Books

When English Catholics were considered as dangerous as jihadis

24 October 2015

9:00 AM

24 October 2015

9:00 AM

Martyrdom, these days, does not get a good press. Fifty years ago English Catholics could take a ghoulish pride in the suffering of their 16th-century Tyburn heroes, but in a western world that has learned to be wary of extremist talk of ‘holy war’ or the intoxicating visions of the martyr’s crown that fuelled the prayers of England’s young exile priests — ‘the supreme privilege, of which only divine grace could make them worthy’, as Evelyn Waugh put it — somehow makes for less comfortable reading.

It is hard to know whether the modern jihadist has given us an unwelcome insight into the past or disabled us from understanding it, and yet what is certainly true is that Queen Elizabeth I’s government saw these priests pretty much as governments now see terrorists. In 1570, that bleakest of saintly popes Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth, and from the moment that his papal bull released English Catholics from their duty of loyalty, every returning priest — blameless or guilty — was viewed as a political traitor and treated with a savagery that remains a permanent stain on English history.


If there was a strong streak of paranoia running through all this, England’s Golden Age did not feel very golden at the time, and men like Burghley and Walsingham were not paranoid for nothing. Catholic historians have always been keen to trash the testimony of government spies as worthless lies, and yet if you ignore the statements of creatures like Munday, Sledd, Parry or the reptilian George ‘Iscariot’ Elyot, the unarguable fact remains that for 30 turbulent years every threat, rebellion, invasion scare and assassination plot against the Queen was the work of English Catholics at home and the English Catholic church in exile.

Whichever it was that came first, persecution or treason — each fed off the other in a spiralling pattern of violence — it was a Catholic rebellion in Ireland that in 1581 doomed by association the most brilliantly gifted, charismatic and least wilful of English martyrs. In many ways Edmund Campion might seem no different from his fellow priests who suffered with him, but if ever a man was born for life and not the butcher’s block — born to preach in the open and not in secret, to grace colleges and courts and not the Tower, to be one of the adornments of his age and not a bloody show for a Tyburn mob — it was Edmundus Campianus Anglus Londinensis, as he loyally and proudly styled himself.

While the broad outlines of Campion’s life — the ‘Godly’ Protestant childhood, the glittering Oxford career, conversion, exile, and his return to torture, trial and death —are familiar enough, they have never been traced in such detail as here. There must always be a temptation for a biographer to shape the life of any martyr with its end firmly in sight, but in showing just how little Campion sought that fate, or even how little of his life as a scholar and priest of European renown can have seemed a preparation for it, Gerard Kilroy has freed his subject from hagiography to produce the most historically convincing, powerful and humanly engaging portrait we have.

Eighty years ago Evelyn Waugh called for a scholarly biography of Campion,
and this is it. Kilroy is not the author to mollycoddle his readers, and if you
have momentarily forgotten what the 16th-century Bohemian Utraquists believed in you’ll have to rummage in the index for a clue. He can, too, swamp his narrative in detail and just sometimes — understandably enough, given his subject — sacrifice balance to partisan indignation. For a more neutral account of the ugly war between Elizabeth’s government spies and the network of Catholic gentry and priests who plotted against the state, Stephen Alford’s The Watchers is possibly a better bet. For a general study of the Catholic martyrs of Elizabeth’s reign, Alice Hogge’s God’s Secret Agents is the more obviously accessible.Yet for anyone who is interested in understanding the religious and political context that framed Campion’s life or what it was that made him such a crucial figure to both sides in the propaganda war between Catholics and Protestants, Kilroy is the answer.

Available from the Spectator Bookshop, £75 Tel: 08430 600033

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • Bonkim

    That was then and it is now – and yes dark ages Islamic terrorism is a threat to modern civilization.

    • kingkevin3

      You need to look around you. The IPhone, Twatter and Facebook are a far bigger challenge to the intellectual superiority of the west.

      • Bonkim

        Quite right – tools available to the terrorists have become more sophisticated but the principle remains – and Islamic terrorists are well versed in modern science and technology and use all the channels of communications available to further their cause. The pace of change means intellectual or material superiority in themselves will not protect the West.

  • carl jacobs

    If the modern West is suspicious of the idea of martyrdom, it’s because the modern West notably lacks any cause for which it is willing to die. When one believes in nothing, it’s hard to find a reason worthy of such a sacrifice.

    • Isaiah 2:4

      Bollocks.

      • kingkevin3

        nice one. Sign me for that bollocks please, if it gets me an aethistic absolution from “I’m not a raving loony” Richard Dawkins.

  • Phonetoholic

    British culture must fear the Catholics more than the Musselman. Whichever way this goes the agnostics of Anglican defeat are written in Back To The Future +1 day scripture. I’ve seen the scripture, the story line is predictable.

    • ardenjm

      They do. Much like the Dutch Calvinists of the Sultan, Elizabeth I wrote to thank the Turks for keeping the Spanish busy in the Eastern Mediterranean and thus unable to concentrate on the 1588 Armada. The English have long preferred an alliance with Islam rather than face up to what they instigated in the Divorce with Rome.
      It’s psychologically simple: ashamed of having tarred and feathered their Mother they take up with the Islamic bully-boy and hang around with him.

  • PasserBy

    There has to be a bit of a caveat about this. There were clear links between religious belief and political allegiance that were much closer in Western societies up until the 19th century, especially at a time in the West when theology was seen as a crucial part of day to day life. Of course, it wasn’t just a case of Catholic in Britain=Disloyalty to the Crown but in many cases, there was a linking factor. For example, even as late as 1745, an army who’s leadership was comprised mostly of Catholics swept aside nearly all resistance and marched the length of the country to place a Catholic prince, supported by Catholic kings in Europe, who’s family was hosted by the Vatican, on the throne of Britain. Had the Young Pretender marched on London instead of retreating back north, we could have had a very different 18th century in this country.

  • sidor

    The 1000 years of the Dark Ages in Europe were a direct result of the Catholic rule. The era of Progress and Enlightenment the fruits of which we enjoy started as a result of the Reformation. The price paid for that transformation was the huge butchery of the Religious Wars. But the end obviously justifies the means. The Jesuit being discussed happened to be on a wrong side of the historic conflict. That was his choice.

    • MikeF

      If you consider the artistic and cultural achievements in, say, Italy at the time of Leonardo Da Vinci then your contention does not seem particularly convincing.

      • sidor

        The Catholic Europe couldn’t count until Fibonacci brought Arithmetics from the Arabs. Other sciences and the Greek philosophy were also missing until Renaissance. The latter was initiated by the Greek scholars who moved to Italy after the fall of Constantinople.

        • ardenjm

          Yeah!
          Those Romanesque monstrosities of carbuncular architecture.
          Those Gregorian chanted screechings.
          Those Insular manuscribal kids’ doodles.
          That doggerel poetry of Dante.
          That dumbass Isidore of Sevile.
          That ignorant Albert the Great.
          Those stupid inventors of lightboxes, pencils, glasses, tidal and ship mills, three-crop rotation and carrucas, burh defensive measures, Western ploughs and universities.
          Thank God 1453 came along and taught Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna, Cologne what REAL learning was.

          • sidor

            You have missed the point: Dante didn’t use Latin.

          • ardenjm

            I haven’t missed the point at all.
            That Dante used his vernacular is testimony to the flexibility that the Latin West manifested in all of these fields. Byzantium was a wonderful, extraordinary repository of tradition and learning. It conserved. But as in all places of conservation, it also couldn’t innovate. Which is why we speak of Byzantine complexity. Byzantine bureaucracy.
            The Latin West certainly did know a long period of cultural impoverishment – although it most certainly isn’t as bleak as we are led to believe: the Irish still had Greek and Greek texts. But in any case – the Latin West’s cultural poverty became – as always – one of its strengths: innovation became a necessity. Dante is a proof of that, not of your thesis.
            By 1453 the Universities in the Latin West were centres of learning that outstripped anything Byzantium had been producing for many centuries. The resources that came from Greek learning were eagerly pounced upon and made use of. A use that the Greeks, and the Orthodox world in general, had not been deploying effectively since the 11th century.

            And you focus on Dante – and ignore everything else in my list.
            Come on! How unconvincing of you.

          • sidor

            To reduce the redundancy of your text to a simple point: the reason for the decline of the Catholic world was Latin. The Reformation started from translating the Bible from the Greek text. That brought literacy and civilisation to the Protestant world. There is no conceivable reason why the Catholic church insisted on using Latin. Neither Jesus nor any of his apostles spoke that barbaric language.

          • ardenjm

            The Catholic Church in Rome itself continued using Greek in the liturgy until around the 1000 AD.
            The Byzantine court continued using Latin until the 6th century and was, indeed, the official court language until 602AD and Phocas’s coup.
            Even afterwards forms of Latin were still being used in various corners of the Byzantine Empire.

            Go figure.

          • sidor

            Do you consider the fact that the Romans killed Jesus as their historical achievement?

          • Woman In White

            Do you consider your internet trolling as yours ?

          • sidor

            Is your answer yes or no?

          • Woman In White

            Why should I bother to dignify such a moronic question with any form of direct response ?

          • Woman In White

            The Catholic Church in Rome itself continued using Greek in the liturgy until around the 1000 AD.

            To this very day, some local dialects in Southern Italy are Greek …

          • mehercle

            The point about translating the Bible into the vernacular was so that more people could understand it and dissent with the RC party line . It was not that Latin is somehow evil , but French , German , etc., are saintly .

          • ardenjm

            The Winchester Gospels were translated into Old English by Alfred the Great before the turn of the millenium.
            The French had a translation of the Bible into Old French by the 13th century – provoking no condemnation by the Church.
            Why should there have been – the Vulgate itself was a translation that used the language of the people.

            The reason why Biblical translations became so contentious in the late medieval period was because those doing the translation – like Wycliffe – were using it as part of an anti-ecclesiastical agenda.

            What it all boils down to ultimately, is a refusal to accept the Church’s authority.
            Since this authority is maternal – the Church is Bride, after all – there is something deep within the (ever dwindling but sometimes still sincere) English religious psyche that is profoundly unsettled by their forefathers’ rejection of Holy Mother Church in the 16th century, the iconoclastic destruction of 90% of England’s religious heritage, the grubby dynastic reasons of Henry VIII, the even grubbier smash and grab by his henchmen, the trickery and deceit over the Pilgrimage of Grace, the rupture with 1000 years of deep commitment to the Faith, the lipstick on a pig of the Elizabethan Settlement with the concommitant rationalisation of the ‘moderation’ of a third way in Anglicanism, the wilful refusal to accept that English Puritanism was also a product of that English Settlement, a passing of the buck of their depredations in Ireland (blaming the Irish for their 600,000 victims!) a pathological focussing on Mary Tudor to the neglect of the Catholic victims of her father and half-sister and a Black Legend Bogey-Man indoctrination about Catholics ever since.

            All these things weigh deep and heavy in the English collective memory – and there’s more besides.

            As Europe faces its existential crisis with the advent of Islam within Western Europe to a degree unmatched since its possession of the Iberian peninsula, one thing is sure: the British, Anglican or Secuarlised, are uniquely placed to do NOTHING about it but then to seize the moral high ground and say how bloody the hands of those Spanish Reconquistadores were, or those Crusaders or those who fought at Lepanto, Malta or Vienna to defend Europe from Arabic or Ottoman aggression.

          • Woman In White

            The reason why Biblical translations became so contentious in the late medieval period was because those doing the translation – like Wycliffe – were using it as part of an anti-ecclesiastical agenda.

            Partly.

            From a broader non-English and generally non-Germanic perspective, the need for translations had grown progressively greater as the Romance languages drifted away from Latin. Southern Europeans could be brought to understand Latin texts not just by learning the language, but also because certain tricks of pronunciation and creative emphasis could be used to make it intelligible to Romance speakers. This started to be more difficult to achieve from the 13th century onwards, and impossible, with local variations, between the 14th and 15th centuries, without formal study of Latin. (with some few very local exceptions — I understand that speakers of Sard can *still* make some sense of Latin without learning it)

            The need for translations was therefore greater North than South, as was misunderstanding of Scripture among the population.

          • ardenjm

            Thank you for that – I didn’t know about that.

          • Woman In White

            The point about the vernacular translations was that the invention of the printing press suddenly made it economically feasible to do so.

            Your interpretation is quaint, but it’s not based on historical reality.

          • Woman In White

            It is in fact extremely likely that, at the very least, Christ, Paul, and Peter all spoke or learned Latin.

            Jesus grew up in Nazareth, which was a Roman garrison town, a Bath town, and most likely a market town. It is unlikely that Joseph didn’t need Him to learn Latin for use with the carpentry clientele. Paul was a Roman citizen, and knowledge of Latin was a strict requirement of citizenship. Peter lived in Rome, and evangelised the Romans. It is more than likely that several other Apostles spoke that language too, as it was in frequent use in Palestine at the time, albeit behind Greek, Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew.

            The Roman soldiery was likely mixed Greeks and Latins, but their commanders and senior Officers would have used Latin as the official language.

          • Woman In White

            Dante didn’t use Latin

            Do you think that he isn’t the author of De Monarchia or of Quaestio De Aqua Et De Terra ?

        • MikeF

          For what it’s worth so-called ‘Arabic’ numerals very likely originated in India. As for the ‘Dark Ages’ that phrase is, I believe, a bit passe these days. in any case it used to refer to the 500 years or so after the collapse of the western Roman Empire and denoted a scarcity of written records – a situation that came to an end with the generalised replacement of paganism by Christianity and the establishment a relatively widespread Latin-based literacy.

          • sidor

            Try to multiply r divide using the Roman numerals.

            An how much “wide spread” was the Latin literacy? Monarchs and aristocracy were illiterate.

            This problem had nothing to do with Christianity: Byzantium was a great centre of culture and science. The root of the problem was very simple: as soon as the Roman Empire was separated into East and West, its Latin part, having been being separated from the Greek civilisation, started degrading. This continued until the fall of Constantinople.

          • Woman In White

            Try to multiply [o]r divide using the Roman numerals

            They typically used an abacus, which was very well suited to that task.

            The “arabic” system of Arithmetic was and is clearly superior, but to answer your silly claims :

            Try to multiply or divide using the Greek numerals

          • sidor

            This sounds very interesting. Can you tell us how one can divide using an abacus?

          • Woman In White

            I’ve only ever played with one as a schoolboy (and no I’m not a woman, that’s just a forum avatar), so no — but from what I’ve read, they were actually very effective, and they survived in use for centuries even after the abandonment of the Roman numeral system. IIRC, it wasn’t until IBM came along that their use was abandoned completely.

            You might be more interested than I am, but there’s the interweb for your curiosity.

          • sidor

            So, you don’t know how to divide using an abacus. But you are telling us that it is possible. How funny.

          • Woman In White

            FFS, you’re clearly just another one of those tedious trolls.

          • sidor

            I sincerely thought you could tell us something new about abacus. Sorry if this upsets you.

          • Woman In White

            http://www.google.com

            Sorry, but unlike yourself, I’m unwilling to post in here of what I’m ignorant of.

            Learn it for yourself, but stop trying to pretend it’s my responsibility to provide you with instruction.

          • Woman In White

            Even that “500 years” is greatly exaggerated. The period of political chaos after the collapse of the Empire lasted probably 200 years *maximum*. It’s worth remembering that Italy and Latin Iberia suffered far less than the rest of Western Europe, and that the British Isles and Northern France suffered far less directly than the rest of the Continent.

        • Woman In White

          What a festering pile of ignorance …

    • MichtyMe

      Hmmm, more the result of Abrahamic monotheism, the totalitarian faiths, whose absolute certainty tolerated no competing philosophy or ideas, ref the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Perhaps if we had stuck with the pagans of Greece/Rome with their acceptance of diverse thought we may not have had the Dark Ages but progress and perhaps, even the internet by the 15th century.

      • ardenjm

        Yep. Those nice Romans and Greeks never persecuted anyone for their beliefs or in the name of their own…
        (Cough. Socrates.)
        Since you seem to tacitly accept that the Abrahamic monotheisms are fair game and deserve everything they get I guess we’ll make no reference to the Roman and Greek persecution of the Jews, nor the 300 years of on-off persecution of Christians by the Roman state.

        • sidor

          The Greeks didn’t. Persecution of the Jews and the Christians was purely Latin phenomenon. The Latins, in contrast to the Greeks, were absolutely allergic to any metaphysics. For that reason Rome was a scientific desert. A dead end of development. A useless civilisation which the Jews justifiably hated.

          • ardenjm

            The Greeks most certainly DID persecute their own – Socrates – see, he’s mentioned above. And also persecuted the Jews.
            Your frankly ridiculous dichotmy of Greeks – good, Romans – bad is not only bad history it’s absurd theology: human nature is shared and it is fallen – across the board, no exceptions. There’s good and bad in all of us.
            As for Rome being a scientific desert. Yeah. The Colliseum and Pantheon and the aqueducts were just stuck together with sticky-backed plastic and a couple of loo rolls.
            Or else bought in as a job lot from Greece.

            Get real.

          • sidor

            Let’s get real and look at the facts. The aqueducts were invented in Assyria several centuries before Rome. Other engineering technics were also imported. Rome was economical, technological and cultural parasite which didn’t produce anything of his own, and left us nothing (besides Colosseum and the Catholic Church).

            Our science is heavily based on the Greek’s ideas and achievements. Which you could have noticed if studied geometry in school.

          • ardenjm

            Strewth! No-one is denying what we owe to the Greeks.
            But your cartoon version of cultural history says this:
            Goodies (wearing white, looking kind) Greek mathematicians.
            Baddies (wearing black, looking nasty) Latin speakers and anything Latin.

            No only is it just plain muddled, it’s also a bit weird.

          • sidor

            So, what did we actually get from the Romans? If nothing, what was the point of the existence of that Empire and civilisation?

          • mehercle

            Greek culture flourished under the Romans . It was the power and prestige of Rome which also ensured its survival .
            Try to separate Rome and the RC church , sidor .

          • Woman In White

            “muddled” is generous — I call it ignorant, indoctrinated, and stupid.

          • mehercle

            But many of these Greeks were Roman citizens . The empire was bilingual , remember .

          • Woman In White

            The Greeks didn’t. Persecution of the Jews and the Christians was purely Latin phenomenon

            Scripture itself informs us that Christians were persecuted by Greeks as Greeks, though that was hardly a universal phenomenon, given the extreme weakness of Greek paganism in that period.

            But the Roman Empire was as much Greek as Latin, so they share the blame for the organised religious persecutions by the State.

            The Latins, in contrast to the Greeks, were absolutely allergic to any metaphysics. For that reason Rome was a scientific desert.

            It’s obviously a day for the more indoctrinated among us to parade their prejudice …

            That is a story that the Latins created about themselves, and it is not to be believed. The great contribution of the Latins to European intellectualism, quite apart from its adoption of the Church structures which the Greeks had more than a small hand in creating, was its adaptation of the infrastructures of trade and military communication to the education system, so that roads, manuscripts, and scholars, copyists, and book-sellers, instead of being jealously guarded in specific locations only, disseminated instead throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Rome was a thriving book market, and a centre of educational excellence, just as Constantinople, and later, Paris, Oxford, Salamanca, etc …

            The Latin of the Republican and early Imperial eras was perhaps ill-suited to Metaphysics, unlike the Greek language of the same periods — but that all changed with the advent of Christianity, and the need to adapt its theology, and certain technical concepts of Greek and Hebrew origin into the Latin. Even the grammar of Latin changed, and the Late and Mediaeval Latin was as good as Greek, and sometimes even superior for some particular needs, for the expression of Metaphysical thought, as even the slightest familiarity with such as Augustine, Aquinas, or Erasmus will demonstrate.

          • sidor

            So, tell us about the Latin Roman science. Anything besides the Roman numerals?

          • Woman In White

            What, you mean apart from Ptolemy and Galen for starters ?

            http://www.crystalinks.com/romescience.html

          • sidor

            Ptolemy was Greek. And are you seriously trying to tell us that aqueducts and arc were Roman inventions? It is like saying that the Arab numerals were invented by Fibonacci in Italy.

            Still waiting for an example of a Roman achievement in science.

          • Woman In White

            Still waiting for an example of a Roman achievement in science

            Still waiting for you to demonstrate that you’re capable of debating with anything resembling honesty.

      • sidor

        This is rubbish. The leading philosopher of the 12 century Maimonides, a follower of Plato, lived in Egypt and wrote in Arabic. The concept of transcendental God is a foundation of any consistent philosophy, and, for that matter, the modern physics.

      • Woman In White

        The burning of the Great Library was an utter catastrophe, and whilst various accusatory fingers have been pointed at who was to blame, the evidence would seem to suggest that it burned as the result of collateral damage under artillery fire during a naval assault against the city. Only a tiny fraction of its manuscripts were saved, but your claim that it was destroyed *deliberately* is supported by no evidence.

        Greece and Rome were, of course, Christian at that time ; not “pagan”.

        Your quaint notion of “15th century internet” is completely ludicrous, given that it would be impossible even today had the Catholic Church not founded the Universities and the University system of higher education, that you fraudulently, ahistorically, and perhaps ignorantly appear to attribute to the so-called “enlightenment”.

    • Cobbett

      There were no ‘Dark Ages’.

      • sidor

        Omar Khayyam, a Persian who lived in the 11th century, could solve cubic equations. Can you?

    • kingkevin3

      right. Like Cromwell’s insane puritanism that has plagued America and this country for centuries. The catholic church you moron gave you the fucking renaissance, long before your ancestors were running around slaughtering each other from damp village to damp village. Now go away and learn about the Medici’s, Forlence and the fucking fact an imbelice like yourself is entitled to post such crap.

      • sidor

        The result of Cromwell’s puritanism was Newton and modern science. Under the rule of the Catholic church we would have been communicating now using candles and goose pens.

        • ardenjm

          Don’t be daft.

          Puritans gave us Milton as well as Ethnic Cleansing.
          Catholics gave us all the Cathedrals, the glories of the Lindisfarne Gospels, the marvellousness of Chaucer, the beauties of Tallis as well as Bloody Mary.

          It’s a bit much to say that Cromwell’s puritanism gave us modern science, though! Especially since Newton spent half his time doing alchemy and magic as well as real science.

          • sidor

            Speaking about the significance of Newton: how much of physics did you managed in school? Newton was the founding father of the modern science which provides all the affluence of the modern society. This result of the protestant revolution cal alone justify whatever happened. Ends justify the means. The cathedrals are thoroughly useless.

          • ardenjm

            First – I managed enough Physics to take me to Med School. But I’m no Physicist.

            Second – “The cathedrals are thoroughly useless” tells me everything I need to know about you.

            Of course, don’t listen to Vivaldi and Palestrina. Don’t read Dante and Chaucer. Don’t look at Giotto and Michelangelo.
            Don’t even listen to Bach. Don’t read Shakespeare. Don’t look at Rembrandt – from more Protestant parts of the world.

            All as ‘useless’ as Cathedrals.

            This is the last time I feed you, Troll.

            Goodbye.

          • sidor

            You shouldn’t discuss Newton before you have understood what he did for physics.

            And you clearly missed the point about Shakespeare: the central issue of the English Reformation was language. The English Bible produced by the Protestants was the foundation of the English language.

          • Woman In White

            ooooh, was it a “language event” ?

            /face-palm/

    • Woman In White

      YAWN — do you *really* still believe all that trite old propaganda ?

      The so-called “dark ages” are a complete myth, particularly as concerns the British Isles, whereas the actual turbulence across Europe in the Mediaeval period was caused by Germanic invaders and the collapse of the Roman Empire, which destroyed the infrastructures of Culture, Commerce, and Education.

      These were rebuilt by the Catholic Church, and later the various local Monarchies after these became more stable, and the beautiful flourishing of the “Mediaeval Renaissance” had nothing at all “dark” about it, as evidenced not only by its Art, but by the Great Universities that it produced throughout Europe.

      The Religious Wars were a war of aggression against the Church by malcontent Protestants, and they nearly destroyed our Civilisation by attempting to replace it with fanatical Bible-thumping fanatical butchery and puritanical mental enslavement to intolerant black-garbed preachers of hatred.

  • Dominic Stockford

    The Church of Rome, and Jesuits specifically, are as a great a spiritual and temporal danger to this country as they always were.

    • Baron

      Would you care to explain why, Dominic?

      • ardenjm

        Because his bigotry makes him think so.

        It aint complicated.

        • sidor

          Remember, remember the 5th of November…

          • ardenjm

            And what an irony that their failed plot to put on the throne James’s own Catholic daughter failed but within 30 years a Puritan theocracy succeeded in killing his son, abolishing the monarchy, and unleashed a regime that killed, exiled and reduced to poverty 600,000 Catholics in Ireland.
            And THAT’S part of English history, too.
            So, you know what, I really don’t think you have any lessons to give the Catholic Church about the wickedness of some of its members.

          • sidor

            There is no irony. Charles was a traitor and an apostate. An unfortunate mutation.

          • mehercle

            Not as bad as his sons .

          • mehercle

            James VI’s daughter was not a Roman Catholic . The plotters wanted to kidnap her and bring her up in that faith . She was only 10 years old .

          • ardenjm

            Yes, my mistake. Thank you for correcting it.

          • Dominic Stockford

            They will find a way to pretend it wasn’t what it was.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Let’s have a little run through of the 39 Articles of the Church of England – still the official doctrine of the Church of England, which is, as you know full well, the national church of this country, is a Protestant church, and to which faith our monarch swore fidelity at her coronation.

        Rome teaches, and the Jesuits fight to restore such teaching in the UK, which cons people into thinking that bread is body and wine is blood, but:
        XXXI:” the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.”

        The Pope of Rome seeks to restore his jurisdiction over the UK, and the Jesuits lead the rcharge in trying, but:
        XXXVII: “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.”

        Rome teaches idolatry of images, and the Jesuits encourage it, but:
        XXII:”THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

        Rome teaches that it is right about all things which it decides, and that it is all powerful spiritually, and the Jesuits work for this to be imposed, but:
        XIX: “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”

        Rome teaches that salvation is by faith AND works together, and the Jesuits seek to spread this erroneous teaching, contrary to the Bible, but:
        XI:”WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.”

        I do also refer Article 13 of the 15 Articles of the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion to your attention, notably the part which says:
        “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.”

        Added to all this is of course the promise made by the Jesuit order to regain ‘England’ for the Church of Rome and bring it under her jurisdiction once again.

        • Woman In White

          The 39 Declarations of Schism are hardly to be admired, and many of them are directly contrary to Scripture.

    • JoeCro

      Bizarre comment

      • kingkevin3

        but very english…

  • jim

    So what? All the more reason to stamp out islam in the west right now.

  • Baron

    Is it really true that the government of Queen Elizabeth I saw catholic priests as much as governments now see terrorists? Why then those priests caught preaching were charged with treason (not heresy though), but the mullahs caught preaching hate today escape with a slap on the wrist, if that? Could Mr. Crane elaborate on the equivalence?

    • ardenjm

      You’ll hear a similar equivalence from those who say that Elizabeth persecuted priests as political dangers to the State whereas her nasty sister Mary persecuted protestants in the name of religion.
      Elizabeth, having nationalised religion and turned Bishops and clergy into state functionaries OF COURSE made fidelity to the old religion a politically subversive act. She simply politicised religious persecution and slapped the name ‘betrayal’ on it. Make no mistakes: the guilty consciences of the Anglican Settlement drove the persecutions of Catholics just as much as Mary’s excesses and fears drove her persecution of the Protestants: none of whom, by the way, unlike the Catholic martyrs ever went to their deaths praying for their Queen, for her good or with forgiveness on their lips.
      Cranmer’s last speech is a perfect example of that attitude. He died bravely, of course he did. But not with grace, that’s for sure.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Jesuits swore to overthrow the crown and restore England to the jurisdiction of Rome – they sought to assassinate the then monarch (not only Elizabeth, but others later as well). I’m not surprised they were treated hashly when caught in such attempts.

  • ardenjm

    Unlike any of the Islamic crazies blowing people up in the name of Allah, you’ll find that all of the Catholic martyrs died forgiving their persecutors and praying for them.
    You’ll understand why those dying under Elizabeth see themselves in continuity with those killed under Henry VIII her father and his violent killing of all those who annoyed or denied him. The memories of St Thomas More, St John Fisher, the Carthusians in London and, indeed, the Pilgrimage of Grace, were still strong.
    In that sense, we can forgive the Catholics under Elizabeth of feeling with some legitimacy that the State and the Queen were the ones creating rupture with 1000 years of English history and usurping the land. The terrorists, in that sense, were in power.
    And in that respect, when the terrorists’ radical wing, the Puritans, wrestled power from the heretical monarchy, my goodness, Catholics certainly had something to fear then.
    On their own contemporary estimation they killed, exiled, and ethnically cleansed 600,000 Irish Catholics – rebels because Irish, because Catholic, because unruly, because hated by the Puritans. During those 10 years in the mid 17th century 40% of the Irish population was killed, displaced or sent into exile.
    Just to get some measure of this: we lost 1.5% of our population during WWI (and that included Catholics, and Irish, please remember).

    What more do the Catholics of England have to do? They’ve been killed by their own countrymen. They’ve died for their non-Catholic country. They’ve contributed to her economy and unlike Basil Fawlty and the War, they don’t mention the 1000 years when England was herself Catholic.
    They had one Queen whose miserable and traumatic bastardised childhood turned her into over-zealous persecutor of Protestants and they have to put up with collective refusal to look at what the other members of her immediate family got up to – to say nothing of the damburst of wickedness Protestantism unleashed against their co-religionists in Ireland a few decades later.
    Give us a break.

    The iconoclastic, culture-destroying, freedom-stifling craziness went via Henry’s suppression of the monasteries all the way through to Oliver Cromwell’s scorched earth policies in Ireland. Isis we’ve had in England: its colours were Protestant. Not Catholic.

    • sidor

      More was responsible for the execution of Tyndale, and personally took part in tortures of Protestants accused for bringing the English Bible to Britain. He got what he deserved.

      • Woman In White

        Both of those accusations are based on lies — the execution in Tyndale was the work of the mob, with which St Thomas had no involvement ; and the Saint was “personally involved” in torture exactly as much as his Monarch and the other Ministers were, which is to say not in the slightest.

        • Dominic Stockford

          They are both true. Not liking it won’t change it.

          • Woman In White

            NO Saint Thomas was NOT involved in that execution, NO he was NOT personally involved in torture.

            Liking it or not is irrelevant to the fact that these are mendacious claims, supported by no evidence at all except for propaganda.

          • Dominic Stockford

            So whilst the 39 Articles of Faith can be bad-mouthed by you, and erroneously attacked over their Biblical content, it is ok for you to peddle and push the utterly erroneous (biblically speaking) Roman meaning of the word ‘saint’?

            As well as attack those who present truths you don;t like. “Nah, nah, nah, you’re wrong” isn’t a presentation or a debate. it is a fact, evidenced, that More had a torture chamber in his house. It is a fact that among those he tortured were some who were (according to him) excessively roman, taking that teaching to witchcraft, as well as those who committed such heinous sins as reading the Bible.

            Even one of More’s defenders (Michael Moreland) has said the following “Thomas More generally shared in the prejudices of his age and was
            complicit in practices (most especially the use of state coercion with
            regard to religious belief) that we would today regard as morally
            odious.”

            ‘The Life of Thomas More’ by Peter Ackroyd, one of the more positive More biographies, recounts that when Sir Thomas learned that John Tewkesbury, a London leather-seller, secretly possessed banned books, he had the man burned alive. After the execution, More expressed his satisfaction: “[He] burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy.” More cherished the image of Tewkesbury burning not just on earth, but in hell, “an hote fyrebronde burnynge at hys bakke, that all the water in the worlde wyll neuer be able to quenche.”

            Maybe you’d like to go back to those days, which More sought to protect by such vile means, when no-one (except those he decided could) was allowed to read the Bible and even the vast majority of the clergy knew nothing of the truth of what it said?

          • Woman In White

            it is a fact, evidenced, that More had a torture chamber in his house

            Ah, I see — you think that Hilary Mental and the producers of the Wolf Hall rubbish have provided “evidence”.

            Your claim is risible.

            He occasionally used his house as an ad hoc holding cell, but there is no actual credible evidence whatsoever that what you have claimed is true in the slightest.

            Sir Thomas learned that John Tewkesbury, a London leather-seller, secretly possessed banned books, he had the man burned alive. After the execution, More expressed his satisfaction: “[He] burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy.” More cherished the image of Tewkesbury burning not just on earth, but in hell, “an hote fyrebronde burnynge at hys bakke, that all the water in the worlde wyll neuer be able to quenche.”

            This account appears to be quite deliberately mendacious. Despicable.

            —-

            Thomas More : I hear also that Tyndale highly rejoiceth in the burning of Tewkesbury; but I can see no very great cause why but if he reckon it for a great glory that the man did abide still by the stake when he was fast bound to it. For as for the heresies, he would have abjured them again with all his heart, and have accursed Tyndale, too, if all that might have saved his life. And so he gave counsel unto one James that was for heresy in prison with him. For as James hath since confessed… Tewkesbury said unto him, “Save you yourself and abjure. But as for me, because I have abjured before, there is no remedy with me but death.”

            As soon as Tewkesbury heard that, he went from it again by and by—and that so far that finally he would not agree that before the Day of Doom there were either any saint in heaven or soul in purgatory, or in hell either. Nor the right faith in the Sacrament of the Altar would he not confess in no wise. For which things and divers other horrible heresies, he was delivered at last unto the secular hands and burned, as there was never
            wretch, I ween, better worthy.

            You might have glanced over my point about the Courts of the Inquisition, but it appears that you continue not to comprehend that it was the civil authorities, not the Church ones, who burned or hanged or beheaded people.

            More was involved in Tewkesbury’s excommunication, not his execution.

            And he expressed no “satisfaction” at Tewkesbury’s burning, and in the phrase “as there was neverwretch, I ween, better worthy”, worthy does NOT mean “deserving that fate”, he means it honestly, that this was a man of worth who was burned at the stake.

            Quite the opposite to what you and Ackroyd falsely claim — More quite clearly BLAMES Tyndale for “rejoicing” at Tewkesbury’s execution.

            I do not share his approval of the death penalty, but that approval does not justify your repeated lies about him.

            People have quoted Ackroyd at me several times, and his manipulative lies about Saint Thomas More always leave a sour taste in the mouth.

            He knows all too well that 99% of his readership will never be bothered to go and check the truth of his obnoxious fabrications for themselves.

          • ardenjm

            Thanks for this WiW.
            Where did you find the reference to Tewkesbury as good and charitable in St Thomas More’s assessment of him?

          • Woman In White

            From the very source that Ackroyd so despicably warped out of all recognition :

            http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/docs/Confutation1-4_2014-etext.pdf

          • ardenjm

            Hmm. Well, I’ve read the passages pertaining to Tewkesbury and I think it too much of a stretch to say that More is praising Tewkesbury.

            As I understand the statements, More is writing with a certain irony:

            “what good and charitable mind the man died in” seems to be concerning the fact that in the lead up to his death Tewkesbury did not broadcast his heretical beliefs at all – indeed he actually denied that he’d ever held them – thus accusing his judges of injustice towards him. Hence More’s emphasis on the good and holy witnesses who’d heard Tewkesbury’s earlier abduration of his heretical beliefs! That accompanies the discussion of the shipowner and the Protestant books that were smuggled in to England. It’s because of all that context that More, ironically again, says that Tyndale can hardly claim such a person as a worthy martyr for the cause: Tewkesbury had no real commitment to Tyndale and Tyndale’s beliefs.

            As to being ‘worthy’ – I’m afraid I read this passage in the way Ackroyd reads it: More seems to be saying 1. Tewkesbury had influence over James and could help James to recant. 2. Tewkesbury apparently urges him to do so. 3. However, having gone back on his own recantation, Tewkesbury knows he’s toast – but it’s not too late for James 4. Thomas More encourages Tewkesbury to persuade James that devotion to the Saints is right – since flip-flopping Tewkesbury seemed to have changed his mind on that. 5. However, Tewkesbury flip-flops again and says “finally he would not agree that before the Day of Doom there were either any saint in heaven or soul in purgatory, or in hell either”. 6. Because of this, and other ‘horrible heresies’ Tewkesbury gets condemned and thus 7. the contenious bit about being ‘worthy’: he deserved it. He does, after all, conclude that Tewkesbury is in Hell for his beliefs.
            That’s my reading of the passage. For what it’s worth….

          • Woman In White

            As I understand the statements, More is writing with a certain irony

            On what grounds ? I think you’re anachronistically attempting to re-interpret the text according to our modern literary expectations, whereas it is clear that the text as the whole seeks to be as forthright and honest as possible, indeed one of its major themes is stark denunciation of the very hypocrisy and dissembling that such a reading would require in the author !!

            As to being ‘worthy’ – I’m afraid I read this passage in the way Ackroyd reads it

            It’s a misreading — you’re falsely assuming irony on the part of More, whereas he’s just using “worthy” in its ordinary 16th Century positive meaning (to be of worth, brave, manful, virtuous), as demonstrated by his immediately subsequent praising Tewkesbury’s “good and charitable mind” during the man’s final days of life.

            You’re not fully understanding the text — More praises Tewkesbury for his honesty in not seeking to avoid death of a most horrid nature by means of recantation, cowardice, and hypocrisy ; which he’s implicitly and explicitly accusing Tyndale and most of his followers of.

            Irony is antithetical to the very substance and meaning of the text.

            He does, after all, conclude that Tewkesbury is in Hell for his beliefs

            That’s a misreading too, he’s warning Tyndale of the fate awaiting him in the Afterlife.

            He certainly doesn’t praise Tewkesbury’s heresies, nor his ghastly declarations against the Faith, but to paint Saint Thomas as expressing “satisfaction” at his execution on the basis of a text where he outright condemns Tyndale for “rejoicing” from it is a completely untenable distortion.

          • ardenjm

            Oh, I don’t deny the possibility of Hell for a great many of us – Catholics and non-Catholics alike. That ‘massa damnata’ seems to be the general consensus in the Church’s tradition. Likewise, however, the tradition doesn’t pronounce on the fate of anyone – negatively at least: we know saints are in the Beatific Vision.

            So, I’ve gone back to the text in the light of your remarks and I have two further thoughts: perhaps I have misunderstood the tenor and meaning of More in these passages but the opening pages are forthright: heresy is a contagion that must be resisted.

            However, I’m no scholar of 16th century English language and, no doubt, have layers of interpretative biases through which I read the text, but if this isn’t irony, I don’t know what is:
            “I hear also that Tyndale highly rejoiceth in the burning of Tewkesbury; but I can see no very great cause why [he should rejoice] but if he reckon it for a great glory that the man did abide still by the stake when he was fast bound to it.”

            Why do I find More ironic here? Because he goes on to show that Tewkesbury was no ‘martyr’ for Tyndale’s cause having both advised others to renounce Tyndale, having desired to do so himself but aware that doing so won’t help him, but nevertheless keeps quiet about all his heretical beliefs so as to try and avoid punishment. In short Tewkesbury is no ‘glorious martyr’ to Tyndale’s cause and certainly didn’t stand on his own two feet bravely when he was burnt: the only thing that kept him there was that he was bound to the stake with rope, not out of conviction.

            But that’s just my reading and I’m quite prepared to accept that I am wrong about it. St Thomas More is a canonised martyr, not a canonised saint. Whilst he had many qualities his crown of martyrdom is not the canonisation of his whole personality. In short, martyrs don’t need to be ‘saints’ – they need to have heroic perseverance not those 10 years of heroic virtues that demarcate the saintly life.

          • Woman In White

            OK and I very much like the high quality of your questions

            Oh, I don’t deny the possibility of Hell for a great many of us – Catholics and non-Catholics alike. That ‘massa damnata’ seems to be the general consensus in the Church’s tradition. Likewise, however, the tradition doesn’t pronounce on the fate of anyone – negatively at least: we know saints are in the Beatific Vision.

            I’ve experienced a Beatific Vision, worthy, unworthy, or otherwise ; but a point that I made elsewhere should surely be more à propos :

            It is reasonable to hope that all souls, which are all created by God towards Salvation, are able of that Grace.

            To claim otherwise is heretical.

            So, I’ve gone back to the text in the light of your remarks and I have two further thoughts: perhaps I have misunderstood the tenor and meaning of More in these passages but the opening pages are forthright: heresy is a contagion that must be resisted.

            Yes.

            However, I’m no scholar of 16th century English language and, no doubt, have layers of interpretative biases through which I read the text, but if this isn’t irony, I don’t know what is:”I hear also that Tyndale highly rejoiceth in the burning of Tewkesbury; but I can see no very great cause why [he should rejoice] but if he reckon it for a great glory that the man did abide still by the stake when he was fast bound to it.”

            yeah, that’s a difficult paragraph for those unfamiliar with 16th century thought.

            1) Tyndale is super happy about Tewkesbury’s execution (implicitly, Saint Thomas condemns this vileness of spirit)

            2) Tyndale is an idiot for celebrating the vileness of capital punishment

            3) He’s wrong, because of that stupidity

            4) Tyndale thinks that horrendous capital punishment is a good thing

            Why do I find More ironic here?

            Because you fail to understand Classical Pro et Contra rhetoric

            You also falsely attribute modern meanings to 16th century words

            In short Tewkesbury is no ‘glorious martyr’ to Tyndale’s cause and certainly didn’t stand on his own two feet bravely when he was burnt

            The text reports nothing of the manner of his physical death, but it explicitly praises his fortitude.

            It uses the bad example of Tewkesbury to attack Tyndale.

            It certainly portrays Tewkesbury as a traitor, certainly no “martyr”, definitely as a criminal, but all of these facts are simply incompatible with Stockford’s ludicrous claims.

  • Cobbett

    At the time the Ottomans were menacing Europe….somewhat more dangerous than the loonies we’re facing today.

    • sidor

      The Ottoman Empire was on the Protestant side during the 30-years war.

  • kingkevin3

    What a laugh. Reading this you would almost believe this country isn’t rabildy anti-catholic which it has been since that puritanical monster called Cromwell took this country to the brink of barbarism.

    • sidor

      That’s right. Christianity was a barbarian religion until corrupted by the Latin Church.

  • pobjoy

    Every Catholic in Britain is subject to arrest for incitement to violence.

    Whoever they are.

    • ardenjm

      Even the Duchess of Kent?
      Would that have been because she used to hand out the trophy at Wimbledon in an aggressive manner?

      • pobjoy

        A ‘pope’ corresponded with a Spanish ambassador about assassination of Queen Elizabeth, so why would a mere duchess trouble the Catholic conscience? If there can be such a thing.

        • ardenjm

          Would that have been Queen Elizabeth the Reginacidal Anglican Monarch?
          Much as Pope Francis urges intervention in the Middle East to protect Christian communities from the depredations of ISIS – military intervention indeed – so too you can understand why, in looking towards a country that had been Catholic for 1000 years and was now officially adopting the 39 Articles with their vile language of hatred for the Church and for its members – the Pope of the day perceived in her a danger and a threat to those of her subjects that were trying to remain faithful to the Church of their forefathers.
          To Catholic eyes it was more than reasonable to see in her a usurping power rather than the Gloriana gilded lily that our lionised version of the Golden Age has made of her.

          But you’ve not actually answered my question about the dangerous Duchess of Kent. I admit, she used to applaud the winners in a way which looked very violent.

          • pobjoy

            Would that have been Queen Elizabeth the Reginacidal Anglican Monarch?

            See how a murderer excuses his crime by accusing others, whom the idiot describes as pagan!

          • ardenjm

            Are you really accusing me of murder, pobjoy?

            You are insane.

          • pobjoy

            Every Catholic condones murder. Some of them don’t realise it, and leave their criminal cult as soon as they realise.

          • ardenjm

            Just to let you know that for the very first time since posting online I have actually flagged these two comments of yours:
            1. where you accuse me of being a murderer.
            2. where you accuse all Catholics of being complicit in murder.

            That’s no longer forthright debate pobjoy it’s INSANE and needs to be flagged up. If the moderators leave them in place then they leave them. That will be their call. But I think they need to be looked at….because they are the ravings of a lunatic.

            Obviously you need help, too, but there’s nothing I can do about that other than urge you to seek it.

          • Chi Rho

            Have you got a cloth so that he can wipe the rabid foam from his mouth?

          • Woman In White

            it’s “phil” — sorry, but his latest disguise was less obvious than usual

            mea culpa

    • Woman In White

      Your incitement to organised State violence against Catholics is vile demonstration of your fanatical religious hatred.

  • Zabazius

    The great gift of Elizabeth to England was that we could give up bothering too much about someone’s religion – no windows onto men’s souls. That’s only a threat to the the zealots: Puritan, Roman or Islamic.

    • pobjoy

      Elizabeth only steered a course that was defined by change greater than any monarch. That change began when English people taught themselves to read English, to translate the Bible from Latin, and to laboriously copy out many complete Bibles, an amazing fact that historians choose to ignore. It was the elective nature of Christianity revealed in the Bible that altered the whole world, a change that some would like to reverse; every Catholic in the world is therefore a threat to democracy, as much as Muslims are, whether they know it or not.

      • Woman In White

        That change began when English people taught themselves to read English, to translate the Bible from Latin, and to laboriously copy out many complete Bibles, an amazing fact that historians choose to ignore

        The reason why it’s ignored, parrot, is that it’s a steaming pile of unhistorical nonsense.

        Widespread literacy is a product of the printing press, not an amazing feat accomplished by some members of an insular sect of Protestantism.

        Your own anti-Catholic hatred is BTW a clear demonstration that the people that you’re responding to are dead wrong, and that it was the Protestants who were like the Islamists, as you apparently still are.

        • sidor

          You are discussing the means. What matters is the ends and the results. The result of the Reformation is the era of Progress and Enlightenment that provided our current prosperity. Under the Catholic rule we would have been still using the goose pen and a candles.

          • Woman In White

            You know, just saying your rubbish doesn’t make it true.

          • sidor

            Could you tell us about the positive role of the Catholic Inquisition in the development of science?

          • Woman In White

            Law and Science are two different subjects, you know.

            The modern judicial system is based on that of the Courts of the Inquisition, which were the first to institute an impartial judge, and advocates for the accuser and the defendant, with presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.

            Most verdicts were “not guilty” BTW, and of the guilty verdicts, most involved either some purely ecclesiastical penances, such as a number of Masses to pay for, or prayers to make, or a Declaration of Faith, or a pilgrimage, more rarely some fine or corporal punishment.

            If evidence of crimes demonstrating guilt of the accused emerged, that evidence was turned over to the civil Courts, which would then judge those persons according to the civil Law.

            Yes there were occasionally some abuses by individual judges and/or their personnel, but they were far rarer than the propaganda claims. And they occurred mostly during the first 100 years after implementation of those Courts.

            With only a very small number of exceptions though, those killed after trial by a Court of the Inquisition were murderers, rapists, thieves, and so on, and even some child abusers. Criminals.

          • sidor

            To make it short. Do you think the Catholic Inquisition was useful for the development of science? Yes/no would suffice for the answer.

          • Woman In White

            Which part of “Law and Science are two different subjects” did you fail to comprehend ?

            Might as well ask “Do you think “The Wombles” was useful for the development of self-driving cars? Yes/no would suffice for an answer.”

          • investigator

            Sidor, I am not a Catholic and not a Catholic sympathiser, but WIW gave a very interesting statement here.
            To ask her to give only a yes/no statement is silly.

          • sidor

            She was talking about the procedure and legalities. Which nobody is interested in after the centuries past. We are interested in the result, and that was my question about. Still waiting for the answer. Do you have one? Was the Inquisition useful for the scientific development? If yes, it was good, if no, it was evil, regardless of their motives, means and procedures.

          • Dominic Stockford

            If I feel down I read WiW comments, they are so fantastical that they make me laugh.

          • sidor

            The Catholic doctrine is indeed quite funny. The fact that they tried for centuries impose that unintelligible rubbish on people by force and intimidation isn’t funny at all.

          • DeliaMaguire

            What isn’t in the least bit funny is the attempt by some people to draw similarities with events of hundreds of years ago with what is happening today. There can be no comparison because knowledge, times and attitudes were so very different. Western civilization has been shaped by many events and so we can come to the conclusion that the methods adopted by both sides at the time of Elizabeth 1st are not representative of Catholic and Protestant opinion and attitudes today (for the majority anyway). The reality today, is that the culture we have inherited in the West which owes its genesis to Christianity, is being sacked in front of our very eyes and there are too few leaders prepared to say it as it is.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Roman Doctrine is identical today to that which it was then, on all matters that actually matter to salvation.

            Roman intention towards this country is identical today to that which it was then in the matter of regaining sovereignty over it.

            The Bible is the same as it was then, as is the amount of rejection of its truth. There was never a Christian golden age – the reformers foolishly thought that by letting the English Roman aligned Bishops to continue they would be able to convince them of their spiritual and doctrinal error. All that happened was that those bishops hardened their hearts and (effectively) set light flame to the pyres under Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer.

          • ardenjm

            The last words a man utters reveal the disposition of his soul – and whether Christ’s charity and grace reign there – He who said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”

            Cranmer’s last words:
            “And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine.”

            Foxe admits in the first edition of his Book of Martyrs that he could not find out what Ridley and Latimer’s last words were. Some were invented later.

            St John Fisher’s last words:
            “And I beseech Almighty God of his infinite goodness to save the king and this realm, and that it may please him to hold his holy hand over it, and send the king a good council.”

            St Edmund Campion on the scaffold:
            Lord Howard demanded to know what Queen he prayed for.
            “Yea, for Elizabeth your Queen and my Queen, unto whom I wish a long quiet reign with all prosperity.”

          • pobjoy

            we can come to the conclusion that the methods adopted by both sides at
            the time of Elizabeth 1st are not representative of Catholic and
            Protestant opinion and attitudes today (for the majority anyway).

            The reason that methods are non-violent now are because Protestantism established the principle of non-violence. If Protestants had behaved like Catholics, there would be no Catholics left, anywhere. Every Catholic who makes complaint about Protestantism is therefore an idiot who is lucky to be alive.

          • Woman In White

            The reason that methods are non-violent now are because Protestantism established the principle of non-violence

            Yeah, who cares about what that fellow Christ said — non-violence was invented by Martin Luther !! /roll-eyes/

            Meanwhile, here you are, campaigning for State violence against Catholics.

            Saint Thomas More : Which thing as sore as these heretics reprove… affirming that it is against the Gospel of Christ that any heretic should be persecuted and punished, and especially by bodily pain or death…and some of them say the same of every manner crime—theft, murder, treason, and all—yet in Almaine now, contrary to their own evangelical doctrine, those evangelicals themselves cease not to pursue and punish by all the means they may, by purse, by prison, by bodily pain, and death, divers their evangelical brethren that vary from their sect; as there are of those counterfeit evangelicals more sundry sorts of diabolical sects than a man may well rehearse.

          • DeliaMaguire

            Every Catholic who makes complaint about Protestantism is therefore an idiot who is lucky to be alive.

            Tell that to the people of Wexford and to all the Catholics who died in NI at the hands of loyalist for the sheer crime of being a Catholic.

          • pobjoy

            Tell that to the people of Wexford

            You tell the people of Wexford that, if their own medicine was given to them, there would be no priest, cardinal or pope left on the face of the earth.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Absolutely so, Sidor.

    • Woman In White

      The great gift of Elizabeth to England was that we could give up bothering too much about someone’s religion

      What utter rot.

      She was a religious fanatic.

      • sidor

        Newton too was a religious fanatic. And what is your problem with that? Do you reject physics as a protestant science? Do you prefer the Inquisition’s burning people for studying astronomy?

        • Woman In White

          Newton too was a religious fanatic

          You *do* understand the difference between “being religious” and “being a religious fanatic” ?

          • sidor

            I am just using your terminology. According to you, Newton, as a radical protestant, was a “religious fanatic”.

          • Woman In White

            Newton was not a radical. He didn’t go around preaching that those who disagreed with his religion should die, or go about actually killing or persecuting them.

            My terminology is applied where it belongs, it is not limited to the words “religious fanatic”, I did NOT describe Newton as a “religious fanatic” for good reason (he wasn’t one), but I *did* describe Elizabeth I with that phrase (because she was one).

          • sidor

            So, you say that Arianism wasn’t a radical form of Protestantism? Was it a moderate form of Protestantism?

          • Woman In White

            As stated previously, you’re just trolling.

          • ardenjm

            Yep.
            Leave him to the Billy Goats Gruff…
            Clip clop, clip clop.

      • Zabazius

        I think you’ll find, that by the standards of the day, she was far from fanatical. Her pragmatic, not to say, at times perfidious approach laid the ground for the freedoms we enjoy today. Of course, some may prefer a purer course, but that’s up to you.

        • Woman In White

          I think you’ll find, that by the standards of the day, she was far from fanatical

          And never mind all those persecutions, forced conversions, and mass murder, eh ?

          • Zabazius

            I think we know all that and don’t want to bring them back. Most of us.

  • rtj1211

    You don’t consider Catholic paedophile priests to be as dangerous as Jihadis, then?!!

    • Woman In White

      This myopic barrage of hate-fuelled propaganda is becoming worse than the problem as it exists today, because it has been corrected, and those men are in their vast majority either dead, in prison, defrocked after having served their time, or exiled to the imprisonment of “penitential contemplation” in lonely monasteries if criminal charges are unable to be brought against them.

      Your religious hatred is one thing that you have in common with the Jihadis, is there anything else ?

      • investigator

        In your view, the business of paedophile priests is totally unconnected to the church.
        But this is not so. The church knew about the paedophilia of her priests for as far back as we can uncover. She simply covered the paedophilia up. And this cover-up goes all the way to the vatican.

        The cover-up would have not been so bad in itself; the truly loathsome aspect of it was that the church simply moved the predatory priests to new locations where they could continue their sexual attacks.

        The church knew all about it and allowed it to happen.

        Did God, through the Holy Spirit, organise the cover-up and engineer the continuation of the sexual attacks on children? In the same way that He guided the church fathers in their choosing the correct texts to include in the canon.?

  • outlawState

    Whilst Elizabeth was foolish to put these men to death, rather than banish them, the fact was that Catholics had rendered themselves extremely offensive to all non-Catholics by declaring all but themselves as anathema to men and God in the Council of Trent.

    Eg. 7th Session,

    —Canon X. If any one shall say, that all Christians have power to administer the word,
    and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.

    The Pope was the head of a supremacist cult that had no biblical authority and was responsible for putting to death many protestant luminaries. Catholicism in England was an inherently political endeavour in those days.

    • rob232

      No biblical authority! The Catholic Church wrote the bible or at least put it together.

      • Woman In White

        The Church wrote the Bible, including when it consisted only of the Chosen People of Israel.

        That Canon of the Council of Trent is a simple declaration of fact, and it has nothing “supremacist” about it.

        It certainly does NOT “declare” that all non-Catholics are “anathema”. (outlawState probably doesn’t even understand the meaning of the word — you can’t excommunicate people who aren’t even in the Church)

        • sidor

          If the Church wrote the Bible, it is quite strange that the word “Church” is missing in the Bible text. In the original Greek text Jesus speaks of “Ecclesia”, that is a congregation. The Church as a bureaucracy is definitely a Roman invention which has nothing to do with Christianity.

          • rob232

            Interesting as these questions are, they really have nothing to do with who wrote the Bible. Whatever Christ’s intentions or even if he existed or not does not change the fact that the Roman church compiled the Bible and chose which gospels should form part of it and which should be discarded. To use it as an argument in any debate of Protestantism versus Catholicism is simply begging the question.

          • sidor

            How could they do it when they didn’t even have a right text, besides the faulty Latin one? The Eastern Christians used Greek and Aramaic texts well before the Roman church was established.

          • Woman In White

            Given that when Peter and Paul went to Rome they integrated an already extant Christian community there, your suggestion is rather surprising.

            PS the only Books of the Canon written in Aramaic are in the Old Testament.

            PPS Earlier Latin translations than the Vulgate were in circulation even in the 1st Century.

          • sidor

            You wrote rubbish. There were no known Latin translations of the Bible before Vulgate which was finished in the 5th century. The early Christian congregation in Rome, mostly Jewish, used Greek and Aramaic texts. Goths had Silver Bible translated to the Gothic language in the 4th century, this translation was later eliminated by the Catholic Church.

          • Woman In White

            There were no known Latin translations of the Bible before Vulgate which was finished in the 5th century

            I’ve read and studied extracts of those translations.

            The early Christian congregation in Rome, mostly Jewish, used Greek and Aramaic texts

            That is a pure fabrication, based entirely on evidence-free conjecture, whereas the factual, historical, and physical existence of the early Vetus Latina translations clearly demonstrates that the Latin-speaking church of Rome existed at the very start of Christian History.

          • ardenjm

            Be careful with Sidor, Woman in White. He believes in the supremacy of Hellenic culture which, once redisovered after the Fall of Constantinople, allowed “Latin-oppressed” Western Europeans to discover the truth – about everything apparently! They did so – by coming up with Protestantism (!) – which led to Modern Science and Capitalism (he ignores the Italian City States at this point and the Trecento etc) – and thus to Wealth. (Which didn’t exist beforehand.)

            I’ve yet to work out if he’s a Hellenist Supremacist: i.e. the Greeks are the Chosen People. Or whether he’s a Protestant trying to legitimise the Protestant revolt and rationalise it as a more authentic Hellenic Renewal of an earlier tradition. Either way, he’s a monomaniac with an idée fixe nearly as narrow as pobjoy’s.

            I guess the way to find out would be to ask him whether he thinks Maximus the Confessor there in the 7th century, martyred for not giving in to Caesropapism and both an ardent defender of Papal Primacy AND Aristotelian philosophy, was a good thing…. Or whether he believes Our Lady is the Theotokos or not.

            Beliefs about Our Lady and her place in Salvation history – intimately linked to her Son’s – ALWAYS lay bare the secrets of mens’ hearts:

            καὶ σοῦ δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία—, ὅπως ἂν ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν διαλογισμοί

          • Woman In White

            yeah arden, but more likely he’s just another tiresome fool who thinks that mindless approbation of the contents of Protestant dogma and auto-congratulatory “enlightenment” propaganda constitute intelligence.

          • rob232

            But the Bible was put together by the Church.It decided which texts were inspired and which should be discarded. How did they do that? Because they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Who was qualified to interpret the Bible? The Church.
            Protestant sixteenth century theologians deciding to base their beliefs on a book compiled by the Catholic Church more than a thousand years earlier are just begging the question.

          • pobjoy

            It’s very odd how Catholicism proudly claims the credit for Protestantism’s Bible, yet attacks it almost with savagery for not accepting Catholicism’s Bible!

          • sidor

            This isn’t true. Luther and Melanchthon translated their Bible from the Greek text. The King James Bible too was translated from the Greek. The 5th century Catholic Vulgate text didn’t play any significant role in Reformation.

          • Woman In White

            The 5th century Catholic Vulgate text didn’t play any significant role in Reformation

            You keep on posting this nonsense — in fact, it was the inspiration and model of not only the KJV, but of the accepted Greek text of the NT established for the Western Church in the 16th century.

            Incidentally, it’s only been since the late 20th century that actually decent texts of the Greek NT and the Latin Vulgate have been available (thanks to Information Technology), so that many of your more daring claims, yours and the parrot’s, are quite liable to be completely anachronistic.

          • rob232

            I’m sorry I don’t see why that would be important. The Bible, the selection of the material, the decision about which books to include and which to exclude all took place long before Luther or any of these others were born. Why did Luther decide this book was sacred? Because the church compiled it. He based his church and its teachings on a book put together by the Roman church. It is silly for Protestants to quote the Bible when justifying themselves to Catholics because the book was compiled by the church which also established itself as its interpreter.To put it another way. It isn’t a real book written by one person I.e. God. It is a collection of scriptures put together by the Roman church who declared that it was the word of God because the church said it was by its own authority. It is only accepted as God’s work because the church believed it was being guided by God. Now if you don’t accept that it was being guided by God because it was in error, how do you accept the book? You are begging the question. Your case is ridiculous.

          • pobjoy

            When were the gospels written?

            When did the Roman ‘church’ recognise their status?

          • sidor

            What is important is the language. In order to adequately translate the Bible to a poor language, a new language needs to be created. The German as a language of literature started from the translation of the Bible. It is therefore crucially important from which language it is translated.

          • pobjoy

            When were these gospels written?

            When did the Roman ‘church’ recognise their status?

          • sidor

            Some pieces of the Gospels are amazingly similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which fact the Catholic Church was (unsuccessfully) trying to hide. That implies that Jesus was presumably related to that Jewish sect, where many ideas of his teaching came from. That sect was gnostic and apocalyptic, which one can see in the Gospels as well. The beginning of the Gospel of John is undeniably gnostic.

          • Woman In White

            which fact the Catholic Church was (unsuccessfully) trying to hide

            More rubbish.

            That implies that Jesus was presumably related to that Jewish sect

            No it doesn’t — it implies only that they, like the Christians, used the same sources of 1st Century BC and AD contemporary Hebrew philosophy.

            The beginning of the Gospel of John is undeniably gnostic

            Well, I deny it, so there you go : it isn’t “undeniably” so.

          • sidor

            You don’t deny: you disagree. The reason isn’t specified.

            And what sources of what Hebrew philosophy are you talking about?

          • Woman In White

            And what sources of what Hebrew philosophy are you talking about?

            Why don’t you go and instruct yourself by reading some books, instead of constantly demanding that I supply you with an instant education ?

          • Woman In White

            You make the mistake of many in thinking that the word “Ecclesia” has one particular meaning.

            Church as in “The Church” is one of those meanings, and whilst I’m unlikely to waste my time providing you with a complete textual analysis of the use of the word in Scripture, it is most certainly used in that fashion in several places in the New Testament.

          • sidor

            Are you telling us what Jesus thought when saying it? Are you a (retroactive) mind reader?

          • Woman In White

            One does not need to be a mind reader to understand the meanings of a particular word usage in particular sentences, paragraphs, and texts. One needs formal training in textual analysis. This is taught in Universities. Did you attend one yourself ?

        • haywardsward

          All translations of the OT/Tnk, NT from Hebrew/Greek into Latin and from all three into initially German/English were made to serve particular needs of theose who commissioned/ made them. For compilation/redaction has been the norm in both the original OT/Tnk and NT

          The Torah from Tnk consists of five pieces, written by five different authors in five different places at five different times and redacted.

          It is not the work of Moses written down from dictation given by Ywh.

          The NT underwent compilation/redaction to fit in with the needs of the early Church.

          About 180 CE Irenaeus based his choice of the four canonical gospels on Geography, Meteorology and Symmetry as much as Theology, saying in Against the Heresies,

          …It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh…

          NT is not actual eyewitness, historical evidenced writing but mostly conjecture, hearsay and a very selective “truth”, in fact often lies.

          Those early Fathers of the Church, Clement , Eusebius, Jerome, John Chrysostom, were all adept at justifying deceit/lies for the good of the poor sinner.

          …For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind …

          …And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived…

          Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

          When we think of Spin Doctors let us recall those early ones they who set the standards, The Doctors of the Church.

          • ardenjm

            Come, come, I can hear the sounds of axes grinding from here!

            That the Church as a whole ‘canonises’ what other individuals – Bishops, Doctors, Saints or otherwise have said – does not in no way mean that the Holy Spirit didn’t lead the Church as a whole to do so at the providential time.

            That’s what the whole story of the Council of Jerusalem illustrates.
            And that individuals have failings, errors, deceptions even within their thinking and acting does not nullify what the Church’s ultimate discernment is, either.

          • Woman In White

            All translations of the OT/Tnk, NT from Hebrew/Greek into Latin and from all three into initially German/English were made to serve particular needs of theose who commissioned/ made them. For compilation/redaction has been the norm in both the original OT/Tnk and NT

            The Torah from Tnk consists of five pieces, written by five different authors in five different places at five different times and redacted.

            It is not the work of Moses written down from dictation given by Ywh.

            Thank you for your claims against positions that nobody believes in.

            Perhaps one day you will have some opinions of your own ?

  • ardenjm

    The treatment of St Edmund Campion was diabolical.
    The addled Queen Elizabeth interrogated the prisoner herself and promised him all kinds of inducements to renounce the Faith and become a Protestant puppet.
    The account of his trials, his multiple tortures, his condemnation and his wicked death can be found here: http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/campion.htm
    Below is what he said when his condemnation was made known to him.
    It goes to the heart of the GUILTY CONSCIENCE all of the Protestants posting on here still try and stifle.

    And let’s be VERY CLEAR: They are UNABLE to condemn the wickedness done by their co-religionists against Catholics. For them, these acts of barbarity are ENTIRELY justified. You’ll find no Catholic posting on here who rejoices in the torture and death of the Protestants who suffered at the hands of the agents of Mary Tudor or in other lands. It was a cruelty, a wickedness that they will be judged by God for.

    And those who proclaim – and exaggerate – the crimes of the various Inquisitions down the centuries – will BLITHELY IGNORE the Puritans’ crimes in Ireland and their 600,000 victims.

    But let’s get back to what this is REALLY about. St Edmund Campion said it so very well:

    “In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors——all the ancient priests, bishops and kings——all that was once the glory of England, the island of Saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.”

  • pobjoy

    Edmund Campion was diabolical.

    • ardenjm

      “In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors——all the ancient priests, bishops and kings——all that was once the glory of England, the island of Saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.”

      • pobjoy

        From the poster who tries so hard to appear patriotic.

        • ardenjm

          I’m sure there were many such Chinese Patriots fully supportive of Chairman Mao, pobjoy. Personally, I support my country when it’s keeping to the Gospel. When it doesn’t – for love of my country – I criticise it:
          1. hundreds of thousands of abortions every year
          2. gay marriage
          3. reckless involvement in the middle east
          Are you a pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro-endless wars in the middle east pobjoy? If not, welcome to genuine patriotism informed by the Faith rather than a faith dictated to by national interest.

          • pobjoy

            I support my country

            Vatican City State. It’s the only place on earth that you can be safe from arrest.

          • ardenjm

            Answer the question:

            Are you a pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro-endless wars in the middle east pobjoy? If not, welcome to genuine patriotism informed by the Faith rather than a faith dictated to by national interest.

          • pobjoy

            Answer the question

            When you have renounced violence.

          • ardenjm

            Oh pobjoy, we both know there’ll be condition after condition after condition with you. You hate being put on the spot.

            Your national church is in favour of abortion, gay mariage and, if Lord Carey is indicative, of euthanasia also. I think it rather evident that it lost its moorings to Christian morality, no? Around the time a king repudiated his wife of some 20 years standing some would say…

          • John Thomas

            “Your national church” – yes, but you refer only to the leadership (or most of it); many, many laity, and junior clergy, are not at all in favour of these things – and the RC leadership is a bit wobbly, particularly (it seems) now …

          • ardenjm

            Yes, but the indefectibility of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith and Morals is promised her by Our Lord Himself.
            Paul VI was a very poor Pope – in his governmental role – a saintly, anguished man, no doubt – but a poor Pope. However, miraculo! – even after his own theological commission recommended artificial birth control he published Humanae Vitae and upheld the tradition that had been believed by all Christians, non-Catholics also – all the way up to the Lambeth Conference in the 1930s which was the first breach in the wall of Anglican sexual ethics.

            That many Cardinals, Bishops and Priests have fallen into the Modernist equivalent of Arian heresy on a whole raft of questions I do not doubt.
            I doubt even less, moreover, that even under a liberal Pontiff like Francis, that Our Lord will allow utter confusion to the Faithful who seek the Truth, to hear from the present Pope an ordinary magisterial pronouncement that over turns the plurisecular Tradition that the Bride of Christ received from the Bridegroom Himself.

            Were this to happen we would be in the unique and invidious position of a Sovereign Pontiff not only being in a state of material heresy (such wobbles have happened a couple of times in the past) but also of formal heresy.
            One could conclude only two things: either Our Lord did not make that promise to the Church that Catholics believe is the Church He instituted. (We were wrong.) Or Our Lord has broken His promise.
            The latter is impossible.
            The former has yet to happen.
            Let’s see what Pope Francis produces after the Synod.

            My money is on the Holy Spirit.

            Anglicans, unfortunately, became part of a Church back under Henry VIII that ignored the Holy Spirit on matrimonial questions. Not their fault (you can’t oblige people to be martyrs for the Faith) but Anglicanism is going the inevitable way it started on 500 years ago.

          • pobjoy

            the indefectibility of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith and Morals is promised her by Our Lord Himself.

            The (catholic) church cannot possibly be the murderous cult of the Vatican. It would be far more respectable to have no belief, than belief in a deity of the nature exemplified by the Vatican, that should be prosecuted for historic crimes against humanity.

          • ardenjm

            pobjoy will no doubt, like many of his protestant forbears, both in England and Holland and during the Thirty Years’ War, enter into an alliance with Islam rather than admit to having been wrong about the Catholic Church.

            How true, then will Our Lord’s words be when He said to the first Catholics: ‘they will think they are giving glory to God when they persecute you.’

            Nothing will make you reassess your positions pobjoy but just hold that thought in your mind for a second: I would rather submit to Islamic rule with all that that implies than admit that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church.

          • pobjoy

            When they can’t kill, they slander.

          • ardenjm

            Slander implies untruth:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War#Ottoman_support

            Read it and weep.

            BTW: Answer the question:

            Are you a pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro-endless wars in the middle east pobjoy? If not, welcome to genuine patriotism informed by the Faith rather than a faith dictated to by national interest.

            ps:
            “In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors——all the ancient priests, bishops and kings——all that was once the glory of England, the island of Saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.”

          • pobjoy

            When they can’t kill, they abuse.

          • ardenjm

            “I am, said I, the King’s true faithful subject and daily beadsman and pray for his Highness and all his and all the realm. I do no­body harm, I say none harm, I think none harm, but wish everybody good.” St Thomas More

            Now answer the question, serial evader:

            Are you a pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro-endless wars in the middle east pobjoy? If not, welcome to genuine patriotism informed by the Faith rather than a faith dictated to by national interest.

            “In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors——all the ancient priests, bishops and kings——all that was once the glory of England, the island of Saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.” St Edmund Campion, martyr.

          • pobjoy

            Thomas More

            Another murderous thug.

          • ardenjm

            Answer the question, serial evader:

            Are you a pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro-endless wars in the middle east pobjoy? If not, welcome to genuine patriotism informed by the Faith rather than a faith dictated to by national interest.

            “In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors——all the ancient priests, bishops and kings——all that was once the glory of England, the island of Saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.” St Edmund Campion, martyr.

          • pobjoy

            ‘A traitor and malefactor to the Queen’s Majesty, and the whole Realm, moving and stirring of sedition.’ Edmund Campion’s last heard words.

          • ardenjm

            Oh we can imagine the last words Our Lord heard, also.

            And St Stephen.

            And every martyr ever since.

            You gifted me that one, pobjoy.

            But tell me, serial evader:

            Are you a pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro-endless wars in the middle east pobjoy? If not, welcome to genuine patriotism informed by the Faith rather than a faith dictated to by national interest.

            “In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors——all the ancient priests, bishops and kings——all that was once the glory of England, the island of Saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.” St Edmund Campion, martyr.

          • pobjoy

            ‘Our Lord’

            Satan, for those who say that.

            Oh we can imagine the last words

            Of/for Jesus? We don’t need to, if we open a Bible. Stephen, too.

            Well done!

            ‘A traitor and malefactor to the Queen’s Majesty, and the whole Realm, moving and stirring of sedition.’

            Nothing’s changed.

          • ardenjm

            Poor pobjoy: the last words Our Lord HEARD? St Stephen HEARD?

            You were quoting the last words St Edmund Campion HEARD – from those who murdered him. We’re not sure of the last words that Our Lord HEARD when He offered up His spirit nor those that entered the ears of the Proto-Martyr when he prayed for the forgiveness of those who killed him.

            And now –

            answer the question, serial evader:

            Are you a pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro-endless wars in the middle east pobjoy? If not, welcome to genuine patriotism informed by the Faith rather than a faith dictated to by national interest.

            “In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors——all the ancient priests, bishops and kings——all that was once the glory of England, the island of Saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.” St Edmund Campion, martyr.

            ps Mark 3 vs 29-30 in answer to your wicked:
            ‘Our Lord’
            Satan, for those who say that.

          • pobjoy

            HEARD?

            Jesus and Stephen heard their own words, without interruption. Campion, otoh, was interrupted when he protested his religious credentials. Which, by your own apparent criterion, is significant. 🙂

            those who murdered him.

            So, you allege the Crown to be criminal. so you are doubly subject to arrest. Like your criminal leader who glorified the criminal creep in disguise. Unlike Jesus. Or even Judas!

            So pack your bags for those 44 hectares. I gather there’s a spare bed.

          • ardenjm

            Answer the question, serial evader:

            Are you a pro-abortion, pro gay-marriage, pro-endless wars in the middle east pobjoy? If not, welcome to genuine patriotism informed by the Faith rather than a faith dictated to by national interest.

            “In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors——all the ancient priests, bishops and kings——all that was once the glory of England, the island of Saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.” St Edmund Campion, martyr.

          • PaD

            Answer this question…what are you a Witchfinder?

          • ardenjm

            How can I be, PaD, the Witchfinder General was an Anglican Protestant:

            Matthew Hopkins (c. 1620 – 12 August 1647) was an English witch-hunter whose career flourished during the time of the English Civil War. He claimed to hold the office of Witchfinder General, although that title was never bestowed by Parliament. His witch-hunts mainly took place in East Anglia.
            Hopkins’ witch-finding career began in March 1644 and lasted until his retirement in 1647. During that period, he and his associates were responsible for more people being hanged for witchcraft than in the previous 100 years… He is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of 300 women between the years 1644 and 1646.

          • PaD

            Thank you for that..really.
            Pardon my interjection in your Hopkinsesque interrogation of citizen Pobjoy.though serendipitously Ive happened on a very lively and informative exchange among readers..!

          • Woman In White

            Protestantism is just *wonderful* eh ?

    • Woman In White

      Hallo “phil”

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    David Crane: Catholic, huh?

  • Mack

    Pray for poor pobjoy; he really does want to be saved and doesn’t yet know how to say so. He is slinging things around in anguish. Help him.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Pobjoy may occasionally grate a little, but from all I have read of what he says I believe he IS saved by faith, in Jesus Christ alone.

      • Woman In White

        he is not savd, only I is savd

        • Dominic Stockford

          Sorry, either you lost the ‘e’ on your keyboard mid-type, or I’m missing something.

  • disqus_9I6C4azbIA

    The counter reformation was a very real threat and can be likened to the Islamic threat.

  • cromwell

    “When English Catholics were considered as dangerous as jihadis” That’s because they were look how many protestants bloody Mary burnt at the stake, the Catholicism of the day was as extreme as radical Wahhabist Islam and had to be defeated.

  • 42ndRHR

    The Roman Catholic Church as a global power was as predisposed to bloodshed as Islamic jihadist are today and spared no effort either directly through contract murder or through proxy states like France and Spain to destroy England and the Reformation. The pretense today that the Church of Rome was a misunderstood and benign force is at odds with history.

Close