England didn’t send galleys or men to Lepanto, they sent money and material to the Turks while making war and piracy themselves on the Catholic powers.
Source - History Extra, division of BBC World History (certainly not a biased source)
Yes, thank you, I’m reasonably familiar with the history of Europe in the sixteenth century. You seem to be implying that there is, in fact, no mention of England in the Wikipedia page you linked to. Is that correct?
The year before Lepanto the Pope had declared the queen of England illegitimate and called on her subjects to rebel (in doing so, unfortunately, he made it almost impossible for Catholics in England to avoid the suspicion of treason). This was the Pope who was organising the actions of the Holy League.
.
And this was written by a Non-Human ???
Check our her link.
Read what @PickyPicky wrote, just two or three posts up from yours. Pius V’s excommunication of Elizabeth I was a serious miscalculation. Her response, naturally enough, was to see the Ottoman Empire as a potential ally. But that was only a minor aspect of the impact. Pius’ bull Regnans in Excelsis explicitly commanded all English Catholics to disobey their country’s laws. It doesn’t seem to have crossed his mind that he had no means whatsoever of enforcing his decree, which naturally antagonized the whole kingdom, including the Catholics, who had now been branded by the pope himself as the enemies of their queen. When Elizabeth took him at his word and began the purge of Catholics who were now, by Pius’ action, made to seem to be traitors to their country, there was nothing he could do to protect them.
The answer to this is that any heretic Catholic has to either ignore the authority of the Church or deny it. If there was universal submission to the authority of the Church, there would be no heresies to speak of, and almost all of these would be easily corrected. I will be stunned if you can find me a person who submits to the Church’s authority, knows it teaches transubstantiation, and believes in consubstantiation.
.
I have heard this many times and believe it does have factual sustenance. But to blame the removal of these books on the publisher is nothing but a copout. If the publishers are to blame, and the reason is economic, then why would they not have dropped a few more books. They didn’t because they were not allowed to. They dropped the books that they did drop because they were allowed to.
If I may butt in at this point, I think you’re both saying essentially the same thing. The loss of the deuterocanonical books was an event that happened in two stages. First, they were displaced from their canonical order and sandwiched in between Malachi and Matthew, which was a Protestant doctrinal decision. That made it easier for them to be dropped altogether, which was the second stage. That was a marketing and cost-cutting decision. I believe the split in Britain between the British & Foreign Bible Society and the Trinitarian Bible Society had to do with doctrinal issues about the so-called Apocrypha, though I’d have to do some looking up to make sure.
I can agree with this to a point. The point i diverge would be to put all blame on the publishers. Not sure there is much blame at all on them but i am open to the possibility of some. This argument seems to always leave the publishers to blame as opposed to those calling it “their bible”.AmbroseSJ:
If I may butt in at this point, I think you’re both saying essentially the same thing. The loss of the deuterocanonical books was an event that happened in two stages. First, they were displaced from their canonical order and sandwiched in between Malachi and Matthew, which was a Protestant doctrinal decision. That made it easier for them to be dropped altogether, which was the second stage. That was a marketing and cost-cutting decision. I believe the split in Britain between the British & Foreign Bible Society and the Trinitarian Bible Society had to do with doctrinal issues about the so-called Apocrypha, though I’d have to do some looking up to make sure.
The marketing decision was certainly on the publisher to offer the option but it is on the consumer to ultimately decide which option. If the publishers had offered another version without the book of Matthew the consumers would have strung them up. Remember, we are talking about a group of people where their bible is everything to them.
I think you have to look at the evidence. The Bible Societies of the early 19th Century, both American and English (the ones who use the KJV Bible) made a conscious decision to remove the Apocrypha, for the reasons I mentioned. It was unwanted by the Evangelicals and those near them in philosophy, and it was also cheaper to produce books without that section. It was basically a no-brainer for the Bible Societies who wanted every Christian (viz. Protestant) to have a bible in their possession. The private publishers in those times, DID continue to include the Apocrypha (or as mentioned above, made it “optional”,) but it was now becoming more and more controversial. Including it appeared to some to be Papistry. Those were just some of the reasons that the Apocrypha went into decline among Protestants. However no one publisher, or no one Protestant Church has or had the power to rule on the contents of Bibles. The Protestant Canon was settled by Martin Luther, and it basically stuck.