Talk:Regnans in Excelsis

[Untitled]

==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)

Didn't it? In any case, it was really rather idiotic, since all it did was further ultra-politicize and embitter the already-tangled religious issues in England, by demanding in effect that all English Catholics must become traitors. AnonMoos 12:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Assassination's not in the text; I removed it. --Wetman 13:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Date?

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)

In this context, "of the Incarnation" means after the birth of Christ, or A.D. AnonMoos 13:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonMoos: thanks for the note. You reminded me of the practice of dating the new year from March 25th (Annunciation style), and so I see the English translation as a variation of the "year of our lord 1570" format. I'm still puzzled why the "did you know" appeared on Feb 25 if the bull was released on April 27, but I supposed that's when the final draft was saved on the Vatican's server so it could be printed out for the Pope's signature... —OtherDave 15:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Still In Force?

Was it ever retracted? 70.88.213.74 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It mostly became irrelevant after Elizabeth died in 1603, and her successor (James the VI and I) signed a peace treaty with Spain. In recent centuries, the main papal bull at issue in Anglican-Catholic institutional relations is probably Apostolicae Curae. In the 19th-century, Universalis Ecclesiae was extremely controversial in England, but is less so nowadays... AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

27 Eliz. cap. ii.

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)

Not sure what you'd consider a direct and immediate cause vs. a remote secondary cause, but Regnans greatly contributed to the situation in which Catholicism was widely viewed in England as being tantamount to treason -- and therefore also greatly increased the troubles of English Catholics (since Elizabeth really didn't care what people's private and personal religious views were, but on the other hand she cared a whole lot about political scheming and plotting against her, and collaborating with England's external enemies). In the view of Cardinal Allen and people like him, the Spanish Armada was an implementation of Regnans... AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a direct, connecting thread between the Bull and the Act that could be included in the article? If the Bull were only a remote, secondary cause WP:TOPIC would urge us to delete, wouldn't it?--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath—Ireland

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)

In England, Regnans itself (subsequently helped along by such documents as the incredible bloodthirsty ranting tirades of that asshole Cardinal Allan, etc.) greatly contributed to making the situation of Catholics worse, and identified Catholicism in public opinion with political treason, assassination plots, and threats of foreign invasions. However, I'm not sure that the same is true of Ireland -- given that the bulk of the Irish population stayed firmly Catholic in loyalty (as opposed to England, where only a relatively small minority did so), the situation was bound to become dangerously polarized in Ireland, regardless of whatever writings were published... AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DEPOSED

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)

"The suspension seems unlikely"?

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.

The suspension seems unlikely, because in late 1580 Pope Gregory also sponsored a second expedition to Ireland, resulting in the disastrous Siege of Smerwick

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)

I don't know whether there was a suspension, but if there was, it would have been because the original version of Regnans placed English Catholics in an impossible position, requiring them to be political traitors to be true to their religion (and not as a peace initiative as such). AnonMoos (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)