Where did the idea that the english reformation only happened because Henry wanted more wives originate from?
>>18074203History.
Redpill me on Wycliffe, OPI've been to Prague and seen the massive statue they have for this nigga
>>18074212>people were willing to suffer he pain of death because their previous king wanted to fuck more wivesyou realize how stupid this sounds?>>18074215think you got him confused with Jan Hus, whom the papist killed for even more being criticism and broke their promise to
>>18074225>you realize how stupid this sounds?Yeah, anglos are massively retarded. What else is new?
>>18074215He recognised the Catholic church as indulging in many of the same heresies that Luther later identified. He was also an advocate of the Bible being translated into English, so that the mass of people would be better able to understand it.
>>18074233>He was also an advocate of the Bible being translated into English, so that the mass of people would be better able to understand it.The entirety of protestant history proves this to be a horrendous mistake.
>>18074203tbf it's an absolutely retarded take even from the secular anglethe whole middle ages between the norman conquest and henry's reforms are filled with episodes of english kings being at odds with french or francophilic popes
>>18074203Papists. Are you stupid?
>>18074237>Are you stupid?The Church of England just elected its first female archbishop. You don't have a right to insult anybody.
>>18074225>think you got him confused with Jan HusShit, you're right
>>18074225>Christians perform a veiled human sacrifice >>Jesus doesn't careSooooWell, maybe that suited him.Or were the pagan gods not so bad after all, and the priests perverted everything? Just as Christians performed human sacrifices under the guise of fighting demons, pagans did it openly.Basically, any such execution is essentially no different from the MLK ritual.
>>18074234>nnnnooooooo only this select group of people is able to control the narrative rrrreeeeeeeeeeeYou managed to deepthroat the whole boot. Impressive
>>18074241>this is bad because... BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY!??!
>>18074263I take it that you don't understand the concept of being an expert? You know why doctors need a medical license? Or lawyers need years of training?>>18074265>this is bad becauseBecause the Bible explicitly forbids women from being in positions of authority in the church.
>>18074269>lawyers and doctors are on par with people who decide what the magic book sayslol, lmao even >women badOk great, so Jesus should be back any day now to smite her, no?
>>18074225>people were willing to suffer he pain of death because their previous king wanted to fuck more wivesPeople are getting stabbed and stamped on in London everyday and still keep voting for more migrants to come in, Brits are retards
Anglicans are retarded because they piety spiraled so hard that they call Henry viii a heretic. Imagine Lutheran's calling Luther a heretic. Total nonsense.
>>18074241I'm not an Anglican. You *are* retarded, though. Enjoy burning.
The real problem that should be addressed is the conservative Anglican to Catholic convert (conversos) like tayler marshall who are promoting "trad Catholicism" because it's the most faithful expression of their scholastic anglicanism larp
Leo VI byzantine emperor was divorced four times and the pope granted him that many with the assurance that Leo would outlaw all future fourth marriages.
>>18074420could you explain this
>>18074539Anglo Catholics are basically just Catholics who thought modern Rome was fallen so they rejected Vatican 2 than they realized they would have to go to anglicanism because there is no pre modern Vatican 2 position. They are basically larping as medieval Catholics but as anglicanism got more woke they were forced to join the Catholic Church but they still practice "trad Catholicism" which is just anglo Catholicism in communion with Rome
>>18074215OP doesn't know shit.Wycliffe advocated for the dissolution of the monasteries long before it actually happened, because he was the mouthpiece of John of Gaunt, who covered the lands belonging to the church for himself. Yes, Wycliffe really did advocate for the state to seize property which had been donated freely generations beforehand to the church, and it was for reasons just as low and covetous as that murderer and philanderer his patron.Anyways, this complete disaster for English culture and learning (read the works of Carlyle and Cobbett's History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland for more information, find out why the Baroque period of the arts largely skipped England entirely) and the tenants who enjoyed cheaper rents due to living on church land (their mass evictions by the new secular nobility landlords charging much higher rents directly caused a mass homeless epidemic that would last through Elizabeth's reign, many homeless would literally be branded with a V if taken by the authorities) is completely ignored or belittled by protestants because they are caesaropapist statist bootlickers historically speaking. Look it up, every single protestant church created after the so-called reformation was a state church (but for the anabaptists, God bless them specifically for being far and away better in every last respect than state church protties). Their so-called "clergy" were nothing more than civil servants accountable only to and appointed by their secular head of state, this is not an exaggeration. These are the protestant princelings who supported Luther, not for any genuine religious feelings but because they stood to enrich themselves through plundering church properties. They like John of Gaunt centuries before, saw the same opportunity in their shameless greed.The building of great Gothic cathedrals stopped with the advent of protestantism. In England, many were even torn down, the great cathedral at Lewes priory.
Did the great and virtuous Wycliffe ever ONCE rebuke John of Gaunt for his campaign of mass murder and rape of civilian non-combatants in France? A hellish jaunt that I might add, ended in complete failure and accomplished nothing at all of note strategically?Not at all, his venom was stored up only for the libraries of English monasteries whose religious liberty from (being free of, unimpeded or impinged by, neither molested nor harassed nor waylaid) the power of the king was expressly enshrined and protected under Magna Carta, the vast majority of which were unfortunately lost during the dissolution along with crucial histories.Wycliffe knew about Magna Carta. He simply didn't care because John of Gaunt gave him money to write these poisonous screeds. He relied on the naivete and stupidity of a relatively small number of hopped up heretical bumfuck anglos for the illusion of popular support. In reality, Wycliffes influence came from a faction in the court.And the incredibly heavy taxes John and his ilk levied on them to pay for this needless massacre of fellow Christians, he maintained was so just and righteous that they should be offset by taking the property of the church too. In clear violation of Magna Carta.OFC when this self righteous facade, this so clearly malicious retardation led to the Peasants Revolt and the ire of the people was chiefly directed against the secular sphere for so inordinately impoverishing them, Wycliffe swiftly lost favor.
>>18074933>>18074950Puritanschizo ITT detectedEverybody ignore this retarded ESL tradcath schizo who claims to love english culture yet celebrates the harrying of the north and his retarded, genuinely schizophrenic theories about John of Gaunt
>>18074933>>18074950Good post>>18075232>no rebuttalpottery
>>18075232Based>>18075283No point wasting time with some schizoposting ESL
>>18075647>h-h-h-he's schizopostingEasily refuted then, and yet you fail to do so
>>18075698Why would anyone waste time with a gishgalloping wall of text from one of the resident schizos that will just>nuh-uh!His way out of it like he always does before spamming it again.He hasn't posted anything actually proving John of Gaunt was part of some nefarious aristocrat conspiracy to take monastic land short of "he was a patron of Wycliffe". So fucking what? The Catholic Church employs (and covered up for) boyfucking pedophiles, yet you wouldn't say that was Catholic policy would you?
>>18076278>yet you wouldn't say that was Catholic policy would you?I would, because it clearly is
>complete disaster for English culture and learning>the Baroque period of the arts largely skipped England entirelypick one
>>18076726
>>18076278he cries about john of gaunt's chevauchee yet says nothing about every other chevauchee the catholic english kings engaged in, many of which were far more brutal than anything john of gaunt did.He also pretends to care about english culture yet celebrates the norman conquest and the harrying of the north.He also belives the american revolutionaries were monarchistsAn absolutely deranged schizo. An ESL catholic spamming cobbet and pretending to be an englishman. one of /his/'s strangest schizos
>>18076841>>18076278He also unironically believes the Robin Hood ballads were a propaganda campaign written by John of Gaunt to make English people distrustful of the clergy.Absolutely deranged schizophrenia.
>>18076278>would anyone waste timeYou would, you are in pure damage control mode right now.If what I had written were nonsensical schizo blabber, it could safely be ignored. In fact you would have ignored it.But because it's true, it must be attacked repeatedly. You must insinuate that I am not more fluent in English than you, attack my character, etc, because you hate the truth. In truth not only am I a native English speaker, but I am in fact far more skilled in its use than you ever will be, even when I am riotously drunk. I have more English blood in my left foot than you do in your whole body. You are a petulant American so desperate for a historical legacy that doesn't begin in the modern period, or any kind of semblance of tradition or legitimacy at all for that matter, that you latch onto notorious heretics like the Lollards to cope with the realization that you are a schismatic. That's why you lash out like this when the facts get dropped.I'm far from the first person to notice this. A cursory search turns up several people who agree with my estimation. It's common sense to anyone with even an elementary familiarity with the subject. Gaunt was the largest private landholder in the kingdom, he desired even more land to grant to his cronies.https://dartingtonmorris.uk/bits-and-bobs-about-john-ogaunt>Of course what John O'Gaunt had his eye on was the enormous tracts of land owned by the Roman Catholic church and his designs on church property lead him to support John Wycliffe who was a forerunner of the Reformation in England.https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=hodges&book=saints&story=wycliffe>Wycliffe proposed that the property of the Church be taken away. That was the best solution he could think of. And Lord Percy and Duke John of Gaunt agreed with him most heartily; for when the property of the Church was taken away they hoped to get a large share of it for themselves.>>18076841>>18076852rent free
>>18076841>He also belives the american revolutionaries were monarchistsI am in the privileged company of a Harvard professor of American history on this point.One who recognizes that the American chief executive had been deliberately invested with powers by framers of their constitution that no English monarch had enjoyed since 1688, that great coup and usurpation. And that was because they recognized checks and balances were necessary to prevent legislative tyranny; the Declaration of Independence was addressed to the King because he was the one who carelessly abrogated his lawful authority over crown lands to parliament. A parliament that remains unnamed in that document, again deliberately because their pretense of legislating for the colonies was at the root of their grievances.>the chad long form lecturehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB96oPafQgg>the virgin QRDhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWpk4kdgQAM
>>18076973
>>18074203Because history teachers have about an hour to sum up the entire thing so it becomes all about Henry, not the century+ long process.
>>18074263Now you have 10,000 groups of people all trying to control the narrative. Yes or no, the passage about selling your cloak to buy a sword means to go out and buy an arsenal of tricked out AR15s?
>>18074263So you think Simon Magus was justified in spreading his heresy, simply because the apostles didn't give him the laying of hands?Adorable. Apostolic succession is real, and confers the authority Jesus have to the apostles. It's an authority non-Christians can never have, and it's not an authority that all Christians receive.It's funny you should use the word "select", because you can't spell it without "elect". Yes, the church literally selects certain people (election) to teach and this gift is not given to all. The use of the word election here shouldn't suggest to you the idea of popular rule or a democratic process; that would be anachronistic. The elect are chosen for a certain task by those with the authority to do so, and this authority ultimately comes from God.
>>18076929Is that your blog? Again, there's nothing in there short of the same baseless shit you've been spamming over and over again. >I have more English blood in my left foot than you do in your whole body. That is hard to believe from an anon that was gloating about the Norman Conquest being some form of British revenge on the English, but would be par for the course for someone that thinks Robin Hood tales were also anti-monastic propaganda
>>18076973Holy TRVKE Midwits don't realize that the president's picks for SCOTUS used to be confirmed on site just because he picked them. The Executive Branch was supposed to be the suppressive action on a out-of-control Legislature, which was itself split into two chambers, one of which elected itself from the other body, because the government owed itself to who? The people. And the people are what? Mobs. It's anarchy, democracy, etc. etc. It's people leveling societal inequalities through violence. There's a reason Patrick Henry, George Mason, and that Boston crackhead with the beer company wanted it explicitly stated outright what rights could never be touched - midwits know it as the Big Beautifil Bill of Rights, Madisonian Chads know that the first amendment could have been #3. Madison and the boys wrote the Constitution not as three equal branches, no sir, they wrote it so that the voice of the Commons was filtered through Congress, with the stopgap of the Senate, and that the Executive was the true powerhouse. Why do you think Adams was able to stack all the courts with his own party members on his way out the door? That Jefferson could just up and buy a third of North America from France or impose an embargo on exports? Why do you think Tommy J called Washington a monarchist and rage-quit his Cabinet position? Because the Founders over-corrected from 1688 and created a stronger elected monarchy that could wrangle the Legislature, aka Parliament. That is, until Johnny M. came in off the top rope with a steel chair, yelled Bankai - Judicial Review" and used SCOTUS to stop Jefferson from lynching Burr after they both got caught in a scheme to start a war with Spain and he needed a patsy.
>>18076990>Now you have 10,000 groups of people all trying to control the narrative.Societies change nigga
>>18077012All pre-Reformation church history is irrelevant schizo shit
>>18074234How is it any worse than ancient Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, or others understanding the scriptures in their languages in antiquity? Why must the teachings be gate-kept in some archaic language not understood by the majority?
>>18077039>doesn't answer the question
>>18077069>actually answering a strawman
>>18077028I didn't say I take pride in being heavily English.Why would I? You don't always have to assume your ancestors were praise worthy. Imagine being descended from John of Gaunt for example, then being so self absorbed you actually defend that monster. Complete lack of perspective on your part tbqh.I'm not an ethno-chauvinist, but my pedigree does explain my natural dialect.It's precisely because I come from the Puritans that I know what autistic control freaks they were.I never said anything about Robin Hood being invented by John of Gaunt. He was a real outlaw, was a ranger associated with the Lancastrians during the barons revolt called the Despencer War. Had to go into hiding after being outlawed when his side lost, eventually got a pardon.His popular folk tales were however coopted and twisted by anti-clerical forces among the literate nobility in later generations. Note, these early songs we receive come from their class (this is known because they were both written down and preserved, which is a fate most originally English mythology simply does not enjoy, see Tolkien).And protestants have long used him in their propaganda efforts.https://www.boldoutlaw.com/robages/robages5.html
>>18074405I don't remember reading that in any of the party manifestos?
>>18077106>Although he'd rob corrupt abbots, monks and bishops, the early Robin Hood was a devout Catholic (at least in irony). The anti-clerical forces are coming from inside the house
>>18077070It's yes isn't it and you're too gutless to answer.
>>18076990Seems more honest than one church who's own adherents don't really give a fuck about its teachings.But hey, as long as everyone ticks the 'catholic' box at census time it's all good right (just like my paradox gaymes where religious uniformity gives my state a 10% boost to the stability modifier :D)
>>18077152I don't even know what the fuck the question is because I'm not a terminally online LARPing brown christard kek
>>18077146That's why more than 40000 people rose up when Henry VIII dissolved the monastic houses. This Pilgrimage of Grace as it was called really did enjoy true popular support, and they actually could have overthrown the government.You have been fed lies for a very long time. In truth, the monasteries were bastions of the social safety net for all of the poor peasants who lived around them. They, unlike the secular landlords, actually did keep rents low and alms flowing.>"But now that all the abbeys . . . be in temporal mennyes handes, I do not heare tell that one halpeny worth of alms or any other profight cometh vnto the peple of those parisshes."Indeed, these abbots were able to offer such low rents to their tenents specifically because recognized religious properties were exempt from paying taxes to the king.Which represented potential revenue sources to a bankrupt state due to military spending, as that John of Gaunt oversaw. It was his excessive taxation of lands outside the control of the abbots, wage restrictions, open extortion at the polls, etc that led to the Peasants Revolt; not any supposed monastic impropriety. Wycliffs stocking of the flames and covetous libel against religious orders only lead to such ridiculous state of affairs as the burning of the records of the university at Cambridge. "Away with the learning of clerks, away with it!"If only these poor rubes knew that their beloved Wycliffe was really under the pay and protection of, rightly lapping dutiful and most submissive at the feet of their most hated figure, that John Gaunt. They might have changed their tune.This rule has precedent in the canon law of the RCC earlier on in the medieval era, and this religio-legal precedent is why churches enjoy tax exempt status today.
>>18077193It's time to get over the fact the monasteries are not coming back anon. Not even 80% catholic colombia or phillippinnes give a shit about them kek
>>18077220Enjoy your fiat inflation maxxing, mortgage usury, property taxes, real estate speculation, zoning laws, and rent extortion forever then.You won't do shit.Me, I just live rent free in your head.Feels good man."... incessant internal strife led to the disintegration of the Carolingian state. The prevailing chaos also made possible a massive attack upon the ecclesiastical endowment that one historian (A. Pöschl) called "the great secularizations." The chief culprits were initially the feudal magnates. Lords such as Arnulf of Bavaria (d.937) seized the monastic lands for the support of their knights, and all over Europe the need and greed of the undisciplined petty nobility took a toll from the largely undefended churches.""In a strong reaffirmation of the Church's claim to tax immunity, the Third Lateran Council in 1179 permitted taxation of Church property only with the consent of the bishop and clergy. In 1274 at Lyons, Pope Gregory IX required papal approval for alienations, and in 1296 in the bull clericislaicos Boniface VIII allowed taxation of the clergy only with papal approval."You might have thought it's the constitution that gave your church tax exception. In reality, it's the canon law of the RCC.
Wycliffe would have had your church paying a portion of your tithes to the king as taxes. Unironically, that is not an exaggeration.He considered lay magistrates to be viceregents with God himself, and that these secular powermongers should assume direct control over the endowments of the church. At least if I give him the credit. Really, I consider those to be the words of John Gaunt in his mouth.Makes you think, maybe other things so rightfully endowed to Gaunt shared that place.
>>18074405> People are getting stabbed and stamped on in by migrants everydayBut enough about literally every single European capital city.
>>18074203Probably the fact that he famously broke from the Pope over wanting a divorce
>>18077242Not american but last I heard the RCC's opinions on anything don't have much impact on US tax laws.>Yeah but the holy apostolic catholic church said you're a meanie doodoo head if you want to tax its institutions!Riveting stuff
Wycliffe argued that debtors shouldn't be allowed sanctuary on holy ground.How thoroughly Christian, when Jesus says that God will forgive us as we forgive our debtors.Maybe the thought just slipped his mind, having fallen into the habit of siding unflaggingly with the king's men and the royal position, under Gaunt's hand.Thankfully, this custom of shielding debtors would not be outlawed in force until 1697.>In Scotland sanctuary was abolished at the Reformation, but certain debtors were accorded sanctuary around Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh, until about 1700. In Europe the practice lingered on until the time of the French Revolution.- J.C. Cox, The Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Seekers of Medieval England (1911).The right of sanctuary is ancient, but was was only legally codified after the fall of the Carolingian dynasty, when butchers with noble titles roamed the countryside killing and robbing random peasants and clergy alike. This is the time period that Cardinal Baronius, among the greatest historians of the modern era, calls the dark age. To combat these roving brigand aristocrats tearing everything apart, the church eventually coordinated different populations of peasants to form peace militias, whose task it would be to ensure that churches themselves and later their lands would not be subject to violence and raids. Excommunication was also used to enforce this law. From this Peace and Truce of God movement, the first mass peace movement in history, the principles of chivalry as you are familiar with them were born. Also were rules of war established, setting a given season for war and then only on certain days, not to include noncombatants.For this reason the largest peasant villages formed up around churches on land belonging to the RCC; these are the largest of their kind. People lived like that most everywhere in Europe for centuries. This stability and new energy would result in a European population boom, and eventually lead to the Crusades.
>>18077711>the church eventually coordinated different populations of peasants to form peace militias, whose task it would be to ensure that churches themselves and later their lands would not be subject to violence and raidsoh well how benevolent of them lol>yeah feel free to fuck shit up wherever you want - but now that you're on the church's land, this shit is personnel
>>18076929You are a schizophrenic ESLIt's clear by the way you typeI am an actual Englishman.John of Gaunt was based for expanding english power, the peasant revolt was based and was filled with lollards, you are a seething little tradcath LARPer>>18076973>One who recognizes that the American chief executive had been deliberately invested with powers by framers of their constitution that no English monarch had enjoyed since 1688, that great coup and usurpationThe American Revolutionaries celebrated the glorious revolution and hated jacobites.They were inspired by whig anti monarchists like algernon sidney, they were not monarchists in any way.Cope more though Puritanschizo
>>18077716readhttps://centaur.reading.ac.uk/84231/1/RMS-2010-06_J._France%2C_Capuchins_as_Crusaders_Southern_Gaul_in_the_late_Twelfth_Century.pdf
>>18077193>>18077242>>18077260>>18077711The Truth that Puritanschizo will never admit is that the reformation was widely popular England amongst all social classes.Compared to places like France or Germany which saw civil war on a scale unimaginable instead in England we see a few tiny rebellions and then the majority of the population happily accepting the protestant faith.But he'll resort to his catholic polemics and spam the same shit we always see him spam.
>>18077735I don't think the church using peasants as meat shields to ensure the protection of church lands from the depradations of aristocratic raiders is the own you think it is
Puritanschizo literally thinks the middle ages was a utopia with no peasant ever harmed before the evil villain John of Gaunt came alongIn reality here's what how "based tradcath monarchs" like Edward the III in his 1339 Campaign treated the peasantry>What makes the 1339 campaign of particular interest is the misery inflicted on French non-combatants. It was the custom of medieval warfare to wreak as much damage as possible on both towns and country in order to weaken the enemy government. The English had acquired nasty habits in their Scottish wars and during this campaign Edward wrote to the young Prince of Wales how his men had burnt and plundered ‘so that the country is quite laid waste of cattle and of any other goods.’ Every little hamlet went up in flames, each house being looted and then put to the torch. Neither abbeys and churches nor hospitals were spared. Hundreds of civilians – men, women and children, priests, bourgeois and peasants – were killed while thousands fled to fortified towns. The English king saw the effectiveness of ‘total war’ in such a rich and thickly populated land; henceforth the chevauchée, a raid which systematically devastated enemy territory, was used as much as possible in the hope of making the French sick of war… (p.38)BASED tradcaths! Respecting abbeys and churches like a good little catholic servant of the lord
>>18077746Yeah but they deserved it, just like the English monasteries looted to enrich the monasteries of the Norman conquerors deserved it o algo (looting monasteries is OK - as long as the ill-gotten gains end up in another monastery :D)
Contrary to what we see tradcaths like Puritanschizo state there was huge hatred of the clergy among the English Lower classesSee the case of Richard Hunne>Richard Hunne was an English merchant tailor in the City of London during the early years of the reign of Henry VIII (1509-1547). After a dispute with his priest over his infant son's funeral, Hunne sought to use the English common law courts to challenge the church's authority. In response, church officials arrested him for trial in an ecclesiastical court on the capital charge of heresy.>In December 1514, while awaiting trial, Hunne was found dead in his cell, and murder by church officials was suspected. His death caused widespread anger against the clergy, and months of political and religious turmoil followed.>The Church went ahead with Hunne's heresy trial in spite of his death, and he was duly condemned. His corpse was burned at the stake on 20 December.>Hunne's accusers claimed that he had committed suicide, but they could not convince the coroner's jury, which in February 1515, charged William Horsey, chancellor to the Bishop of London, and two other church officials with Hunne's murder.>The political and religious crisis continued to grow. Bishop FitzJames of London wrote to the King's Chancellor, Archbishop Wolsey, asking him to persuade the King to prevent Horsey being put on trial. He said that Horsey would not get a fair trial because of the strength of public feeling, which had built up against the Church: "...if my chancellor be tried by any twelve men in London, they be so maliciously set in favor of heretical depravity that they will cast and condemn my clerk though he be as innocent as Abel." The king eventually intervened to stifle the situation.
>>18077732>John of Gaunt was based for expanding english power>the peasant revolt was basedChoose one. The peasants hated John more than anyone else, they tried to kill him and succeeded in burning his palace down.Gaunt was a military failure, he didn't expand shit. He nearly taxed the kingdom into non-existence. If you are English, which isn't likely considering how often you repeat ESL reminds me of ESLs, it's embarrassing how ignorant you are of your own history.You can't address any point that professor makes in those videos because it's all indisputably true. All you have are tired insults, nothing of value to say, no real content or knowledge to speak of. Basically you're the reason this board is trash, and stays that way.
Henry the Eighth's dissolution of the monasteries was not a shocking, out of order act- it was seen as something completely normal and acceptable. Henry was just imitating the "Based Tradcath" English kings of old with their dissolution of the Alien priories>When Edward III came to the throne, he restored many of the alien priories to their original owners and waived the arrears of payments due to the Crown. But ten years later, when war broke out again with France, he reverted to the policy of his predecessors, and again seized the property of these French aliens. For twenty-three years, these foreign houses remained in his hands; but with the peace of 1361 most of them were restored, only to be again sequestrated eight years later when the war was renewed. In the time of Richard II, the alien priories continued mostly in the hands of the Crown.>After 1378, French monasteries (and alien priories dependent on them) maintained allegiance to the Avignon Papacy. Their suppression was supported by the rival Roman Popes, conditional on all confiscated monastic property being redirected into other religious uses. The king's officers first sequestrated the assets of the alien priories in 1295–1303 under Edward I, and the pattern repeated for long periods over the course of the 14th century, most particularly in the reign of Edward III.[citation needed]>In 1378, all the monks in alien priories were expelled from England.[1] Most finally came to an end under Henry V in 1414, with a few exceptions surviving, for example Modbury Priory in Devon.>Owing to frequent wars between England and France in the late Middle Ages, successive English governments objected to money going overseas to France. They also objected to foreign prelates having jurisdiction over English monasteries
>>18077752>You can't address any point that professor makes in those videos because it's all indisputably true. All you have are tired insults, nothing of value to say, no real content or knowledge to speak of. Basically you're the reason this board is trash, and stays that way.I don't rationally debate with schizophrenics like you who make up deranged fantasies about John of GauntYou are not english. You've already bragged before about the Norman conquest being the "revenge" of britons. You're a foreign tradcath LARPer pretending to be an englishman and lashing out impotently online and making up weird conspiracy theories. Here's your "Based" tradcath middle ages>>18077746>>18077751>>18077754
>>18077756Based anon
>>18077756Strawman + adhom + the English are faggots
>>18077759sounds like chepito cope
>>18077759The Tradcath "Englishman" reveals his true colours and exposes himself as an ESL shitskin in a favela.
>>18077764Being against gay anal sex = SpanishLol. proceeds to watch daughter get raped by Pakistani Muslim gangs
>>18077751>According to the account of Hunne in John Foxe's Acts and MonumentslmaoCobbett exposed Foxe as a partisan hack fraud penning inflammatory and sensationalist lies a long time agono historian takes Foxe seriously, whereas Cobbett's own historical work is considered a boon to his otherwise speckled reputation (I hear his biography of Andrew Jackson is the gold standard)certainly though, Cobbett accomplished far more good in his life for the common man than Foxe, and undid a lot of damage done by the pernicious and generational lies of your ilkhow embarrassing for you
>>18077766>Being against gay anal sex = Spanish>Lol. proceeds to watch daughter get raped by Pakistani Muslim gangs
>>18077769Adhom
oh look the angry protestant is spamming walls of greentext pasta again because someone exposed his idol as a shillpasta everywhere
>>18077768>DUDE THE CHURCH NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG HISTORICALLYYou've been exposed for a spic tradcath stop seething buddy. And John Foxe didn't invent the case of Richard Hunne. He was a real person.Why are you so obessed with cobbett? At the same time as you pretend the founding fathers were BASED MONARCHIST TRADCATHS you also celebrate cobbett who loved king george and disliked american republicanism.
>>18077768Cobbett was a tard that thought the English population peaked prior to the ReformationIs there a little irony that a tradcath retard that would gleefully have Cobbett burned at the stake for heresy is invoking his works
>Be me>Not read any of the posts>Successful ragebait
>>18077775Tradcath maldingWill never respond to these >>18077754 >>18077746 points.Henry was based. Elizabeth was based. Francis Drake was based. The "based catholic" men of the west country who revolted against the reformation in the 1530s would later go on to pillage catholic spain, burn catholic churches and destroy catholic idols. The based PROTESVANT WEST COUNTRY BVLLS broke irish and spanish catholics like the bucks they were.
>>18077776you have a very red team blue team kind of mentalityfor one so challenged as you, it is nigh impossible to imagine how someone less direction brained could see the worldyes, nuance certainly does escape your capabilities to even recognize
>>18077778Why don't you explain his reasoning for arriving at this conclusion to the class?You're not going to have to look it up, are you?
>>18077786Cope buddy>The following day, Drake, Carleill, and around two hundred men advanced up the inlet in pinnaces and small boats, and they soon came upon the Spanish log stockade fort of San Juan. After a few shots by the Spanish, the English landed and took the fort with only a few losses. They found it deserted, as the Spanish had fled, but discovered an intact gun platform with fourteen bronze artillery pieces. They also found a chest containing the garrison's pay, about 2,000 gold ducats, which was inadvertently left behind in the retreat.[2] Drake, knowing the Spanish had fled, began to plunder what he could; he took the guns, and burned the fort to the ground.[6]>Soon the English came upon the main settlement of St. Augustine itself, this time they found it deserted. The Spanish, however, were just outside the town when Drake's men arrived, and they opened up a skirmishing fire. Anthony Powell, one of Carleill's officers, was killed in the opening shots as he tried to assault the outskirts. Carleill's men then charged all the way to the outskirts of the town into the scrub, forcing the Spanish to retreat, and leaving Drake in control of the settlement.[2][5].The English garrisoned the town overnight and the following day razed the whole of St. Augustine to the ground. All buildings were torched, crops were destroyed, and anything of value was either taken or destroyed.[2] The fort of San Juan was burnt and all the artillery pieces were carried away by the English among other booty.[3VGH....THE POWER OF PROTESTANT WEST COUNTRY BVLLS
>>18077790>Why don't you prove a 18th century firebrand was wrong about the English population peaking before 1530Do you even listen to yourself
>>The privateers, including Captain Robert Searle, arrived at Old Panama City on 27 January 1671; they camped overnight before attacking the following day. They were opposed by approximately 1,200 Spanish infantry and 400 cavalry; most were inexperienced.[80][81] Morgan sent a 300-strong party of men down a ravine that led to the foot of a small hill on the Spanish right flank. As they disappeared from view, the Spanish front line thought the privateers were retreating, and the left wing broke rank and chased, followed by the remainder of the defending infantry. They were met with well-organised firing from Morgan's main force of troops. When the party came into view at the end of the ravine, they were charged by the Spanish cavalry, but organised fire destroyed the cavalry and the party attacked the flank of the main Spanish force.[82][83] In an effort to disorganise Morgan's forces, the governor of Panama released two herds of oxen and bulls onto the battlefield; scared by the noise of the gunfire, they turned and stampeded over their keepers and some of the remaining Spanish troops.[84] The battle was a rout: the Spanish lost between 400 and 500 men, against 15 privateers killed.[4][85]>Panama's governor had sworn to burn down the city if his troops lost to the privateers, and he had placed barrels of gunpowder around the largely wooden buildings. These were detonated by the captain of artillery after Morgan's victory; the resultant fires lasted until the following day.[n 13] Only a few stone buildings remained standing afterwards.[85] Much of Panama's wealth was destroyed in the conflagration, although some had been removed by ships, before the privateers arrived.[87] The privateers spent three weeks in Panama and plundered what they could from the ruins. Morgan's second-in-command, Captain Edward Collier, supervised the torture of some of the city's residentsVGH....THE POWER OF PROTESTANT BRITTONIC BVLLS
be mesimply observe how deeply in bed Wycliffe is with the state>protestantsexplode with rage and spam the thread to death with predictable and tired anti-catholic screeching these are not Christians, they are pretenders; it is plain to see from their debauched conduct how highly shaken they are by some of the content I have posted ITT
>>18077796>ProtestantsI'm an Atheist>rage and spamIt's funny baiting retarded tradcaths and your schizophrenic conspiracies about John of Gaunt.You've already proven you're an ESL so there's no point debating you rationally like I would to a fellow Englishman.Pipe down.
>simply observe how deeply in bed Wycliffe is with the stateWhich specific bishoprics did Wycliffe obtain with the patronage of his state benefactors
>Although unrelated to the aforementioned Acts,[8] the Quebec Act, passed in the same parliamentary session, was considered by the colonists to be one of the Intolerable Acts. The Act expanded the territory of the Province of Quebec into the Great Lakes region and much of what is now the Midwestern United States, which appeared to void the land claims of the Ohio Company on the region. The guarantee of free practice of Catholicism, the majority religion in Canada, was seen by colonists as an "establishment" of the faith in the colonies which were overwhelmingly Protestant. Furthermore, colonists resented the lenient provisions granted to their erstwhile enemies whom they had fought hard against during the French and Indian War.[9]VGH...BASED TRADCATH MONARCHISTIC AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES
>>18077793Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't know, you're just repeating what someone else told you to say. You've never read Cobbett, only pretend to seem literate. I'd wager you couldn't even name the work in which he posited this dark hypothesis.You see, it was his observation from roaming the English country side that the medieval terraced hills used for farming in those ancient times but that had long lain fallow and untouched, were actually vastly more extensive than the contemporary agricultural works he documented. They were farming far more land than his modern society.How the total acreage tilled could have decreased so dramatically up until his 19th century day, he could not explain otherwise.In short, his position was built upon an archaeological observation in the course of his survey work.
>>18077803Cobbett was a tard that legitimately argued the English population peaked in the 16th centuryThere is some hilarity in the knowledge that - should he have been born in that century with the views he held - the BASED church would've gleefully thrown him to the flames
>>18077807Based genuine historian.Be prepared to get insulted or to get a few paragraphs of Cobbet's polemic screed thrown your way.
>>18077803>How the total acreage tilled could have decreased so dramatically up until his 19th century day, he could not explain otherwise.>different farming methods don't exist>sheep herding doesn't existThe absolute state of Cobbett Fans
>>18077807You still have no idea which book his argument is even written in, because you have never read him.What a shame that you are forced to engage with this field in such a superficially pretended way, easily exposed as wildly ignorant and uninterested; and yet having such strange motivation to continue the charade regardless. As if there was some other impetus for this act that does not involve genuine curiosity about history.But, that's just what happened to this board. People who never bothered to actually learn about a topic making a lot of noise as if they really did.
>>18077812I never said I agreed with his estimate, though I do think his point might have more merit than certain Malthusians would have you believe.What I have demonstrated is the posers ITT are quick to shit out a canned line their handlers fed them about Cobbett to try and brush him off, but when pressed quickly reveal they have absolutely no idea as to the details of his argument or even of the citation necessary to identify in which publication it can be found.You're all fakes.This board is in current state because of the shill behavior you see on display ITT.
>>18077830>don't argue with Foxe's polemical screed>but cobbett's polemical screed is BASED thoughDelusional ESL retard
>>18077818Cobbett favelaposting about the English population maxxing before the Reformation should be sufficient to dismiss his works
>their handlers puritanschizo legitimately thinks we're being paid to contradict him kekI can't imagine the sheer narcissism it takes to believe the only reason people disagree with you online is because they're getting paid to
The light has been lit, none can blow it out.
>>18077833That is the opinion of most scholars in the matter, yes.Cobbett > Foxe in basically every way that matters, that's the consensus.>>18077841And yet he's considered important enough to have coined the phrase "red herring".Which is what you're attempting to employ right now, by trying to brush off his collective works based on a single thing he supposedly said; which I note that you literally cannot substantiate is something he actually said, provide a quote from, or even describe a source.Because you have all the cognitive capabilities of a poorly coded chatbot.Yes, a mere distraction to avoid having to confront the totality of Wycliffe's infidelity and error.
>>18077862Now puritanschizo demands properly referenced arguments kekAgain, how would Cobett's views on most other matters been treated in based tradcath pre-Reformation England, anon
>>18077842u mad thothese delicious tears of ragea sweet, sweet taste, greentext spam from triggered midwits clear and persistent feelings of inferiority assuaged by lashing out with petty names and childish insults for your boogeymandoes it make you feel bettercome here, let mommy kiss the boobooaww poor baby, there there
>>18077876There is no real demand, because I *know* you cannot deliver a basic citation.Just an observation that this is indeed the case, for posterity.
>>18077881Answer the question: How long would based Cobett and his views have survived in pre-Reformation England
>>18077890Completely irrelevant. Just another red herring to distract others from the truth about Wycliffe.I have no reason nor inclination to entertain the validity of your rhetorical question, because you have provided absolutely nothing at all of substance to this thread and it's topic of discussion.Much the opposite, you're in full damage control mode because the things of substance that I have said simply cannot go unanswered. And all you have to draw upon are accusations of not speaking English natively, current event references, and pretense.No empty, meaningless hypothetical of yours measures up to my standard of discourse. Even pretending your question is worth addressing in this manner (see above) is truly below me. You are not my equal.
>>18074231Die
>>18076929Tl;dr
>>18077919Even you must admit the irony in a professed non catholic like Cobett simping for a time when people like him would've been burned at the stake with the based monks he simped for cheering on the sidelines
>>18077919>Much the opposite, you're in full damage control mode because the things of substance that I have said simply cannot go unanswered. And all you have to draw upon are accusations of not speaking English natively, current event references, and pretense.We've disproven you many times, PuritanschizoLike your retarded idea that John of Gaunt was uniquely evil for his chevauchee when the "based" catholic kings you exalt so much did the exact same thing.Like your retarded idea that the founding fathers were jacobite monarchists when they were quite literally the opposite.Like your idea that the reformation in england was universally unpopular.But you don't respond to actual historic facts, you insult and cry and spam cobbett quotes like a petulant child. Because you're not actually a stoic englishman. You're an america mutt tradcath LARPer.
Can anybody explain why tradcaths act this way? They lash out and insult you then have a victim complex and cry about being persecuted when confronted with historical evidence or just end up calling you a prottie (i'm an atheist).What could have been a great thread about Lollardy and the English reformation was ruined by a petulant american schizophrenic who unironically think there is a protestant defence league that pays people to post slander about catholicism on /his/
>Papists. Are you stupid?then Wycliffe is trashed and they have no faec>tfwtrash thread starts trash, trash posters trash a trash man trashing the trash, thread trash
Dude I have no idea what is going on
>>18077965>implying /his/ hasn't always been like this and being a LARPing tradcath zoomer isn't just the new trend Retards are gonna be retards, simple as. It's the people that have done their homework and easily send said retards into a seething rage that really make this board what it is
>>18074407>>18074933Ha ha ha.Henry was the perfect king to be used in such a way. Too busy being drunk and bedding women to understand what was going down. Henry really was in alignment with Catholic Theology and thought this new church would embodie that. While it sort of does. He had no idea the divisional sects and strife that would result. His daughter was already being taught In a different way than he approved of before he passed.
>>18077963You're insulting the Puritans pretty bad by associating them with papists.
>>18077242>Enjoy your fiat inflation maxxing, mortgage usury, property taxes, real estate speculation, zoning laws, and rent extortion forever thenThe Amish seem to be doing fine for themselves on that front. I suppose the christian god must have a morbid sense of humor making the descendants of a radical protestant splinter sect the closest thing America has to le wholesome trad agrarian distributists
>>18078634I literally said that here, in my first post ITT. >>18074933Amish are cool, they aren't statist lapdogs like Wycliffe was. Have actual principles.Much the opposite, they know secular government has no place meddling in the affairs or endowments of religion. This of course makes communists and caesaropapists seethe with rage and froth at the mouth.And, for the most part, they even refuse to participate in civic society or have anything more to do with the state than strictly necessary. IIRC.
>be mormon and amish>be universally hated for worshipping God>be most genuine and wholesome down to earth chungi
>>18078859>they know secular government has no place meddling in the affairs or endowments of religionHuh, thought someone might've told Emperor Constantine that
>>18074203Protestantism was already starting to and was bound to take hold widely in England one way or the other but the reason they got the silly quasi-Catholic state church was because of His Rotundity Henry VIII.
>>18079083Oh? And when did Constantine vote or issue any edicts at the council of Nicaea?He simply never did. That's because for Christians religious authority is concerned by the laying of hands in apostolic succession, and Constantine was never made a bishop in this way.His place was merely to call the meeting between bishops to reconcile their dispute, as was his duty as head of state since their quarrels were effecting the stability of his empire.Rather, he donated quite generously out of his own pocket to the church for the construction of new religious buildings.And when did he ever seize their properties for himself, or levy taxes on their collections? I certainly don't recall that ever happening, as it did in the protestant states.You should take unction with a later emperor instead, who legally proscribed paganism.The church is a supranational entity, it does not belong solely to any one government even if a government adopts the faith as a state religion.You seem to have very serious misconceptions as to Constantine's actual role in ecclesiastical history.
>>18079385Constantine did order the One Holy Catholic Church to reconcile with the aryan heretics which was an L. But the Church refusing to do that is proof that the emperor does not have the authority to do that, even if he attempts to usurp.
Emperors meddling in religion and becoming devout Christian theologians is something which is encouraged usually (usually.. justinian kidnapped the pope which was upsetting) but Louis from France is a saint, Emperor Charles V sat at the santuary during mass which shows a reverance for his post, Henry VIII wrote a pretty good dissertation against martin puther.
For the record, the Roman Emperor was never considered to be head of the Christian church. Or any secular head of state.Otherwise, it would not have been possible for St Ambrose to excommunicate Theodosius. Ambrose is the true champion of separation between church and state in church history, not Wycliffe as so many lying swindlers pretend.Ambrose fought back when the state tried to seize the properties belonging to his diocese, they going so far as to set up military standards of the Emperor around his church building and station soldiers at the door, whereas Wycliff time and again argued that the state should seize control of *all* church properties. Being a bootlicking heretic ofc.Ambrose, if he were able to physically confront Wycliffe, would have powerfully denounced him and his false teachings in no uncertain terms.It is not the protection of state from the church, but rather the guarantee of the church's liberties from the hand of the state. Which guarantee is explicitly enshrined in Magna Carta, a legal document which Wycliffe nor his patron's faction had absolutely no respect for.
Not only does the State have an obligation to respect the Church, but also the Church has the right to comment on any action of the State.
>>18079395St Athanasius literally recommended that the repentant Arian bishops retain their sees. He was in conflict in this matter with Lucifer of Cagliari, who as you do would have seen them all deposed.He was the greatest enemy of that heresy, and demonstrated Christian mercy to those who put the lie behind them. He recognized that their orders were valid and in the line of the apostles despite their serious error.Constantine never ordered them to accept the Arian heresy, and the council he called anathematized Arius and his teachings. Constantine calles on them to use their apostolic authority to settle the dispute definitively, in binding canon law.>>18079405Justinian was a massive piece of shit. Much worse than Gaunt, because he was more capable.
>>18077363Not trueSome European capitals are very safe London and Paris are special cases. Rome was overrun by gypsies for a bit but local police managed to get it back under control
>>18074933>Look it up, every single protestant church created after the so-called reformation was a state churchNot true for Calvinist churches in France and the Netherlands
bumping to keep this thread alive until we hit the limit
On 16 April 1697 King William III of England gave his Royal Assent to a Bill just passed by his Whiggish Parliament, thereby making illegal a custom of very long standing in the history of English law and convention. During the Middle Ages the practice of imprisonment for debt had come into being through statutory enactments and through judicial procedure; parallel to it had grown the use of so-called ‘privileged places’, refuges to which delinquent debtors could flee and evade arrest for debt. While imprisonment for debt persisted as a legal process in England until the middle of the nineteenth century, sanctuary for debtors was legally abolished by this Act of 1697. That this Act was passed by a Whig-dominated Parliament is not without significance, for a substantial element in the Whig Party was the mercantile interest, the group most likely to suffer damage by the flight of debtors to these places of refuge.You don't hate whig historiography enough.
>>18082037>take out loans you know you can't pay>credit man comes a knockin'>"hehehe time to go to the debt hav-ACK!"Sorry anon, but the guy who enlisted James's right-hand man to help him overthrow his own sovereign in a massive coup shortly after the Uncle that he knew he couldn't tackle croaked is simply too based for me to ever find fault with him
>>18074933Where does Big 'enry VIII fit into all this?
The real reason was Independance. Pope was a foreign power blocking English law and succession. Reformation made the King the final boss, ending cuckholdry to a distant Italian prince. It was about securing the Tudor bloodline and the nation's independence.English Church was already based and antipapal for centuries (John Wycliffe, Lollards). Parliament and the people were tired of Rome's taxes and legal interference. If it was just about wives, why did he only get one son from all the wife-swapping, then die with a Protestant heir and a fully operational state church that his Catholic daughter couldn't fully undo? The system outlived the man, don't trust c*tholic slander.
>>18082107I NEED to spend beyond my means, Moishe
>>18084001>*blocks your path to the debtors haven* >"You're a big guy"
There's certain aspects of the Holocaust that rule it out. No physical evidence for battle of stalingrad.People aren't serial killers. People don't kill ten other people in a single sitting. If there were 100,000 Holocaust guys there were 10,000 shooters. Most died of meth. That's 1,000 dudes.Within that most were partisans with ambiguous roles. That's 100. Then the logistics people are more. You have like ten guys do the Holocaust.It just isn't possible and holocaust violates physical laws. Communist genocide are real because famine.