Poly, Romany, Philo & Foxy,

Responding to Romany's comments:

The Reformed Church of England, heavy-handedness complementing Defender of the Anglican Faith:

"The Act of Supremacy, originally passed under Henry VIII in 1534, made the monarch the supreme head of the Church of England, and gave him authority to reform and redress all errors, heresies, and abuses." During the reign of Edward VI, Parliament enacted the Articles of Faith, which set forth the doctrinal tenets of the Church, and the Book of Common Prayer, which prescribed the liturgy for religious worship. The Acts of Uniformity required all ministers to conform to these requirements, making the Church of England the sole institution for lawful public worship. Its purpose, as stated in the preamble to the 1662 version, was to effect 'an universal agreement in the public worship of Almighty God. The Act Against Papists and Conventicles Act prohibited unlicensed religious meetings; various penal acts punished dissenters for engaging in prohibited religious worship.

Catholics and Puritans were particular targets, because both appeared to threaten the political legitimacy of the state. The flavor of this persecution is indicated by the titles of the laws: 'An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which may grow by Popish Recusants,' (41) or An Act to retain the Queen's majesties subjects in their due obedience." Cite: Mcconnell & law 2003.

Romany, Jane became hier via Frances Grey, as the Elizabeth as a barstard and the Steward or Douglas lineages could have led to Scottish Kings. Which did happend anyhow with James I/VI.

Cont..

So, to lend balance:

"The Greek-Roman world was not...converted to a new religion, but compelled to embrace it." The Emperor Theodosian [one nasty dude] issued a series of decrees or rescripts in the years 341, 345, 356, 381, 383, 386 and 391 CE. The effect of these orders was to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." Mcconnell & Law 2003.

The church rivals in history seem much-of-a-muchness as regard the excise of power and the heinous deeds to remove opposition. Even under quasi-republic of Cromwell, General Monk, destroyed and persecuted Catholics.

Christianity, essentially, as we would recognise it, today, was established at the Council of Ephasus 431, after Nicaea & the Councils/Cannons of Constantinople.

The early Romans were much more tolerant.

Oly,

I was recently reading about first century Jews and the facts Andrew raised. When I read your original question I was surprised that it might be an issue for contemporary Jews. Things must have changed greatly. Without adopting Runner's entire first post I would also have thought it was no big deal and that it would be a non issue for all but Jehovah's Witnesses. Even then they aren't Catholic so it is probably of no relevance to them either what a Pope might direct.

Andrew and Philo in their first posts covered almost everything else I was bursting to say when I read your first one. I'd just add that I have read that when the Old Testament was first written in Hebrew they substituted Lord for most of the YHWHs anyway. Very few were left in the King James and I think many modern translations skip them either entirely or almost entirely.

"The priests are celebate not because of reason of scripture, rather the Church did/does not want familial dynasties to evolve in ranks over time, taking control of matters like Royal Houses and, it didn't want to pay to support wives"

In the thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2000&page=1 I explained why Catholic priests are celibate and how it came about. You were there at the beginning. It is a shame you missed that. Please take a look at that rather than perpetuate such silly rumours. It makes no sense because celebacy replaced sexual continence and with sexual continence it is pretty difficult to have familial dynasties. On the other hand if there was so much as a hint that a familial dynasty was possible it would indicate that priests were breaking the sexual continence in marriage rule and celibacy would be a logical disciplinary approach to ensure that continence was observed without any reason to consider the issue further.

Oliver: -
"Romany, Jane became hier via Frances Grey..." Yes, I'm fairly well versed in the history of the period, which is why I posed my comment: after all, Elizabeth could be considered a bastard only if one did not believe in divorce, so your post positing Jane as the "rightful" Queen seemed a little anachronistic?

I was also, as stated, a little puzzled by your statement to the effect that Elizabeth II et.al claiming the title Defender of the Faith was like allowing the descendants of Olympic Medalists to claim title as Gold Medalists also? By your post above, you seem quite to accept actions by taken by royals under the auspices of this title, so I am still wondering why, or at what period, you feel the title came to be regarded as per your Olympic medal similie?

I don't want to derail the thread ..but your response intrigued me even further!

"you seem quite to accept actions by taken by royals under the auspices of this title" - Romany

Not "accept", on contrary; too many are willing to accept. I recognise that it has been accepted. I believe the title invalid, after Henry VIII.

What is the legimacy of Elizabeth II, to assume title given by a Pope exclusively to one catholic King? If first improper assumption to the title of "Defender of the Faith" by an English monarch is unfoundered; my view; it follows, therefore, all subsequent assumptions to the titles are similarly muddied.

Henry VIII was given award or prize, if you like. Others just adopted it as their own. Need check, but think it was because the Protestant bishops, as lords in The Parliament, whom allowed the passage of an Act?

As you point-out Protestantism occurred after an Interregnum. On one side of the chronologic interstitium, we have a Pope awarding a man a title for his catholic scholarship. (As I said, like the Templeton Prize.) On the other, we have Protestants, assuming the catholic title, as their own, as right of progressive passage of the title. It is distanced in purpose, time and faith. No disrespect intended, however, QE II should dump it.

I need have a look at the Douglas lineage, before I can comment on the succession matter. My understanding apart from the barstard issue, the English wanted to rule Scotland, rather than be ruled by a Scottish King. It happened anyway.

Is correct for the US to claim it was a country in 1776, when would have been recognised as acountry, until 1783. Is it an anachronism to say, that the American colonies were not the United States in 1777? Say, if you asked someone in Spain in 1777? To that Spanard, was it the US War of Independence or the Revolutionary War fought against British colonial power? If Palestine defeated Israel in 2050, would correct to say in 2100, Israel didn't exist in 2008. When Henry VIII received the title, the rules for the succession of barstards did not apply.

Regards,

O

Dear Foxy,

I will re-read the direction and provide you and our friends more detail. Might be a day or so, as I am marking assignments. If it is not generally out-there, it might be improper to cut and paste, even if it wasn't PDF. There are scripture cites throughout one of the two letters. The under letter is from the Vatican.

Kind regards,

Oly.