FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Interview with Sir Charles Coulombe
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Good Interview and right on the mark, the American people are as rotten as the politicians that they have.
thank you for that, i'd never heard of this gentleman, v. interesting.
why should the so called catholic loyalists have sided with the protestant hanoverian George III at independence?
thats the flaw in his arguement  - he doesn't once refer to a catholic monarchy.britain hasn't had a catholic monarch since mary tudor.
george wasn't a bad old stick in his way but he was incurably protestant.
if US is based on a revolution he says then why isn't it like soviet russia, mao's china., french revo.
because he says its because it suits the american people, it fits them like a glove  - then they must logically be revolutionary people.
its been said that this is true becuase the prots that went to america in 16th century were the most extreme ones in england who couldn't even agree with their own fellow prots - presbyterians, independents, ranters, adventists etc and fanatical anti catholics.
an interesting talk - he knowsa lot.
(05-26-2011, 02:36 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Good Interview and right on the mark, the American people are as rotten as the politicians that they have.

Thank you for calling me rotten.
Re:

(05-26-2011, 02:36 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Good Interview and right on the mark, the American people are as rotten as the politicians that they have.

I would highly recommend this rich, fascinating insightful interview too.

Re
(05-26-2011, 04:30 PM)Bminor Mass Wrote: [ -> ]thank you for that, i'd never heard of this gentleman, v. interesting.
why should the so called catholic loyalists have sided with the protestant hanoverian George III at independence?
thats the flaw in his arguement  - he doesn't once refer to a catholic monarchy.britain hasn't had a catholic monarch since mary tudor.
george wasn't a bad old stick in his way but he was incurably protestant.
if US is based on a revolution he says then why isn't it like soviet russia, mao's china., french revo.
because he says its because it suits the american people, it fits them like a glove  - then they must logically be revolutionary people.
its been said that this is true becuase the prots that went to america in 16th century were the most extreme ones in england who couldn't even agree with their own fellow prots - presbyterians, independents, ranters, adventists etc and fanatical anti catholics.
an interesting talk - he knowsa lot.

He does indeed know a lot. BMinor Mass - You say you have not heard of the good Papal Knight,

May I take this opportunity to say he was a wonderful 500 page book about all of this called Puritan's Empire.

You can find it an Amazon, of course - but I will also say I posted a long, extensive review of the book - with lots of quotes - at my wife's and my
blog/website here:

http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2010/01/...-coulombe/

The book and Mr Coulombe's writing in general have been a great inspiration for me, as well as consolation ...



(05-26-2011, 04:30 PM)Bminor Mass Wrote: [ -> ]thank you for that, i'd never heard of this gentleman, v. interesting.
why should the so called catholic loyalists have sided with the protestant hanoverian George III at independence?
thats the flaw in his arguement  - he doesn't once refer to a catholic monarchy.britain hasn't had a catholic monarch since mary tudor.
george wasn't a bad old stick in his way but he was incurably protestant.
if US is based on a revolution he says then why isn't it like soviet russia, mao's china., french revo.
because he says its because it suits the american people, it fits them like a glove  - then they must logically be revolutionary people.
its been said that this is true becuase the prots that went to america in 16th century were the most extreme ones in england who couldn't even agree with their own fellow prots - presbyterians, independents, ranters, adventists etc and fanatical anti catholics.
an interesting talk - he knowsa lot.

A few points. First of all, Britain's last Catholic monarch was HM James II&VII who became King 127 years after Mary died.

Second, while the Catholic Church was illegal in 11 of the 13 rebellious colonies, King George had protected the Faith in Canada. In fact one of the 'crimes' for which he is indicted in the Declaration of Independence was 
US Declaration of Independence Wrote:For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

This referred to the Quebec Act, 1774, which provided
Wikipedia Wrote:Religion: The Act allowed public office holders to practice the Roman Catholic faith, by replacing the oath sworn by officials from one to Elizabeth I and her heirs with one to George III that had no reference to the Protestant faith. This enabled, for the first time, French Canadians to legally participate in the affairs of the provincial government without formally renouncing their faith. It also reestablished the collection of tithes, which had been stopped under the previous administrative rules, and it allowed Jesuit priests to return to the province.

That is he was protecting the Faith in Canada.

It was for this reason that when Dr Franklin and Charles Carroll of Carrollton were sent to Canada to convince the French Catholics here to join the rebellion that they were resisted by the Bishops and clergy and were escorted out of the country at bayonet point.

It was also King George who assented to the Papists Act, 1778 which was the first repeal of some of the Penal Laws against Catholics, leading to the 'no popery' Gordon Riots in 1780.

Basically, the Catholic Loyalists in the rebellious colonies as well as the French Catholics in Quebec felt that they would be better off under King George.
thanks Jovan
englands last catholic monarch was mary tudor  - james II was a deposed monarch and the succession to William re- legitimized the protestant succession - it was as though legally james had never existed, james's successors claimed the throne as the old and young pretenders but thats what the proestant law said they were pretenders to the crown.
elizabeth I was a bastard, a heretic, and a murdereress. she executed thousands of catholics and mary queen of scots. The pope released english catholics of all allegiance to her ( which by the way still holds )  - any oath to her is utterly worthless and a grave sin.
how can you swear an oath to George III with no reference to the protestant faith is beyond me.
as i say as a person george was not a bad man in his way and no doubt he tried to remove some of the disabilities. Frankly this only goes to show how ridiculous absurd and contradictory the protestant " settlement " was. something so muddled and wrong headed could never have survived the revolution that exploded in the colonies.

(05-26-2011, 04:52 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-26-2011, 04:30 PM)Bminor Mass Wrote: [ -> ]thank you for that, i'd never heard of this gentleman, v. interesting.
why should the so called catholic loyalists have sided with the protestant hanoverian George III at independence?
thats the flaw in his arguement  - he doesn't once refer to a catholic monarchy.britain hasn't had a catholic monarch since mary tudor.
george wasn't a bad old stick in his way but he was incurably protestant.
if US is based on a revolution he says then why isn't it like soviet russia, mao's china., french revo.
because he says its because it suits the american people, it fits them like a glove  - then they must logically be revolutionary people.
its been said that this is true becuase the prots that went to america in 16th century were the most extreme ones in england who couldn't even agree with their own fellow prots - presbyterians, independents, ranters, adventists etc and fanatical anti catholics.
an interesting talk - he knowsa lot.

A few points. First of all, Britain's last Catholic monarch was HM James II&VII who became King 127 years after Mary died.

Second, while the Catholic Church was illegal in 11 of the 13 rebellious colonies, King George had protected the Faith in Canada. In fact one of the 'crimes' for which he is indicted in the Declaration of Independence was 
US Declaration of Independence Wrote:For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

This referred to the Quebec Act, 1774, which provided
Wikipedia Wrote:Religion: The Act allowed public office holders to practice the Roman Catholic faith, by replacing the oath sworn by officials from one to Elizabeth I and her heirs with one to George III that had no reference to the Protestant faith. This enabled, for the first time, French Canadians to legally participate in the affairs of the provincial government without formally renouncing their faith. It also reestablished the collection of tithes, which had been stopped under the previous administrative rules, and it allowed Jesuit priests to return to the province.

That is he was protecting the Faith in Canada.

It was for this reason that when Dr Franklin and Charles Carroll of Carrollton were sent to Canada to convince the French Catholics here to join the rebellion that they were resisted by the Bishops and clergy and were escorted out of the country at bayonet point.

It was also King George who assented to the Papists Act, 1778 which was the first repeal of some of the Penal Laws against Catholics, leading to the 'no popery' Gordon Riots in 1780.

Basically, the Catholic Loyalists in the rebellious colonies as well as the French Catholics in Quebec felt that they would be better off under King George.

And the reference to the papacy also:  He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:



(05-26-2011, 05:19 PM)Bminor Mass Wrote: [ -> ]thanks Jovan
englands last catholic monarch was mary tudor  - james II was a deposed monarch

James converted to the Faith in 1668 or 1669 and went public with his conversion in 1673. With the passing of the Test Act in that year, he relinquished his post of Lord High Admiral rather than commit the sin of apostasy. He became King in 1685 and reigned until over thrown by Dutch William the Usurper. He was Britain's last Catholic monarch.
(05-26-2011, 05:19 PM)Bminor Mass Wrote: [ -> ]how can you swear an oath to George III with no reference to the protestant faith is beyond me.

Why should there be any reference to any faith in an oath of allegiance? In Canada, the oath (which I have taken) reads as follows:


Oaths of Allegiance Act - R.S.C., 1985, c. O-1 (Section 2) Wrote:I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

Pages: 1 2 3 4