Posted on 05/25/2014 10:52:33 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
After much commenting back and forth on this thread (all very FRiendly let me just say for the record) I’ve just now read the linked article.
Very good and interesting, our gentle author looks like a bit of an odd duck, but that’s OK and fitting really.
Thanks for posting this.
“Do you know anything about history?”
I think you need a bit of a refresher yourself.
“England had NOTHING to fear from Spain”
But the pope had a great deal to fear if he grated the divorce, which is why no divorce was granted to Henry as was customary at the time.
Rome was a political cesspool, much as Washington DC is. That, ultimately was what drove the English Reformation. I’m not fan of tyrants - be they in 15th century Rome or England. Neither were paragons of virtue - or Christianity. England’s separation from Rome was the driver of progress in Western Civilization. Rome as a political seat had far outlived it’s usefulness.
Think of England as modern day Republicans and Spain as modern day Democrats - the same political intrigue and use of the bureaucracy against one or the other was what killed Catholicism in England. It’s the same thing in Washington today.
Total putrid political corruption, medieval style. Rome blew it. It lost it’s empire, and it lost control of Christianity. Both the world and Christianity (including Catholicism) were better for it.
The feigned surprise in the article that the adoption of the COE in England was a “top down” event is especially amusing. As if Rome had been chosen through democratic majority! It was a tyrannical monarchy. The people did what they were told, in large part. They weren’t asked if they wanted to.
That article peers upon history using modern measures of “good and bad”. It’s nonsense.
“I’m sure someone named Eamon Duffy would have no axe to grind.”
Valid point, but who knows, he could be a real priest-hater, they are not unheard of amoungst the Irish.
He did no such thing. Out of lust and greed he served the prince of the power of the air. His sins set the stage to subject England to a series of civil wars. He set up his own religion as the State religion. It wsa used to redistribute wealth to supporters of the State, murder opponents and blaspheme Christ.
Interesting. Not so much, eh? That’s the conclusion, no?
George III didn’t hate the US, nor did Louis XVI love it. George III eventually came to a grudging acceptance and respect for the US (Google his meeting with John Adams when the latter became US ambassador to the Court of St James, GIII also described Washington as ‘the greatest man who ever lived) as for King Louis, his aid to the nascent US was a means to an end in gaining revenge against Britain for losing the 7 years war, nothing more. He soon had cause to regret his decision when his subjects came back with revolutionary ideals from America, albeit perverted ones twisted in the minds of people who had not been raised with the ideals of Anglo Saxon liberty coursing through their veins.
If not for the reformation and the English Civil War, the Stuarts, with their ‘divine right of kings’ be, might still have ruled Britain as an absolute monarchy, and America sure has heck wouldn’t have existed in its current form of cherishing liberty and religious pluralism. The Patriots of New England who were the driving force of the Revolution venerated Cromwell for good reason.
well thank goodness for that !
Just as I stated, you have proven with your own words, that you are an enemy of this country and its ideals set by the Founding Fathers.
Thank you. I have noticed the hatred of Protestants too.
“I think you need a bit of a refresher yourself.”
1) Are you saying that Catherine of Aragon was not from Spain?
2) Are you saying her marriage to Arthur and then Henry wasn’t part of a marriage alliance between England and Spain?
3) Are you saying that England did not ally itself against Spain AFTER the Protestant Revolution took hold of England?
I don’t need a refresher bud, but you sure do.
“But the pope had a great deal to fear if he grated the divorce, which is why no divorce was granted to Henry as was customary at the time.”
False. There was no such thing as divorce within Catholicism. Thus, no divorce could be granted by the pope. You probably mean an annulment. And that couldn’t be granted precisely because a dispensation had been granted originally. No annulment was possible. Also, it was not “customary” for annulments to be granted. Few were granted.
“England’s separation from Rome was the driver of progress in Western Civilization.”
Actually, no. 15th century England was far more totalitarian than any Catholic state of the Middle Ages. Historians have long recognized that England was culturally held back by the early Protestant Revolution. The Protestant meme that Protestantism is the mother of all good in the West is rubbish. I’m certainly not the only one to know that fact. http://www.brandonkendhammer.com/democratization_winter2012/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/13868711.pdf
” the same political intrigue and use of the bureaucracy against one or the other was what killed Catholicism in England.”
Protestants WERE the political intriguers. They were the conspirators against the history, culture and people of England. They destroyed the culture, monasteries, libraries, closed and sacked colleges, and so on.
“Total putrid political corruption, medieval style. Rome blew it.”
Sorry, but you’re just embarrassing yourself regurgitating Protestant propaganda. http://www.the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/ch11.html
“George III didn’t hate the US, nor did Louis XVI love it.”
George III hated the U.S. Louis XVI loved the U.S. for being a way to attack England.
“George III eventually came to a grudging acceptance and respect for the US (Google his meeting with John Adams when the latter became US ambassador to the Court of St James, GIII also described Washington as ‘the greatest man who ever lived) as for King Louis, his aid to the nascent US was a means to an end in gaining revenge against Britain for losing the 7 years war, nothing more.”
George III’s grudging respect for an independent America didn’t mean he hated it less. He acquitted himself well. The U.S.? Not so well. Hatred of George III thrived in the heart of America more than hatred of America did in the heart of George III. It had to be that way. He was a monarch and had to be more pragmatic than millions of Americans did. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/eyewitness/html.php?section=19
Interesting little tidbit — and it has long been my view that ministers do this.
“We are brought up to believe that Catholicism is, well, un-English”
How many ministers of non-Catholic groups tell their people things like this?
Oh, really? Who was here first?
America’s First Mass [Ecumenical]
George Washington’s Return from Service to Mount Vernon, Christmas Eve, 1783
Remember, Remember (George Washington and Guy Fawkes Day)
A Tea Party Thomist: Charles Carroll
America’s Catholic Colony [Ecumenical]
The Catholic Church in the United States of America [Ecumenical]
Catholic Founding Fathers - The Carroll Family [Ecumenical]
Charles Carroll, founding father and "an exemplar of Catholic and republican virtue" [Ecumenical]
CITIZEN JOURNALISM: Founding Catholic [Father]
"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" ( Book Review )
I agree that the non-Catholics tried to keep the Catholics out of certain areas. It didn’t work in the long run.
Catholics do not hate Protestants. What we try to do is post the truth so that everyone can be educated by looking at both sides of the coin.
Funny thing is, though, that when Catholics post an informational thread, they have to mark it Catholic Caucus, or it turns into one of those terrible threads that you describe.
I don’t think the Protestants hate Catholics as persons either.
What they do not like is the Catholic Church, because deep down, they know that the Church is right. I can’t speak for everyone, although I realize I’ve just spoken a lot in generalities here.
God bless.
“Few Americans hate the Catholic Church,. but millions hate what they think is the Catholic Church.” —Bishop Fulton Sheen
Many of the founding fathers despised Catholicism, Jefferson associated it with despotism, and John Adams stated that he found its rituals ridiculous. Washington’s ecumenical gesture was pragmatism, as he was trying to prevent his forces alienating potential French Catholic allies in Canada. (Speaking of which, the a British Canada Act tolerating Catholicism and French law in Quebec was a significant motivator for the revolution, because many NE patriots viewed such toleration of “popery” as akin to the actions of James II before he was deposed in 1688.
Baloney. When I think of what Catholics post here makes me think of cults who proclaim their way is the only way. They are not God but some sure act like it. One more thing. Someone posted they wanted this country to be only Catholic. That goes against everything our Founding Fathers believed in. I will stay with my Southern Baptist beliefs. Why in Heaven’s name would anyone want this country to have only one religion? Sounds like the ME countries to me.
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.