Mr Willams
first as to John Fisher do you deny that he said the words quoted on the occaision named?
If not what other construction do you place on the words?

As to Margaret Clitheroe, she firstly refused to plead to the case brought against her, (and pressing was the general punishment throughout Europe at that time for refusal to plead- it took the Protestant government of England to aboilish it but it remained in France and Spain for much longer) Nsecondly the charge was treason.

And it undoubtably was treason to hide Roman priests in England at that time. From the Ridolfi plot onwards and particularly after the bull Regnam in Excelsis the church of Rome from Pope downward conspired to kill Queen Elizabeth, to overthrow the government and to install a foriegn military regime (as indeed was happening at the time in the Netherlands).

Every Roman priest was charged by the bull to do all things within his power to have the Queen killed.

And these plots continued after the Queen’s death - Guy Fawkes was a Catholic loyally carrying out the dictates of the Pope.

I dont like the death penalty and its a horrid thing to kill someone by pressing, but while Margaret Clitheroe may have been very sincere in what she believed its not that simple to call her a martyr.

And its a very different case from Hunne, where Hunne was murdered in his cell by Roman priests- there was no trial, and where the Bishops at the time (including John Fisher) prevented the trial of his murderers.

Now if you would like to show me a case in any British jurisdiction since the Act of Appeals, where an ecclesiatical court has claimed jurisdiction over clergy such as to prevent the clergy from being tried for a criminal offence then I will certainly reconsider my position

By the way can you answer my question raised in your other posts about echaristic practises: show me where before 900 transubstantiation was held by any leading churchman and can you give your sources for your statements on this thread.

Sources Wikiepedia entry for Margaret Clitheroe and Ridolfi plot, G R Elton Tudor England, A G Dickens the English Reformation.

Firstly , Mr kirsop where are your original sources for both St John Fishers remarks and the Hunne case...do they come from apostate Catholic John Foxe?

If a future Government of Australia ( I presume that is where you live) outlawed Christian churches, and set up a state Australian Church, denying key Christian doctrines, would you not be a traitor? My first loyalty is to God, although, I am proud to be a Welshman and British.

Read the lives of our glorious Catholic martyrs during this period, and you will all see that they died praying for the Queen but denying her right to be supreme Governor of the Church.

No Catholic is bound by the private opinion of the Pope as distinct from his officail actions. of binding and loosing. Just like Paiul who withstood Peter to the face , and other loyal Catholcs who have done so in history.

Guy Fawkes did not have the sanction of the Pope.

The Ridolphi plot, the Babbington plot etc were all the rash actions of Catholics desperate under a most vile persecution.

St Margaret Cllitheroe was pregnant...but i concede that both sides used methods which we would deplore today.

As for transubstantiation...formally defined in 1215...to counteract heretical divirgence from the previous consensus that the eucharistic becomes the body of our Lord ....can you show me before 325 where the Trinity was formally defined..However you do not believe that was an invention..Like JW’s, the Christadephians and the Mormons etc.

Can you show me a Christian before John Calvin who teaches that John 3 :5 is not referring to bapism as the means to be born again.

Do you believe what the Bishops meant when they inserted the clause… I belive in one baptism for the remission of sins..in the Nicene creed......which you recite at every Anglican commnion service.

as to the Hunne affair &c;the source cited in Dickens is the Catholic Chapuyes the Imperial ambassador in his reports.

As to sources please give me yours. in short answer the question.

As to transubstantiation the doctrine was defined as you say in 1215, the point you make about the Ecumenical Councils is quite right. Cranmer and others appealed back to the early church, the church of the Fathers, the church before the Church of Rome made its novel additions to the faith. The Orthodox do not hold to transubstantiation, Cranmers specific appeal was to Ratramus of 10th Century.(see my earlier posts)

What persecution do you allege before the Ridolfi plots? And what source do you have. And where is your allegation for the comments about blessing the Queen, its really rahter strange to be harbouring someone one of whose roles is to kill the queen and to bless her.

AS to baptism, I dont know I am no theologian. But as I see it its like a cheque, I give you a cheque for $1,000 its of no use to you unless you appropriate it and use it. So that God gives to me the means of grace but if I dont use them correctly then they are useless, no worse then useless for St Paul tells us that if we abuse the sacraments we do so to our damanation

Source for the Bull Regnans in Excelsis http://www.lclark.edu/~campion/hist221/piusv.htm
The latter bull requiring English Catholics to join the Spanish invasion (the Amarda) isnt on line in full but a sample can be found

“..Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England, a slave of wickedness, lending thereunto a helping hand, with whom, as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all men have found a refuge. The very woman having seized on the kingdom, and monstrously usurping the supreme place of the Head of the Church in all England, and the chief authority and jurisdiction thereof, has again brought back the said kingdom into miserable destruction, which was then newly reduced to the Catholic faith and good fruits.... We do out of the fullness of our Apostolic power declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being a heretic, and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid, to have incurred sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And moreover we declare her to be deprived of her pretended title to the Kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever… And we do command and interdict all and every, the nobleman, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her or her admonitions, mandates, and laws; and those who shall do the contrary we do strike with the sentence of anathema.”

Dear Robert and Peter

This had the potential to be an interesting discussion thread.  An intelligent debate about the beginnings of the Anglican Church, and in particular the roles of Thomas Cranmer and Henry VIII could have been very worthwhile.  Instead it seems to have descended quickly into a slinging (not slanging) match, i.e., each of you slings baskets full of ‘facts’ in an apparent attempt to overcome the ‘facts’ that the other has slung.  It has thus far proved to be anything but useful.  You would help each other more, not to mention the other readers of the thread, if you worked through one or two issues at a time more carefully (and perhaps a little more generously).  As for me, I think I’ll unsubsribe from this one unless it improves pretty soon!
Regards to you both,

Bob

I rather agree with Bob....

Have you seen the original sources for Chapuyes ,in what volume?

However the Greek Orthodoxx do believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood...but they have not had a Council to define it. However the Greek Orthodox Synod of Bethlehem in 1672, allowed for transubstantiation and they told Anglicans who tried to join them that they belived in a corporeal real presence.Ratramus was tne first to challenge the doctrine and that is why in 1215 the Church pronounced and defined.

In fact at the Council of Florence in the 15th century the greek Orthodox who accepted Papal authority accepted the docctrine.

You don’t need to be at heologian to find out that fact..not one Christian figure prior to Luther teaches that baptism is non-regenerative.

The persecutipn began in 1559, when the Act of Uniformity and Supremacy were passed. The former imposed fines and then imprisonment,for non Church attendance and the latter demanded that all public office holders took an oath acknowledging te Queen , the supreme Governor of the Church.