Protestant persecution of Catholics

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I did a little bit more research on it.

(German: “culture struggle”), the bitter struggle (c. 1871–87) on the part of the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck to subject the Roman Catholic church to state controls.

Bismarck, a staunch Protestant, never fully trusted the loyalty of the Roman Catholics within his newly created German Empire and became concerned by the Vatican Council’s proclamation of 1870 concerning papal infallibility. The Roman Catholics, who were represented politically by the Centre Party, distrusted the predominance of Protestant Prussia within the empire and often opposed Bismarck’s policies.

So he was Protestant.

The conflict began in July 1871, when Bismarck… abolished the Roman Catholic bureau in the Prussian Ministry of Culture (i.e., ministry of education and ecclesiastical affairs) and in November forbade priests from voicing political opinions from the pulpit. In March 1872 all religious schools became subject to state inspection; in June all religious teachers were excluded from state schools, and the Jesuit order was dissolved in Germany; and in December diplomatic relations with the Vatican were severed. In 1873 the May Laws, promulgated by the Prussian minister of culture, Adalbert Falk, placed strict state controls over religious training and even over ecclesiastical appointments within the church. The climax of the struggle came in 1875, when civil marriage was made obligatory throughout Germany. Dioceses that failed to comply with state regulations were cut off from state aid, and noncompliant clergy were exiled.

Rest can be found here:

search.eb.com/eb/article-9046394

 

[gam197]

originally posted by gam197
Actually no, sixteenth-century armies in general weren’t very good at keeping these rules. They were made up mostly of mercenaries who had very little discipline and were mainly out for plunder. Atrocities against civilians were common. Of course, the peasants’ war was an exception–the peasants were not mercenaries but were motivated by anger at the ruling classes (secular and religious)

But it wasn’t just looting. In the Netherlands, the great cathedral was gutted. Stain glass windows were smashed, statues of Christ and the Virgin Mary were axed - chopping of heads or totally hacking them to pieces.Organs were cut up and the descecration of Hosts took place. This was going on in Belgium and France.

The Calvinist Huguenots in France took the remains of St. Irenaceus of Lyons and Martin or Tours and threw them in the Loire River. The incorrupt body of St. Francis of Paola was taken from its tomb, dragged through the streets and burned.

The old dodge of blaming Luther both for the revolt and for the suppression of the revolt is simply unfair.

Luther’s rhectoric didn’t help. From history book, quote from Luther “If the madness of the Romanists {the Catholic Church] be continued, it seems to me that the only hope of salvation left is that Emperor, kings, and princes take up arms and attack this pest of the earth, and thus bring matters to a conclusion, no longer words but by steel…If a thief is punished by the halter, a murderer by the sword, and a heretic by fire, why should not we, with all our weapons, attack these teachers of corruption, these Popes, Cardinals and all the rabble of the Roman Sodom, and wash our hands with their blood?”

Calvin himself said it was lawful to slay those who hindered the preaching of Calvinism.

Germany was made up of many different territories–it never became Protestant as a whole (you do know that the Pope comes from Germany, right!-

Yes,Germany was made up of many territories and ruled by many princes.

The Popes came from Europe I agree that it was the German Princes who help protect the Pope. This Holy Emperor line passed from Charlemagne to son, Louis the Pious to son,Louis the German to son, Charles the Fat. Later in 936, it was the German Saxon King Otto that restored the Holy Roman Empire.

To repeat: there never was a time when Germany as a whole became Protestant

I suppose you could say this as Germany was not a nation united under one ruler for many centuries so it really couldn’t be classified as a " Nation". Yet the protestant princes formed the military Schmalkald League in 1531. Because Luther came from an area in the Germany, his influence would be great in that area.

In 1520 Pope Leo excommunicated him; another quote from Luther “As for me, the die is cast; I despise alike the favor and fury of Rome; I do not wish to be reconciled with her, or ever to hold any communion with her. Let her condemn and burn my books; I, in turn, unless I can find no fire, will condemn and publicly burn the whole pontifical law, that swamp of heresies.”

 

[rr1213]

Marty was a good man.

 

[gam197]

More …

originally posted by gam197
Actually no, sixteenth-century armies

Error on prior post, it should read originally posted by Contarini

originally posted by Contarini
after the Thirty Years’ War in the 17th century Calvinism was also officially recognized.

This war started in 1618.

Luther wasn’t in England and Henry was never in any sense a follower of Luther.

Then what is the relevance of this information?

I was simply agreeing and saying I never insinuated that Henry did follow Luther. He certainly would have known of him.Henry did not want to dissolve the catholic church…He did reject Papal jurisdiction. He did dissolved the catholic monasteries. He was pressured to allowed the publication of the "The Ten Articles and approved an act to set up the English bible in churches

.It was under Thomas Cranmer and King Henry’s son, young King Edward IV that major changes took place. Parliament put in “The Book of Common Prayer” which changed the liturgy and denied the sacraficial nature of “communion” and published The Forty-Two Articles later to be revised to “The Thirty Nine Article”. which was the foundation for protestant church.

Yes, it is, and this is totally unfair. Protestants and Catholics share blame on this one.

If the witch trials took place in England during the 17th and 18th centuries, how do we blame catholics at all for the English witch trials.

It wasn’t just about French John Calvin or Luther, there were so many other protestant leaders such as Zwingli and Bullinger in Switzerland and so many other sects like the Anabaptist, The Baptist, Quakers, the anti-Trinitarians.

 

[rr1213]

The Thirty Years War took place during the period of 1618 through 1648 which, as Contarini noted, was during the 17th Century.

 

[Taliesin]

Interesting. I knew Cromwell was not good to the Irish (an understatement obviously) but I had not heard of this. If these sources are accurate, it appears that most of this Irish slave trade was in the British West Indies although there is some reference in these websites to the American mainland.

Looks like the British were ecumenical in whom they sold into slavery. In addition to Roman Catholics, they sold thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of Scottish Presybterians into slavery in the Caribbean and New Jersey, during Charles II and James II reigns, which I believe was when the Catholics were also similarly mistreated.

 

[gam197]

After Oliver Cromwell got rid of Charles I, a high Anglican. Charles I’s son, Charles II was able to regain the throne.

At this time protestant parliament had a lot of control over Stuart King Charles II. His wife was Catholic and parliament wanted Charles II to divorce her. He tried to maintain his Protestant base and passed in his first year of reign, the Claredon Code which penalized non-Anglicans primarily Catholics. Parliament passed the Test Act, which required every office holder to take communion in the Anglican Church.

His brother, James II, a Catholic, did not last on the throne. He came in 1685 and was booted out by 1689

originally posted by Taliesin
During Charles II and James II reigns, which I believe, was when the Catholics were also similarly mistreated

James II has left for France. It was protestant
William of Orange that was king when parliament passed the Penal Laws against the Irish.

Irish Catholics was forbidden to practice their religion, to receive an education, to hold public office, to engage in business, to purchase land, to inherit land, to rent any land worth more than 30 shillings a year or to earn profit from land

Earlier, Queen Elizabeth I repressed the Irish. Puritan Oliver Cromwell brought destruction on the Irish.

The Protestant Puritans slit into Independents and Presbyterians. When the Presbyterians sided with King Charles II, Cromwell may have sold some into slavery.

 

[kluakalush]

There’s the Acadian expulsion:

“Nervous and distrustful of Acadian loyalties in the new British colony of Nova Scotia, the British colonial authorities demanded that the Acadians take a loyalty oath. Not willing to break one of the key tenets of their Catholic faith, loyalty to the Pope, the Acadians offered to take an oath of neutrality in response.”

More on how that turned out here:

suite101.com/content/the-expulsion-of-the-acadians-a189329

 

[StTommyMore]

This is completely false. Henry was not a Protestant in any theological sense–he was a schismatic Catholic who wound up fostering Protestantism more or less against his will.

Name me one Protestant Reformer who called Tyndale a heretic.

Your understanding of Anglicanism is very mixed up. “Anglicanism” under Henry was a schismatic church with some Protestant influences. Under Edward it became thoroughly Protestant, reunited with Catholicism under Mary, and moved back to a more moderate Protestantism under Elizabeth. Most of the Catholic elements in Anglicanism today were restored in the 17th or the 19th century.

Edwin

This is one point where I will agree with you Henry was a schismatic Catholic, but his theology was thoroughly Catholic. The Anglican Church was not founded on theology but political expediency.

 

[thirddec]

library.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/subjectlist.html

start there.