He wasn’t suited to being a king at all mostly because of his primary interest lying within religion. Some even say that Henry would have suited becoming a priest or a monk and would have been much happier and successful in doing so. His deep love for religion made him a very forgiving man, this trait was commonly known to be a flaw in the personality of a king. Another major personality flaw was Henry’s lack of political skill which he needed to manage the nobles. Henry’s lack of political skill played a huge part in the feud between York and Somerset, which started in 1950 when Rouen and Normandy were lost to the French.
RUNNING HEAD: Luther’s 95 Theses Luther’s 95 Theses HIST 101 Western Civilizations Instructor: Dorothy Slane Leslie Brooks October 2, 2011, Thesis In the 95 Thesis Luther is basically discussing his disappointment with the Catholic Church. He did not approve of the way the pope was granting partial remission of time to be spent in purgatory or any other consequences that may be given to the people because of a sin they have committed. The church was basically practicing in the selling of indulgences when they did not have the right to remit and penance for any sin or guilt. That was the sole job of their God and no one else could produce that right or charge for a right that they do not even possess. Luther was also disappointed in man and felt that they should take the consequences that go with their sins and hope that these lessons could be taught to them before it would become too late.
Euthyphro’s mistake The first issue to address is what the mistake of Euthyphro is. There may be several. For one, he has a high opinion of himself and his knowledge as evidenced by the dialogue: Soc. Good heavens, Euthyphro! and is your knowledge of religion and of things pious and impious so very exact, that, supposing the circumstances to be as you state them, you are not afraid lest you too may be doing an impious thing in bringing an action against your father?
This allowed Henry to eradicate any opposition that had potential to threaten Henry. The religious changes came to a halt in 1539, where Henry sends out a strong deterrent message by executing the architect of the religious changes, Cromwell. One of the groups who contributed disapproval was the clergy. This opposition had worrying potential to become serious because of the reputation of those who delivered it, for example More, who’s resistance was actually passive, did not actively deny the King’s title or offer any strong opposition to the regime, his trial was rigged and perjured evidence and the ruthlessness of his death meant that others refrained from open opposition to the King. In comparison, Fisher’s opposition was more vocal, he publicly condemned Henry getting an annulment from Catherine of Aragon, he was much more active in his opposition, delivering sermons and publishing books, an example of which being Sermon Against the Pernicious Doctrine of Martin Luther (1521).
Sort of like his duty to his job and what it entailed. On page 192 of the Pontifex: “Ambrose knew that his task was to buy time for Theodosius, who was still trapped in Thessalonica negotiating terms with the Goths. He knew too, that he was in the awkward position of defending an Arian boy-emperor and his Arian mother- who he despised- against a Catholic pretender.” So our question would be; WHY? Why would Ambrose feel compelled to help this Arian boy and his mother if he felt this way about them? Abrose defends himself on page 193 of the Pontifex
Instead he chose Buckingham for the job. This caused unrest because as head of the church it should have been Charles doing it, and if he really didn’t want to do it the next in line for the job was the archbishop, so it was bad delegating on Charles’ behalf. On top of this York house was discussing religion, and theology of the Church of England. It was perfectly acceptable to do this, as it created no problem during James’ reign when he held the Hampton Court Conference. However Charles’ favoured Arminian tendencies and was edging thinking towards those tendencies.
“Puritanism was a power not to be denied. It did great things for England and for America, but only by creating in the men and women it affected a tension which was at best painful and at worst unbearable. Puritanism required that a man devote his life to seeking salvation but told him he was helpless to do anything but evil.” Separatism means to withdraw and in the case of the Puritan Dilemma it was first John Winthrop and his decision to withdraw from the Church of England and move to New England to set up a purer Christian community in Massachusetts compared to the one in England. The problem with separatism is that if everyone decided to follow their own interpretation of religion this would cause society to disintegrate. “Separatism might splinter the colony into a hundred earnest little Utopias, each feeding on its own special type of holiness and each breeding new types, multiplying, like earthworms, by division.
The King being the most important figure in England assumed he had all authority within England as he firmly believed in the ‘Divine Rights of Kings’ which is the belief that God has given the King his authority and so the King lives through God’s ‘legacy’. However, little did he know that his life would soon be very different to how it was. Charles’ army had been dissolved, and you would think that Charles should just compromise with Parliament as it would make everything a whole lot easier, but he knew there were divisions between Parliament which he then exploited. Being defated from Parliament and a superior New Model Army, the King thought he could surrender to Scotland and even that didn’t work out as he planned. ‘’In fact, the Scots took advantage of Charles and sold him to Parliament for £400,000 in January 1647’’.
He was a big believer in the divine right of kings and so thought as God’s representative in earth he was the next best thing and answerable only to God. Unfortunately for him parliament didn’t see it like this and they thought he should have much respect both for them and for the law too. This tactic didn’t always work out well for him though and at the start of his reign during a parliament session this clearly shows. Traditionally at the start of a new reign, parliament meets to decide on some taxes for life called tunnage and poundage but unfortunately for Charles he was refused this tax as the members suspected he was a catholic and were strongly against that. His choice of wife here was particularly helpful as she herself was a catholic and so in the eyes of parliament it would be unlikely that he wouldn’t follow her in terms of faith.
The papacy therefore had a strong vested interest in the failure of the conciliarist movement and therefore avoided convening a general council. Even when Julius II had convened a general council, Lateran V it was disbanded in 1517 as conciliarist feelings ran high. The papacy was arguably the biggest block to reform because in order for reform to successfully take place it had to come from the top of the hierarchy. Even when Paul III had decided to convene a general council there was still opposition to reform because there was no agreement on which way reform would take place, would the Church compromise with the Protestants or not. Paul III and Charles V had vastly different expectations of the council; Charles V hoped that the general council would end the schism by removing abuses which both protestant and Catholics had complained about for so long – Charles was convinced that the removal of these abuses would stem the tide of defection from the Church.