Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11677Re: Schismatic Christian Sects & political considerations - was HMMM......

Expand Messages
  • Labhaoise O'Beachain
    Nov 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Huzzah, I knew there was someone out there who KNEW!

      --- In scanewcomers@yahoogroups.com, julian wilson <smnco37@...>
      > COMMENT
      > Congratulations on a very informative thumbnail sketch of why
      various Christian sects separated from the original "one True
      [Christian] Church" - the Church of Rome.
      > Allow me please one small but important historical correction -
      the English King Henry VII only married once, and died in 1509, - 29
      years prior to the split with Rome.
      > It was his son, King Henry VIII who had 6 wives, and caused the
      founding of The Church of England.
      > And the Schism [generally dated to 1538] had more to do with the
      Papacy playing politics, and interfering in the internal temporal
      affairs of Christian countries, - by requiring the "annointed"
      Sovereigns of those to acknowledge the overall Primacy of the Papacy
      as to a "temporal" Overlord - which was really the cause of the
      > The refusal to allow Henry VIII to divorce Katharine of Aragon
      is now generally accepted as having been - for King Henry - the "last
      [political] straw which broke the camel's back", because it had wide-
      ranging tactical and strategic military and trading implications, -
      since England's traditional continental enemies - France and Spain -
      had acknowledged Papal primacy.
      > The refusal to sanction the Royal Divorce was merely the
      small "overt" reason magnified for public consumption; which allowed
      the multitude of other political reasons to remain "covert", and
      hence to avoid King Henry's .Government giving serious insult to
      other powerful States with whom England was then notionally "at
      > What insult? The unwritten/unspoken one that the
      supposedly "absolute" Monarchs of France/ Spain/ etc. - were not
      actually the supreme authorities of their own Realms, because they
      obeyed the dictates of the Papacy under several levels of implied
      threat - that of "national Excommunication" being the ultimate
      sanction, - which might cause a national uprising by
      the "commonality" in mortal teroor of their own souls - which could
      then lose the Throne to the reigning Royal House.
      > YiS,
      > Matthew Baker.
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic