Pope sends direct message to Ben

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE=Ben Kenobi;6263373]

Again, the Act of Supremacy shows that /QUOTE]

How would anyone who hasn't read it know what it shows, since you haven't quoted anything from it in your posts ? Oh, except the title, which applied to two separate Acts of Supremacy, in two separate reigns.

Something you've clearly forgotten.

Which is why he forced people to worship him

I believe you're thinking of that Roman Catholic monarch, the 'Sun King' Louis XIV of France. Famously he said 'l'etat, c'est moi'. Henry wanted people to worship God, not Henry.

[molly bloom]

There's a difference between, "citing a book",

I thought you 'cited' a review of a book. 'Citing' and 'mentioning' are two different beasts.

[molly bloom]

What have I lost?

Elizabeth executed a ton of people for the 'crime' of being Catholic.

She did not. Her government passed legislation declaring certain aspects of the Catholic faith treasonous behaviour under certain circumstances following the Pope's issuing of the Papal Bull 'Regnans In Excelsis'. Only in 1577 did the first execution of a Catholic seminary priest take place, 7 years after the Pope had 'freed' English Catholics from their allegiance totheir rightful monarch and encouraged them to assassinate her or risk excommunication themselves.

I'm not quite sure why you keep expecting Elizabeth, her government and Protestants to follow the 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' line and allow Roman Catholics and the Pope off the hook and give them liberty to slaughter Huguenots by the tens of thousand and illuminate Spain and Portugal with autos da fe- don't the tenets of New Testament Christianity apply to all Christians, not just the variety you haven't converted to yet ?

I've accomplished my primary goal here.

If by that you mean making yourself look an uneducated obdurate bigot, then yes.

[molly bloom]

She still made the decision to execute her.

She didn't. Her Parliament and Privy Councillors did, as did the examiners at the trial of Mary Stuart. Elizabeth eventually signed the death warrant, but characteristically tried to recall it. How many chances should she have given Mary Stuart ?

It's called excommunication.

It's also irrelevant, as Elizabeth was a Protestant.

[molly bloom]

Would you expect Henry VIII's Privy Council to provide an accurate count?

No more than we'd expect you to furnish us with facts and not the biased opinions of a Catholic convert.

All I'm arguing

I've yet to see an 'argument' as such. Just a lot of denials of the painful truth- you're crap at history.

[Ben Kenobi]

Note: Ben will probably accuse that person of not being a Christian.

Last I checked Communism was an ideology. Are you really saying you believe God > Marx?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pope

[MikeH]

Excellent I love that.



Note: Ben will probably accuse that person of not being a Christian.

[kentonio]

Yet another message.

October 17, 2013: If a Christian “becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith.”
This was the theme of Pope Francis’ homily during his Thursday morning Mass at the Domus Sanctae Marthae. During his homily, the Pope warned Christians against behaving as though the “key is in [their] pocket, and the door closed.” He reiterated that without prayer, one abandons the faith and descends into ideology and moralism. “Woe to you, scholars of the law! You have taken away the key of knowledge!” (Luke 11: 52)

Pope Francis referred back to this passage from Thursday’s Gospel in his homily, moving from Jesus’ warning. He warned: “When we are on the street and find ourselves in front of a closed Church,” he said, “we feel that something is strange.” Sometimes, he said, “they give us reasons” as to why they are closed: They give “excuses, justifications, but the fact remains that the Church is closed and the people who pass by cannot enter.” And, even worse, the Lord cannot be close to the people. Today, the Pope said, Jesus speaks to us about the “image of the [lock]”; it is “the image of those Christians who have the key in their hand, but take it away, without opening the door.” Worse still, “they keep the door closed” and “don’t allow anyone to enter.” In so doing, they themselves do not enter. The “lack of Christian witness does this,” he said, and “when this Christian is a priest, a bishop or a Pope it is worse.” But, the Pope asks, how does it happen that a “Christian falls into this attitude” of keeping the key to the Church in his pocket, with the door closed?

“The faith passes, so to speak, through a distiller and becomes ideology. And ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements.”

The Pope continued, Jesus told us: “You burden the shoulders of people [with] many things; only one is necessary.” This, therefore, is the “spiritual, mental” thought process of one who wants to keep the key in his pocket and the door closed: “The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh? Already the Apostle John, in his first Letter, spoke of this. Christians who lose the faith and prefer the ideologies. His attitude is: be rigid, moralistic, ethical, but without kindness. This can be the question, no? But why is it that a Christian can become like this? Just one thing: this Christian does not pray. And if there is no prayer, you always close the door.”

“The key that opens the door to the faith,” the Pope added, “is prayer.” The Holy Father warned: “When a Christian does not pray, this happens. And his witness is an arrogant witness.” He who does not pray is “arrogant, is proud, is sure of himself. He is not humble. He seeks his own advancement.” Instead, he said, “when a Christian prays, he is not far from the faith; he speaks with Jesus.” And, the Pope said, “I say to pray, I do not say to say prayers, because these teachers of the law said many prayers” in order to be seen. Jesus, instead, says: “when you pray, go into your room and pray to the Father in secret, heart to heart.” The pope continued: “It is one thing to pray, and another thing to say prayers.”

“These do not pray, abandoning the faith and transforming it into moralistic, casuistic ideology, without Jesus. And when a prophet or a good Christian reproaches them, they the same that they did with Jesus: ‘When Jesus left, the scribes and Pharisees began to act with hostility toward him’ – they are ideologically hostile – ‘and to interrogate him about many things,’ – they are insidious – ‘for they were plotting to catch him at something he might say.’ They are not transparent. Ah, poor things, they are people dishonoured by their pride. We ask the Lord for Grace, first: never to stop praying to never lose the faith; to remain humble, and so not to become closed, which closes the way to the Lord.”

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013...ss_/in2-738150

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually it doesn't quote the book- the figure is simply given by the reviewer, with no evidence to support it.

I'm in the process of getting confirmation of this, btw. I did get an interesting reply from Fr. Marsden.

[molly bloom]

He executed around 50 nobles.

Really ?

Who ?

Where is this list of 'about 50' aristos to be found ?

[molly bloom]

The Book in review is:

Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor by Eamon Duffy. Which makes the claim of 75k.

Actually it doesn't quote the book- the figure is simply given by the reviewer, with no evidence to support it.

[molly bloom]

I've mentioned it in every post. .

You said you 'cited' it.

Mentioning its title is not citing it.

Changing horses again, rulers, then ruler, then royal, and then 'citing', now becoming 'mentioning'. Truly pathetic.

You're the historical expert, Molly. Are you telling me that you are unfamiliar with it's content?

I haven't described myself as an 'historical expert'. But then I'm not the supposed history teacher, or the one proclaiming his degree in history- as if that somehow meant anything judging by your piss poor historical illiteracy.

Were Catholics persecuted by Elizabeth?

You're the one who set up the false dichotomy of pure and perfect Plantagenets and nasty Tudors. More fool you...

[molly bloom]

She was still a royal.

Oh wait, is that an admission that you lied, or you were wrong ? First you say Elizabeth killed 'rulers', then 'a ruler' now it's just a 'royal'. Useless.

Umm, this is not the same thing. Are you really this dim? The Queen Mother isn't the same as Mary Queen of Scots. The Queen Mother had no claim to the English throne. Mary's claim is superior to Elizabeth's, fwiw. Hers is legitimate.

Hilarious. Mary Stuart became Queen Dowager in France when her husband died. She was the Scottish 'Queen Mother' when forced to abdicate and cede the throne of Scotland to her son.

She was also Elizabeth's heir apparent.

Again, English appears to have elastic qualities when you're around- ignoring the terms of Henry VIII's will excluding the Scottish Stuarts, ignoring the Acts of Parliament and the fact that a Catholic could not have succeeded to the throne of England without breaking English law. Look up heir apparent, dimwit.

Elizabeth persecuted the Church

Show proof of this.

It's not really hard to figure out her attitude towards it. She hated it and hated Catholics.

Then give evidence for this, or it's all just hot air and your unsupported opinion.

Elizabeth's father was still married to Catherine of Aragon when she was born.

Divorced, et cetera. The trials and tribulations of Catherine's marriage and the attempts to have it annulled are too long to go into, suffice to say that Henry was married to Anne when Elizabeth was born. Wrong again.

William III was Dutch.

William was part Dutch. His mother was English.

William III was sole ruler of England.

Only after his wife died. They had been crowned joint rulers.

England did not have the franchise when William III reigned.

England had parliamentary elections when William reigned. What you say is false.

Hence, England was a fief of the Dutch.

False conclusion due to not understanding the meaning of the word fief.

Fief, noun: land held in fee or on condition of military service

The Dutch could not grant England as a fief, and did not receive England as a fief. England was not therefore a 'Dutch fief'. Really, you are very dim.

Treason, according to the Act of Supremacy, included attending Mass.

Then quote the act.

The Act of Supremacy was enforced by Elizabeth

Actually it was a different Act of Supremacy, one in which she had the title 'Supreme Governor' of the Church of England. Again, sucks to be you.

Faith was sufficient to qualify one for Treason in the Elizabethan era.

Only after publication of the Papal Bull in 1570 were English Catholics able to be deemed potential traitors by reason of their faith alone. Percy rebelled and Mary Stuart plotted to gain the throne and remove Elizabeth.

Sucks to be you.

How about that Act of Supremacy that you're studiously evading?

That one you never quote from ? Ho ho ho....

[molly bloom]

So you're confirming this was the case? Thank you, molly!

No, I'm confirming that priests and Jesuits were executed as traitors after the publication of the Papal Bull- which of course gave English Roman Catholics the choice of supposedly 'following their faith' and attempting to harm their ruler or excommunication. Unfortunately for that stupid Pope, too many English Catholics proved to be patriots rather than religious bigots.

perhaps Elizabeth should have refrained from persecution of Catholics if she didn't want to be excommunicated.

Again, opinion provided as fact. Elizabeth was not interested in persecuting English Roman Catholics. Legislation affecting Roman Catholics predated her reign- the behaviour of Popes and Roman Catholic monarchs abroad meant that to repeal this legislation would have been foolhardy and risked a dangerous conflict with both her closes advisers and Parliament. Given that when she succeeded to the throne there was a hostile French army in Scotland and England was at war with France (a leftover from Mary Tudor's unhappy reign) this would hardly have been wise.

Ooh, See above also.

Huh. Imitation, the flattest form of insincerity.

I have.

You have not demonstrated that England was a theocracy, since you haven't given a definition of a theocracy. Gee whizz, I wonder why ?

theocracy, noun

that constitution of a state in which God or a god, is regarded as the sole sovereign, and the laws of the realm as divine commands rather than human ordinances-

the priesthood necessarily becoming the officers of the invisible ruler;

the state thus governed.

Chambers 20 Century Dictionary

As we can see, England was not a theocracy.

Did William rescind the Act of Supremacy?

Why would he ? He had already publicly stated his lack of interest in persecuting Catholics and came from to England from a state renowned for its toelrance. Alienating the very people who had invited him to assume the throne of England would hardly have been a sensible start to his new reign, and the active hostility of Roman Catholic France which offered a home to the intolerant James II and persecuted the Huguenots meant that pro-Catholic measures were not on the agenda.

But then if you knew anything about European history, you'd already know that.

The existence of the Act of Supremacy and the Test Acts is evidence contrary that England was in fact a confessional state until Emancipation

No, it isn't. The 1689 Act Of Toleration gave freedom of worship to all trinitarian Protestants. The only 'restriction' is that church doors were to be kept unlocked during church services. A country in which Methodism, Presbyterianism, the Baptists, Congregationalists, and Quakers existed alongside the Church of England free from harassment is hardly a 'confessional' state. The Methodists even had women preachers.

Compare this with Austria, which did not have a similar act until nearly a hundred years later- all subjects of the empire had to have confession tickets or Beichtzettel, to show attendance at Easter confession, which was obligatory. Also, all subjects were required to adhere to the Roman Catholic church, and special state commissions travelled around the state checking 'Beichzettels'.

That's a confessional state.

Emancipation was 1829.

I'm aware of the date of Catholic Emancipation. The 1832 Reform Act was about the overhaul of an outdated electoral/voting system which was out of touch with the new realities of Industrial 19th Century England. In any case, the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed in 1828 (and had been virtually dead letters for some time).

Also you are clearly unaware that Irish subjects were allowed to vote in parliamentary elections in 1793, and the Irish Test Act was repealed 49 years before the English one. State funding of Irish Catholic educational establishments began in 1795.

Yet you readily trotted them out as your black friend here. Odd that.

Then quote me, don't use your own misleading paraphrase.

Your own words:

I'm sure you do. I bet you even have black friends you invite for all your cocktail parties.

My reply:

I'm not sure how they workl things in the part of Texas you live in, or the part of Canada you come from, but black people aren't seen as being a novelty item one can claim as a friend for extra kudos. Where I live it's fairly normal to have black friends- and given that I helped one celebrate her birthday on Sunday, perhaps you

From the 'Texan Bigotry' thread, in case you didn't recognise it. I mentioned one of my friends, one of my 'black' friends, as you put it, not me. Lies and the lying liars who tell them....

You automatically (and reflexively state), everytime persecution of Catholics in England is exposed, with persecution in Spain and France since "Catholics deserved it".

I do not. I have never said 'Catholics deserved it', and I'm sure if I had, you could quote it. Sucks to be you, repeating your own lies.

Have read it. Actually fond of Hobbes. Didn't confuse the two.

I call bullsh!t on this. Why would you quote a notoriously unsympathetic philosopher- unsympathetic to Catholics that is- who detested Catholicism, and who was in favour of the Divine Right of Anglican monarchs ? You confused Hobbes with Locke- quite difficult for most knowledgeable people, but not, hilariously, beyond you.

At last check Poland Lithuania didn't bar the franchise from Protestants making the Sejm more representative than England at the time.

If that's yoru definition of 'more democratic' it's fairly shallow and insubstantial- and again, we have only your word for it. How many Jews were eligible to vote, or be seated in the Sejm ? Who was actually represented in the Sejm, and by whom ? How many serfs could vote ?


Pathetically short on actual detail, but full of your unsupported opinion again.

Ooh, unsupported BAM.

Which Roman Catholic country was a democracy in the 17th or 18th Centuries ? It's a fairly simple question, which you seem shy of answering.

Thanks Molly!

Given your ignorance of the workings of Elizabeth's parliaments (and Privy Council) this is hardly a compliment.

As opposed to Anne, William and Mary II, all spectacular rulers?

The question is not how spectacular William, Anne or Mary were, but why would someone with James II's advantages ( he was after all a war hero) do so much to alienate his friends, supporters and the country at large ?

Blind bigoted faith.

The historical evidence at the time demonstrates that it was all about Catholicism.

No, it was all about James II and his reckless actions in attempting to push the clock back and force acceptance of Roman Catholicism on England, Scotland and Ireland- after the tribulations of the Wars of The Three Kingdoms and the Thirty Years War. And please, don't mention 'historical evidence'- you only ever provide your unsupported opinion, not evidence.