What I like is the statement, "You're for King and Parliament, and I'm for Parliament and King. We could work and judge impartially together." Why couldn't the King and Pym had just sat together and talked without butting heads?
Because their views were in direct conflict. Charles believed in the 'divine right of monarchy'; that he was subject only to God not parliament. Pym was a deliberately provocative man of the commons, determined to curb royal power to such an extent that even other parliamentarians found him too much. There was never going to be any common ground in the same way that fire and ice don't mix well
To add to Bronze Dog's reply, a large amount of religious antagonism was involved. Charles had long believed that Puritanism was an inherently subversive tendency which eroded natural authority and hierarchy with its opposition to bishops, and its willingness to let common people with no formal education preach to congregations. He spent the 1630s shifting the Church of England away from Puritanism and towards Arminianism, a brand of Protestant thought that imitated Catholicism in many aspects of theology and worship. Though the King wasn't actually a secret Catholic (which was the worst fear of Pym and the Puritans), he definitely admired a lot about the Catholic monarchies of Europe: the beauty of their art and culture, their wealth and lavish ceremonies, and above all, their ability to rule with absolute power. That fascination fuelled his actions, and caused all kinds of conspiracy theories among Puritans about how he meant to return the country to the fold of Rome by inviting a French or Spanish invasion. For his part, Pym had grown up with the terrors of the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot, and he developed a kind of proto-patriotism that defined "true" Englishness in terms of firm Protestant beliefs and militant opposition to Catholicism at home and abroad. He came to believe that within this notion of Englishness, loyalty to the King was necessary only as long as the King was acting in accordance with God's will and in the interests of the people. Even by the standards of the 17th century, Pym was a deeply bigoted man, and if he'd been able to open a dialogue with Charles, he'd still never have compromised on any matter of religion: Catholicism and Arminianism (which he considered a gateway to Popery) were simply unacceptable. Add to that the fact that Charles was horrendously insecure, prone to fits of temper, and broke promises with breathtaking ease, and you have two men that were born to butt heads.
@@bronzedog5090you are mistaken in associating the Latin rite with catholicism. The Greek father's who created and braced the term did so by combining the Greek words Kata/according to and olios/the whole. The catholic faith is the beliefs of all, everywhere and at all times, to paraphrase Vincent of Lerins. Unfortunately none have ever agreed as to that. The only acceptable definition is that accepted by the Greek Father's who developed and propounded the four marks of the church as "one holy catholic and apostolic" at the Council of Constantinople in 380 as the teachings of Scripture - the apostolic tradition - and of the canons of the true Ecumenical Councils. There is no organisational component in the marks - the church is one and holy because it's Lord is one and holy. It has never been universal, and had the Latin rite meant that, they would have used the perfectly acceptable Latin word universalis. It chose in its bowdlerised version of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed- the 325 Creed as amended at Constantinople to attempt to hijack the term catholic, not through doctrinal conviction - some 2000 years of comments are agreed the Latins were atrocious at that - but because the Emperor Theodosius in the Edict of Thessalonica, Cunctos Populus, of 381 declared that Nicene Christianity was the official religion of the Empire, that those who accepted the Nicene formula had the right to call themselves "catholic Christians" , but that all others were to be reviled as heretics. The Orthodox church adopted the Cappadocian formula of "Mia ousia, treis hypostasis" as expressing the reality of God, which means that Christ's self-sacrifice has worked our salvation, once for all, effective through faith. In Greek both ousia and hypostasis mean being, the first in a general sense, the later in a specific sense as individuals, which means that the three are the true reality of God, sharing equally the one Godhead The Latin formula of Aquinas - tres personae, una essentia (ST Prima pars ,q 39). In this, only the essentia is real. The Oxford Latin Dictionary and indeed all reputable dictionaries of classical Greco-Roman languages, not to mention the renowned text by Zizoulas, Being and Communion, agree that "personae" means a mask, face ,appearance or countenance. Is the outward appearance, but that overwhelmingly the term means the the masks used by classical thespians to denote their role or emotion. In other words it rejects the Nicene Creed, asserting that the reality of God is the unknowable, emotionless paragon of "Goodness", not love. - and NOT the God of Scripture and so of the Apostles. This means that the Father Son and Spirit cannot save, and neither can the church since as is made clear in Matthew God alone can forgive sin. So, unless the Christ, the Son of Man is the reality of God, we remain in our sins. Latin preachers deny this, closing that "personae" means persons in the modern sense, thereby living up to their poor reputation for truthfulness and theological insight. Recall that Rome lost its authority when Diocletian moved the capital to Milan in 286 and under Damascus sought to create a new basis of secular authority by "reinterpreting" Mt 16 and 18. The " keys to heaven" do not extend to those to Hades, and so are confined to promoting the creation of faith through the proclamation of the gospel of our salvation through faith. There is no support for the concepts that the ludicrous ecclesiology of the Latin rite can send anyone to Hell. After all consulting the Jewish Encyclopaedia article on "Bind and loose" makes it undeniable that the notion of Binding and loosing, conferred on ALL the disciples in Mt 16 and 18, is a Jewish concept conferred on all scholars and Rabbis in particular to "bind" in the sense of ruling certain behaviour contravenes the 613 mitzvah of Torah and to "loose" or declare legitimate all other behaviour. Christ was commissioning a Rabbinate for the new Assembly, and certainly the offices of episkopos, presbeuteros and diakonos, traced through the Greek Septuagint to the Masoretic, clearly called for a Synagogue like structure of independent congregations, and rejected the hierarchical and monarchical structure adopted by the Latin rite. Just to remove another furphy, Otto Zweirlien has conclusively demonstrated on scientific grounds that there is no contemporary evidence to support the idea that Peter ever visited Rome, let alone led the church there or was martyred in the city. Conclusion, the Latin rite is NOT the catholic church, and probably never formed part of it - that title is shared by the Orthodox church and those which accept the legitimate teachings of the Ecumenical Councils. The Latin rite, as admitted in the Encyclical Fides et Ratio, is purely the teachings of Plato , Plotinus and Aristotle and their purely pagan disciples, and aimed at claiming secular authority., With all the benefits accruing thereto.
The fallacious nonsense of religion separated them. Pym had to follow the flow of his Puritan followers. Charles was drowned in the divine right of kings. I suggest Alec Ryrie's series on the English Reformations from Gresham College. After seeing that you will understand that all of the death, blood, and destruction of the Civil War was rooted in religion.
Thank you from California for uploading this series. I missed it when it first ran and I am very pleased to be able to see it now. Much appreciated.
Thank you for uploading this series. First time I have viewed it, most enjoyable.
You know you are a history nerd when all you hear is the name of the dog and you know who the person is....Prince Rupert! 😅
I commend you Sir!
What I like is the statement, "You're for King and Parliament, and I'm for Parliament and King. We could work and judge impartially together." Why couldn't the King and Pym had just sat together and talked without butting heads?
Because their views were in direct conflict. Charles believed in the 'divine right of monarchy'; that he was subject only to God not parliament. Pym was a deliberately provocative man of the commons, determined to curb royal power to such an extent that even other parliamentarians found him too much. There was never going to be any common ground in the same way that fire and ice don't mix well
To add to Bronze Dog's reply, a large amount of religious antagonism was involved. Charles had long believed that Puritanism was an inherently subversive tendency which eroded natural authority and hierarchy with its opposition to bishops, and its willingness to let common people with no formal education preach to congregations. He spent the 1630s shifting the Church of England away from Puritanism and towards Arminianism, a brand of Protestant thought that imitated Catholicism in many aspects of theology and worship. Though the King wasn't actually a secret Catholic (which was the worst fear of Pym and the Puritans), he definitely admired a lot about the Catholic monarchies of Europe: the beauty of their art and culture, their wealth and lavish ceremonies, and above all, their ability to rule with absolute power. That fascination fuelled his actions, and caused all kinds of conspiracy theories among Puritans about how he meant to return the country to the fold of Rome by inviting a French or Spanish invasion.
For his part, Pym had grown up with the terrors of the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot, and he developed a kind of proto-patriotism that defined "true" Englishness in terms of firm Protestant beliefs and militant opposition to Catholicism at home and abroad. He came to believe that within this notion of Englishness, loyalty to the King was necessary only as long as the King was acting in accordance with God's will and in the interests of the people. Even by the standards of the 17th century, Pym was a deeply bigoted man, and if he'd been able to open a dialogue with Charles, he'd still never have compromised on any matter of religion: Catholicism and Arminianism (which he considered a gateway to Popery) were simply unacceptable. Add to that the fact that Charles was horrendously insecure, prone to fits of temper, and broke promises with breathtaking ease, and you have two men that were born to butt heads.
@spartakistmk; excellent expansion on my comments. Not sure if you're a history scholar but your knowledge in this area is first class 👍
@@bronzedog5090you are mistaken in associating the Latin rite with catholicism. The Greek father's who created and braced the term did so by combining the Greek words Kata/according to and olios/the whole. The catholic faith is the beliefs of all, everywhere and at all times, to paraphrase Vincent of Lerins. Unfortunately none have ever agreed as to that. The only acceptable definition is that accepted by the Greek Father's who developed and propounded the four marks of the church as "one holy catholic and apostolic" at the Council of Constantinople in 380 as the teachings of Scripture - the apostolic tradition - and of the canons of the true Ecumenical Councils. There is no organisational component in the marks - the church is one and holy because it's Lord is one and holy. It has never been universal, and had the Latin rite meant that, they would have used the perfectly acceptable Latin word universalis. It chose in its bowdlerised version of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed- the 325 Creed as amended at Constantinople to attempt to hijack the term catholic, not through doctrinal conviction - some 2000 years of comments are agreed the Latins were atrocious at that - but because the Emperor Theodosius in the Edict of Thessalonica, Cunctos Populus, of 381 declared that Nicene Christianity was the official religion of the Empire, that those who accepted the Nicene formula had the right to call themselves "catholic Christians" , but that all others were to be reviled as heretics. The Orthodox church adopted the Cappadocian formula of "Mia ousia, treis hypostasis" as expressing the reality of God, which means that Christ's self-sacrifice has worked our salvation, once for all, effective through faith. In Greek both ousia and hypostasis mean being, the first in a general sense, the later in a specific sense as individuals, which means that the three are the true reality of God, sharing equally the one Godhead The Latin formula of Aquinas - tres personae, una essentia (ST Prima pars ,q 39). In this, only the essentia is real. The Oxford Latin Dictionary and indeed all reputable dictionaries of classical Greco-Roman languages, not to mention the renowned text by Zizoulas, Being and Communion, agree that "personae" means a mask, face ,appearance or countenance. Is the outward appearance, but that overwhelmingly the term means the the masks used by classical thespians to denote their role or emotion. In other words it rejects the Nicene Creed, asserting that the reality of God is the unknowable, emotionless paragon of "Goodness", not love. - and NOT the God of Scripture and so of the Apostles. This means that the Father Son and Spirit cannot save, and neither can the church since as is made clear in Matthew God alone can forgive sin. So, unless the Christ, the Son of Man is the reality of God, we remain in our sins. Latin preachers deny this, closing that "personae" means persons in the modern sense, thereby living up to their poor reputation for truthfulness and theological insight. Recall that Rome lost its authority when Diocletian moved the capital to Milan in 286 and under Damascus sought to create a new basis of secular authority by "reinterpreting" Mt 16 and 18. The " keys to heaven" do not extend to those to Hades, and so are confined to promoting the creation of faith through the proclamation of the gospel of our salvation through faith. There is no support for the concepts that the ludicrous ecclesiology of the Latin rite can send anyone to Hell. After all consulting the Jewish Encyclopaedia article on "Bind and loose" makes it undeniable that the notion of Binding and loosing, conferred on ALL the disciples in Mt 16 and 18, is a Jewish concept conferred on all scholars and Rabbis in particular to "bind" in the sense of ruling certain behaviour contravenes the 613 mitzvah of Torah and to "loose" or declare legitimate all other behaviour. Christ was commissioning a Rabbinate for the new Assembly, and certainly the offices of episkopos, presbeuteros and diakonos, traced through the Greek Septuagint to the Masoretic, clearly called for a Synagogue like structure of independent congregations, and rejected the hierarchical and monarchical structure adopted by the Latin rite. Just to remove another furphy, Otto Zweirlien has conclusively demonstrated on scientific grounds that there is no contemporary evidence to support the idea that Peter ever visited Rome, let alone led the church there or was martyred in the city.
Conclusion, the Latin rite is NOT the catholic church, and probably never formed part of it - that title is shared by the Orthodox church and those which accept the legitimate teachings of the Ecumenical Councils. The Latin rite, as admitted in the Encyclical Fides et Ratio, is purely the teachings of Plato , Plotinus and Aristotle and their purely pagan disciples, and aimed at claiming secular authority., With all the benefits accruing thereto.
The fallacious nonsense of religion separated them. Pym had to follow the flow of his Puritan followers. Charles was drowned in the divine right of kings. I suggest Alec Ryrie's series on the English Reformations from Gresham College. After seeing that you will understand that all of the death, blood, and destruction of the Civil War was rooted in religion.
37:21 - Brutal, lol. CLEAN IT!
The REVOLUTIONS podcast by Mike Duncan covers the English Civil War, highly recommended!
7:00
Ref