Posted on 10/19/2015 3:00:20 PM PDT by markomalley
Of course they didn’t. What a silly question.
**Like Thomas More and John the Baptist, Fisher was beheaded, and like them, he is called “saint.”**
Thank you Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher!
Oh for love of algore! People act like Henry VIII asking for an annulment was the first time it ever happened.
The Roman Catholic Church has a history of granting royal annulments on sometimes dubious legal grounds and they tend to be captious in their granting.
Let's consider what happened in 1152. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Poitou's marriage to Louis VII of France because she had given him two daughters and no heir.
The official reason was consanguinity which was the same grounds Henry VIII claimed.
She then, with the Catholic Church's blessing married Henry II who was every bit as closely related as she was to Louis.
Turned out it the problem was with the stallion not the mare as she went on to give sight children, five sons and three daughters and all of this was with the blessing of the Pope.
In 1499 Louis XII of France was granted an annulment on much shakier legal grounds with the goal of marrying another woman.
So while Henry VIII, nasty man that he was, makes a convenient whipping boy to act like what he did was unheard of is to ignore history.
Like it or not none of the grants or denials in any of these cases were based on any sort of firm Roman Catholic Church law but on the political leanings of the popes at the time.
Thomas More for Our Season
Saint Thomas More, Patron of Lawyers and Jurists, Martyr
Dads: Men for All Seasons
( St.) THOMAS MORE AS STATESMAN: A BRIEF SKETCH
St. Thomas More: A Man for This Season
Life of Thomas More
St Thomas More
St. Thomas More and Modern Martyrdom
St. Thomas More Bearing Witness Long After His Death
Saint Thomas More,Martyr, Chancellor of England 1535
Great question.
If this heresy is allowed to happen, under the pretense of letting local bishops show “mercy”, it will be on Pope Francis and no one. Makes no mistake he’s the architect. He’s bound and determined to get his way, without actually changing doctrine. So he puts his liberal henchmen like Cupich and Kaspar in high level positions at the Synod, when both of them should be exiled to the furthest reaches of Siberia. They also want unrepentant, openly living in sin sodomites to receive communion, all in the name of “mercy”. Welcome to Francis World. Jesus weeps.
`Saint’ More burned his share of `reformist heretics’ while he was chancellor.
They are living in their mortal sin of adultery. They cannot receive Communion worthily.
According to Kaspar?
So improper implementation of God’s law impugns the underlying merit of the law itself? We’re wrong to honor those saints who followed God’s even to the point of death?
Yes. I have read that the Pope at that time, Clement VII, was a virtual prisoner of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, who had invaded Italy. Charles V was the nephew of Catherine of Aragon and he did not want his aunt to be deposed. The Pope, given his circumstances, did not want to provoke Charles V, and so was reluctant to grant the annulment that Henry was angling for.
If a divorced person is remarried, he is committing adultery until he leaves his remarriage. If he does not, he is still committing adultery continuously by remaining in the state of continual desire for adultery. That being so, how can he receive communion in a state of sin? The whole question is ridiculous.
The bishops who postulated this cannot be thinking. The same is true in the case of homosexuality. If a man still considers to dabble in homosexual relationships, he continues to sin. There again, that person continues to live in sin and is not supposed to receive communion according to church rule.
Who even brought this up? Pope Francis? We have to look at both issues really hard. According to logic, both premises are ridiculous.
So it goes with the laws of the Church as well as the State. That is not an argument against the basic soundness of the law. It is an argument against the frailties of men, of those who administer the law, of human nature: ignorance, negligence, malice, corruption.
bkmk
Execution was the punishment for the crime of heresy. As they were unrepentent heretics, they were in mortal sin. Not innocent. Heresy was also considered a crime against the state— high treason against the King.
He is a saint because he lived a holy life and died a martyr for Christ and his Church.
Typically a person burned at the stake was strangled first, although I’m sure some might not have been.Many were not, if the rope tied to their neck burnt before being used.
It is said that even without strangulation, one would perish by the smoke rising around their head before the flames reached their body.
Quote:
Burning at the stake was the penalty for treason as well as for certain other crimes. It was a common method. And, I’m sure being strangled and my body burned would be preferrable to being drawn and quartered, also a common method of execution, which was definitely done while the person was still alive.
No one saw anything wrong with either method in their day and age.
Maybe in 500 years people will have the same questions about the electric chair, gas chamber, firing squad, and hangman’s noose. And, lethal injection.
Jesus had no problems saying it was adultery. I love my church but I cannot agree that those divorced and remarried should be able to accept the sacraments.
Your argument is that once an abuse has occurred, the abuse is the norm.
You ever hear the word “reform”?
In the sixteenth century, burning heretics was morally right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.