I think setting up your own church definitely puts you over the line. 
Cromwell may have started out supporting Parliament, but he sure didn’t by the end. Military dictator through and through.
“Oh, no! There’s madness in our method!”
Meant that he was no longer in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but that’s not automatically the same a being Protestant. He could also be seen as a schismatic Catholic. The theology and doctrine of the English Church under Henry still looked pretty catholic.
You’re welcome!
He was Protestant the whole time he was dictator. Please clarify your requirements if you only want people born Protestants.
Yeah it is. In any case, Lincoln is clearly not the kind of case intended by the OP. I doubt that Henry the VIII was either.
Well, I was just adding background that he wasn’t a typical mainstream Protestant. But the borderline cases are interesting too, thanks.
ETA: Yeah, Lincoln is a real stretch (my first reaction was- oh, please.) Henry VIII is a little more interesting case but also requires some mental gymnastics.
Henry VIII died believing he remained a Catholic, and he had virtually no sympathy with Reformation theology. Although Henry was certainly happy to curtail the temporal power of the Pope in England.
Both parts of my assertion (dictator and protestant) are arguable.
Here are some views on the matter:
He is however “typical” of his generation of Latin America’s fast-growing fundamentalist Protestant/Pentecostal population. Christened as Catholics because that’s what you did, raised “culturally” Catholic with maybe some syncretic indigenous influences depending on your social class, upon becoming adults discover Pentecostal/Fundamentalist teachings and devoutly embrace them. “Mainstream” historic Protestantism is extremely underrepresented in Latin America; even after many of the countries disestablished Catholicism, the old-school Protestants tended to not expend much effort proselytizing their already-Christian Catholic populations – that had to wait for the (American-originated) Fund/Pent movements who had no such qualms.
Yeah, if only natural-born Protestants count as Protestant, that would make Luther and Calvin Catholics.
Tainted communion grape juice. Methodists started out a bit fanatical, but have calmed down into the most “generic” Christian denomination, I think. So while religions can be regional, e.g. in the US, Catholicism in areas with immigrant history, Lutheranism in the north, Baptists in the south, Methodism is big in a lot of places (GWB basically had his choice of all two of the popular Texas religions of Methodism and Baptism), but also common in places where it’s easy to be a dictator.
Well, it’s easy to call Kim Jong-un a dictator in the age of liberal democracy. Henry VII had an excessive amount of power and did things that we would consider monstrous, but on the other hand it wasn’t like France and Spain of the time were happy, democratic places with a constitutional monarchy to compare to. Before the modern age, dictator was a specific job in the Roman Republic. Garibaldi used this positively.
Lincoln did some things that were wrong, but if someone calls him a dictator my mind stops listening just like when the impeach Obama people talk.
Harold Godwinson? ::innocence emoticon::
That’s the thing. “Dictator” in it’s modern meaning dates mainly to the 20th Century, after democracy and non-absolutist rule became considered the norm. Calling anyone before 1800 a dictator, especially a hereditary monarch, is problematic (except in for the Roman position.)
Well, people of an earlier age would have used the term, “tyrant,” as in the Declaration of Independence, but societies stretching back to the Ancient Greeks have distinguished between a monarch who rules in accordance with customary law and popular will and one who does not.
Suspension of habeas corpus is permitted by the US Constitution. What other non-constitutional means are you referring to?
Wait, what?
What did Henry VIII say he had done? Didn’t he say “we”–the royal we and hence his kingdom–“no longer obey the Pope.” That certainly seems to go beyond thinking you’re a Catolic. Sort of like Jews for Jesus, and, for that matter, the early Christians who thought themselves Jews.
And then Henry VIII said “and for good measure I name what we’re doing the Anglican Church.”
As should be clear, I know zilch about this. But this is the comic-book version floating around in my head.
There’s a distinction between the organization of the church and theology/doctrine. Henry was opposed to the authority of the Pope over the church in England, but he did not have fundamental disagreements over theology and doctrine, other than the area of papal authority. His views on this point seemed to have been similar to that of the Orthodox churches, which are united in doctrine but organizationally, do not have a single governor, Pope or patriach. (The Orthodox position is termed “autocephalic” - each church having its own autonomous head.)
Even after he severed ties with Rome, the Church of England under his rule did not become a Lutheran church; it considered itself a reformed Catholic church. It wasn’t until his son Edward succeeded him that Anglicanism veered more towards Lutheran Protestantism. Elizabeth in turned pulled the Church back towards a “middle way.”
The wiki article on the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles does a good job of tracing the evolution of Anglican doctrine under Henry, Edward VI and then Elizabeth.
For instance, the 10 Articles of 1536 had some elements of Lutheranism, but also clearly accepted many Catholic principles which Luther rejected:
[QUOTE=Wiki article on the Thirty-Nine Articles]
The Ten Articles were published in 1536 by Thomas Cranmer. They were the first guidelines of the Church of England as it became independent of Rome.
In summary, the Ten Articles asserted:
-
The binding authority of the Bible, the three œcumenical creeds, and the first four œcumenical councils
-
The necessity of baptism for salvation, even in the case of infants (Art. II. says that ‘infants ought to be baptized;’ that, dying in infancy, they ‘shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not;’ that the opinions of Anabaptists and Pelagians are ‘detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned.’)
-
The sacrament of penance, with confession and absolution, which are declared ‘expedient and necessary’
-
The substantial, real, corporal presence of Christ’s body and blood under the form of bread and wine in the eucharist
-
Justification by faith, joined with charity and obedience
-
The use of images in churches
-
The honoring of saints and the Virgin Mary
-
The invocation of saints
-
The observance of various rites and ceremonies as good and laudable, such as clerical vestments, sprinkling of holy water, bearing of candles on Candlemas-day, giving of ashes on Ash Wednesday
-
The doctrine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead in purgatory (made purgatory a non-essential doctrine)
[/QUOTE]
Articles 6, 7, 8, and 9, for instance, are much more Catholic than Protestant.
Three years later, there was a conference between some C. of E. bishops and some German Lutherans. Not only did they fail to agree, but Henry dissolved the conference and the C. of E. issued the Six Articles, which were even more close to Catholic doctrine than the Ten Articles had been:
So, if you have a church that affirms the principles set out in the Six Articles, it’s difficult to say it’s a Protestant church. But, since that same church rejected the authority of the Bishop of Rome, it clearly wasn’t a Roman Catholic church either.
Poly, Kimmy - your thoughts?
While I’m chewing on this, and before you experts get down: CoE is or isn’t Episcopalians? Because CoE clergy marry, don’t they? Or am I just thinking about Episcopaleans?
I’ll butt out now.
They are not strictly the same thing, as they involve different jurisdictions, but the Church of England, Episcopalian Church of USA, Church of Ireland, Church in Wales, et al. (but not Church of Scotland, who are Presbyterian) are all Anglican churches falling under the Anglican Communion. To answer the implied part of your post, they are mostly the same, maybe with small practical differences. All priests can marry in the Anglican communion AFAIK, along with Orthodox priests, Roman Catholic priests who were married and converted, Catholic priests who are in any of the non-Roman churches but recognize the primacy of Rome, etc.
In other words, CoE:bulldog :: Episcopalian:Alaskan Husky :: Anglican:Canis lupus familiaris