mountainman

What Barnes describes as Eusebius's report appears to resolve to one of Constantine's letters [L15] of c.324 CE

The synopsis of this letter is that EVERYONE IN THE EAST HAD BETTER CONVERT to Christianity (or else).


While it is true that most commentators do not follow Barnes's analysis that the empire became Christian 324/325 CE (rather c.381 CE under Theodosius) I cited Barnes because some commentators in fact do claim the empire effectively became Christian under Constantine. In addition to evidence such as this letter, there is other evidence such as the Constantinian Law of 326 CE (Codex Theodosianus 16.5.1) that:

"Religious privileges are reserved for Christians.

Chili

Became Catholic you mean, in Christen domain. So obviously Barnes got shit in his eyes too.

Duvduv

I assume then that this must be some sensitive "doctrinal" view on your part, since the idea of reformation involved purification, and the elimination of paganism in favor of a belief in a single deity as reformation is a matter of interpretation which I assume you cannot tolerate.

After all, it was argued that Anglicanism was in fact an attempt to purge or purify and "devaticanize" the religion to get it to its pure state.
In any case, I still do not see you "purifying" thread titles this way in other cases since we all assume that posters use personal preferences for thread headings in line with how they feel about a particular issue. Unless I missed something in the FAQs.

Jaybees

The divorce aspect is overrated. A little time, patience, and payment would have easily gotten an annulment. Henry needed money, quick, to keep wasting on his wars with France. Where to get it? The monasteries were loaded. Like Willie Sutton, Henry went to where the money was.

Chili

They wanted to be look-alikes but denied the essential elements of Catholicsm:

•rejection of the Papacy,
•denial of the Church Infallibility;
•proclaimed justification by Faith only;
•proclaimed supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture as Rule of Faith;
•denied the triple Eucharistic tenet [viz. (a) that the Eucharist is a Communion or Sacrament, and not a Mass or Sacrifice, save in the sense of praise or commemoration; (b) the denial of Transubstantiation and worship of the Host; (c) the denial of the sacrificial office of the priesthood and the propitiatory character of the Mass];
•the non-necessity of auricular Confession;
•the rejection of the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints;
•the rejection of Purgatory and omission of prayers for the dead;
•the rejection of the doctrine of Indulgences.

The above are axiomatic principles of truth that they denied, incuding sacraments with an intrinsic power, and so they threw out the mystery of faith.

It is not important who is right or wrong here but it makes reconcilliation impossible for sure.

Duvduv

That's a good point, but he must have surely been concerned about not having a male heir, and the fact that this wife was childless based on what he thought was the meaning of Leviticus must be just as important. And he was not intent in overthrowing the whole religion.

However, the irony is that the law in Leviticus only applies if the first husband is still alive, not dead. Furthermore, why would he specifically get worked up about a ritual law of the Old Testament which did not apply to gentile Christians? Especially since the law itself only applied to Jews in the first place?

In any case the war activity did not coincide with the attack on the monasteries, which occurred between 1536 and 1541 (he ended with Catherine in 1533, having been married to her for 24 years). The main attacks in France were in the 1540s, several years after beginning his attack on the monasteries. He even tried invading France in 1514 and 1522. So it is clear that he was preoccupied with an heir.

However, the main point is that the event was merely a catalyst for the subsequent effort to "de-vaticanize" what Anglicans thought was the true catholic faith, and this involved all kinds of efforts at both accommodating competing interests and introducing change, which can be seen in the establishment of the official religion of Byzantine as well in the 4th century - which can be seen even between the First Nicaean Creed and subsequent ones.

Chili

Leviticus? Catholicism is NT only and has nothing to do with OT. Catholicism is pagan and philosopical for whom OT goat humping is not part of the act.

And yes, just like the other 20.000, each one thinks they are right and are the only true religion who want better days ahead after they die, while Catholicism is about truth and truth only, now with heaven on earth inside the pyramid that is home in Rome.

This, of course, has nothing to do with Rome, but simply is because truth 'is' and needs to home for it to shine.

And the no-divorce rule is a necessary institution of a true marriage designed in heaven wherein love is not love which alters when it alteration finds.

This in itself is a simple truth that is denied with the option of divorce, wherefore then annullment is the re-back for undo. Nobody objects to this, but please do not calll love a lie with the option of divorce.

IOW, divorce contradicts love and that is all what this is about. Please understand that 'true Catholicism' is also a contradiction, just as 'true love' is a contradiction that itself rieks with human ignorance.

Duvduv

Chili, have you not bothered to notice that you are not talking about the same thing as we are? Why do you post "replies" that do not address the substance under discussion?

Chili

Of course I am. It just shows that you do not understand what Eusebius is about, nor what Catholicism is about, and likely not what the Sacred is about.

Do you bellieve it to be real? Or maybe you think that bullshit can built an Empire.

Just so you know, and to prove my point that the C of E was not a return to the good old days, Shakespeare wrote Macbeth as a satire against the C of E to be compared with Coriolanus, wherein Macbeth was a Senecan Tragedy and Coriolanus a superb Divine Comedy in Rome (Corioli next to Rome), and Henry nor the entire C of E did not have a fucken clue what they were all about or they would have quartered him for that.

That was popular sport for Henri in those days to get the best of Catholics, and Shakespeare had that as a treath against him if he did not obey.

And then, let me add that Macbeth even today is called a 'Shakespearean Tragedy' of its own and they still do not really know what that play is all about.

Just telling you that Constantine was not a reformer but called the Church together that he called Catholic, and to which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Chili

To even write such a thing as "Jewish ideas" about the greatest mythology that ever was, does that not bother you? . . . as if they were brainstorming protestants already then?

Just two simple words, I know, but they just do not belong together.