M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
Compare her to Elizabeth. Elizabeth murdered thousands of Catholics.
- Status
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I think you’ll find that she didn’t and she was on the throne an awful lot longer than Mary.
It might have helped if Pius V handn’t (Regnens in Excelsis 1570 and renewed in time for the Armada) told Catholics to be traitors.
- And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.
- And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship. fealty and obedience; and we do, by authority of these presents , so absolve them and so deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other the above said matters. We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
Because she illegaly acquired the throne. She murdered thousands of Catholics for supposed ‘plots against the throne’. The facts are there, you just have to avoid white-washed British sources.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
As opposed to white-washed anti-British sources.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
No, you read both and find a comprimise. Mary killed hundreds in a short reign. Elizabeth killed thousands in her long reign.
White washed English sources paint the picture of ‘Evil Bloody Mary’ and ‘Enlightened, tolerant Elizabeth’.
T
Tony888
Guest
I’ve only read up on this because of this post. Catherine of Aragon appears to habe a true christian
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Indeed, Catherine of Aragon was an admirable Catholic queen in many respects. She certainly was not one of the individuals I alluded to in my post whom some Protestants for some reason still identify with. After all she was on the side of the Catholics who were rejected by the English Reformation!
I anticipated that my post might get some negative responses, but I find the responses it actually has prompted very bizarre.
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Elizabeth was a daughter by bastardy. The argument was that Elizabeth was an illegitimate Queen (which I agree with), and horrible towards Catholics, and condeming England by bringing her away from the True Faith. Saint Edward Campion went to his death loyal to both the Queen, but God first.
Henry VII told the VIII to always keep the Church on his side, Henry VIII broke that promise and England destroyed itself.
Mary I’s violence was a restoratory violence to preserve England, and bring her back to Truth.
Elizabeth I’s violence was destructory, to destroy all that England stood for, and bring her closer to hell.
For that, I support Queen Mary I and King Henry VII (and Catherine of Aragon (the king’s true wife), but the rest of the Tudors (maybe some of the other wives were blameless?) were the people who destroyed England.
“I die the King’s subject, but God’s first” -Saint Thomas More, martyr for the True Faith.
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Catholics are the true Brits, for they remained loyal.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Excuse me?
N
nicolep
Guest
That’s a false argument. It’s so far removed now that no Brit can be held responsible even in a direct blood line.
M
mgoforth
Guest
Who do Anglicans believe founded their church?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Since I’m Jewish, the religious aspect of this is pretty meaningless to me as are your criteria about whether England was destroyed or not, I was just pointing out that telling Catholics to be traitors was not perhaps the best move in terms of their health and safety.
M
mgoforth
Guest
I definitely need an Anglican explanation on this one…
I thought it was “founded” by Elizabeth I in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. The Settlement being a way to settle once and for all the flip-flopping England had done between Catholicism, Church of England and back to Catholicism which began when Henry VIII decided in 1534 that he was taking his ball and going home because Pope Clement VII refused to let him change the rules of the game. So in my mind, Henry VIII was the original founder. As to whether Elizabeth would have created the Church of England on her own if Henry had behaved like a proper Christian husband in the first place, the answer is “no” because Elizabeth never would have been born!
So no matter who officially “founded” the Church of England as separate from Rome, the act seems to be the product of infidelity, pride and disobedience.
“…but in general when I’ve discussed this with many Anglicans they would view Christ as founding their Church.”
So does every Protestant denomination. So do the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses. Christ apparently had a major bout of indecision between 1517 and…well now I guess, since there are still Protestant (as well as some quasi-but-not-really Christian) churches being founded every day. Who’s correct? All of them? Christ must not want us to understand much then…
“Some Anglicans would also point out they are still by their view Catholic.”
It takes agreement from both sides to truly be in a relationship. I might wake up tomorrow and decide that I’m married to that beautiful rich lady (fictional) down the road…but she would probably disagree.
I thought it was “founded” by Elizabeth I in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. The Settlement being a way to settle once and for all the flip-flopping England had done between Catholicism, Church of England and back to Catholicism which began when Henry VIII decided in 1534 that he was taking his ball and going home because Pope Clement VII refused to let him change the rules of the game. So in my mind, Henry VIII was the original founder. As to whether Elizabeth would have created the Church of England on her own if Henry had behaved like a proper Christian husband in the first place, the answer is “no” because Elizabeth never would have been born!
So no matter who officially “founded” the Church of England as separate from Rome, the act seems to be the product of infidelity, pride and disobedience.“…but in general when I’ve discussed this with many Anglicans they would view Christ as founding their Church.”
So does every Protestant denomination. So do the Mormons and the Jehovahs Witnesses. Christ apparently had a major bout of indecision between 1517 and…well now I guess, since there are still Protestant (as well as some quasi-but-not-really Christian) churches being founded every day. Who’s correct? All of them? Christ must not want us to understand much then…
“Some Anglicans would also point out they are still by their view Catholic.”
It takes agreement from both sides to truly be in a relationship. I might wake up tomorrow and decide that I’m married to that beautiful rich lady (fictional) down the road…but she would probably disagree.
D
Della
Guest
Stating the facts about Elizabeth’s ineligibility to the throne was a true statement based in the laws of the day. It may have put Catholics in danger, but standing up for the truth often does do that. Many people stood against the evils Germany launched upon the world in the 1930’s, for instance, and paid with their lives. Nations rose up to fight off this great evil, which meant the world going to war and many people died fighting. It’s always right to stand up for the right no matter the personal consequences. This doesn’t mean one must make oneself a martyr (which is why the pope gave a dispensation to English Catholics to attend the Anglican service to avoid prosecution), however if no one speaks the truth, even if it’s unpopular, it does greater harm in the long run.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Most of the Allies in the Second World War ‘stood up against the evils Germany launched’ when Germany declared war on them and/or invaded them.
Neither can you detach Pius V’s actions from the diplomatic scene at the time. As to ‘laws of the day’, that rather depended on who was making or unmaking them.
D
Della
Guest
I don’t understand what you are saying here. I only meant to use a commonly held example of evil not make a one-on-one comparison. Sorry it didn’t speak to you.
I didn’t think I had detached Pius V’s actions from anything. I was, again, only pointing out that England was violating commonly held ideas about royal succession of the day, nothing more, really. All Europe held to the same ideas about who should legally rule and who should not. I don’t know what other standard to apply than the one commonly held by the nations concerned.
Even under Jewish law bastards had fewer rights than legitimately born persons. It was common understanding and practice. The pope saw Elizabeth as a bastard because Henry had married Catherine under Catholic Church law, had tried to have her put aside under Church law, didn’t succeed, and so told the Church to, in so many words, to bug off. His decision in no way changed Church law nor did it make his marriage to Anne legitimate under Church law. He took himself and his country out of the Church (although he would have denied doing so–he was so self-deluded) and the pope had no choice but to declare the offspring of an illegitimate marriage bastard in the eyes of the Church, and therefore, in the eyes of all nations still faithful to Rome. There’s no way to change history. It was what is was.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I was talking about power politics, the Popes were rulers of a Papal States not just heads of a Church.I didn’t think I had detached Pius V’s actions from anything. I was, again, only pointing out that England was violating commonly held ideas about royal succession of the day, nothing more, really. All Europe held to the same ideas about who should legally rule and who should not. I don’t know what other standard to apply than the one commonly held by the nations concerned.
We’ve always had divorce.
None of which changes my point that telling English Catholics to be traitors was inimical to their health and safety.
D
Della
Guest
True, but he was (and is) also the visible head of the Church to whom Henry had pledged his allegiance.
Certainly, but Henry was seeking an annulment, which is not a divorce, but a determination that no marriage had every taken place, so there’s a difference.
And I wasn’t disputing your point, but agreeing with it. I was attempting to point out that oftentimes being in danger for the sake of truth cannot be avoided.
- Status