Sorry if I mis- took your quote “until 1830” to include the centuries before. The history I posted may not include all took place in England. My historical reference displays what took place in England and under the power of the English Crown in it’s conquered territories where Catholics were predominate in populace.Perhaps you did. 1830 was Broignatius’s date. I was not denying hundreds of years in which various stripes of Christians were torturing and killing each other. I was questioning whether Catholics were in fact being arrested, tortured and killed for their faith In England in 1830.
That’s OK. Just took an hour out to watch the cricket (very satisfactory it is, too).Sorry if I mis- took your quote “until 1830” to include the centuries before. The history I posted may not include all took place in England. My historical reference displays what took place in England and under the power of the English Crown in it’s conquered territories where Catholics were predominate in populace.
Jefferson’s letter is not the Constitution, but in any event this was an explanation to the the assembly of the First Amendment that we shall not have a National Church. The phrase he uses has NOTHING to do with what has happened in the 1947 Court decision."Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their ‘legislature’ should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1802
The law was changed in 1830.Are you suggesting that Catholic priests and religious were arrested, tortured, killed or deported for their faith in England until 1830?
You seem to misinterpret. The law against Catholics existed prior to 1830. 1830 is when the laws was changed.Yep. Pretty sure that was a little before 1830.
How can this “exceed” the 1830 date? All these things happened BEFORE 1830. The law against Catholics was BEFORE 1830 and was finally repealed in 1830.What took place here; King Henry wanted to control Ireland not only for religious reasons but also for political reasons, therefore beginning in 1534 he encouraged British as well as Scottish protestants to go settle in Ireland. The largest amount of protestant settlers was seen between 1534-1691.
Far and exceeds your date of 1830. Many wounds from these Catholics and Protestants have NOT BEEN fully healed TODAY.
Such a statement seems close to denying free will. The idea that any pope should dictate everyone’s thoughts, opinions, etc. is beyond anything I could imagine or accept.Blessed Pope Pius IX certainly thinks so:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
It’s a dangerous age we live in, where everyone thinks they have the right to their own opinion, instead of humbly submitting to the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Could you name the law that was repealed, and the Act that did that?The law was changed in 1830.
Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (April 13th)Could you name the law that was repealed, and the Act that did that?
I am particularly interested in what happened in 1830. As opposed to 1829.
And the Acts between 1766 and 1829. History, that is.
The same Thomas More who had quite a hand in the execution of heretics? He didn’t seem to be against the state persecuting religious dissenters until he was on the other side.Secular powers begin to chart the course to usurp divine authority from the Catholic Church Magisterium.
Sir Thomas More, also called Saint Thomas More (born February 7, 1478, London, England—died July 6, 1535, London; canonized May 19, 1935; feast day June 22), English humanist and statesman, chancellor of England (1529–32),** who was beheaded** for refusing to accept King Henry VIII as head of the Church of England.
www.luminarium.org/renlit/morebio.htm
Your statement is false and is part and parcel of anti-catholic and atheist attacks. Do you “seriously expect us expect us to swallow that tripe?”The same Thomas More who had quite a hand in the execution of heretics? He didn’t seem to be against the state persecuting religious dissenters until he was on the other side.
The same Thomas More who had quite a hand in the execution of heretics? He didn’t seem to be against the state persecuting religious dissenters until he was on the other side.
Thomas More was a saint because he died as a martyr for the faith. Anyone who does that has a ticket straight to heaven. Whatever sins can be attributed to More was washed clean from his soul by blood.Sir Thomas More, also called Saint Thomas More (born February 7, 1478, London, England—died July 6, 1535, London; canonized May 19, 1935; feast day June 22), English humanist and statesman, chancellor of England (1529–32), who was beheaded for refusing to accept King Henry VIII as head of the Church of England.
www.luminarium.org/renlit/morebio.htm
The essay you linked to seems to be trying to say that More didn’t torture heretics or take glee in hurting them – but that’s not what I said. I said “The same Thomas More who had quite a hand in the execution of heretics? He didn’t seem to be against the state persecuting religious dissenters until he was on the other side.”Your statement is false and is part and parcel of anti-catholic and atheist attacks. Do you “seriously expect us expect us to swallow that tripe?”
The truth about these matters can be found in an essay, Thomas More Was Not “Unnaturally Fond of Torturing Heretics” by Michael Moreland, who offers a thoughtful, not exaggerated nor a drive-by shooting as your comment is.
I post the link to this essay knowing full well that many people will continue to argue without reading it and thus lacking the courage of a proper debater.
Fine. Good day to you. I’m sure, then, that you are aware that the point of the Act was to clear the way for Irish Catholics to sit in the UK House of Commons.Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (April 13th)
I don’t much like “more than fitting”. Sir Thomas was certainly involved in persecuting dissenters, including persecuting them to their death, and his execution may have been fitting in court politics in Tudor times. I don’t much like the “fitting” in 2017, though. But then I’m not greatly in favour of executions.The essay you linked to seems to be trying to say that More didn’t torture heretics or take glee in hurting them – but that’s not what I said. I said “The same Thomas More who had quite a hand in the execution of heretics? He didn’t seem to be against the state persecuting religious dissenters until he was on the other side.”
We know as a fact that he was directly involved in three heretic burnings (Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury, James Bainham) and indirectly involved in two others (Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney) He was also responsible for the imprisonment of several others that were (or accused of) dealing in Protestant writings. More certainly did not believe in the life of liberty of those who leaned in different religious directions, so it was more than fitting when the winds changed and he was executed for having an alternate religious position.
One must be judicious in their application, I agree. And the mores. so to speak, of one time are not the mores of another, Which was one of the points of pointing out that what was occurring in the 16th century was morphing, for many reasons, through the 17th, 18th and 19th, Up to and beyond that date of 1829 (more pertinent than 1830).I don’t much like “more than fitting”. Sir Thomas was certainly involved in persecuting dissenters, including persecuting them to their death, and his execution may have been fitting in court politics in Tudor times. I don’t much like the “fitting” in 2017, though. But then I’m not greatly in favour of executions.
It doesn’t matter what one does so long as one dies as a martyr to the faith? Then there’s a ticket straight to heaven? I don’t like that way of thinking when it’s the philosophy of the Muslim suicide bomber, and I don’t like it when it’s applied to a Christian, either. Of course it matters what one does.Thomas More was a saint because he died as a martyr for the faith. Anyone who does that has a ticket straight to heaven. Whatever sins can be attributed to More was washed clean from his soul by blood.
Saints are not impeccable. They are ordinary men like all of us. As one priest put it, “What made them saints is that God gave them a mission and they persevered in the mission until the day they died.” Others did live lives of great holiness. And still others stood up to tyrants and paid the price of their own blood.
For Thomas More, he was canonized because he defending the Faith against all odds, even against a King, and maintained that defense even to being executed. That is the heroic faith of a Saint. He was “The King’s good servant, but God’s First.”
Thus, even if what you say is true, which it is not, it would not matter as dying as a martyr for the faith washes all that away.
Exactly so.One must be judicious in their application, I agree. And the mores. so to speak, of one time are not the mores of another, Which was one of the points of pointing out that what was occurring in the 16th century was morphing, for many reasons, through the 17th, 18th and 19th, Up to and beyond that date of 1829 (more pertinent than 1830).
You spoilt a perfectly good post, with “which it is not”. Historically, Mike’s statements are accurate.Thomas More was a saint because he died as a martyr for the faith. Anyone who does that has a ticket straight to heaven. Whatever sins can be attributed to More was washed clean from his soul by blood.
Saints are not impeccable. They are ordinary men like all of us. As one priest put it, “What made them saints is that God gave them a mission and they persevered in the mission until the day they died.” Others did live lives of great holiness. And still others stood up to tyrants and paid the price of their own blood.
For Thomas More, he was canonized because he defending the Faith against all odds, even against a King, and maintained that defense even to being executed. That is the heroic faith of a Saint. He was “The King’s good servant, but God’s First.”
Thus, even if what you say is true, which it is not, it would not matter as dying as a martyr for the faith washes all that away.
And in the case of the Church of England.You spoilt a perfectly good post, with “which it is not”. Historically, Mike’s statements are accurate.
But so are yours, otherwise. More was a fascinating man for all seasons, though certainly also a man of his times. Hence he is in the calendar of saints, as you note. As well as in the calendar of saints of a number of Anglican jurisdictions. Feast date is 6 July for him and Fisher, in my case.