tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post4434887778182182410..comments2019-05-20T21:14:06.385-05:00Comments on Tudor Q and A: Question from Kymberly - Pope Pius V in Elizabeth I's reignLarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630629272030282584noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-51682097279508534292019-03-14T18:12:32.560-05:002019-03-14T18:12:32.560-05:00Continued: Therefore, we must regard Pius V’s bul...Continued:<br /><br />Therefore, we must regard Pius V’s bull Regnans In Excelsis of 1570 as a sincere effort on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to protect the immortal souls of all of the English people. In the view of the Roman Catholic Church and Pius V, Elizabeth of England and most members of her government were heretics. As such, they were in essence “tools of Satan,” to use the common language of the day. Therefore, anyone who obeyed Elizabeth and her ministers were, by extension, following the desires and commands of Satan. The Roman Catholic Church viewed the English government as “ungodly.” And anyone who followed an ungodly path placed their own immortal soul in jeopardy. Pius issued Regnans In Excelsis in an effort to safeguard those immortal souls by instructing all Catholics to ignore the orders of Elizabeth and her government (and by extension, the temptations and orders of Satan). Yes, failure to obey the Queen and her government could place the mortal lives of English subjects at risk. But in the longstanding view of the Roman Catholic Church, it was better to lose one’s mortal life than to lose one’s immortal soul. <br /><br />Potentially, anyone who died as a result of obeying the papal bull might be considered a martyr to the Roman Catholic faith. And the reward for true martrydom was a guaranteed place in heaven. <br /><br />(NB: If any of the above should seem sympathetic to the Roman Catholic cause, please know that I am an atheist and thus have no bias for or against any particular religion or denomination.)<br />PhD Historianhttp://www.somegreymatter.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-84010275041615038092019-03-14T18:10:07.893-05:002019-03-14T18:10:07.893-05:00As usual, my response is lengthy and must be split...As usual, my response is lengthy and must be split into two uploads (LOL). <br /><br />If I may, I will begin in the middle of your question and say that yes, you are looking at the issue through a lens that is much too modern. Religion played a far larger role in English/British persons’ lives in the sixteenth century than it does today. Reference to “emotional competition” and “desire[s] for greater deference” bring to mind something akin to a modern popularity contest, though I am sure that you did not mean it in precisely that way. But because we have no evidence regarding the innermost thoughts and motivations for any of the parties involved, we must instead work only with the evidence that we do have. <br />PhD Historianhttp://www.somegreymatter.comnoreply@blogger.com