![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
==excommunicated Releasing only her Roman Catholic subjects? The pope claims to be the pastor of all Christians. Should it not therefore say "releasing her Christian subjects"? Michael Hardy 23:06, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, it was only her Roman Catholic subjects that the pope was addressing, and only they that might have been expected to take any heed. Djnjwd 23:10, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The same Bull also excommunicated all of Her protestant followers. He could hardly be addressing those. Roberdin 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"The bull opened the way for any Roman Catholic to attempt an assassination..." I'm a little concerned that this suggests that the Pope was issuing a sort of "fatwa" against her, i.e. he wanted her assassinated. Mets 03:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused... the English translation here ends with Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 27 April 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate. A bit garbled, but I don't have the Latin source. My question is, how does the 25 February date of this Wikipedia article come about? The feast of the Incarnation, also known as the feast of the Annunciation, is March 25, nine months before December 25 -- at least nowadays. — OtherDave 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Was it ever retracted? 70.88.213.74 ( talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any citation for a link between Regnans in Excelsis (1570) and the anti-catholic Act 27 Eliz. cap. ii. of 1585, passed at a time of war with Spain? At the risk of falling unwarily into WP:IDONTKNOWIT, I'm inclined to revert this good faith edit. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 12:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no doubt that there were consequences in Ireland—and I have just added a specific example—but I'm not sure we can sustain "led to a religious-political division that persisted for centuries", at least with the current references or without deploying some synthesis, which isn't allowed. Views from other contributors? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 11:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Bull also declared her deposed: this seems an important point. Article 4: "And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown." METRANGOLO1 ( talk) 08:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I've essentially reverted a Sep_2019 edit, to § Suspension from 1580–84, transferring the relevant sentence to here instead (see following) - because as phrased it reads more as a Talk-page contribution than as article copy.
I also see it as doubtful anyway. We seem to be living in a reference-free world, in this part of Wkipedia, so it would be wrong to criticise it as original research. But the thinking behind it seems unsound.
As I read it, the sentence is saying tht suspending the earlier bull was a peaceful initiative, hardly consistent with sending an invasion force. And the invasion is well-attested: so the "suspension" can't have happened. I don't see that. We don't seem to have the 1580 papal encyclical or whatever which is described as suspending the 1570 bull - I've certainly had no luck on the internet - but on face of it, the dual initiative, suspension + the military expedition, is consistent: a straightforward 'combined-arms' attack, using deception + force. (My term "combined arms" is anachronistic, I think; but the idea isn't.)
That seems a much more straightforward reading of the evidence than the proposal tht the two initiatives are contradictory and there must be some flaw in that evidence.
So I don't agree with that contributor . . dno what other ppl think? But my reason for moving the sentence here is tht, whatever view u may hold, it still reads out-of-place as article text.
-- SquisherDa ( talk) 21:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
==excommunicated Releasing only her Roman Catholic subjects? The pope claims to be the pastor of all Christians. Should it not therefore say "releasing her Christian subjects"? Michael Hardy 23:06, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, it was only her Roman Catholic subjects that the pope was addressing, and only they that might have been expected to take any heed. Djnjwd 23:10, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The same Bull also excommunicated all of Her protestant followers. He could hardly be addressing those. Roberdin 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"The bull opened the way for any Roman Catholic to attempt an assassination..." I'm a little concerned that this suggests that the Pope was issuing a sort of "fatwa" against her, i.e. he wanted her assassinated. Mets 03:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused... the English translation here ends with Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 27 April 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate. A bit garbled, but I don't have the Latin source. My question is, how does the 25 February date of this Wikipedia article come about? The feast of the Incarnation, also known as the feast of the Annunciation, is March 25, nine months before December 25 -- at least nowadays. — OtherDave 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Was it ever retracted? 70.88.213.74 ( talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any citation for a link between Regnans in Excelsis (1570) and the anti-catholic Act 27 Eliz. cap. ii. of 1585, passed at a time of war with Spain? At the risk of falling unwarily into WP:IDONTKNOWIT, I'm inclined to revert this good faith edit. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 12:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no doubt that there were consequences in Ireland—and I have just added a specific example—but I'm not sure we can sustain "led to a religious-political division that persisted for centuries", at least with the current references or without deploying some synthesis, which isn't allowed. Views from other contributors? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 11:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Bull also declared her deposed: this seems an important point. Article 4: "And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown." METRANGOLO1 ( talk) 08:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I've essentially reverted a Sep_2019 edit, to § Suspension from 1580–84, transferring the relevant sentence to here instead (see following) - because as phrased it reads more as a Talk-page contribution than as article copy.
I also see it as doubtful anyway. We seem to be living in a reference-free world, in this part of Wkipedia, so it would be wrong to criticise it as original research. But the thinking behind it seems unsound.
As I read it, the sentence is saying tht suspending the earlier bull was a peaceful initiative, hardly consistent with sending an invasion force. And the invasion is well-attested: so the "suspension" can't have happened. I don't see that. We don't seem to have the 1580 papal encyclical or whatever which is described as suspending the 1570 bull - I've certainly had no luck on the internet - but on face of it, the dual initiative, suspension + the military expedition, is consistent: a straightforward 'combined-arms' attack, using deception + force. (My term "combined arms" is anachronistic, I think; but the idea isn't.)
That seems a much more straightforward reading of the evidence than the proposal tht the two initiatives are contradictory and there must be some flaw in that evidence.
So I don't agree with that contributor . . dno what other ppl think? But my reason for moving the sentence here is tht, whatever view u may hold, it still reads out-of-place as article text.
-- SquisherDa ( talk) 21:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)