About

This blog exists as a response to Quia Viderunt Oculi. I am going to demonstrate that as an Anglican Catholic, I can be just as orthodox as he is. I converted to Anglican Catholicism after a long bout with depression. I will be baptised next week–the 26 of October, 2014.

I was a former Ruthenian-Greek Catholic catechumen but I lost my faith through a variety of mediums and so now have chosen to start afresh.

My theological influences are largely Catholic and Orthodox. I adhere to a tradition that has developed and been shaped under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am against modernism and anything that is similar to it in shape.

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John Chrysostom have been quite inspirational for me.

I am a former Liberal Christian turned Satanist in case any one thinks my stances on women’s ordination have not come from any ounce of questioning whatsoever.

I have a Catholic view of the sacraments. I consider myself an Anglo-Catholic Thomist.

Advertisements

61 Responses to About

  1. robert says:

    What are your thoughts and could you give this subject its own thread?
    greek will be posted first if you want to translate.

    Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum

    Πως παρα μεν τω Ματθαιω οψε σαββατων φαινεται εγηγερμενος ο σωτηρ, παρα δε
    τω Μαρκω πρωι τη μια των σαββατων;

    Τουτου διττη αν ειη η λυσις· ο μεν γαρ το κεφαλαιον αυτο την τουτο
    φασκουσαν περικοπην αθετων, ειποι αν μη εν απασιν αυτην φερεσθαι τοις
    αντιγραφοις του κατα Μαρκου ευαγγελιου· τα γουν ακριβη των αντιγραφων το
    τελος περιγραφει της κατα τον Μαρκον ιστοριας εν τοις λογοις του οφθεντος
    νεανισκου ταις γυναιξι και ειρηκοτος αυταις· Μη φοβεισθε· Ιησουν ζητειτε τον
    Ναζαρηνον, και τοις εξης, οις επιλεγει· Και ακουσασαι εφυγον, και ουδενι
    ουδεν ειπον, εφοβουντο γαρ.

    Εν τουτω γαρ σχεδον εν απασι τοις αντιγραφοις του κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιου
    περιγεγραπται το τελος· τα δε εξης σπανιως εν τισιν αλλ ουκ εν πασι φερομενα
    περιττα αν ειη, και μαλιστα ειπερ εχοιεν αντιλογιαν τη των λοεπων
    ευαγγελιστων μαρτυρια· ταυτα μεν ουν ειποι αν τις παραιτουμενος και παντη
    αναιρων περιττον ερωτημα.

    Αλλος δε τις ουδ οτιουν τολμων αθετειν των οπωσουν εν τη των ευαγγελιων
    γραφη φερομενων, διπλην ειναι φησι την αναγνωσιν, ως και εν ετεροις πολλοις,
    εκατεραν τε παραδεκτεαν υπαρχειν, τω μη μαλλον ταυτην εκεινης, η εκεινην
    ταυτης, παρα τοις πιστοις και ευλαβεσιν εγκρινεσθαι.

    Και δη τουδε του μερους συγχωρουμενου ειναι αληθους, προσηκει τον νουν
    διερμηνευειν του αναγνωσματος· ει γουν διελοιμην την του λογου διανοιαν, ουκ
    αν ευροιμεν αυτην εναντιαν τοις παρα του Ματθαιου· Οψε σαββατων εγηγερθαι
    τον σωτηρα, λελεγμενοις· το γαρ· Αναστας δε πρωι τη μια του σαββατου, κατα
    τον Μαρκον, μετα διαστολης αναγνωσομεθα· και μετα το· Αναστας δε,
    υποστιξομεν· και την διανοιαν αφορισομεν των εξης επιλεγομενων· ειτα το μεν·
    Αναστας, αν, επι την παρα τω Ματθαιω· Οψε σαββατων· τοτε γαρ εγηγερτο. το δε
    εξης ετερας ον διανοιας υποστατικον συναψωμεν τοις επιλεγομενοις· πρωι γαρ
    τη μια του σαββατου εφανη Μαρια τη Μαγδαληνη.

    Eusebius of Caesarea (early century IV) answers in a letter some probing
    questions from a fellow named Marinus, one of which concerns the
    harmonization of the resurrection accounts of Matthew and Mark. The question
    in the letter, To Marinus, runs as follows:

    How is it that in Matthew the savior appears late on the sabbath after he
    has been raised, but in Mark it is early on one of the Sabbaths?

    The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the
    passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant
    in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the
    copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in
    the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear.
    You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further
    says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were
    afraid.

    For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is
    circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which
    are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if
    indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the
    evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all
    ways doing away with a superfluous question.

    The second answer is harmonistic:

    But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any
    way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that
    the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be
    accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the
    classification of the faithful and the reverent.

    And indeed, this part granted to be true, it is fitting to interpret the
    mind of the reading. If I at least grasp the meaning of the word, we should
    not find that it is opposite to the things said by Matthew: Late on the
    sabbath the savior was raised. For the [statement]: And having risen up
    early on one of the Sabbaths, according to Mark, we will read with a
    pause. And after the [statement]: And having risen up, we will place a
    comma. And we will divide the meaning of those things that are said
    following. Then, on the one hand, the [statement]: Having risen up, might be
    upon that of Matthew: Late on the sabbath, for then he was raised. On the
    other hand, that which follows we might join together with the things said
    after that, which gives rise to other meanings: For early on the one of the
    sabbath he appeared to Mary Magdalene

    Reference:
    Exegetical and miscellaneous works
    All of the exegetical works of Eusebius have suffered damage in
    transmission. The majority of them are known to us only from long portions
    quoted in Byzantine catena-commentaries. However these portions are very
    extensive. Extant are:

    An enormous Commentary on the Psalms.
    A commentary on Isaiah, discovered more or less complete in a manuscript in
    Florence early in the 20th century and published 50 years later.
    Small fragments of commentaries on Romans and 1 Corinthians.

    Eusebius also wrote a work Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum, “On the
    Differences of the Gospels” (including solutions). This was written for the
    purpose of harmonizing the contradictions in the reports of the different
    Evangelists. The work existed in the 16th century, but has since been lost.
    However a long epitome was discovered in the 19th century, and there are
    also long quotations in the Catena on Luke of Nicetas. The original work was
    also translated into Syriac, and lengthy quotations exist in a catena in
    that language, and also in Coptic and Arabic catenas

  2. jrj1701 says:

    newenglandsun, if ya don’t mind, email me. There are some things I would like to discuss with you where it ain’t so open.

  3. Jack says:

    I read on another blog that you think Reformed Protestantism is the worst form of Protestantism ever. Could you elucidate why? If it is about their view of election, and I see that you self-identify as a Thomist, the Reformed, at least the confessional infralapsarian stream, is about as close as you can get to Thomas’s understanding of election today, per question 23 of the Primas Pars. I would understand it if it was about the Reformed view of worship, adhering to the regulative principle, and Christology, denying the communication of attributes like omnipresence to the human nature of Christ, and the implications that has for their view of the Eucharist, but I don’t understand where the idea that they only have “some” truth comes from. Thomas’s view of providence, very similar to the Reformed. His view on election and reprobation, practically identical to the best of the Reformed tradition. Simplicity, check. Even his view of the atonement as the efficient cause of our salvation, very central to the Reformed view of that subject. Basic Nicene orthodoxy, check. Where is the theological black hole from your view?

    • St. Thomas’s view on the atonement varies slightly from the Reformed view on the atonement. As for St. Thomas Aquinas, the view on the penal nature of the atonement is primarily medicinal.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement#St._Thomas_Aquinas_codifies_the_substitution_theory

      Additionally, St. Thomas’s view on predestination also differs slightly from the Reformed view on predestination which I have written about here:
      https://newenglandsun.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/catholic-predestination-vs-calvinist-predestination-and-the-orthodox-adoption-of-catholic-predestination/

      In addition, the standpoint on the eucharist and predestination is why Reformed Protestantism is objectionable.

      • Jack says:

        Thanks you very much. I have had the pleasure to engage with a Thomistic philosophy professor who retired from Loyola Merrymont, in CA. It has been interesting to engage with him, as he was a former Anglican that was largely Reformed in his views before he converted to Catholicism. It was surprising because my experience with Catholics had been so negative, as the comment in your post seemed to echo, and focused on predestination, that I just assumed that Catholics didn’t believe in providence, election at all. I mean, it was really, really, really negative, and coupled with a liberal amount of odes to free will in the process. Chris, the professor, was shockingly different in his comments. His wife had just died and, subsequently, he read John Flavel’s “The Mystery of Providence” and remarked in one of our first encounters that he thought it was one of the best books on providence he had encountered! Again, a jarringly different experience. He would say that providence, and that a real, full blooded commitment to it; an emphasis on free, efficacious grace; and the covenantal hermeneutic, expounded by guys like Gerhardus Voss, were things that he admired about the Reformed tradition. And, he would say, those aren’t just peanuts.

        “What lies in the distinction between Calvinist predestination and Thomistic predestination is that in contrast to Calvinist predestination, all beings are created equal.” What exactly are you referring to here in the second resource that you gave? Are you referring to the fact that the Reformed deny that a sufficient grace is given to all, beyond the efficacious grace that the elect receive? Because, the Reformed believe faith is created within sinful men ex-nihilo by the Spirit through the preached word. Without regeneration the elect would end up just like the reprobate. There is nothing better within them, inherently, apart from the freely given inspiration and infusion of the Holy Spirit worked in regeneration, which could be given to all, if God wills. So, I would personally agree, as a Reformed Christian, that all are “created equal,” unless you mean something else by this.

        I would also say in general that Calvin does not play the same role within the Reformed tradition, as, say, Luther and Aquinas do in Lutheranism and Thomism, respectively. I noticed that you quoted from Calvin in the post. Have you read Turretin and his Elenctic Theology also? Especially for a Thomist, I think he would be a much better source for speaking over against the Reformed tradition than Calvin, considering that he was heavily influenced by Thomism himself. Turretin mentions Orange in his treatment, concerning their condemnation of any that say that men “are foreordained to evil by the power of God.” I would say, in passing, that this condemns the exact opposite of what the best of the Reformed tradition teaches on reprobation, which is that men are foreordained to such by the non-extension of the power of God. This may or may not bear relevance to your particular objection, but consider this summary of Turretin’s treatment of infused grace in Anri Merrimoto’s “Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation”: “What strikes me, first of all… is that this grandmaster of Reformed polemics thought it appropriate to discuss the question by depending on the Roman Catholic ‘de auxiliis’ controversy…. Mollinists… asserted in one way or another that effectual calling consists ‘in the assent and cooperation of man.’ Turretin charges them with bringing back ‘the very error of Pelagius,’ transferring the principle cause of conversion from God to the free will of man. He, instead, opts for the Thomist view, which affirms ‘a real and physical action of God.’ Effectual calling determines the will, not with ‘mere suasion’ but with ‘an omnipotent and irresistible power….’ He states explicitly that this ‘physical predetermination’ does not lead to the exclusion of denial of the participation of human will in the process of conversion…. The more the will is subjected to the actual grace of God, the more freely it moves. This is quite in line with Thomas who defined the nature of voluntariness as having ‘a principle within the agent. (51-54)'”

      • ““What lies in the distinction between Calvinist predestination and Thomistic predestination is that in contrast to Calvinist predestination, all beings are created equal.” What exactly are you referring to here in the second resource that you gave? Are you referring to the fact that the Reformed deny that a sufficient grace is given to all, beyond the efficacious grace that the elect receive? Because, the Reformed believe faith is created within sinful men ex-nihilo by the Spirit through the preached word.”
        The Calvinist view also says that the giving of grace is entirely God’s part–this is good because only God can give grace. However, this is also saying all are not created equal as only those who receive efficacious grace are saved.

      • Jack says:

        This post of Richard Muller’s, the leading scholar on Post-Reformation Reformed Theology, comments on TULIP in his “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics” clarifies that TULIP is an invention of recent origin and, generally, sucks.
        https://deovivendiperchristum.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/richard-a-muller-on-the-problem-of-tulip/

  4. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    It says above that you turned SATANIST. Were you at one point in your life A REAL,TRUE SATANIST ?

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        I myself have NEVER EVER been A SATANIST or ANYTHING OCCULT, but I really do KNOW ALOT about SATANISM,SATANISTS, THE OCCULT, that is one of the topics/subjects I have done ALOT of research into over the years and still continue to do so, I have looked at alot of YouTube videos about SATANISM,SATANISTS,SRA,SATANIC CULTS,SATANIC CRIME, EX SATANISTS ( MOST OF WHOM CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY, ONE CONVERTED TO CATHOLICISM, his AUDIO personal story/testimony is on YouTube )TALKING AND TEACHING, so I know ALOT about all of that OCCULT stuff by now, I am really no stranger to it, I have really HEARD & READ by now about THE MOST ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING THINGS satanists have done ! I really HOPE that YOU didn’t GO THAT FAR in your practice of SATANISM !!!

      • the “shock” info is mainly bs. satanism is more about claiming yourself to be a god in the same way satan did.

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        So what exactly caused you to GET INVOLVED WITH SATANISM , your issues with YOUR FATHER ?

      • Arianism-liberalism-Satanism. It’s a downward slope.

  5. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    As far as I know they are never called ANGLICANS in THE U.S.A, in the U.S.A Anglicans are called EPISCOPALIANS, so do you live in ENGLAND or NEW England ?

    • Technically, I live in Arizona. newenglandsun was just a random name I chose a while back and it kind of stuck since.
      You are correct that CofE members are called Anglicans in England and Episcopalians in the U.S. However, Continuing Anglicans, who have broken from the CofE due to its modernist heresies, are called Anglicans in the U.S.

  6. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    I really HAVE TO STRONGLY DISAGREE with you about THE SHOCK INFO being MAINLY BS, I really don’t know WHAT KIND/TYPE OF SATANIST you were exactly and exactly HOW FAR you went/got in your practice of Satanism but I know all about SATANISTS doing EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PEDOPHILIA, SRA, ANIMAL SACRIFICE,HUMAN SACRIFICE,BLACK MASSES, ABDUCTIONS OF CHILDREN AND ADULTS FOR HUMAN SACRIFICE AND SEX TRAFFICKING PURPOSES, SNUFF MOVIES INDUSTRY, SERIAL KILLERS, EATING FECES AND DRINKING URINE, DRINKING BLOOD ( THEY MOST ESPECIALLY LOVE THE BLOOD OF EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFULLY TORTURED HUMAN SACRIFICE VICTIMS WITH ALOT OF THE VICTIMS ADRENALINE IN THE BLOOD BECAUSE THEY REALLY GET HIGH OFF OF IT ), CANNIBALISM , RAPE, TORTURE, ANIMAL CRUELTY ( I read in a book once about what ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING & HEINOUS/ATROCIOUS THING was DONE TO A POOR DOG once in A SATANIC RITUAL,when THE POLICE got to the dog that dog was STILL ALIVE but COMPLETELY UNSAVEABLE because of exactly what the Satanists did to it as a part of the satanic ritual, I will NEVER EVER FORGET about reading about that ! Because it was really , honestly THAT ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING & ABSOLUTELY HEARTBREAKING !!! I really feel absolutely sorry for everyone who had to see and deal with that poor dog ! If I would have SEEN IT I really, honestly would have GONE COMPLETELY MENTAL after that ! ), BEASTIALITY, I know all about ANTON SZANDOR LAVEY and ALEISTER CROWLEY ( who also ATE FECES ) , ILLUMINATI , all of that stuff.

    So DON’T TELL ME and RUSS DIZDAR ( look him and his website up online, he even works with law enforcement on SATANIC CULTS & SATANIC CRIMES ) and ALL OF THOSE EX SATANISTS ON YOUTUBE,AND ALL OF THOSE SRA SURVIVORS THAT ARE OUT THERE that all of this SHOCKING stuff / info about SATANISTS,SATANIC CULTS,SATANISM is ALL JUST BS MAINLY !!!

    And I also know that ALOT OF SATANISM goes on IN MEXICO and those MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS are really SATANIC , that is exactly why the Mexican drug cartel traffickers are called ” NARCOS SATANICOS ” in Spanish.

    • Let me put this bluntly–
      Arianism leads to liberalism, liberalism leads to Satanism.
      As Satan ascended and claimed to be like the Most High so too do Satanists follow in his rebellion declaring themselves their own God as well as God above all gods.
      I agree, those Mexican drug cartels are Satanic. We also have a bunch of Satanists running our government as well.
      Satanism tends to be more individualistic.

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        LIBERALISM does not lead to SATANISM. PLEASE !

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        Yes I already know all about THE SATANISTS ( FREEMASONS,ILLUMINATI,ZIONISTS,NEW WORLD ORDER ) who are running our U.S.A government. NO WONDER anymore then about why exactly SO MANY THINGS are really SO TOTALLY/COMPLETELY SCREWED UP & DYSFUNCTIONAL & STRESSFULL IN THE U.S.A then !!!

      • Mostly because the demonic forces are in panic mode right now. The 100 years reign of Satan ends this coming March for a temporary reign of prosperity.

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        And THEY are WORKING ON bringing about/creating/starting RACEWARS in the U.S.A too !

        So why don’t THEY just go ahead and come out with A MOVIE called ” RACEWARS” ( like STARWARS ) while they are at it !!!

  7. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    If Satanists DECLARE THEMSELVES TO BE THEIR OWN GOD then WHY do they WORSHIP SATAN/ LUCIFER AS THEIR GOD ( AND BELIEVE THAT SATAN/LUCIFER IS REALLY,TRUELY THE ONE TRUE GOD ) and make all of those ANIMAL & HUMAN SACRIFICES TO SATAN/LUCIFER then huh ?!

  8. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    If SATANISM tends to be more INDIVIDUALISTIC then why are there SATANIC CULTS and GROUPS like THE FREEMASONS & ILLUMINATI ?

  9. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    I once looked at a video on YouTube taken in Mexico of a young woman who obviously managed to escape from somewhere ( I really think that she escaped from some NARCOS SATANICOS ) TOTALLY FREAKING OUT IN PUBLIC, it’s really like she is having somekind of MENTAL/EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWN/MELTDOWN and at the same time she’s saying/mentioning alot of stuff,it’s really like she is trying to let THE PUBLIC know about the SECRET/ HIDDEN things that are going on that she knows about and has PERSONALY EXPERIENCED, in that video she mentions something about some guy she knew WHO ATE HUMANS, and she says “HUMANS” “DISGUSTING” !!! She is very emotional throughout the entire video and she is SCREAMING/YELLING all of that stuff OUT IN PUBLIC somewhere in Mexico . Mexico has become VERY SATANIC. And do you know about SANTA MUERTE ? I think that is one of THE PATRON “SAINTS” of the Mexican NARCO SATANICOS . JESUS MALVERDE is another Mexican NARCO “SAINT” .

  10. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    I bet GETTING INVOLVED WITH SATANISM really leads to A DOWNWARD SLOPE !!! I bet that ALL Satanists first got RECRUITED INTO SATANISM with THE LIE ” satanism is really ONLY all about BEING YOUR OWN GOD ” ( that is EXACTLY how ANTON SZANDOR LAVEY always PRESENTED HIS SATANISM to OUTSIDERS and those he wanted to RECRUIT into his FIRST CHURCH OF SATAN ) and then turned out eventually leading those who stuck with it long enough DOWN THE EVER DOWNWARD HELL’S TOILET BOWL SLOPE to COMMIT all of those things I wrote above that Satanists do/are involved in and they eventually end up DYING AS FECES EATING LEGIONS OF DEMONS POSSESSED DRUG ADDICTS ( just like ALEISTER CROWLEY did ) !!!

  11. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    ANGLICAN really means THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND and I know EXACTLY WHY & HOW THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND WAS STARTED, one of the kings of England ( who was A CATHOLIC ) wanted A DIVORCE from his wife so that he could GET REMARRIED TO ANOTHER WOMAN and THE POPE said to him NO HE CANNOT DIVORCE HIS WIFE AND THEN GET REMARRIED TO THAT OTHER WOMAN THAT HE REALLY WANTED TO MARRY, so then because of all of that he said well then ” JUST SCREW THE POPE AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THEN, I QUIT ” and then he STARTED/CREATED THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ( HIS OWN CHURCH ) just so he could DIVORCE HIS WIFE and then right after that GET REMARRIED TO THAT WOMAN THAT HE REALLY WANTED TO MARRY.

    THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ( ANGLICANISM , IN THE U.S.A most commonly called EPISCOPALIAN ) is REALLY NOT CATHOLIC ! It is really another PROTESTANT church ! It was STARTED/CREATED in PROTEST/ DEFIANCE/ OPPOSITION to THE POPE and THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and it’s TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS on DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE which are 100% BACKED UP by the teachings on DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE in the NEW TESTAMENT .

    That KING OF ENGLAND just really DESPERATELY wanted to HAVE IT HIS OWN WAY no matter what when it came to DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE which is exactly what led him to START/CREATE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

    • He wanted a declaration of nullity. Due to the Pope having to deal with threats of war in Europe, the nullification process was not granted.

      Your understanding is quite simpleton.

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        MAYBE according to the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRE V2 criteria/standards/and teachings ( ON DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE ) HIS MARRIAGE WAS A VALID ONE ( according to CATHOLICISM ) that can ONLY BE DISSOLVED BY THE DEATH OF ONE OR BOTH OF THE SPOUSES and by NO OTHER WAY EVER and that is really,truely,honestly EXACTLY WHY the Pope would not grant him A NULLIFICATION PROCESS of his marriage, WHY EXACTLY do you think that the TRADITIONAL CHURCH WEDDING VOWS ( that even ALL PROTESTANTS use/say in their CHURCH WEDDINGS ) contain the words ” till DEATH do us apart ” ?( that is even the TITLE of a song by MADONNA ) So MY UNDERSTANDING is really NOT that SIMPLETON after all !

        WHY would WAR ( even IN EUROPE ) STOP THE CATHOLIC CHURCH from being ABLE to carry out it’s DAILY FUNCTIONS ( like GRANTING NULLIFICATION PROCESSES OF MARRIAGES that the Catholic Church found out to be INVALID to begin with ) ?! And plus DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW MANY WARS HAVE BROKEN OUT IN EUROPE THROUGHOUT IT’S HISTORY ?! ( WHY would that STOP the Catholic Church from being ABLE to carry out it’s FUNCTIONS and DUTIES ? ! )

        It’s not like THE POPE, ALL OF THE BISHOPS, ALL OF THE CARDINALS,ALL OF THE PRIESTS, ALL OF THE CLERGY WERE MARCHING OFF TO WAR ! GOOD GRIEF NES !

        NO the King of Englands MARRIAGE was A VALID CATHOLIC SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE THAT COULD ONLY BE DISSOLVED BY DEATH and that is really,truely,honestly exactly why the Pope would not grant him a nullification of his marriage !

      • No. It was because there were major military threats to the Papal States and the Pope was caught up in all of these issues and could not even go through with a nullification process.

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        If that King of England’s marriage was really,truely A INVALID MARRIAGE IN GOD’S EYES and GOD really wanted for him ( it was really,truely GOD’S WILL ) to GET REMARRIED TO THAT OTHER WOMAN that the King of England wanted to get REMARRIED to ( and started/created THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND over ) then all the King of England really had to do was BE PATIENT, ABSTAIN FROM ADULTERY, AND PRAY for THE NULLIFICATION OF HIS INVALID MARRIAGE and WAIT PATIENTLY FOR IT UNTIL GOD ANSWERED HIS PRAYER, if what YOU NES are claiming in the above comment of yours was really THE TRUTH ( which I bet it really,truely is not ) , and not go and START/CREATE HIS OWN NON CATHOLIC/ PROTESTANT CHURCH, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND in response to not getting what he wanted right away on HIS ROYAL MAJESTIES demand !

        And I bet that PRIDE had ALOT to do with that too, I bet he was like ” I am THE KING OF ENGLAND so HOW DARE THE POPE not give me A NULLIFICATION OF MY MARRIAGE, I don’t have to OBEY the Pope because I am A KING of England DAMMIT “!!!

      • The English Church was founded on Gallican principles in the early 7th century AD by St Augustine of Canterbury. The King was in technicality already the head of the English Church and his split was authorized.
        The problems came when the Protestant take-over of the English Church came.

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        DON’T write to ME ” your understanding is quite SIMPLETON ” since YOU YOURSELF are A THIN SKINNED INDIVIDUAL , you describe yourself on this blog here as being EASILY OFFENDED ( that is THIN SKINNED ) , I am A THIN SKINNED INDIVIDUAL too ! So DON’T call ME a SIMPLETON ! ( I looked SIMPLETON up in the dictionary and it says A FOOL ) That is really INSULTING me !

        Just a few hours ago I came across a article about HIGHLY SENSITIVE INDIVIDUALS and I FIT all of the describtions it gives about highly sensitive individuals, and highly sensitive individuals are ONLY 15 to 20 % of THE U.S.A population ( so IS THAT EXACTLY WHY I have ENDLESS PROBLEMS & STRESS my whole entire life already from BIRTH onward ? ! ) , MAYBE that is exactly what YOU NES are too.

      • ANONYMOUS 4 says:

        I really think that LUST and THE SINS OF THE FLESH had ALOT to do with what that King of England did with starting/creating THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. ( he really did it ALL BECAUSE OF A WOMAN ! )

        CATHOLICISM has ALOT of teachings/writings about LUST and THE SINS OF THE FLESH, and even the teaching that THE SINS OF THE FLESH is what sends MOST PEOPLE TO HELL !

  12. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    Were you raised up going to church and BAPTIZED as a baby or child ?

  13. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    Which DENOMINATION were you raised up in ?

  14. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    Bouts with DEPRESSION , I have had those too , BELIEVE ME !

  15. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    NewEnglandSun really sounds to me like A NEWSPAPER. Why didn’t you just call it ARIZONA SUN ?! ( if that is where you REALLY live )

  16. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    You were really not A CHRISTIAN until you were BAPTIZED ( especially once you reached TEEN or ADULTHOOD UNBAPTIZED, like that you REALLY ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN ) , so therefore you were really NOT a LIBERAL CHRISTIAN ( because you were not even BAPTIZED yet at that point ) TURNED SATANIST !

    And MAYBE it is really,truely NOT BEING BAPTIZED that CAN LEAD SOME INDIVIDUALS TO INVOLVEMENT IN SATANISM and not LIBERALISM at all ! ( and that is what I really,truely,honestly THINK now )

  17. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    Why do you think THE CATHOLIC CHURCH was always for and taught and practiced INFANT BAPTISM ? I really think that it provides EXTRA PROTECTION from THE DEVIL & DEMONS and EVIL . The denomination I was raised up in also PRACTICES INFANT BAPTISM. Maybe that is really,truely, EXACTLY WHY the devil could never get me ( I know that he TRIED TO ) and I never got involved IN SATANISM .

  18. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    ” the King was the head of the English Church and his split was AUTHORIZED ” .

    The ONLY HEAD of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH has ALWAYS been THE POPE ( THE BISHOP OF ROME ) and NOBODY ELSE ! ( and NOT no KING OF ENGLAND ! )

    His SPLIT was AUTHORIZED BY WHO EXACTLY ? By HRM HIMSELF ?!

    • Look up Gallicanism.
      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06351a.htm
      There was a lot of room for doctrinal opinion between Ultramontanism and Gallicanism even beyond the Protestant Reformation.

      • Nan says:

        Gallicanism is a French thing; none of the rights extended to the French king were extended to the English king. In any case, that and the idea the pope was occupied with wars are a nice little way of rationalizing being a follower of a king who divorced or killed his wives because he found someone else he wanted; it’s a huge conflict of interest to authorize annulment or execution of his wife. The excuse given for divorce of Catherine was that she was first his brothers is merely that; an excuse. He knew he shouldn’t marry his brother’s wife. Note also that the confiscation of the monasteries was simply because the king was broke and wanted the wealth of the church. Greed and lust were the driving forces of this man.

        Ultramontanism is a heresy.

        I’m sorry that you left Truth for a church in which you have to create such rationalizations for the despotic acts of the church’s founder. Anglicans don’t have Apostolic Succession as Henry’s son Edward changed the ordination rite so it was clear that it didn’t have the same effect as the Catholic ordination rite, thus no bishops exist who are validly ordained, therefore, no priests exist who are validly ordained.

        You should check out the Anglican Ordinariate. You can keep the rite and actually become Catholic.

      • “Anglicans don’t have Apostolic Succession as Henry’s son Edward changed the ordination rite so it was clear that it didn’t have the same effect as the Catholic ordination rite”
        True, but Anglican Catholics did not submit to Edward’s ordination rite so our orders are valid.

        “You should check out the Anglican Ordinariate. You can keep the rite and actually become Catholic”
        So essentially, my rite does have valid orders yet you just said previously it doesn’t.

        “Gallicanism is a French thing; none of the rights extended to the French king were extended to the English king”
        Doesn’t mean the English king could not rightfully claim them.

  19. ANONYMOUS 4 says:

    The Church of England was NOT “taken over by protestants ” at some point like you are claiming, it was A PROTESTANT CHURCH from THE GET GO / THE VERY BEGINNING !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s