Reporter said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Baylor3216 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.

---

She probably drank too much in the 80s (she is catholic) and touched a dude without his permission. Maybe multiple dudes. She does have 7 kids.

---

Yep. Them seven kids may be our first clue that she may not be a huge fan of abortion. If she gets nominated, the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!

---

NUTS is right up RD 2's alley. He a bona fide nut case.

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Reporter said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Baylor3216 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Will Democrats treat her like they did Brett Kavanaugh? I think they will, - only much worse. And it should be on display for all Americans to see before the election.

---

Listen buddy, nuts is something you are intimately familiar with. Along with loser and lunatic.


She probably drank too much in the 80s (she is catholic) and touched a dude without his permission. Maybe multiple dudes. She does have 7 kids.

---

Yep. Them seven kids may be our first clue that she may not be a huge fan of abortion. If she gets nominated, the Left will go absolutely NUTS!!!!!!

---

NUTS is right up RD 2's alley. He a bona fide nut case.

---

Like I said, the left will go NUTS!!! You proved my point, Buddy.

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Guess your research skills are lacking then. GIFY.

---

On the contrary, 1534 looks right on the money. You've had three chances to offer other evidence.

---

I've learned over the years that I only have a certain amount of energy I'm willing to devote to arguing for the sake of arguing. I will expend effort in the pursuit of educating others if they seem genuinely interested in learning. You don't impress me as the type who clearly is in search of knowledge. I'll leave it to you to do the deep dive if you truly care to become informed.

OTOH, I should at least offer a few clues for your dogged (no doubt) research:

St Alban
Bede
St Augustine
Celtic Christianity
1st and 63rd articles of Magna Carta
Ecclesia Anglicana

May your efforts be truly blessed.

---

Already read about those, don't see a straight line to Anglicism. Churches seem to think that age equals more authority so they're willing to jump a gap or two to gain elder status.



The Celtic Church would get you over a thousand years but it was in and out of the Roman dominion. The Synod of Whitby seems like a fairly localized reconciliation with Rome; are you saying that the Celts elsewhere, by not being part of that, formed the root of Anglicism?

St. Alban was the first Christian to be martyred in Britain but his church would had to have been the Catholic Church inasmuch as that church recognizes him as one of their own; he was killed for protecting Amphibalus (a Catholic priest); and, he never attended a church, having been caught and killed days after his conversion. I get why the Church of England would venerate him, but he doesn't sound like a guy founding a new religious way.

Augustine was sent by the Pope and thanks to Whitby achieved the Pope's goal. The resulting church was Catholic but apparently it retained practices that would later appear in Anglicism. But they were under the Roman See until 1534.

Was there an early Christian presence in Britain? Sure, but it was Catholic. Was it distinctive because of its time spent separated from the mother church after Rome withdrew from Britain? Sure. I read How the Irish Saved Civilization and while that's a big claim those scribes preserved a ton of knowledge without papal knowledge or authority. Kudos to them but I don't see a new church, just an isolated one.

The first king of England was Alfred. I don't think you could argue he was Anglican given that he would have considered himself Catholic, as did Henry VIII right up until he wasn't. You might argue the supreme authority of kings as sovereigns, as Henry did, goes back to Alfred, but again Alfred would never have thought such sovereignty cut him off from Rome.

And Bede, the Benedictine monk in Northumbria (Synod of Whitby again). He was certainly Catholic, but again are you saying that the distinctives of the church there and then were such as to be proto-Anglican?

England fought a couple of civil wars between Catholics and protestants but I don't see any such conflicts before 1534.

The text of the Magna Carta certainly refers to the "Anglican Church". But since that language was drafted by the Pope's man Stephen Langton, (Archbishop of Canterbury thanks to the Pope) I think it is fair to say that use of "Anglican Church" referred to the Catholic Church in Britain, under the primate of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1534 is also contemporary with the Reformation and Calvinism. It sounds like Anglicism was a third way, liturgical but separated from Rome.

I just don't see the dots connecting in a straight line outside of the Catholic Church.

---

It's clear to me. Sorry you don't/can't see it. Not my problem.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Guess your research skills are lacking then. GIFY.

---

On the contrary, 1534 looks right on the money. You've had three chances to offer other evidence.

---

I've learned over the years that I only have a certain amount of energy I'm willing to devote to arguing for the sake of arguing. I will expend effort in the pursuit of educating others if they seem genuinely interested in learning. You don't impress me as the type who clearly is in search of knowledge. I'll leave it to you to do the deep dive if you truly care to become informed.

OTOH, I should at least offer a few clues for your dogged (no doubt) research:

St Alban
Bede
St Augustine
Celtic Christianity
1st and 63rd articles of Magna Carta
Ecclesia Anglicana

May your efforts be truly blessed.

---

Already read about those, don't see a straight line to Anglicism. Churches seem to think that age equals more authority so they're willing to jump a gap or two to gain elder status.



The Celtic Church would get you over a thousand years but it was in and out of the Roman dominion. The Synod of Whitby seems like a fairly localized reconciliation with Rome; are you saying that the Celts elsewhere, by not being part of that, formed the root of Anglicism?

St. Alban was the first Christian to be martyred in Britain but his church would had to have been the Catholic Church inasmuch as that church recognizes him as one of their own; he was killed for protecting Amphibalus (a Catholic priest); and, he never attended a church, having been caught and killed days after his conversion. I get why the Church of England would venerate him, but he doesn't sound like a guy founding a new religious way.

Augustine was sent by the Pope and thanks to Whitby achieved the Pope's goal. The resulting church was Catholic but apparently it retained practices that would later appear in Anglicism. But they were under the Roman See until 1534.

Was there an early Christian presence in Britain? Sure, but it was Catholic. Was it distinctive because of its time spent separated from the mother church after Rome withdrew from Britain? Sure. I read How the Irish Saved Civilization and while that's a big claim those scribes preserved a ton of knowledge without papal knowledge or authority. Kudos to them but I don't see a new church, just an isolated one.

The first king of England was Alfred. I don't think you could argue he was Anglican given that he would have considered himself Catholic, as did Henry VIII right up until he wasn't. You might argue the supreme authority of kings as sovereigns, as Henry did, goes back to Alfred, but again Alfred would never have thought such sovereignty cut him off from Rome.

And Bede, the Benedictine monk in Northumbria (Synod of Whitby again). He was certainly Catholic, but again are you saying that the distinctives of the church there and then were such as to be proto-Anglican?

England fought a couple of civil wars between Catholics and protestants but I don't see any such conflicts before 1534.

The text of the Magna Carta certainly refers to the "Anglican Church". But since that language was drafted by the Pope's man Stephen Langton, (Archbishop of Canterbury thanks to the Pope) I think it is fair to say that use of "Anglican Church" referred to the Catholic Church in Britain, under the primate of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1534 is also contemporary with the Reformation and Calvinism. It sounds like Anglicism was a third way, liturgical but separated from Rome.

I just don't see the dots connecting in a straight line outside of the Catholic Church.

---

It's clear to me. Sorry you don't/can't see it. Not my problem.

---

I learned some things with your posts, but, with apologies and respect, I don't see a preponderance of the evidence supporting your belief.

---

curtpenn said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Guess your research skills are lacking then. GIFY.

---

On the contrary, 1534 looks right on the money. You've had three chances to offer other evidence.

---

I've learned over the years that I only have a certain amount of energy I'm willing to devote to arguing for the sake of arguing. I will expend effort in the pursuit of educating others if they seem genuinely interested in learning. You don't impress me as the type who clearly is in search of knowledge. I'll leave it to you to do the deep dive if you truly care to become informed.

OTOH, I should at least offer a few clues for your dogged (no doubt) research:

St Alban
Bede
St Augustine
Celtic Christianity
1st and 63rd articles of Magna Carta
Ecclesia Anglicana

May your efforts be truly blessed.

---

Already read about those, don't see a straight line to Anglicism. Churches seem to think that age equals more authority so they're willing to jump a gap or two to gain elder status.



The Celtic Church would get you over a thousand years but it was in and out of the Roman dominion. The Synod of Whitby seems like a fairly localized reconciliation with Rome; are you saying that the Celts elsewhere, by not being part of that, formed the root of Anglicism?

St. Alban was the first Christian to be martyred in Britain but his church would had to have been the Catholic Church inasmuch as that church recognizes him as one of their own; he was killed for protecting Amphibalus (a Catholic priest); and, he never attended a church, having been caught and killed days after his conversion. I get why the Church of England would venerate him, but he doesn't sound like a guy founding a new religious way.

Augustine was sent by the Pope and thanks to Whitby achieved the Pope's goal. The resulting church was Catholic but apparently it retained practices that would later appear in Anglicism. But they were under the Roman See until 1534.

Was there an early Christian presence in Britain? Sure, but it was Catholic. Was it distinctive because of its time spent separated from the mother church after Rome withdrew from Britain? Sure. I read How the Irish Saved Civilization and while that's a big claim those scribes preserved a ton of knowledge without papal knowledge or authority. Kudos to them but I don't see a new church, just an isolated one.

The first king of England was Alfred. I don't think you could argue he was Anglican given that he would have considered himself Catholic, as did Henry VIII right up until he wasn't. You might argue the supreme authority of kings as sovereigns, as Henry did, goes back to Alfred, but again Alfred would never have thought such sovereignty cut him off from Rome.

And Bede, the Benedictine monk in Northumbria (Synod of Whitby again). He was certainly Catholic, but again are you saying that the distinctives of the church there and then were such as to be proto-Anglican?

England fought a couple of civil wars between Catholics and protestants but I don't see any such conflicts before 1534.

The text of the Magna Carta certainly refers to the "Anglican Church". But since that language was drafted by the Pope's man Stephen Langton, (Archbishop of Canterbury thanks to the Pope) I think it is fair to say that use of "Anglican Church" referred to the Catholic Church in Britain, under the primate of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1534 is also contemporary with the Reformation and Calvinism. It sounds like Anglicism was a third way, liturgical but separated from Rome.

I just don't see the dots connecting in a straight line outside of the Catholic Church.

---

It's clear to me. Sorry you don't/can't see it. Not my problem.

---

I learned some things with your posts, but, with apologies and respect, I don't see a preponderance of the evidence supporting your belief.

---

What is it exactly you think I believe with which you disagree?

---