King Charles put to death by radical Protestants

>King Charles put to death by radical Protestants
>Prince Charles planning to repeal female ordination and make the Church of England the English Orthodox Church when he ascends the throne
It's like pottery

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/uk/2004/may/12/monarchy.helenasmith
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/03/26/defender-of-the-eastern-faith/
orthodoxengland.org.uk/hrh.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=Aw3fN3OPk3A
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It doesn't matter, the CoE is still wrong.

What about reintroducing a monastic tradition into the Anglican church?

Also sources for any of this, Charles has been very newagey when it comes to religion.

Why?

theguardian.com/uk/2004/may/12/monarchy.helenasmith

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/03/26/defender-of-the-eastern-faith/

orthodoxengland.org.uk/hrh.htm

>Schismatic
>Only there because the VIII wanted a divorce and wasn't crafty enough to have his wife die in an "accident"

What's right about it?

The English church would have split form Rome soon anyway. what is the Reformation

The Anglican church dates to the foundation of the Church in England, not to it's split with Rome.

>Muh Schismatics
Splitting with a corrupt church is not Schism, the only only true promoters of Schism are those who made the RCC so corrupt it could no longer be followed.

>Implying the Pope wasn't going to allow the divorce anyway until the eternal Germanics in the """HRE""" threatened to sack Rome again.

No longer having to following along with papal infalliability, indulgences and "no seriously guys, Transubstantiation makes the bread and wine the ACTUAL blood and body of Christ" for starters.

...

I understand my points could have been better but that's hardly bait. Friend.

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
John 6:54-59

So, you actually believe that it becomes literally rather than spiritually the blood and flesh of Christ?

inb4 "mystery of faith' bruh.

When Charles make the CoE Orthodox, the bread and wine will dogmatically be the body and blood.

This will never happen.

And if it does, well I know a nice Presbyterian church.

>The English church would have split form Rome soon anyway. what is the Reformation
The VIII really loved Catholicism, you know, until he didn't get his way so that's kinda horseshit.
>Splitting with a corrupt church is not Schism, the only only true promoters of Schism are those who made the RCC so corrupt it could no longer be followed.
I don't give a shit about semantics, you're a heretic, through and through.

>The VIII really loved Catholicism, you know, until he didn't get his way so that's kinda horseshit.
Under Henry nah? England was increasingly becoming ripe for reformation though, any chances of it staying Catholic through the reformation are delusional.
>I don't give a shit about semantics, you're a heretic, through and through.
Kek, is the sermon on the mount not true for both of us?

Have you read this articles?

Oh yeah, it's happening
youtube.com/watch?v=Aw3fN3OPk3A

>England was increasingly becoming ripe for reformation though, any chances of it staying Catholic through the reformation are delusional.
He put down the reformers.
>Kek, is the sermon on the mount not true for both of us?
I don't find people who spit on Christ face to be true.

Suggestions and wishful thinking at most, not to mention Charles is both unpopular (and an adulterer), he will be the death of the monarchy if he does not abdicate.
>He put down the reformers.
Sure, but they bubbled up later. The COE reformed so much later that it's fundamentally different from the RCC. The English Reformers would not just dissapear.

Charles is an adulterer, but Diana was an adulteress. When she died, she was sleeping with two Muslim men, one who was the "love of her life" (who wasn't the one she died with), the other was engaged to another woman. If the monarch has any significant power at all, it's over the CoE, which exists by and for the monarch, that's the whole point it was created.

>He put down the reformers.
And they eventually put down King Charles

"Spiritually" does not mean "figuratively", it never means that in the Bible. Christ is spiritually God, that doesn't mean he is "figuratively" God.

bump

>The English church would have split form Rome soon anyway.

Yes, and that also would have been wrong!