Or that they were incorrectly translated, or passed down. How much faith and literal translation is one required to put in a book that deals with a subject 2000 years old ???
History is only as good as the historian who writes it. In this case men, so why wouldn't they slant it to their advantage.
Lucreatia For somebody eagerly adopting a nickname connected to another Pope , you sure react strange , This Pope has been a great courageous man. And the Ceremony in the Vatican is a very interesting , if not because of the historical connections, at least for the wonderfu clothes with all the nice textilic adornments, and the lovely music ,,,, mirjam
I don't know I 'eagerly' adopted my name of Lucretia, I adopted it partly because she was a misused woman. Misused by her male relatives who were popes.
Yes, there they were in wonderful clothes. Interesting you mention that because I looked (as I smartly walked along on my treadmill) and it passed through my mind - who invented all this rigamarole around this event? Like me, you must remember the last three popes and their demises, and there was none of this. The RC church, rich though they are, could not have paid for media time like this. This is all new and theatrical. Previous popes did not lie in plain pine box coffins in St Peters Square, so it can't be laid at the door of tradition. What I was thinking was how did it all come about, all these men in dresses and funny hats ? It made me think of Druids, wafting around Stonehenge. No different really. Dress 'em up, give 'em a title and put the fear of hell into the hoi polloi and RULE lol
That`s why we speak of ROMAN Catholics and ANGLO Catholics. It wasn`t the religion with which he was at variance, but the Pope, who, quite rightly, wouldn`t give in to him.
That, as you well know, was just a bloody convenient excuse! At the time of his marriage to Katherine, it was thought that her marriage to Henry`s very young older brother had not been consummated. Later, of course, Henry decided that it would be expedient to think otherwise.
He wrote that BEFORE he decided to get rid of Katherine.
Not just those religions - all churches still use the old pagan festivals at Easter, Christmas etc. Saints (and the Virgin Mary) are not actually "worshipped" but prayed to as intermediaries between the one who is praying and God.
I too had just such a mixture of religions - most people seem to!
Dad was a Methodist, Mum was a Baptist. grandma was a Spiritualist Medium - I went to a Convent school myself, and, in fact got halfway through my Catholic Instruction and only stopped because of illness and raising kids at the same time. After that I had more and more doubts about the "Fairytales".
My father became a Catholic late in life, rather oddly, having loathed them for his first 70 years. My oldest girl became a Catholic about ten years ago. Everyone else is C of E.
Katherine of Aragon is buried in Peterborough Cathedral, where her splendid tomb is maintained by the Spanish Society. The Queen pays for Katherine`s Standard (with the golden pomegranates) which hangs over the tomb.
Had she managed to produce a son, it still wouldn`t have altered the fact that the Tudors (Twdrs) really had no legitimate claim to the throne at all!!!
Peterborough is also the site of the tomb of Mary Queen of Scots - I say "the site" - as her son, James I/IV had her body removed and re-interred in Westminster Abbey. A copy of his letter ordering this disinterment/reinterment hangs on the pillar beside the space which held her tomb.
She had, of course, been imprisoned and beheaded at nearby Fotheringhay Castle - which James razed to the ground, although a fragment of it remains.
Pat P
Actually, as the pallbearers were carrying the poor old Pope across the square to St Peters, I had a sudden vision of a pigeon flying overhead, and "splat" right on the gorgeous robes.
Gillian
ROTFLMAOPMP - you're bad Gillian!
(snip)
It's hardly fair blaming Charles and Camilla for the absolutely hellish upbringing Charles had at the hands of his hopelessly dysfunctional and disinterested parents.
It's easy to say he should have stood up to them and married Camilla all those years ago. But I guess the Estalishment didn't think she came from the authorised aristocratic stock, while emotionally unstable Diana did. Can you imagine the pressure?
His solution (three in the marriage) was not ideal of course. And the more unstable Diana became the worse it all got.
Oh, Charles isn't blameless. He's a selfish spineless snob and Camilla's welcome to him.
Out here in the "colonies" it's all a big laugh - but as the reporter in The Independent said, you have to feel sorry for Charles, being relegated to the B-list of celebs on account of the Pope's death and funeral - and on now to the election of yet another! The wedding will be virtually unnoticed over here!
The rest, as they say, is history.
I hope Charles and Camilla "retire" to Highgrove and live off the proceeds of the Duchy of Cornwall. It's about what his parents deserve and if he's got any sense he won't succeed to the throne anyway Daisy
Couldn't give in to him - Henry's wife was his niece and he was - at the time - abducted and being "held for ransom." This is part of the reason Henry lost patience. He didn't like some guy thousands of miles away who clearly didn't have time for him telling him what to do (in a nutshell).
In our eyes. In his it was a very real problem. Sure, he didn't mind when he was young and dumb. He thought he had plenty of time. But after years of trying it began to creep into his mind... maybe God is pissed...
And stood by it afterwards for many years. He didn't start to backtrack (and then only a little) until near the end of his life.
Absolutely - which is why the "upstart" Protestants wanted to change the pagan idol-worshiping Catholic ways! They just found it difficult to change EVERYTHING. To the Puritans (many of my ancestors) using the Saints as intermediaries was akin to worship. :-)
Dad was raised a Catholic until he was 14. A nun (one of the ones who physically abused him regularly) told him that if he had a sinful thought he was going to Hell. He said, "Too late." and walked out and never returned! While he blasted the nuns for abusing him, he recommended I send my son to a Catholic school! I said, "Are you NUTS?!?" He dropped the subject! I know not all nuns are like that - I had my tonsils out in a Catholic Hospital in San Francisco. I remember watching them "float" down the halls. They were nice to me. My dad grew up in a different time - rural, depression era Kansas.
English history has proven that often times "he with the most force" is the most "legitimate." Many MANY English rulers were not the "next in the blood line". So the Tudor's claim is no better - or worse - than many others. Some pro-Catholics (or non-religious) would argue that the current ruling family shouldn't have the throne... that they only got it because the Catholics were (and still are) barred from the throne.
disinterment/reinterment
Yep, after being imprisoned for 20 years. I know opinion of her differs (was she a schemer? Was she just an ignorant pawn? Etc. etc.) but I can't help but feel sorry for anyone whose head took more than one chop to remove - and she was well aware of it... ug.
Tara
Daisy, Daisy - you are in big trouble me girl lol You must not say the adored, divine Diana was unstable lolololol
I believe she led England in its most glorious times. She understood diplomatic intricacy and evasion and wheeled and dealt with great skill. Add to that her artistic side, with her music, and you had a well rounded personality. True, she was known as the virgin Queen but I think that was just a title, not a reality lol
Winding back to the original thread, what a shame the RC church diminishes women, they have so much to offer lol I say up women, feminists, real women, whatever women, to all women, all power and good luck.
Clarice
Yes. we called it Chinese Conversation - same difference. lol
I have a friend who works from the Greek translation of the New Testament, trying to interpret the meaning, taking in variations of the times, culture, mores etc. It's interesting to see that side but also enlightening and one must draw the conclusion that what one reads today, is far from absolute truth. As she points out, her Greek version, is already a translation.
-- Brenda
And I don't believe she was - till that bloody family got hold of her - so there! She was naive, young and totally in love and thought he was too - blame immaturity but please stop staying she was unstable - I shall never believe that. They drove her to the brink - then when she found someone (after the divorce) she loved and trusted again, a conspiracy (I believe) was set upon her and she was killed. You don't have to believe it - I do. But I must say I'm getting one helluva history lesson with this discussion.
Sharon (N.B.)
underwhelmed!
Sharon, it's just too much. She grew up amongst these people. She knew what was expected of her. All the blessings and trappings of extreme wealth and in return, a blind eye. That was how it has always been and likely will be.
That this is the modern age and things have changed ? Maybe not for them! Yes, it is not nice by our standards, but ours are not theirs and surely Diana's were not much better.
snipped
I read the entire post and the replies, but I just wanted to comment on the last para. above. The problem with English kings and how they reacted to popes goes back way before Henry VIII to Henry II (he who married Katherine of Aragon, who had previously been married to the French King who had the marriage anulled because she had no children. She then went on to have 5+ to Henry though, including John, and Richard (Coeur de Leon).
There was no problem with this marriage or any religious consequences flowing from it.
Henry II's problems were with who would deal with ecclesiastical laws in England and his Archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas a Becket) who insisted that this was the province of the Pope and the King insisted that it was the king's. In the end of course Becket was murdered in his cathedral at Canterbury ("Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" and the rest as they say is history. All of England and Henry II himself remained Catholics of course, because the Reformation didn't occur for another 200 years.
So Henry VIII was certainly not the first English king to challenge papal authority in England. And don't forget, England was one of the least Roman Catholic countries in the known world at that time. The English were still running round worshipping pagan shrines and deities long after this had been swept away in most of Europe. The Scandinavian conquests of Britain (Vikings and Danes) of the pre-Christian millenium plus the less than devout Germans from Saxony and thereabouts who also invaded Britain had a bigger influence on how Christian Britain behaved as Catholics.
There's a fund of good scholarly literature on this subject - and the facts are not usually doubted. I did this topic as my Masters thesis many years ago and couldn't find much in the way of intellectual dissent on the subject.
Just thought this might help in this OT subject!!!
Daisy
OOOPS - sorry. It was not Katherine of Aragon who married Henry II (that was Henry VIII's first wife!), but Eleanor of Aquitaine. Sorry about that slip. My thoughts were a couple of centuries ahead!
Cheers
Daisy
Henry VIII wasn't the first - and his break with Rome didn't end the troubles (as we see with Edward, Mary, Elizabeth - his children). Henry's divorce issue was just the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. The Reformation may have started with Henry, but didn't get going good until Elizabeth I. There was too much turmoil during Edward and Mary's reigns.
Invaded, invited, settled... There is some thinking that as "pagan" as England was, Catholicism fit right in! That's part of the reason why Catholicism was so successful.
The facts before Medieval times are slim compared to later times. Many assumptions by historians have been questioned over the years (such as effects plague had on society, how it affected population growth, how monarchies were "created," how thrones were assumed, and so on). The basic facts haven't changed, but the interpretations are in near constant flux. I'm currently reading a great book on the Saxon and Norman kings. As for plague, a good book to read is "The Black Death and the Transformation of the West" by David Herlihy. It's more of a long essay. Very good at showing how some early assumptions may have been misinterpretations of the facts. Of course, the author makes it clear that his writings are just another interpretation and not "written in stone."
That's what I love about history - just enough blank spaces to keep it interesting!
Today I took a walk through a local cemetery with a local historian. I have been working with folks to do cemetery surveys of all the known burials in my county and the county next door (walked over 10,000 graves and counting...) There were about 2,500-3,000 marked burials in this cemetery. I'd say *at least* 1,000 more are unmarked. There are soooo many unmarked graves, or graves that are marked but unreadable. On the one hand it would be nice if every grave was marked and every stone had full and correct information on it; however, it's the "detective" work involved in figuring out who is buried where that keeps me doing this work (for free, at that!) If we had all the answers, what would be the fun in that? So this older woman walked me around to fill in a few of the blanks. Her information was based on material gathered years ago from other elderly folks. So the torch got passed on. Maybe I can fill in a few blanks myself. Maybe I'll just reinterpret some old information to get new answers. Who knows?
Tara
Tara
Well used or misused by her male relatives in courts today she would have been accused as being papartner to murders and sent to prison for many years. You know i think it is an ill choice , but it it is your`s .
I am sorry i don`t think i had a tv, at the last Pope`s passing away, I remember seeing it in the cinema in News reels that were shown before the main film. But since i tour our country`s many praying places , with tourists, I can assure you that all the clothes we saw , the coloring, etc,,,, were not new. Some churches here keep in their dressing rooms many old [ antique] clothes very similar to those we saw yesterday in the news. In the Year 2000 , when the pope and his entourage visiuted Nazereth , Beth-Lehem and all the other Holy places , they were neatly dressed in all those beautiful colors, and we got a lecture by a church historion explaining yto us the various meanings. I think that what was new , was the Immense clean and unified effect. New communications , probbaly enabled the church authorities to sew all uniforms in one place. We saw one adornment that looked more like Ikat woven stripe than like an embroidered stripe. And we could see clearly , very well focused excellent photos , which could be sent clearly all over the world. I also think that the diplomatic work of this Pope opened the way to many more Diplomats and politicians , to come and be there. In former times , not all countries, religions or state people would come. The Former Pope didn`t rule long enough to have made an impression. Former popes had less coverage. Since the Globalization, and changing economic picture, the `powers` of old money , industrial money and churches , are really fighting back to regain their power over the public in general, biting off bits of liberties gained by everyone . Europe isn`t the same Continnent it was. {see the debate whether to include the term Christain in the Common Market European treaties]. The main Body of the Catholic Church Believers is outside Europe now. many of this realities were shown in the ceremony yesterday. ps many of the Dress codes were medieval , but if you noticed how the red tunics flew in the wind , they were made of some `man made` material , not the classic silk , wool etc,,, mirjam
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required