Oh! You come with the anti-Catholicism baked in. The Brits will love you.
Fascinated by the continued adherence to the idea that overthrowing a monarch who is simultaneously the head of the national church is a movement toward theocracy.
Replacing the secular head of state with the clerical leader would be a significant step towards theocracy. The monarch of the UK might be the head of the faith but they are not seen as a member of the clergy. The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK had Fawkes succeeded, would be a theocrat.
The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK
There’s the anti-Catholic education paying off. Which countries did the pope control again? Why would the UK have been different from Spain, France or Italy? Why does being crowned by a pope or an archbishop differ? How, with apparent seriousness, are you defining the man who said this in parliament as a “secular head of state”:
The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself, they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures, kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power.
Even today British monarchs are ordained as kings with holy oil. It is not a secular position.
Mind-boggling that even young children don’t see through this blatant myth-building for what it is. The same scaremongering is used even today by regressive Orangemen about papish plots.
I’m not ignorant of history. I’m on paper still a Catholic, since the Irish church decided to stop taking excommunication requests in 2005. Thanks for the Wikipedia article though.
Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.
Tip though, and a bit of genuine sympathy here, when the UK continues down it’s path of right-wing bigotry and you feel your family isnt safe again, you are now in a Common Travel Area with a far more welcoming “Catholic” nation. Feel free to walk across the border unchecked and I promise I won’t you rat you out for describing a basic awareness of England’s anti-Catholic biases as a “need to be a victim”.
That has nothing to do with cleverness. You asked which countries the Pope controlled and I showed you. Facts have nothing to do with cleverness. I’m not clever, I’m almost certainly far stupider than you. I just know history.
Also, I never said every Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope or even implied it, so why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you usually this dishonest?
I’m not accusing you of that (in fact I literally said that you understand its not that), but I’m guess you’re ignorant of how that is how it is taught in the British curriculum. The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context. British history is carefully curated with “that was a foreign plot and the British nation bravely survived it” vs “a foreign ally saved and restored our glorious nation”. For many, the presence of Catholicism is one of the primary deciding factors in that.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
You literally accused me of that. Now you’re gaslighting.
This is what you said: “Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.”
The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context.
You have presented zero evidence to the contrary. None whatsoever. “Trust me, bro, the British are wrong” is not how history works.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
You’ve been rude and insulting to people all over this thread, unprompted, so that’s pretty fucking ironic.
I genuinely don’t know how you interpret “I’m sure you understand the difference” as “you actually believe this”. But sure, I’m manipulating your mind.
The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn’t a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.
It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than “that’s what Catholics are like” despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.
Oh! You come with the anti-Catholicism baked in. The Brits will love you.
Fascinated by the continued adherence to the idea that overthrowing a monarch who is simultaneously the head of the national church is a movement toward theocracy.
Replacing the secular head of state with the clerical leader would be a significant step towards theocracy. The monarch of the UK might be the head of the faith but they are not seen as a member of the clergy. The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK had Fawkes succeeded, would be a theocrat.
There’s the anti-Catholic education paying off. Which countries did the pope control again? Why would the UK have been different from Spain, France or Italy? Why does being crowned by a pope or an archbishop differ? How, with apparent seriousness, are you defining the man who said this in parliament as a “secular head of state”:
Even today British monarchs are ordained as kings with holy oil. It is not a secular position.
Mind-boggling that even young children don’t see through this blatant myth-building for what it is. The same scaremongering is used even today by regressive Orangemen about papish plots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
I get that you are very, very upset that anyone dare criticize Catholicism, but that doesn’t excuse you from being ignorant of history.
I’m not ignorant of history. I’m on paper still a Catholic, since the Irish church decided to stop taking excommunication requests in 2005. Thanks for the Wikipedia article though.
Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.
Tip though, and a bit of genuine sympathy here, when the UK continues down it’s path of right-wing bigotry and you feel your family isnt safe again, you are now in a Common Travel Area with a far more welcoming “Catholic” nation. Feel free to walk across the border unchecked and I promise I won’t you rat you out for describing a basic awareness of England’s anti-Catholic biases as a “need to be a victim”.
That has nothing to do with cleverness. You asked which countries the Pope controlled and I showed you. Facts have nothing to do with cleverness. I’m not clever, I’m almost certainly far stupider than you. I just know history.
Also, I never said every Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope or even implied it, so why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you usually this dishonest?
I’m not accusing you of that (in fact I literally said that you understand its not that), but I’m guess you’re ignorant of how that is how it is taught in the British curriculum. The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context. British history is carefully curated with “that was a foreign plot and the British nation bravely survived it” vs “a foreign ally saved and restored our glorious nation”. For many, the presence of Catholicism is one of the primary deciding factors in that.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
You literally accused me of that. Now you’re gaslighting.
This is what you said: “Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.”
You have presented zero evidence to the contrary. None whatsoever. “Trust me, bro, the British are wrong” is not how history works.
You’ve been rude and insulting to people all over this thread, unprompted, so that’s pretty fucking ironic.
I genuinely don’t know how you interpret “I’m sure you understand the difference” as “you actually believe this”. But sure, I’m manipulating your mind.
The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn’t a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.
It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than “that’s what Catholics are like” despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.
As the Papacy coronated Kings they had a role to play in the legitimacy of any King. The Papacy has a history of playing favorites in this regard.
Please provide a source that substantiates the idea that people currently living in the UK see the monarch as a religious leader.
I don’t think anyone is promoting an anti-Roman Catholic ideology as much as you have an apparently biased and flawed understanding of Fawkes goals.
Please do read about the Gunpowder Plot because you clearly don’t know about it if you think this is some anti-Catholicism thing.
Also, I am talking about Moore’s point, not whether or not you believe the point is based in fact.
But your need to be a victim when you aren’t even a factor here is relevant.
Thats called a brain, my dude. They’re normally included in the package.