Plight of Catholocism under the British System

[Picky_Picky]

I guess it’s just like getting in a tizzy about the Norman Invasion or the Vikings.
Ancient history - no lingering effects. Predjudice? What?

However, the sections that ban Catholic succession were not repealed. Catholics are still officially termed as being “naturally dead and deemed to be dead” in terms of succession. This distinction was first legislated in the Bill of Rights 1689.[26] Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con) also confirmed “the Act of Settlement deems somebody who has been a Catholic for a minute to be ‘dead’ in terms of the succession, and it passes over them ‘as if they were dead’. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead”. Mark Durkan (SDLP) tried to compare this with McCarthyism, “In effect, it is the McCarthyite question: ‘Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic?’ For anybody who has ever been a Catholic in any shape or form, that is it, they are out; they count as dead for these purposes”.[27] The ban continues.

Fair point. Very fair point. The difficulty nowadays is purely practical rather than prejudiced, but a fair point nonetheless.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Ah, I thought they’d finally done away with that.

Prince William’s wife grew up as a “Romanist”, from what I hear.

The Jacobites may at long-last win back the throne, if with a different lineage.

They’ve removed the ban on those married to Catholics.

But, please, not those dreadful Stuarts.

 

[Vonsalza]

They’ve removed the ban on those married to Catholics.

But, please, not those dreadful Stuarts.

I think you’ve little to worry about.

If a Catholic were ever to sit again on the English throne, 500 years worth of corpses collectively and violently spinning in their graves would destroy most of the English-speaking world.

 

[GKC]

Verily, Christianity in England has a complex story. But frankly, Christianity most everywhere else has a complex story as well.

So no, the origin of the CoE may not be fully, 100% because of Henry VIII. Concession readily and enthusiastically granted (it may be more like 98% ). But the adage quoted by your older family members does indeed contain “a small amount of truth”.

The deeds of Hank play an unambiguously critical role in the locus of origin for the CoE. As such, there will forever and always be an ontological concern inherent to the CoE; as all conclusions inherit the virtues of their premises.

Just looking at it from a purely polemic stance, that concern creates a critical need to obfuscate and minimize his involvement as much as possible for anyone who feels compelled to defend the legitimacy of the CoE. Another, less valid tactic would be to turn the focus back onto my partner concerning another matter.

And I think we see that. At least, when the threads on this specific topic don’t get deleted.

I had a nifty post on the subject, in one of those threads, I think. Covered a lot of ground on the subject, as I have done for many years.

Henry was the immediate cause of the actions Henry took, in taking the Church in England private. But his actions (the Henrician Acts, which were basically a double bluff: Henry thought Clement would fold, Clement thought Henry would return to the fold) followed several hundred years of conflict between the Throne and Rome, and what he did differed in degree, not in kind, from a history that had been on going in England for years; the attempt to realize increasing independence of the ruling class (monarchy, at the time) from any control from outside the realm,and control over the institutions in the realm.

History is complicated, and back at least to Henry II, in the 12th century, Acts of Parliament and Royal decrees limiting and abolishing Papal and Church prerogatives were numerous (Council of Westminster, Council of Clarendon, First Statute of Winchester, Statute of Mortmain, the Writ Circumspecte agatis , the Statue of Carlisle, and the double Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, for example.). Had Henry produced a regiment of legitimate male heirs, with Catherine, had la Boleyn not tickled Henry’s fancy at all, eventually, some sort of break or radical realignment of the relationship between the national polity and the religious structure would have come. It was nascent nationalism, appearing in the West and that history is the tale of its birthing. And it was not stoppable.

I have no great fondness for Henry. I have an interest in history. Which is what I’m discussing. As with Hank’s Great Matter, or the inside tale of how he got that Defensor Fidei title (not merely related to the* Assertio*), history amongst the Tudors, and in many other places, far away, interests me.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I have no great fondness for Henry. I have an interest in history. Which is what I’m discussing.

I have no great fondness for Henry, either. Difficult to see how any C21 person could have great fondness for him. I do confess to feeling pity for his first daughter and admiration for his second. His (legitimate) son and successor leaves me cold. But I, too, have an interest in history.

 

[Vonsalza]

I had a nifty post on the subject, in one of those threads, I think. Covered a lot of ground on the subject, as I have done for many years.

Henry was the immediate cause of the actions Henry took, in taking the Church in England private. But his actions (the Henrician Acts, which were basically a double bluff: Henry thought Clement would fold, Clement thought Henry would return to the fold) followed several hundred years of conflict between the Throne and Rome, and what he did differed in degree, not in kind, from a history that had been on going in England for years; the attempt to realize increasing independence of the ruling class (monarchy, at the time) from any control from outside the realm,and control over the institutions in the realm.

History is complicated, and back at least to Henry II, in the 12th century, Acts of Parliament and Royal decrees limiting and abolishing Papal and Church prerogatives were numerous (Council of Westminster, Council of Clarendon, First Statute of Winchester, Statute of Mortmain, the Writ Circumspecte agatis , the Statue of Carlisle, and the double Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, for example.). Had Henry produced a regiment of legitimate male heirs, with Catherine, had la Boleyn not tickled Henry’s fancy at all, eventually, some sort of break or radical realignment of the relationship between the national polity and the religious structure would have come. It was nascent nationalism, appearing in the West and that history is the tale of its birthing. And it was not stoppable.

I have no great fondness for Henry. I have an interest in history. Which is what I’m discussing. As with Hank’s Great Matter, or the inside tale of how he got that Defensor Fidei title (not merely related to the* Assertio*), history amongst the Tudors, and in many other places, far away, interests me.

Thanks again for your contributions.

To be clear, when I referenced “anyone who feels compelled to defend the legitimacy of the CoE”, you were not in my “forebrain” in case you were responding to the assumption.

Personally, I think much of the developments in Christendom during the 16th century were seismic echos of the Avignon Crisis of the 14th century when Catholicism had as many as three simultaneous Papal claimants. For many, the strength of the institution had irreparably cracked as a result.

I think many others stem from the common idea (which I hold) that Christ’s Church was possibly never meant to be a direct source of temporal power. But men are as men are (in the desire for power), and “Church and State” are not as easily divisible as we may think. I think the union is alive-and-well in America. Only the “church” in that case is aggressive secularism and post-modernism.

We all enjoy it when all of our major institutions affirm our own views, I suppose.

Thanks again.

 

[GKC]

Thanks again for your contributions.

To be clear, when I referenced “anyone who feels compelled to defend the legitimacy of the CoE”, you were not in my “forebrain” in case you were responding to the assumption.

Personally, I think much of the developments in Christendom during the 16th century were seismic echos of the Avignon Crisis of the 14th century when Catholicism had as many as three simultaneous Papal claimants. For many, the strength of the institution had irreparably cracked as a result.

I think many others stem from the common idea (which I hold) that Christ’s Church was possibly never meant to be a direct source of temporal power. But men are as men are (in the desire for power), and “Church and State” are not as easily divisible as we may think. I think the union is alive-and-well in America. Only the “church” in that case is aggressive secularism and post-modernism.

We all enjoy it when all of our major institutions affirm our own views, I suppose.

Thanks again.

You’d be surprised how much we march together on this. I was.

And thank you.

 

[Clevus]

Whether the issue is racism or anti-Catholicism, let’s deal with the issues that we are facing TODAY. If there is a bias or a problem or an exclusion TODAY, let’s take steps, going forward from TODAY, to deal with it.

History is good sometimes for understanding a context or a background as to why things today ended up how they are, but I completely reject the idea of “collective guilt” for things that I didn’t cause and had no control over, including things that happened way before I was even born. Trying to impose this sort of guilt on any group of people, whether it’s whites, Catholics, Church of England, or all men for oppressing women, etc. is unproductive and clouds the issue of actually getting something positive accomplished in the way of removing obstacles to unity and ending oppression TODAY. Do you want to help the problem or just make a lot of people say “huh, not my problem, I wasn’t even on earth, what are you complaining about, whiners, go away”.

And when I start picking my battles to end prejudice against Catholics, doing away with somebody’s Guy Fawkes fireworks party is way way way way down the list.

Absolutely, and we can start with those who have paid their debt to society that the Church takes issue with. These are past sins as well. One could say that the common good overrides their rights to living a corrected life that St. Paul desired they live.(2 Cor 2,6). But the canon says different than the desires of the magisterial.

NewAdvent(Justice)

*The power of the State is limited by the end for which it was instituted, and it has no authority to violate the natural rights of its subjects. If it does this it commits injustice as individuals would do if they acted in like manner. It may indeed levy taxes, and impose other burdens on its subjects, as far as is required by the common necessity and advantage, but no further. For the common good it has authority to compel individual citizens to risk life for the defense of their country when it is in peril, and to part with a portion of their property when this is required for a public road, but as far as possible it must make suitable compensation. When it imposes taxes, military service, or other burdens; when it distributes rewards, offices, and honors; when it metes out condign punishment for offenses, it is bound to do so according to the various merits and resources of the persons concerned; otherwise the State will sin against that special kind of justice which is called distributive. *

The Condign stance is not a condition, but a right in due process, and implies a measure, a limiting amount that fills to a balance point where the justice taken from a victim, equals that with what the state determined is restitution and to be paid.
The Church ignores this right.

 

[GKC]

I have no great fondness for Henry, either. Difficult to see how any C21 person could have great fondness for him. I do confess to feeling pity for his first daughter and admiration for his second. His (legitimate) son and successor leaves me cold. But I, too, have an interest in history.

I have noticed, with appreciation.

I wonder how the 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset, etc, etc, might have turned out, given a chance.

 

[Clevus]

Don’t forget to revile the Catholic Church for all the evil it did throughout history .

The one perfect Church established by Christ doesn’t deserve accusation from me, but I will certainly keep a close watch on the conduct of it’s ministers.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I have noticed, with appreciation.

I wonder how the 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset, etc, etc, might have turned out, given a chance.

Yes, although the whole dynastic mess just renders us replete with counterfactuals, doesn’t it? Henry IX? A son and heir for Mary and the Spanish king? Jane the Quene?

 

[GKC]

Yes, although the whole dynastic mess just renders us replete with counterfactuals, doesn’t it? Henry IX? A son and heir for Mary and the Spanish king? Jane the Quene?

Have I mentioned my fondness for alternate history SF?

The Mary/Charles universe would make a nice book.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Have I mentioned my fondness for alternate history SF?

The Mary/Charles universe would make a nice book.

Charles being the putative son of Mary I? Hope he’s got more sense than the real Charles I.

 

[GKC]

Charles being the putative son of Mary I? Hope he’s got more sense than the real Charles I.

No, I was thinking of the machinations Henry tried to arrange, using Mary, as a valid legitimate offspring, but female, to make a suitable dynastic marriage per verba de futuro, with a suitable dynastic partner. Francis I, Charles V, latterly, then Francis or his son. The idea would be the merger was made with Charles, and thus the HRE, sometimes around the point that Henry, in the Real World, was writing down his Acts, From here. we assume a legitimate male offspring, blending the Tudor and the Hapsburg/Spanish lines, and watch all Europe change before our very eyes.

I think Harry Turtledove could do it.

 

[Picky_Picky]

No, I was thinking of the machinations Henry tried to arrange, using Mary, as a valid legitimate offspring, but female, to make a suitable dynastic marriage per verba de futuro, with a suitable dynastic partner. Francis I, Charles V, latterly, then Francis or his son. The idea would be the merger was made with Charles, and thus the HRE, sometimes around the point that Henry, in the Real World, was writing down his Acts, From here. we assume a legitimate male offspring, blending the Tudor and the Hapsburg/Spanish lines, and watch all Europe change before our very eyes.

I think Harry Turtledove could do it.

Thank you — yes. And not just all Europe: the New World would be remade, too, no doubt.

 

[GKC]

Thank you — yes. And not just all Europe: the New World would be remade, too, no doubt.

If only I could write.

 

[Picky_Picky]

And speaking of Mary, Do I not remember a plan at one time to marry her to Richmond, with papal OK etc?

 

[GKC]

And speaking of Mary, Do I not remember a plan at one time to marry her to Richmond, with papal OK etc?

Yep. So widely and so desperately to Hank’s mind range - the whole deal with making Mary an ersatz Prince of Wales, while ennobling Fitzroy to rank as the highest peer in the land (save only any subsequent legitimate males, of Henry’s own loins). All without a real thought of La Boleyn. The decree of nullity concept, when struck upon, simplified all things. Except it didn’t.

 

[GKC]

Keith Roberts/PAVANE. maybe? Harry Turtledove/RULED BRITANNIA? Kingsley Amis/THE ALTERATION?

I thank you for those words. I can write, after a fashion, But I can’t create, at all.

 

[Picky_Picky]

It does addle the thinking, don’t it? I remember fell walking in this heat in 1976 and it was a very silly thing to be doing. This year I am concentrating on not boiling the brain.