The a-C and I conversed (verbally) where I asked him to cite factually where the RCC or Pope or both instigated and caused a certain Christians execution. I told him I wasnt going to split hairs....that is....if the RCC is shown as a major supporter of such execution, and not held by the "State" to identify Heretics under duress, that would be sufficient for me to consider his broad view of the Crusades as Catholics being willfully aligned with Satan. See below for how the conversation continued and who may be on a path of historical truth.
(Dave writes to a-C):
William Tyndale was not executed by the Catholic Church or a Catholic at all. He published a criticism of the King and was held accountable for it:
" In 1530, he (Tyndale) wrote The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts. This resulted in the king's wrath being directed at him: he asked the emperor Charles V to have Tyndale apprehended and returned to England "
Where do get your eroneous info on this stuff?
-Dave
(a-C responds):
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ASKED THE KING TO PAY AN INDULGENCE TO THE CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR THE ANULEMENT OF THE MARRIAGE AND IT WAS ALL TIED INTO TOGETHER…YOU THINK YOURSELF TO HAVE RESEARCHED SOMEHTING WHEN YOU FIND SOMETHING TYPED BY YOUR CULT EXPLAINING AWAY AN ASPECT…YOU ARE DECEEIVE BY YOUR SELF DECEPTION OF WIT MY FRIEND….THIS DOES NOT A RESEARCHER MAKE, THE INQUISITION WAS NOTHING OF CATHOLICSIM I SUSPECT YOU WILL BE FULLY CONVINCED OF THAT BY SOME STRANGE DUDE IN A FUNNY COLLAR WITH A POMPAS ROBE….
UNCLE
YOU ARE BEYOND MY REACH
Your blood be on your own head, my warnings clear me my friend…turn from this incidious cult and trust in my Lord and my savior Jesus Christ
May our Lord bless you with understanding what he has revealed about himself in his infallible word of God…
-a-C
Dave responds:
I qouted a secular history encyclopedia, not a Catholic take or source or bent. Your take is false and should embarrass you. See how your Bias leads you to error? These are historical facts not Catholic Facts. Research is not opinion. Black and white facts.
There was no "indulgences paid" (such a thing has never been the official practice...its a myth)
See the bold below. Henry VIII sued for anulment based on an idea of a false papal bull, which was never granted, even though the Pope was a prisoner of Katherines Nephew.
"In 1525, Henry VIII became enamoured with Anne Boleyn, a maid-of-honour to the Queen, and began his pursuit of her.[3] By this time Katherine was not in a physical condition to undergo further pregnancies. Henry began to believe that his marriage was cursed and sought confirmation from the Bible, which says that if a man marries his brother's wife, the couple will be childless.[4] If she had lied when she said her marriage to Arthur had not been consummated, it meant that their marriage was wrong in the eyes of God. It is possible that the idea of annulment had suggested itself to the King much earlier than this, and it is highly probable that it was motivated by his desire for a male heir. Before Henry's father Henry VII ascended the throne, England had been beset by civil warfare over rival claims to the English crown and Henry may have wanted to avoid a similar uncertainty over the succession.[5]
It soon became the one absorbing object of the King's desires to secure an annulment.[6] He set his hopes upon a direct appeal to the Holy See, acting independently of Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, to whom he at first communicated nothing of his plans. William Knight, the king's secretary, was sent to Pope Clement VII to sue for the annulment of the marriage, on the ground that the dispensing bull of Pope Julius II was obtained by false pretences.
As the pope was at that time the prisoner of Katherine's nephew, Emperor Charles V, Knight had some difficulty in obtaining access to him. In the end the king's envoy had to return without accomplishing much. Henry had now no choice but to put his great matter into the hands of Thomas Wolsey, and Wolsey did all he could to secure a decision in the King's favour.[7] How far the pope was influenced by Charles V in his resistance, it is difficult to say, but it is clear Henry saw that the Pope was unlikely to give him an annulment from the Emperor's aunt.[8] The pope forbade Henry to proceed to a new marriage before a decision was given in Rome . Wolsey had failed and he was dismissed from public office in 1529. He then began a secret plot to have Boleyn forced into exile and he began communication with Katherine and the Pope, to that end. When this was discovered, Henry ordered Wolsey's arrest and had it not been for his death from a terminal illness in 1530, he might have been executed for treason.[9] A year later, Katherine was banished from court and her old rooms were given to Boleyn. When Archbishop of Canterbury William Warham died, the Boleyn family's chaplain, Thomas Cranmer, was appointed to the vacant position.[10] In November 1531, Katherine wrote to her nephew: "My tribulations are so great, my life so disturbed by the plans daily invented to further the king's wicked intention, the surprises which the king gives me, with certain persons of his council, are so mortal, and my treatment is what God knows, that it is enough to shorten ten lives, much more mine".
-Dave
(a-C responds):
Myth
Perhaps I should obtain a $5,000 check paid by a friend of my brothers to obtain this anulement, would that correct your dilusion
Your understanding of catholocisms influence over all these matters and the matter of wealth and papal wealth associated with all of this stuff is not reflected here. I will be glad to forward you the proper perspective…but it goes back to what you were saying last night that you were hinting that you objected to, about the distance the church is from the government official…The church would have encouraged the king to put him to death in accordance with their standing…
-a-C
