Thanks Ryan really enjoying this series

Thank you, Ryan Reeves. Listening to lots of your videos.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Henry VII, indeed a grandson of the French princess and English queen consort Catherine of Valois, traced his claim through his mother Margaret Beaufort, who came from an illegitimate Lancastrian line later made somewhat legitimate after John of Gaunt, the Duke a Lancaster married his former mistress Katherine Swynford, mother of the Beaufort line. This being so, you are correct that it was a tenuous claim to the throne, especially considering that the Lancastrian claim's foundation was based on the primacy of male heirs and lineage, as the Yorkist claim passed through two women.

Well done.

It's interesting that you noted that "a king/queen (political power) backing the reformation, was unique to Anglicanism' considering Lutheranism was never established as the state church in any territory except where an electoral prince supported the teaching of the Augsburg Confession and signed it. Heck, even outside of Germany the lands where Lutheranism was given state-church status (the Swedish Empire: Scandinavia and the Baltics), the King Gustavus II Adolphus converted to the Lutheran Reformation and through Olaus and Laurentius Petri (Swedish theologians; the latter, in Thomas Cranmer-style, becoming Archbishop of Uppsala) had the entire Roman Catholic ecclesial structure of Sweden, from the highest bishop to the lowest priest and deacon... all became Lutheran. Give Lutheranism credit for politically-enforced reformation as well.

Henry took Lev 20:21 entirely out of context. Shakespeare should have written: A woman! A woman! My kingdom for a woman!

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+KJVNEWS // Absolutely. Historians always have to stifle a chuckle when they describe Henry's steps to defend his divorce from the Bible. It's Stalin-esque in terms of bending things to fit his predetermined opinion.

@stevenryhudi

8 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Reeves Does anyone realize that marrying a brother's wife is exactly what the 'older testament' prescribed (levirate marriage), so that it even devised a way of getting out of the obligation (called 'halitzah')? And there may be a verse somewhere about not marrying a brother's former wife while the brother is alive. That may be the one cited in this story.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Steven Radcliffe // Good eye! :) And yes they knew it during Henry VIII's time, too. A lot of historians point out that Henry took the passage that forbids marrying a relative and ignored the passage that allows it in certain cases (lack of children in the family line). He also ignores the point that the curse in the passage says you will be barren. But Henry and Catherine were NOT barren: they had Princess Mary. Needless to say this gives a fair exposure to Henry VIII's personality when it comes to getting what he wants! :)

@stevenryhudi

8 жыл бұрын

I wonder why this king was reading the older testament as if it applied to him, a Christian, not a Jew. I mean the numerous regulations that Christians were supposed to be free of (before any reformation took that as a theme to concentrate on).

@stevenryhudi

8 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Reeves Thanks for your reply - I have listened to a few of your videos.

Incrementalism is always a good way to subvert a culture or political system.

Is it true that Henry VIII was given Extreme Unction at his death by a Catholic priest?

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

ja jane // It is not true. A great deal of that is based on his funeral procession, which had a number of significantly traditional elements.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Arthur Hallett // Great question. This is based on research my doctoral advisor has worked on (I believe it is published now, but haven't checked). Essentially the trouble with Henry is knowing what he believes. He acts so strangely at times, but he does have this incredible passion for his faith. At his death he has planned his procession to include elements of traditional worship, the saints, and all sorts of things that would have appeared to a casual observer as Catholic. Yet he rejected extreme unction. He also appointed a panel of guardians for his son until he became king, half of which are Protestant, half are Catholic. He really is, at times, a looney toon. :)

@borderlands6606

7 жыл бұрын

Professor Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars" buries the myth that late medieval England was host to an unpopular church. Henry VIII's challenge was based on legalism and the pressing need for a male heir, not on a crisis of faith. Had Catherine of Aragon produced sons, the church of Rome would have remained extant in England, and Henry would have pursued extramarital affairs like other kings, without unravelling orthodoxy. Modern Anglicanism is a loosely defined religion, covering everything from firebrand Protestantism to quasi-Catholicism within a single church. A "national church" is by any standards an oxymoron.

@davidmorrison2739

7 жыл бұрын

Henry was a Roman Catholic in belief and practice to the end of his life.

Dr. Reeves, have you produced any video lectures concerning the dating, origins, and authorship of the Gospels? If so, how can I get to them?

@blakev6842

7 жыл бұрын

See resources from author and youtuber Dr. James White of Alpha Omega Ministries

@eddiemorris17

7 жыл бұрын

Dan wallace is the man your seeking for that.God bless.

whoever said that the title, Defender of the Faith, was hereditary?

Is it just me or does Henry VIII resemble actor David Ogden Stiers?

My interpretation: Henry needed an heir yes. However, there was a huge game being played, the New World. Shortly after Columbus's journey, the Pope (a Spaniard) issued a Papal Bull stating only Spain and Portugal had claims to the new world. Can't follow a Catholic Bull is you're not a catholic country. Instead of marrying into the Spanish (and being the beta) Henry, whether he realized it or not, led England to be the Alpha.

The English Reformation is not the same thing as Anglicanism. Anglicanism has it's roots in the early 4th century long before it came under the jurisdiction of Rome. Anglicans are Catholic Christians although tempered by the reformation. Theologically Anglicanism has more in common with Eastern Orthodoxy than either Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. However, Anglican liturgy is much more like the western Church than the eastern Church. We are Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical all at the same time. Henry the 8th only represents the political division between Anglicans and the Bishop of Rome. Anglican spirituality is one of branches of ancient Christianity, it did not begin with King Henry or the Reformation. An Anglican Bishop in valid Apostolic Succession was in attendance at the Council of Nicene in A.D.325.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Rev. J. Roger Allen // That's actually a great way of putting it, Roger. I think I'll borrow that from you for my classes! My point is always that later (or earlier) identity in Anglicanism is always prone to read all of its identity into this period of the Reformation. All traditions do this in some way, so it's not a bad thing. My goal in this lecture and others is to stress that one may not always find these identities in earlier periods, or not in the way we hoped, but that does not make the later Anglican identity a myth. If there's any single strength in the Anglican outlook its the appreciation of historical rootedness, so the point here is that the Reformation has a context and we should notice it and not make too much/too little of it. Great point!

@rev.j.rogerallen9328

8 жыл бұрын

Thank you Dr. Reeves. It means a lot coming from you because I respect you as a historian. I almost never say that about anyone! One of my undergraduate majors was history and I have loved the study of it since the 5th grade. I have been studying Church History for the past 40 years and find your lectures to be an honest effort to present an unbiased telling of the past. I realize we all have some biases we are not even aware of, I'm sure I do. But I appreciate your genuine effort to speak historical truth. Thank you. I am a Priest of the Anglican Church in North America, so of course I agree with your comment concerning our "historical rootedness". I would argue that it is only one of the many strengths within Anglicanism( no bias here, LOL) But your point is well taken that Anglican identity is often merged into it's experience of the reformation. This is also true of the Roman Catholic Church though few of that tradition would confess or agree to this. The Reformation changed us all, not to mention the whole of Western Civilization. But unlike many of our more radical brethren of the various reform movements, we did not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We see ourselves as remaining faithful to both Scripture and Tradition especially as that Tradition has been delivered to us by the Early Fathers of the Church. Since we allow our theology to be molded more by the Early Fathers than any of the other later expressions of Christian thought, we think of our theology to be more in keeping with Eastern Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. One very good example of this is our thinking concerning The Holy Eucharist. Anglicans assert the doctrine known as "The very real present of Christ in the Eucharist". This is much closer to the Orthodox understanding than is Transubstantiation. Anglican communicants most definitely believe that a real change takes place in the elements of bread and wine but do not try to use Aristotle's philosophical definitions in order to describe it as did Aquinas. For Anglicans and the Eastern Church a real change takes place but it is a Mystery as to how God causes this to happen. Since the very word "Sacrament" means a mystery we do not try to define it but by faith we assert that The Bread and wine of Holy Communion really are the body and blood of our Savior. This is but one example of our closer Theological connection to Orthodoxy than Romanism. Well, I've rambled on long enough! I hope some of these comments are helpful to you and since you mentioned using parts of what I said previously in your classes, I would honored if any of my comments were incorporated in to your lectures. Once again, thank you for your work and for putting these great lectures on youtube. I pray God continue to bless your efforts. Fr. Allen+

@Johnnycdrums

8 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Reeves ; Are you going to do a lecture on the traditional Catholic movement and it's fight against the Modernism of the "Novus ordo" and the post-Counciliar Church? I'm interested to find out how an objective theologian, and outside observer views this crisis. By the way; I love your lectures, great body of work here.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Johnnyc drums // Hey Johnny. Thanks for the comment (and others elsewhere). I am definitely moving back over the same periods and covering things that are important but didn't fit into these survey courses at first. I do love to look at Catholic development as an outsider and Reformation scholar. I think too many people stop at 1700 and do not look at how either side developed, and this is one of them. I do talk about this fight with Modernism in general in my video on Vatican I and tie it in a bit with Anglo-Catholicism. But it's all very simply done and not fleshed out. This is on the list, though! :)

@Johnnycdrums

8 жыл бұрын

Ryan Reeves ; Thank you for responding to my question. I look forward to seeing your take on this growing multifaceted movement. I recommend the many talks by traditionalists like my favorite on You Tube, Fr. Gregory Hesse (RIP), and Fr. Paul Kramer. Michael Voris, The Remnant, The various Sedevacantists groups like the Dimond Bro.'s, At times, and I struggle with this; traditional Catholicism and Sedevacantivism appear to be a difference without distinction. Don't tell them that. I come down on the traditionalist, Fr. Hesse side, but listen to both of course. I watched, and found your Vatican I, and Anglo-Catholicism videos very informative. I have a hard time explaining this debate to almost anyone. I look forward to an outside observers objective take on this crisis. Happy Easter; Dominus vobiscum.

If ever there were an illegitimate church, it is the (Anglican) Church of England. Considering how the church was founded, I am surprised anybody wants to be even remotely associated with it.

John Calvin had a man burned at the stake.

I don't understand why the British people could rate this diabolical creature so highly. I bet the Irish do not concur with that assessment.

@rikmayes

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, he is the most "popular" notorious king, maybe, along with Richard III. For many of us he's the worst king we've ever had. I am probably a pedantic old git, but I always complain if a tourist shop is selling colourful tins of biscuits etc adorned with his portrait, and my family and friends know better than to mention his name in my presence. But I am an Anglican.

Stand up against popacie was very revolutionairy. Keep it that way.