3 big mistakes done by protestants: slavery...

3 big mistakes done by protestants: slavery, liberation of jews (Napoleon with the help of freemasonry) and women's liberation

Other urls found in this thread:

people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/940630_Napoleon.html
israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177890
napoleon-series.org/ins/weider/c_jews.html
museeprotestant.org/en/notice/french-protestants-and-the-freemasons/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
abebooks.com/9781890913984/Secret-Societies-Infiltration-Seven-Churches-1890913987/plp
simonandschuster.com/books/The-Invisible-History-of-the-Rosicrucians/Tobias-Churton/9781594779312
onepeterfive.com/freemasons-love-pope-francis/
onepeterfive.com/freemasons-love-pope-francis-part-ii/
onepeterfive.com/freemasons-love-pope-francis-part-iii/
correctiofilialis.org
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>liberation of jews (Napoleon with the help of freemasonry)

run me down on this?

Napoleon is considered a Messiah in the jewish community
He thought the jews had the right to go back to Jerusalem and they were the chosen ones to lead the world
people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/940630_Napoleon.html
israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177890
napoleon-series.org/ins/weider/c_jews.html

>. Napoleon had even restored the glory of the ancient Jewish council, the Sanhedrin--though, to be sure, the assembly was exploited as a self-serving means of manipulating his Jewish citizens. He had even marched into Jerusalem proclaiming his desire to reestablish Jewish sovereignty over the Holy Land.

>He thought the jews had the right to go back to Jerusalem and they were the chosen ones to lead the world

What the fuggg??? He's a proto-kike?! LMAO. Is that why France is pozzed as fuck, french revolution and all?

Could it really be that simple?

>3 big mistakes done by protestants: slavery,
So what;s it like bring a black papist?

The French Revolution was the second protestant revolution.
The protestants abolished laws against usury and secret society membership

>The Church of England does not have a clear stance on the matter. In July 1987, the General Synod endorsed a report which considered the compatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity. The report stated "The reflections of the Working Group itself reveal understandable differences of opinion between those who are Freemasons and those who are not. Whilst the former fully agree that the Report shows that there are clear difficulties to be faced by Christians who are Freemasons, the latter are of the mind that the Report points to a number of very fundamental reasons to question the compatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity.

museeprotestant.org/en/notice/french-protestants-and-the-freemasons/

+1 is Sola Scriptura

But why does France have so many church-heritage, festivals, and I would say outside the pozz-cities, religious people?

One would think that these High IQ Ultimate High IQ Super Smart IQ High IQ Jews and their 50000000 year long meticulous talmudic conspiracy would put an end to their threat?

It's not like Europe was honeymoon for 2000 years and then the rapefugee crisis happened. So I won't buy the "rapefugees will end Europe" thesis, it's retarded.

I'm very curious what part of High IQ Jew Talmudic prophecy is this, Catholic church, no matter how corrupt OR corrupted (that's another topic) is still influential on peoples behavior and morals.

So what I'm trying to say is...I get this weird feeling that Kike High IQ Talmudis Very High Highest IQ jews are actually world class bluffers and liars - just like their mudslimes friends. And they actually didn't "plan" any of this, they just used whatever situation was at hand at the moment, like rodents that they are.

> rodent wonders into the cellar, no food - muahahaha this was all my plan, the lent is nigh!
> rodent wonders into the second cellar, full of food - muauahahahahha just as I planned, I will feast!!!!

TL:DR jews are not only inbred degens but the most autistic idiots on this planet.

>It's not like Europe was honeymoon for 2000 years and then the rapefugee crisis happened. So I won't buy the "rapefugees will end Europe" thesis, it's retarded.
The west started to be destroyed after the Protestant revolution. The Protestant revolution gave birth to the big European USSR Union dream.
Spain with the help of Poland and Austria(Holy Roman Empire) expelled 2+ millions of muslims from europe because they had religion in common. After the Protestant revolution religion wasn't important anymore, what was important was pleasure, money(gold) and power.

(cont)... naturally in a place dominated by power, money and pleasure the jews found themselves in a good situation. They took advantage of the situation created by Protestants.

If you look at any historical account, you will see that things always moved in circles. If we live in ultimate Jewmerican consumerist godless materialistic world - and we do lol - that only means it's the apex point. History will repeat itself like always. I ain't worried about nothin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

I'm not 100% sure if history will repeat itself. We are heading towards total annihilation. The revolution started in 1517 didn't stop and it's only getting worse

I sent you that wikipedia link because a powerful emperor(Frederick Barbarossa) was afraid of God and didn't want to commit sin.
What president/politician today is afraid of God or even afraid of doing something wrong?

>liberation of jews (Napoleon with the help of freemasonry)
>Pretending it wasn't Cromwell and the roundheads

You are thinking 6 months in advance. You're deluded, don't be. Just 5 generations ago we had ancestors living in huts like ultimate plebs, no weapons to protect themselves (woodchopping axe can't count, right?) and at any given moment, anyone with a sword could take them, not to mention if some antagonistic cavalry crosses their path in the middle of the night LOL.

You can worry about "police state" and "rfid chips" dystopia, but that's giving into their bluff, man. The more complex system they come up with, the harder will it be for them to govern.

They tried to use AI on us for "control", Kike Zuck just had to shut down ANOTHER AI speech development, because it started to ramble incoherently. AI is completely anti-thetical to jew-ways of deceit.

Realize that.

Realize that the only way they can hold us down is to assign a police officer, a real one, to each citizen. That's literally the only efficient solution. Everything else gives room for people to revolt. Just because you don't believe it'll happen - doesn't mean it won't.

Once the leisure life gets a bit harder to obtain - expect the shitstorm. You really think people in the Western World will engage in "SJW ruined vidya" debates if they end up in a situation where they have to hustle for food? We're one 2008 recession from that.

LOL.

Stop with the "it's over". It's never over.

...

Dude, really? Jarosław Kaczyński, Janusz Korwin-Mikke and Mike Pence without a doubt, a good chunk of republican senators and governors (Greg Abbott comes to mind), and while I don't know much about their politics, I know Spain and Italy are still extremely religious, so there must be some God-fearing politicians there.

>Once the leisure life gets a bit harder to obtain - expect the shitstorm. You really think people in the Western World will engage in "SJW ruined vidya" debates if they end up in a situation where they have to hustle for food?
Technology can't be stopped and we are not far from producing synthetic food. Perhaps we'll never have a major economy crisis because the state of hunger and fear injects conservative values in society. They can't allow this to happen

You underestimate mankind's ability to royally cock things up. The USSR had industrial farming techniques, and yet ten million were starved to death in Ukraine. Just wait for authoritarianism to set in, and you'll see crises like never before.

you bring a good point however the full liberation of jews was done by Napoleon.
Unfortunately for England Cromwell made possible for jews to practice usury and Protestants never bothered.
This guy started the anti-religion movement in england
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon

"No".

The Girondists in France were the moderates that didn't want a bloody revolution, the hard line leftists wanted heads chopped off. The Jacobins were the hard left nutcases that were zealous. This bullshit about Protestantism is just bullshit, it was poor people that were wound up by the Jacobins to turn against the ruling classes and merchants, rumors of food hording (from overseas donations after the bankruptcy of France by the Bourbons bailing out the Americans during their revolution).

I can go on if you want? Everyone, even the French agree that the Revolution was a mistake and that they want their monarch back. This cannot be debated against, the French are in denial.

Christianity is an asciatic religion. It has no place in the west

>Francis Bacon
He did great work, though. Can't blame people for messing up.

>implying that roman catholics have clean hands in the transatlantic slave trade
The roman catholics who ruled portugal, spain, and france while they colonized the americas had far more slaves than protestants ever did.
By some accounts, roman catholics controlled 69.9% of it.
No one can evade blame.

Lolbertarian looks at the Bolsheviks' genocide of Ukraine, sees economic inefficiency.
Pozzed kike lolbertarian.

>and yet ten million were starved to death in Ukraine
not due to lack of food. It was a deliberate policy. Stalin wanted to stock food(grains) and wanted to sell it tot he germans in the early 30s. Besides Ukrainians were always a headache to the bolsheviks since the days of Lenin

Wrong again, the Edict of Expulsion was undone by that time under his rule but Jews kept coming into England long before that, in fact they had been coming in even under Elizabeth I, 100 years before Cromwell was a parliamentarian. I hate the kikes as much as the next person but their tentacles were already in place before Cromwell came into power so don't blame him fully.

In regards to Mr Bacon Sandwich, he was a French cuck slave that was a hack.

>He did great work, though.
like promoting the kabbalah? promoting the freemasonic idea of scientificism?

Yea, that too. Wouldn't really call that a Freemasonic idea, though.

>Cromwell
He was compromised with secret societies and money from synagogues. There are books about if you want. I have no reason to discredit the information regarding his role in the destruction of the Monarchy in England. He played a big role in pretending to support Charles I and backstabbing the monarchy at the same time

The monarch backstabbed the people and dared to usurp the seats of power away from the people and hand it to himself. He was busy wasting money and men on a pointless war in Ireland and a festering conflict with Scotland, against the wishes of parliament which has always been supreme and will always be supreme, despite what you catholic absolute monarch cucks want. Be happy a compromise was made under William III.....

Be grateful all you Catholic enablers haven't been rounded up yet for your own treason against the people. Be very grateful.

How come Cromwell knew deeply the kaballah? only two answers: a) he was fluent in hebrew b) a jew taught him
The parliament was consisted of Rosicrucians.

Further information regarding Cromwell
abebooks.com/9781890913984/Secret-Societies-Infiltration-Seven-Churches-1890913987/plp

The catholic portuguese and spanish had more slaves than the protestant North.

>The monarch backstabbed the people
Only because (((parliament))) was backstabbing Him, and rising above their station.
> the wishes of parliament which has always been supreme
Well that's just nonsense and treasonous.

>The parliament was consisted of Rosicrucians.
If it did, they wouldn't have been such traitors, and the world would be better for it.

What makes you think Rosicrucians aren't traitors?
They used jewish money to spread revolutions, similar to what happened later in the French Revolution. All in the name of "Purifying Christianity'' of course...

What does liberation of the Jews even mean? Weren't they money lenders anyway? Everybody was taking loans from them

>What makes you think Rosicrucians aren't traitors?
Why would they be?
>They used jewish money to spread revolutions
Source?
>All in the name of "Purifying Christianity'' of course...
That's not a Rosicrucian thing at all, though? They're barber-surgeons and Christian scientists.

>Napoleon

talking shit about Napo

you'd better shut your whore mouth faggot

>Why would they be?
That's the history of ending the Monarchy in England. It's the history of Rosicrucians (the founders of freemasonry) destroying it. It's not an opinion. Rosicrucians were puritans.
You can read about their role in england this book
simonandschuster.com/books/The-Invisible-History-of-the-Rosicrucians/Tobias-Churton/9781594779312

Slavery predates Protestantism by centuries you simple bastard.

>That's the history of ending the Monarchy in England.
Is it now? Not the (((politicians))), but the Christians?
>It's the history of Rosicrucians (the founders of freemasonry) destroying it
That would be quite against what Rosicrucianism stands for. Read the Fama(s). And they didn't found speculative Masonry, just gave it a shot in the arm.
>Rosicrucians were puritans.
Rosicrucianism has no one particular sect. Hell, it was originally Catholic.
>You can read about their role in england this book
Read it.

>Hell, it was originally Catholic.
Totally wrong. The birth of these societies were products of the reformation

Christian RC was from the 14thC.
And yes, that passage is quite stupid. The "Rosicrucian Mason" and "Rosicrucian Masonic Lodge" give it away.

reminder that catholics don't even read the bible

What are you talking about? The WASPs in the US used to control the country, and the KKK, made up of protestants, was very anti-Jewish and anti-catholic. The USA was originally hostile to Jews although secularism ruined a lot of things.

Why do they look like goblins

Oh, if that were all.
>1517
>20 years of Father Luther's new doctrines gave rise to 40 new sects
>Christendom fractured into theological rivalry via theological liberalism, aka protestantism
>200 years later
>hundreds of individual Christian sects all claiming to be the true Christian sect
>protestant principle of private interpretation infects all streams of thought, seeps into philosophy
>protestants disillusioned with the sectarian and subjective nature of protestantism begin a humanist philosophical revolution
>Renaissance
>1717
>Masonic lodge founded in London based upon the egalitarian, Judaizing principles of Anabaptists and Jacobite/Whig revolutionaries
>Masonry quickly abandon Christian religious foundations and promote secularism and overthrow of authority, namely the authority of the Catholic Church and Monarchy
>(Judaizing) Masonry uses Protestantism as a weapon against the foundational principles of Christendom: Catholicism
>Secularism rises
>Christendom further weakened; theological wedge + philosophical wedge
>1776
>America founded
>First secular, godless nation on planet earth in recorded human history
>1789, French revolution
>Protestant private interpretation altered philosophy and manifested itself in political realm in the actual overthrow of altar and throne
>Christendom shattered

Protestantism, as a system, (not necessarily oyur individual Protestant in their married life) has attacked the institution of marriage straight out of the gates.
Luther removed Holy Matrimony as a function of the Church and relegated it to the State; creating civil marriage.
Luther told Philip of Hesse it was not against the law of God to take a second wife (while retaining the first), because... the Jews did it in the Old Testament.
King Henry VIII founded his protestant religion on divorce and "remarriage" and divorce and "remarriage" and divorce and "remarriage" and... etc.
Anglicans in 1930 liberalized contraception at the Lambeth conference, "just for married couples." Catholics, Protestants, and secularists alike decried this, saying it would destroy the moral fabric of our country. They were right. Within 10-15 years, all Protestant sects had capitulated. The sexual revolution and lack of Catholicity in the hierarchy in the 1960's then resulted in a majority of Catholics adopting this neo-pagan practice as well.

So, the three points OP mentioned aren't the only things.

>Masonic lodge founded in London based upon the egalitarian
False. It was even more exclusive than it is now.
>Masonry quickly abandon Christian religious foundations and promote secularism and overthrow of authority, namely the authority of the Catholic Church and Monarchy
Also false.
>America founded
>First secular, godless nation
There had been republic governments well before than, drama queen.

The official newspaper of the Vatican released a study one hundred years after the French revolution that said any country that had killed its King and removed laws favoring Christians ended up becoming ruled by jews

Freemasonry did in fact abandon Christianity; where God cannot be named by His name, Jesus Christ in the lodge prayers.
>republic governments
>first secular, godless nation
Perhaps I should have said State; as the government is strictly secular

>civiltà Cattolica 1890, Jewish Question

>Freemasonry did in fact abandon Christianity; where God cannot be named by His name, Jesus Christ in the lodge prayers.
That's not true, though. It's just not common to do so, because there are other catchall terms.
And His name isn't Jesus Christ, that is the name of the Son, the Avatara on earth.
>Perhaps I should have said State; as the government is strictly secular
Still, not the first, bro.

Catholics believe in Marian apparitions based on nothing but the word of mentally ill Portuguese schoolchildren.

Catholicism is a mess.

It is pointless arguing with a pagan over the Christian nature of Freemasonry. This has been a settled matter for hundreds of years.

Actually, 70,000 people witnessed the miracle of the sun. Even the Freemasonic newspaper O'Seculo reported on it. It's not a matter of faith; it's a matter of historical record. Enjoy.

>It is pointless arguing with a pagan over the Christian nature of Freemasonry.
Fair enough. But yes, even as a pagan, you're able to join, but that doesn't prevent it from being predominantly Christian.

>hundreds of reporters and photographers
>not one photo of anything resembling a miracle

>there were photos in O'Seculo
While people were dropping to their knees and running for fear that the sun was going to fall on them, they didn't catch a perfect photo for your liking.
Atheists and skeptics alike, even those who previously ridiculed the children for their claims, reported in the Freemasonic paper that it did indeed happen, that all the mud and wet clothing was instantly dried, that the sun seemed as if it were going to crash into the earth, etc, etc.
It's not necessary for you to believe. You're more than welcome to shut your eyes and plug your ears.

Damn I'm not allowed to call my dad father? I've been living in sin my whole live...

>Freemasonic paper
You keep saying that like it's a thing?

How about the canonization (infallible) of a blatant fraud and psychopath like Padre Pio, who mutilated himself with carbolic acid to resemble the wounds of Christ.

No, it isn't a thing at all. I just made it up whole cloth.
Please.

That's a newsletter for a jurisdiction. Not some Portuguese media outlet.

O Seculo was a pro-revolutionary paper staffed and run by Masons in the early 20th century.

>...deposited a glorious action, in which cooperated forces of the army, the navy and the people The provisional government is constituted-The royal family in flight....

Were they automatons produced with the sole cause of being Masons, and that paper was sanctioned by the Grand Lodge Lusitania? Or perhaps did they also have other interests than just slandering Masonry?

Masons have always been the revolutionary guard in the deconstruction of Christendom and in implementing revolutionary principles; French lodges fully admit their indispensable role in the creation of the overthrow of altar and throne.
The case in Portugal was no different; nor was it any different than the Masons marching in Italy in 1917 carrying the standard of Bruno and images of Satan with his foot on St. Michael's head while chanting "Satan will rule on Vatican Hill and the pope will be his lackey".

>and the pope will be his lackey
Of which, I would contend the Masons have been successful. Whether or not Francis is an official Mason or not, he is infected with their principles and may as well be one.

3 big mistakes by Catholics
1. Calling another man father
2. Idolatry
3. Cannibalism
4. Having saints
5. Having a pope
6. Indulging pederasts

>Masons have always been the revolutionary guard in the deconstruction of Christendom and in implementing revolutionary principle
Cart French lodges fully admit
Yea, the fake ones taken over by revolutionaries. That's why there are so many GLs in France. Because the rebels took over the GOdF, and so the real Masons had to bugger off and form the GLNF and others, that they might keep the traitors away.
>The case in Portugal was no different
Yup, several GLs there too.

>Whether or not Francis is an official Mason or not,
Given that he spoke out against Masonry based on the same ignorant reasons they've fabricated for centuries, i'd say no.

Haha look at the shithole that is modern Britain yeah based "parliament" and politicians. The day Britain invited a foreign monarch over to replace a British one is the day the country died.

In nearly every instance, Masonry has played a part in the overthrow of the Christian order and the implementation of secular or even atheistic (communist) principles; such as in Mexico under their communist revolution.

>Given that he spoke out against Masonry
Yet, he is the most praised pope by Masons in Church history. There's a reason for it.

>Protestants cut the foreskins of their sons because they're such obedient Jewish pets

>The day Britain invited a foreign monarch over to replace a British one is the day the country died.
>Mary Tudor
>Foreign
Anyway, Magna Carta was the real start of the problem.

>In nearly every instance, Masonry has played
No, rebels, some of whom were "Masons" were the players. They ignored that Masonry speaks against all such things (such as secularism or communism).
>Yet, he is the most praised pope by Masons in Church history.
Source?

Napoleon's reincarnation here.

What happened with the Jews, was meant to be for the Jews, not the Zionists, Khazars, or Talmuds.

So by allowing ALL Jews, instead of the true just the True Jews, it inadvertently allowed a loophole for the bad ones with an anti-genitle agenda to gain power.

Don't worry it was made for when I became your precious Hitler, even though I regret alot of the shit, and maitre-cock sucking I did during that life.

Oh, and my work as Charlemagne also created a fuckfest, banning Christians from becoming bankers (in order to help them get closer to god, and keep them away from greed, and sin) also allowed the anti-genitle Zionist/Talmud/Khazar Jews to gain power, which caused a butterfly effect that help lead to the Hundred Years War.

Just minor fuckups, next time will work out, and actually succeed for the benefit of all of mankind, rather than just accidentally giving the Agenda loopholes to gain power.

Wut? I'm talking about William or Orange (whose invasion of Britain was also funded by sephadic Jews)

>I'm talking about William or Orange
So am I. You know why He was part of it, right? Because He happened to be married to the rightful heir of James II Stuart (not sure why i typed Tudor earlier. Odd typo on my part).

>quotes and sources
>onepeterfive.com/freemasons-love-pope-francis/
>onepeterfive.com/freemasons-love-pope-francis-part-ii/
>onepeterfive.com/freemasons-love-pope-francis-part-iii/

He was involved because he was invited by English parliament who didn't want a Catholic king. That was the day the monarchy was illegitimatised.

Well that's all rather tenuous and thin.

>He was involved because he was invited by English parliament who didn't want a Catholic king.
As is right. Maybe not the right of (((parliament))), but the right of an Anglican nation.
>That was the day the monarchy was illegitimatised.
Nah. That's not even how that works.

>it's the right of parliament to dethrone a monarch

then there is literally no point to monarchy at all. If the plebs can just throw you out whenever they want if you, the king, don't listen to them.

>anglican nation

Anglo-Saxons were originally Catholics.

>it's the right of parliament to dethrone a monarch
Not a right of parliament. Just that it was right that they ousted a traitor.
>Anglo-Saxons were originally Catholics.
I mean, technically they were Wotan-ists. Britons were Celto-Druidic. But beside that, Britain was always Church of England, and very nearly became prime church over Rome in the early centuries.
For James II to revert to Papacy would be allying with enemies of Britain.

>Not a right of parliament. Just that it was right that they ousted a traitor.

You don't the "right" to oust a king or call him a traitor. Then all monarchy is meaningless and you may aswell be a republic.

>For James II to revert to Papacy would be allying with enemies of Britain

Such as who? Ireland? Spain? Italy? France? Portugal (longest ally of England)? All Catholic.

>You don't the "right" to oust a king or call him a traitor.
I didn't say it was A right. But that it was right/correct to do so.
>Then all monarchy is meaningless
Not at all. A monarch is first servant. If you can't save their nation from them, then monarchy is indeed meaningless, and you may as well give it to children.
>Such as who?
France and Spain, were the primary concerns.
Ireland was obviously not a concern. Portugal was an ally. Italy didn't exist.

>it was right/correct to do so.

Then you must be an anti-monarchist at heart

>France and Spain, were the primary concerns

Concerns of what though?

How does not being Catholic "protect" Britain? (It doesn't unless you're very paranoid).

>Ireland was obviously not a concern

Umm apart from the invasion and battle? And the hundreds of years of warfare much based on the religious differences whereas a Catholic monarch could have ruled both isles with perhaps no conflict.

Oh, look. It's the Catholic again.
Petrine Doctrine is still in debate, my guy.
"On this Truth I will build my church." The Truth is that Christ is the Messiah, which was revealed to Simon-Peter by God.
Staying Protestant here.

>Then you must be an anti-monarchist at heart
Nope. Staunch monarchist. But not a blind fool with naught but idealism for belief.
>Concerns of what though?
Undue influence. They were enemies, after all.
>How does not being Catholic "protect" Britain?
Well it helps to be the denomination of the church one is head of. Would you say it's paranoia to be against an Islamic monarch in Britain?
>Umm apart from the invasion and battle?
>From Ireland
Man, (((Cromwell))) kicked the shit through them. They weren't invading any more than Scotland would have.

>staunch monarchist
>approves of parliament overthrowing a monarch

nah you're not "staunch".

>undue influence

Such as what? Be more specific? Catholic Spain and Portugal were both rivals and didn't unduly influence each other due to sharing a same religion

>Would you say it's paranoia to be against an Islamic monarch in Britain?

I would never compare the Roman church to Islam. One is a Christian doctrine integral to European history, the other is Islam which Catholics fought to rid their countries of. How is it even comparable?

>Man, (((Cromwell))) kicked the shit through them

I was talking about the Battle of the Boyne where William fought Catholics after parliament invited him to invade Britain. That battle and bloodshed would not have happened if James II had ruled. Basically, it was English parliament who fucked the British isles not any threat from Europe.

>approves of parliament overthrowing a monarch
They didn't really overthrow, though. Just moved things along to the rightful heir. That i do approve of.
So yes, i'm a staunch believer in monarchy, and try to be responsible with it.
>Such as what?
Catholicising England. Like supporting James' Catholic armies.
>I would never compare the Roman church to Islam.
Why? There's no difference in the context of the argument. You're supporting a rival church against the nation.
>I was talking about the Battle of the Boyne where William fought Catholics after parliament invited him to invade Britain. That battle and bloodshed would not have happened if James II had ruled.
Pretty minor battle, and it wouldn't have happened if James hadn't betrayed England, either.
You seem to forget that it's not uncommon in historical monarchy for a king to be replaced with their heir as regent when they are no longer fit to rule. That is functionally what happened.

>They didn't really overthrow, though

Yes they did

>Catholicising England

How would that threaten England? Anglo Saxons were once Pagans who didn't know of Christianity. Catholicising England would have been a good thing England is now cucked by Islam more than any Catholic country is.


>they are no longer fit to rule

He was fit to rule though. Again, if parliament can replace a monarch then monarchy as an institution is meaningless, as has pretty much been proven to be the case in modern Britain, where it is indeed next to meaningless.

>You're supporting a rival church against the nation.

No, a Christian church vs a Muslim one. Completely different. Church of England is not a real church anyway and only came in to existence when Henry the VIII wanted a divorce. If you think Catholicism is the same as Islam then you're equating half of Europe with Saudi Arabia.

Why is there a Catholic thread without any discussion of the Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagandis currently leveled at Bergoglio? Why this deflection about Protestant heresy, when the man currently claiming to be Pope is charged with spreading teachings that contain heresy? Why isn't Sup Forums talking about the problems inside the Church?
correctiofilialis.org

There were several threads when this dropped that reached bump limit and I've seen talk of it on recent Catholic podcasts/blogs

>Yes they did
Cromwell overthrew. Mary just hurried things up.
>How would that threaten England?
By destroying national identity and bowing it to traditional enemies?
>Anglo Saxons were once Pagans who didn't know of Christianity.
But they got better.
>Catholicising England would have been a good thing England is now cucked by Islam more than any Catholic country is.
Yea, that's the trouble with elective governments. But Catholic nations are also shitholes, so it's six of one.
>He was fit to rule though.
Clearly not.
>Again, if parliament can replace a monarch then monarchy as an institution is meaningless
On a whim, yes. But there has to be some facility for removing a monarch who is beyond salvaging.
>Completely different.
Only according to you.
>Church of England is not a real church anyway and only came in to existence when Henry the VIII wanted a divorce.
You might want to open a history book. Church of England dates back to St Columba. Henry just stopped accepting the Pope as the church boss.
>If you think Catholicism is the same as Islam
No, not the same. But Papism is still a separate sect. Would you be keen to have it become Gnostic or Arian too?

Protestants are controlled opposition, like the Masons and Jews. The Catholics run everything. They are all evil and insane.

>shit talking the greatest leader of modern times

You are truly below civilization, I wish we could send you to a moon prison so we can share the lowest possible amount of objects.

>By destroying national identity and bowing it to traditional enemies?

Like Catholic Portugal greatest ally? England now has millions of muslims and could barely be considered a Christian nation so much for "defender of the faith". And whose national identity? Not Britain's, maybe England's. James was the king of Scotland and Ireland too not just England so no English parliament did not have the right as it was not their right to have to remove a British king.

>Catholic nations are also shitholes

Some of the greatest nations in Europe were/are Catholic. Italy, France, Spain. Have certainly contributed much more to the world than Australia for one. It's the Protestant nations that are the cucked shitholes now like Sweden, Germany, England.

>Henry just stopped accepting the Pope as the church boss

Yes, because he was a degenerate that couldn't stop executing his wives

>Like Catholic Portugal greatest ally?
Portugal wasn't an enemy wanting to cause hell to England as an old enemy.
>England now has millions of muslims
As does Catholic France. That's just what you get for having elective government.
>And whose national identity?
Yea, Britain, which was Anglican.
>James was the king of Scotland and Ireland too not just England so no English parliament did not have the right as it was not their right to have to remove a British king.
It was the UK, genius.
>Some of the greatest nations in Europe were/are Catholic. Italy, France, Spain.
That's the list you want to use? Italy and Spain are failing EU parasites, and France is a Muslim haven. Funny that you pretend otherwise, and England (as well as the Commonwealth as a whole) are far better off.
>Have certainly contributed much more to the world than Australia for one
Oh, aye.
>Yes, because he was a degenerate that couldn't stop executing his wives
They should have produced a son for him. But yes, he was a fat git.

>As does Catholic France

>what is the French revolution

The Catholic monarchy was removed a republic declared only then did it become cucked. Whereas UK is still cucked as fuck with its monarchy.

>Yea, Britain, which was Anglican.

Nah, Anglican = Anglo = England, not Britain

>Italy and Spain are failing EU parasites

The EU is shit nothing to do with their historical achievements. Renaissance, Enlightenment, Scientific revolution, Da Vinci, amazing artists. Do you only know about English history or something?

>England (as well as the Commonwealth as a whole) are far better off.

Ah, yes the Commonwealth that includes half of Africa plus Pakistan and India. You like that do you? Not a bit at odds with hating shitskins and muslims?