or inhabiting within this your realm or in any other your highness's realms or dominions . . . , shall by writing, printing, teaching, preaching, express words, deeds, or act, advisedly, maliciously, and directly affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority, preeminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of any foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate whatsoever, heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm or any dominion or country being within or under the power, dominion, or obeisance of your highness, or shall advisedly, maliciously, or directly put in ure or execute anything for the extolling, advancement, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such pretended or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, or any part thereof, that then every such person and persons so doing and offending, their abettors, aiders, procurers, and counsellors, being thereof lawfully convicted and attainted according to the due order and course of the common laws of this realm [shall suffer specified penalties, culminating in punishment for high treason on the third offence] . . . .

Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that such person or persons to whom your highness, your heirs, or successors, shall hereafter by letters patents under the great seal of England give authority to have or execute any jurisdiction, power, or authority spiritual, or to visit, reform, order, or correct any errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, or enormities by virtue of this act, shall not in any wise have authority or power to order, determine, or adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy but only such as heretofore have been determined, ordered, or adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general councils or any of them, or any other general council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be ordered, judged, or determined to be heresy by the high court of parliament of this realm, with the assent of the clergy in their convocation - anything in this act contained to the contrary notwithstanding...​

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Me in Post #22, regarding the time of Henry VIII and following:

Doesn’t history show that for hundreds of years before that, the Church of Rome had been torturing and murdering people in their hundreds and thousands (hundreds of thousands?) over time? – people whose only “crime” was wanting to worship God in spirit and in truth? – people who did not feel comfortable being confined within a corrupt political entity such as that “church” was?

Weren’t the Romish persecutions continuing in parallel with the “killing Catholics in the 16th century”?

The demonstrated imbalance of perception is regrettable, official until recent times, undeniably typical, and it would seem unofficially still encouraged.

MoreCoffee in Post #23:

No. Your numbers are grossly exaggerated. And no, Catholic Church bishops and priests were not the civil authority in England but under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I the King/Queen was the head of the "Church of England" and hence directly responsible for the persecution of Catholics and their martyrdom.

It is true that a number of people were killed because they were found to be heretics in England under Catholic monarchs but it was the civil authority and not the Catholic Church that both decided and administered the punishment for heresy. The Catholic Church tried heretics to determine of they taught heresy and then the guilty were handed over to the state to be punished.

What's Romish?

==============================================================================================

Some quick points regarding MoreCoffee’s commonly seen assertions. (The references behind these points can be supplied if asked for, but are likely to be embarrassing to people seeking to defend the Roman Catholic (Romish) Church).

1. I was being conservatively polite when I stated “hundreds and thousands (hundreds of thousands?)”. I was actually half hoping for a response such as was forthcoming, to open the way for me to be a little more directly accurate.

2. In (what appears to be) a reasoned study carried out at the University of North Carolina (copyrighted in 2006), a review of historical sources concluded that the Romish Church (an aptly descriptive title used by the Protestant Reformers, and adopted by me) was responsible for the deaths of multiple millions of innocent people (in its quest for political dominance, as I would describe it).

3. The hackneyed Roman Catholic defence is that it was civil authorities that carried out the torturing and the murder of innocents of all ages. However, the following can be considered as contradictory examples, demonstrating as they do intimate Roman Catholic involvement in “civil” matters:

a. When the multiple atrocities were being perpetrated, how often did the Roman Catholic Church call for their cessation, or did it (either secretly or openly) support (even encourage?) those atrocities?

b. In 1571 a naval armada belonging to the “Holy League” defeated the Turkish fleet. “The Holy League was a coalition of European Catholic maritime states which was arranged by Pope Pius V”.

c. With respect to Spain’s first attempted invasion of Britain (in 1588 – the “Spanish Armada”), it is recorded that Pope Sixtus V allowed Philip II of Spain to collect crusade taxes to fund the invasion. The Pope also granted "indulgences" to the men taking part. The Pope promised to subsidise the cost of the attack were the Spanish successful in their attempt.

d. MoreCoffee himself, in Post #189 in the "Anglican origins and claims theology" thread, posted the following: "The Pope, however, answered, that it was not lawful- for her [[Queen Elizabeth I]] to have assumed the government of the kingdom, a fief of the Holy See, without the consent of Rome", showing that civil powers were actually at the beck and call of the Church of Rome.

==============================================================================================

So MoreCoffee’s submission seems to somewhat inaccurate on two counts:
- The attempted minimisation of the extent of the Romish Church’s murder of innocents;
- The supposed non-involvement of the Romish Church with respect to “civil” matters.

==============================================================================================