Skip to comments.Catholic saint named among top 10 'worst Britons' by BBC magazine
Posted on 01/02/2006 12:46:30 AM PST by presidio9Edited on 01/02/2006 12:58:14 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
What right did they have to throw Christ's Church out of Britain? Do the rights of the State supersede those of the Church?
Look at the name. "Saint" means simply a Holy person, someone who is near to God. Since God is everywhere, then the people "near" HIM are also everywhere.
"Eureka! I've got it! I'll pick on a Catholic...Catholic bashing is so in this year!"
"Hmmm...maybe I should get the grey touched up....a tan...yes, that's it, I'll get a tan!"
Havoc implies that the English Reformation was a popular uprising. If history makes anything clear, it was that it was a revolution from the top. The king and his councilors made the choice and then imposed their will on the people at large. The closest thing to a populare uprsing was the Pilgrimage of Grace, which was squelched because of the people's loyalty to the House of Tudor. They didn't know that the king was behind the dirty work of his ministers.
Tao, your confusion probably due to reading Aramaic boustrophodontically. People in Heaven doan be needin' no Bibles. T'other way round.
I was surprised about his omission as well. I think they picked one person per century. I wonder who outdid him in his century?
MeekMom, would you PLEASE preface that remark with "According to my beliefs...."? I am a Catholic and I cannot tell you how much I resent your implication that Catholics cannot be Saints (honey, we invented that game!) and that Catholics are not Christians (Hmmmm....I think we invented THAT game also!)
Please note: I did not ask you what brand of religion you practice, and I would never attempt to tell you how to practice it, or what to believe, or even if you are Christian. Your obvious disdain for Catholicism adds nothing to the discussion at hand.
That is up for each state to decide.
<< ... 'fascissocialistic offshore satellite state' (do you have that phrase permenently on your clipboard ready for pasting by the way?) >>
Nope. It's not a phrase.
It's some islands of little consequence in the grander scheme of things.
You'll find them off the coast of the Eurabian Neo-Soviet.
Passed through there just the other day, actually, [LHR] on the way from and to a few actually important places, so can vouch it's still there.
Be nice to believe it was just a phrase though.
For the relief from reality it must provide.
In fact, I must try that some time.
Probably as I slip into dementia and just before the nice lady comes out on the verandah to change me diaper.
'Spect it'll make me come over all homesick like for Rick Stein's fish and chip shop at Padstein, though.
Happy New Year - B A
I'm curious where your definition of "Saint" came from. Is it the capital "S" that makes the difference? Because if you're speaking Biblically, a saint is someone who is saved. The word saint is used 82 times in the Bible and not once in the way you define it.
Many of the books of the New Testament are written to the saints who are alive and well. (Or at least they were at the time of the writing...)
I reckon I had better lie doggo after this one.
I don't really think she's particularly malign, I just want to see some pictures...
No, I meant boustrohodontically, because it is obvious you are going back and forth and chewing this one over too much.
You'll have to forgive me. My first post was an attempt at humor. I'm tired of people changing the Bible and even contradicting the Bible and yet proclaiming authority. I guess my humor needs work...
Well. the saints described in Revelations were definitely very dead. There are holy people who are still on earth;there are those who have died.
BBC is evil. I nominate everyone who works there as the worst human beings on the planet.
Let's see...uh...no Kim Philby, Cromwell, Henry VIII, Aleister Crowley, or Bertrand Russell on that list? What about Tim Curry's performance in The Rocky Horror Picture Show? That should have received some mention. They must be fluoridating the water at the universities again.
As a Catholic, I believe in the Communion of Saints. We're all in on it. It is a very comforting belief.
Here's some of the history and theology behind it:
He was knighted. In the autobiography of the mathematical physicist Freeman Dyson, he talks about how he did statistical work for Bomber Command during WWII. It was discovered that a lot of British airmen were losing their lives because the escape hatch from their planes was not quite large enough to accomodate a man who was wearing a parachute. Dyson and others pointed out that enlarging the opening by only two inches would solve this problem, but their suggestion was turned down.
The two of you are making the same mistake. If Becket makes the list for an idea, then certainly Chamberlain deserves notice for a terrible miscalculation. I challenge you to come up with a more worthy 20th century figure. And you have not yet done so.
Oh. You're in big trouble then.
Belief in the "communion of saints" is part of the Apostle's Creed. We used to recite this frequently in Episcopal Church services. One reason I became an atheist is that I felt people were just reciting these things wihout knowing what they meant.
Mom, I admire your tenacity but with these folks you'd probably get more satisfaction just telling them that eventually all true Christian faiths are destined to return to the Roman Pontif or vanish altogether. That really ought to get their blood pressure up.
Last I checked, Becket was not mentioned in the Bible either, so such distinctions are irrelevant. The article refers to him as a "Saint," if not a "saint." For the purposes of this discussion he is one.
Yes, many Christian churches believe in the Communion of Saints. I like the idea, because in theory, it says we are still linked with all those we love who have gone on before us (the Faithful in Heaven and the Souls in Purgatory). We are the Church Militant here on earth, still struggling through our daily battles to get to be with the ones we love in Heaven. The souls in Purgatory are the ones who died before atoning for their sins here on earth. I like the idea of getting a second chance. We on Earth can pray for those souls until they get released into Heaven. When they get there, they, in turn, pray for us here on earth. It's an eternal Circle where we are all connected (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, etc.) in constant prayer for one another. A Mutual Aid society. Ecumenism at its best.
It works for me!
Correction - Harris was made a baronet, not a knight. This still entitled him to be called "Sir". IIRC, in his book, Dyson refers to him being knighted without naming names.
They contested Catholic claim to being "Christ's Church". The Catholics were largely Johnny come latelys. The Culdees had been in Britain since the days of the Keltoi (Celts) and survived well into the 1500s if memory serves. They withstood the teaching of Catholics as did the many in the Scottish moutnains who kept the Celtic Christian fait seperately yet identically. From their point of view, Rome flooded Britain with priests and Bishops; but, as history tells it, the Scotts were 400 years behind Europe technologically but well ahead of it for church corruption by the 1600s - owing to Catholicism.
By the time of the reformation, the reformers were reinforcing the culdees. This is why the reform in england was from the crown down and in Scotland was from the people up. The people believed with the Culdees. Ultimately Rome was evicted. Wishart's prophecy of the death of the Cardinal that had him burnt at the stake might as well have been a prophecy against the Roman church itself. His prophecy was fulfilled and the men that killed the cardinal lived in his home for 2 years. Later, when the people of Britain throw Roman Catholicism out, their churches were confiscated, purified and lived in by Christ's church instead.. that's their history.
As for what right, probably the same right as was possessed by the monarch that threw the celtic pagans out. The right invested in heads of state by God. Scripturally, it is God who seats and unseats leaders, not Rome. That would be the teaching of Knox and all before him back to the Culdees because that is what the scripture says. Rome didn't respect that in their eyes anymore than they respected the biblical pronouncement to leave and dust your feet when rejected. A group that doesn't respect what it claims are it's own tenets won't respect anything. They knew that too.
The issues aren't complex and the British histories are pretty clear on the matters. I have some 40 hours of historical background that I've listened to several times.
The people wanted rid of Roman 'blasphemy' and the crown relented to save it's own neck from the crowds on the one hand and to stop roman meddling in the affairs of British politics on the other.
I've tried to answer from my understanding and in brief; but, it is not a subject that is dealt easily with in brief because so much transpired. The british histories and the histories recorded by the churches of Britain acquit the matters pretty well. But, I imagine you know many of the events colored through the protest of Rome and in light of Rome's bias. You seem to think Rome had some right in Britain. Britain begged to differ. Apparently they were right.
Isn't that ironic? Saint Thomas Beckett is named one of the worst Britons for creating unnecessary "division" on the island, but King Henry the VIII, who split from the Holy Catholic Church so he could get divorced, form an official state Church of England and murder those opposed to it would not be mentioned?
Which is very funny "history" in view of the fact that Catholicism survived in the Scottish Highlands long after it had been forcibly exterminated in the rest of Great Britain. Or do you think those lairds -- Protestant and Catholic -- who fought for Bonnie Prince Charlie in 1745 didn't know what they were doing?
You read Foxe's Book of Martyrs and think you've studied history, so why am I surprised ...
That will teach them!
>>That really ought to get their blood pressure up<<
Oooo, that would do it!
The point is, don't take these folks seriously mom. They're not really looking for the Truth anyway.
Jeffreys was a sadist. Lord Macaulay's description of the fall of Jeffreys is excellent.
I know you are exactly right.
It's sad that the Catholics are such fair game.
Many Saints are still dead. Many saints live among us, some to be ultimately named Saints by various and varying sanctifying bodies after their demise.
The Culdees is it, then? Father Knox is doing 500 RPM in his grave under the cold peat.
by telling the truth? I don't think so.
But thanks for your candid opinion.
<< The two of you are making the same mistake. If Becket makes the list for an idea, then certainly Chamberlain deserves notice for a terrible miscalculation. I challenge you to come up with a more worthy 20th century figure. And you have not yet done so. >>
Some might consider it to have been a mistake to have included the Good Bishop, I certainly do - and have no desre to repeat the error.
And some - and count me in - might also believe Clement Atlee, whom I did suggest a more worthy Twentieth Century figure than Mr Chamberlain, to be that century's most egregious villain.
We Americans, Winston Churchill counted as only half among US, fairly quickly tidied up after Mr Chaimberlain's too close representation of his effectively effete electorate.
The Atlee Gang, on the other hand, absolutely put the skids under once-great Britain's last slender grip on greatness and set it into the spiral into which it ever more rapidly accelerates and from which it will never recover.
Since Atlee no British politician, the much-vaunted Snatcher "Hong-Kong" Thatcher among them and with only the momentary exception of the Honorable John Enoch Powell, has dared to to attempt to stem the wilful criminal hemmorhaging and bloodletting of the lives' energies and blood and treasure of Britain's few remaining innovative, creative, industrious and productive subjects and the squandering of their confiscated wealth upon the every bloody rubbish product and self-serving vote-buying "social service" of the collective "minds" of those who lust after unearned power and of those [Permanent, domestic and Euro-peon Neo-Soviet "'civil' 'servants'"] who've actually achieved such power.
So my money, London to a brick, stays on Atlee.
Blessings - Brian
George Galloway should be listed as the worst Briton of the 21st century.
<< by telling the truth? I don't think so.
But thanks for your candid opinion. >>
I'll bet you are most welcome to his opinion.
After all if one sheep is lost a ninety nine are safe, a presiio9 will always go after the lost bigot ... um sheep.
And I'll also bet that Jesus, the Christ and you would pass each other in the street without a flicker of recogition passing between the pair of you.
As is so often the case when "the Jesus" of "The 'Christians'" encounters Jesus, the Christ.
Blessings - Brian
Did you have a point of any measurable value, or did you feel that shaping what I said was your only option? Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Brits. It's their history. If you can't suck it up after they kicked you out, after all these centuries, that's your problem.
I was asked a question that seemed to beg an opinion. I attempted to summarize long events into an understandable digest that takes rather longer to get a good grip on - not for complexity; but, for volume. But, I'm sure that Rome exterminating folks they didn't want to hear from "in the name of Christ" played a huge role in getting Catholicism extricated from the Britains.. which seems to be your main questions. Knox didn't shy from the sword. Perhaps he should have; but, he fed you like for like which you find injurious.
Oliver Cromwell set the seeds for constitutional democracy, introduced the principles of executive accountability and restored the teeth of the legislature.
He opposed the execution of Charles I and was not present at either Drogheda or Wexford, although Ireland was undoubtedly the biggest stain on the reputation of man who undoubtedly deserves to be counted as one of the greatest Britons of the past millennium.