I predict I will wake up hungry tomorrow morning.
āThere will be trouble in the Middle East tomorrow.ā (Something I heard a comedian say, but it was so long ago, I donāt remember who it was).
1 Like
Predict I will have an alcoholic beverage at about midday. Any day.
1 Like
I predict that a prominent religious figure will be embroiled in a sex scandal. You might as well just give me the prize now, Iām sure Iāve won.
2 Likes
Guideline violation, āSpecifics are required.ā We set ourselves to a higher standard than the theists.
hmmm The vision isnāt clear. Itās either a televangelist or the pope. Iāll get back to you when I have better reception.
3 Likes
It could be both you know.
You know, I think youāre right. That explains why the vision isnāt clear. The images must be getting blended. It explains why Iām picturing a televangelist in a white silky dress with a tall hat in the shape of a dildo.
2 Likes
I prayed hard honeyā¦ because I too was having a similar āvisionā a tuning in, so to speak and not to take from my sisterās visions and insights, nor to take credit for finding the right channel - a clearer picture emergedā¦
4 Likes
That is the shit nightmares are made of.
1 Like
Ya know, I think youāve found the one profession that Trump wouldnāt rank as the all time worse. Thereās some pretty stiff competition for the worse pope. He might be ranked as the fourth worse, possibly the third, but first? Not in my opinion anyway.
Indeed. The Borgia and Medici Popes of the Renaissance. Patrons of the arts in the purest sense, but also murderous scumbags.
It has always been a mild wonder to me that the church survived them.
The first of that bunch was Roderic de Borgia ,aka Pope Alexander V1. He set a very low bar for those who followed (father of Lucrezia) If for no other reason than it was he who introduced the notorious sale of indulgence . It is recorded that one priest licenced to sell indulgences, John Tetzel, had a little jingle : ā'As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from purgatory springsā
The effects of this corrupt practice cannot be over stated; It was a major issue for Martin Luther, a priest sickened at the corruption of the church. It was he who kicked off the protestant reformation in the sixteenth century.
I think It may be argued that had the church not been as blatantly corrupt, that the protestant reformation in Europe may not have occurred, at least not at that time. Perhaps during the enlightenment of the eighteenth century. (???)
The English reformation of Henry V111 would probably still happened because that was at its heart a political issue.
In the overall scheme of things, Donald John Trump is small potatoes, an amateur and a loser. He caused nothing. He was simply a catalyst imo***. Unfortunately, historians will probably spend far more time and effort on him than he deserves, which is to be forgotten.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
***if I were to do a detailed analysis of Trump, it would be based on Vic Turnerās notion of liminality and liminal figures.
āThe concept of liminality was first developed in the early twentieth century by folklorist Arnold van Gennep and later taken up by Victor Turner.[4] More recently, usage of the term has broadened to describe political and cultural change as well as rites.[5] During liminal periods of all kinds, social hierarchies may be reversed or temporarily dissolved, continuity of tradition may become uncertain, and future outcomes once taken for granted may be thrown into doubt.[6] The dissolution of order during liminality creates a fluid, malleable situation that enables new institutions and customs to become established.[7] The term has also passed into popular usage and has been expanded to include liminoid experiences that are more relevant to post-industrial society.[8]ā
Liminality - Wikipedia(from%20the,hold%20when%20the%20rite%20is
Without his inherited wealth heād never have amounted to more than a bully and two bit grifter in my opinion. His appeal eludes me. He has the charm of moldy bread.
I love studying history, and Tudor England is fascinating. Would Henry the VIII been able to pull off a break from the Pope if the protestant reformation hadnāt already started the ball rolling? Without the urging of the protestants Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell would he have thought he could accomplish a break from Rome? Anne Boleyn was a protestant too, and was thought to have at encouraged the idea. Who knows? Interesting to think about. The blatant corruption of so many popes didnāt do the catholic church any good, thatās for sure. I can see some similarities to Trump. He scammed money from his faithful followers by selling them the idea that he needed their help to take back a stolen election, instead of selling them the scam of indulgences. At least Trump didnāt dig up John McCain and put him on trial like a Pope did to one of his rivals 
2 Likes
Good question. Look at the timing:
Henry married Anne Boleyn in January 1533.
Martin Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517. This date is usually accepted as the beginning of the reformation.
John Calvin broke from the Church around 1530. His first treatise was published in 1836.
John Knox became attached to Protestantism in 1546 .
So yeah, the reformation had truly begun when Henry wanted his annulment . I suspect that would have made no difference to Henry. His break with Rome was political and economic before it was religious.
The crown accumulated vast wealth from the dissolution of monasteries, and perhaps even greater amounts of land. The king could and did give some of that land to any he favoured.
However, the whole six wives thing was because the pope refused to annul Henryās marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The popeās decision was a simple minded political decision. He grossly underestimated Henry. That underestimation cost the Catholic England.
I have no doubt Henry was strongly influenced by protestant advisors such as the Machiavellian Thomas Cromwell.
I love the life and times of Henry V111 and Elizabeth 1. So much happened, and itās so complex.
Iām also interested in the effects the English reformation had on the reign and consolidation of power under Queen Elizabeth. By making England a major sea power she laid the foundations for the great mercantile British empire.
Itās of course impossible to know what the pope was thinking, but it does seem unlikely he would have realized the lengths Henry VIII was willing to go to get his annulment. Pope Clement might not really have had any choice in the the matter though, since he was essentially being held prisoner by Catherineās nephew Emperor Charles V.
Iāve always wondered about the given excuse for the annulment being that Henry VIII thought he had to have a male heir. His daughter Mary did eventually succeed him, with her gender not seen as making her ineligible. No real objections to Elizabeth on those grounds either. Elizabeth 1 was pretty amazing. That England has had so many Queens at times when women in general had so little power is quite a contradiction.
Yes, and he did , his son from Catherine Seymour. He became Edward V1 on Henryās death. He died at age 15 and Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon became queen. She died of cancer (?) She ruled for only 5 years. She was succeeded by her half sister Elizabeth, who became Elizabeth 1. She reigned for 45 years.
Next Queen after her was Victoria, who took the throne in 1837.
Not quite. It may seem that way because there were two queens in succession. This was unprecedented, and something āthe establishmentā wanted to avoidā¦ If the crowned queen married, her husband became de facto king . One reason Elizabeth 1 never married. She is reported as having said:
āGodās death, my Lord, I have wished you well, but my favor is not so locked up for you that others shall not participate thereof. And if you think to rule here, I will take a course to see you forthcoming. I will have but one mistress and no master . āIt is monstrous the feet should think to rule the head.ā
Queen Victoria and her āconsortā, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were de facto joint rulers. Wasnāt such a big deal by them because British crown had little power left. Since Charles 11 British monarchs have reigned , but not ruled.
Britain has had a total eight Queens, ruling for a combined total of 200 years.
(Queen Victoria reigned for 64 years and Elizabeth11 68 years so far)
Well, when you put it that way Mary and Elizabeth do seem more an anomaly. That Mary, and especially Elizabeth, managed to get and keep some real power under those circumstances says a lot about their intelligence and strength of will. They both actually sound kind of scary. The name āBloody Maryā doesnāt conjure up the idea of a sweet disposition.
That was the sobriquet given to her by her protestant subjects.
Mary was a devout Catholic. While she ruled, Protestants continued to be burned alive.
When Elizabeth took over, priests were hanged and Catholics persecuted.
To this day, neither an English monarch nor heir may marry a catholic, by law I think. (not sure, could be constitutional) I think there are still some anti catholic and anti Jewish statutes on the books.
Until well into the twentieth century, English vicars/priests were given ālivingsā. By law everyone in the area of his parish was obliged to tithe, Church of England or not. It was enforced too. Cash payments were replaced by payment in kind in 1836. Tithes were formally abolished in 1936.