What did the catholic church think about suicide in the Elizabethean Era?
964265
The Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that suicide is a terrible (mortal) sin.  God created you, and God knows when it's time to call you home.  That is not for us to decide.  \n\nIn states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide, the vast majority of people who do so are depressed.  \n\nLet's love them instead.
945230
What about comparing and contrasting the reigns of Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I ? They were half sisters (both daughters of Henry VIII ) but were very different.\nMary was Roman Catholic - Elizabeth Anglican\nMary married - Elizabeth did not\nMary was known as "Bloody Mary", Elizabeth as "Good Queen Bess" - yet both persecuted and killed for religious reasons.\nBoth reigned in the 1500's
735486
The Puritans opposed the catholic system of education based on the catechism. This catechism taught belief in God could be achieved by following fixed rules. Attendance at Mass, repeating certain prayers ( see indulgences), private confession for the forgiveness of sins.\nThe Puritans suggested that the later allowed you to commit serious sins but then have them written-off by absolution at confession.\nPuritan education REJECTED the need for a "mediator" between God and  (wo)man. (This was the role of the catholic priest.)\nThey believed and taught that 'justification by faith' was the route to salvation not by repetitive prayers or using aids such as statues, rosaries, stained glass windows and organs. Hence the removal and desecration of these objects in the churches. The reject the dogma of "The divine right of Kings" suggesting Kings/Queens rule by and under God's authority.\n\nWhat is generally mis-understood about the Puritan "Pilgrim Fathers" was their objection to a regulated form of worship ( see Act of Uniformity and the Prayerbook). They rejected the Elizabethan settlement of 1559.They wanted the chance to worship in a free spontaneous method " as the Spirit moved them".  This is still the basis of the Society of Friends (Quakers).\nThey also believed in mutual support and co-operation rather than centrally controlled funding and discipline.
349495
I feel O.K. about that, because it would give everybody a reason to live a good life - not to live a good life just because they're being bribed with a promise of heaven.\nI don't believe that a 'hell' exists.  I rationalize that it was made up by the church during the inquisition period in order to scare and keep people into religion, so they don't commit as many crimes ("you'll go to hell if you do that"), and so they pay 'penance' or tithe to the church.\nI also agree with MichaelT: "People would invent one, just as they have for thousands of years, as the foundation of their culture."
317235
Well not that cruxifiction is a walk in the park but YES, there are more painful deaths, ironically some of them were contrived by the very same Church trying to ensure EVERYONE believed the doctrine of Christianity as they saw it during the Inquisition. \n\nSome of their death/torture methods\n\nFlaying- Skinning a person alive and rubbing salt into the raw flesh\n\nDisembowelment- You can imagine for yourself\n\nHung, Drawn and Quatertered- Like the name says\n\nBeing tossed unto spikes- If the landing was not a well aimed one, your death would not be mercifully short. \n\nAmazing how barbaric humans can be.
389383
So are you saying that since it says we should hate our own life that we should all commit suicide? Don't be shallow. God gave us an intelligent mind for a reason... to use it. Jesus is saying in Luke not to put anyone before God if you want to be a true follower of Christ. He meant anyone including your parents, spouses, children, and yes even yourself. If you don't want to be a follower of Christ then Jesus isn't talking to you. I only pray that one day you do realize just how sinful you are and how much you are in need of the love, peace, and forgiveness of God that can only be obtained through the blood of Jesus Christ.\n\ntosmith
396465
References to a place of purgation (place where your purged of your sins) are made as far back as the beginning of the third century (by Clement of Alexandria) and are frequently referenced up to and beyond the bible's canonization (where they decided what books should go into the bible) in 390CE. While no direct references to purgatory were chosen in 390CE, it was acknowledged that the concept was worthy of incorporation into other church publications.  The Church, that is the Roman Catholic Church, continues to include it’s teachings on purgatory in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  I’m not exactly sure why some protestant individuals are so quick to lie about its continued inclusion in the Catholic tradition, they seem to enjoy ridiculing its believers enough you’d think they’d want it kept around.  \n\nI have mixed feelings on the subject. Personally I think it’s a concept that has an impressive historical record that I acknowledge as one of many possibilities. In the end you’re going to need to die to really know for sure. Also contrary to what many people here are telling you, Roman Catholics aren't the only Christians to hold on to the concept of purgatory as a teaching. \n\nWhen the Reformation came in northern europe, the concept of purgatory was something chosen to be dropped to help distinguish the reformers from the old Church. At the time the idea was being abused in some regions to encourage wealthy church patrons to help "buy" their way out of their sins. This is why many of the Protestant groups today are still contemptuous of the concept, despite it's importance to earlier Christian groups.  But like I said earlier I don’t understand why they are so quick to tell people it is no longer taught by the older churches. \n\nThe second act of Dante’s Inferno deals with the concept of purgatory, but if you really wish to learn more you’ll need to read translations of the works of St. Augustine and other early Christian leaders. Dan 12:10; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3; 2 Mac 12:42-45; Matthew 5:26; Lk 12:47-48; Lk 12:58-59; 1 Cor 3:13-15; Apoc 21:27: are some of the biblical passages which were included in 390 that many site provide for the existence of a state of purgatory.\n\n\nRegards,\nArmus
932904
According to Matthew 27:5, Judas hanged himself. But Acts 1:18 says, “pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out.” Matthew seems to deal with the mode of the attempted suicide, while Acts describes the result. Combining the two accounts, it appears that Judas tried to hang himself over some cliff, but the rope or tree limb broke so that he plunged down and burst open on the rocks below. The topography around Jerusalem makes such an event conceivable.
616160
Funny.\n\nBefore the Enlightentment you got burned on the stake, imprisoned, tortured and mutilated for questioning the Christian faith. Ever heard about the Inquisition? That's right, you ignorant fools have no fucking clue what it was like, you have no idea how precious freedom from religion and freedom of speech is.
353811
It seems to me the remainder of your question has a slight bent towards Alexandrian Christology, which if taken to its extreme can lead to dynamic monarchianism, apollinarianism and possibly eutychianism. \n\nBasically all those things assert this. That though Jesus was fully God, and yet fully man, the dynamic monarchianists would assert that his divinity "swallowed up" or "consumed" his humanity so that he was not really, or essentially "human", therefore, it was the divine who suffered, and died rather than the humanity. \n\nThis is problematic however, since in His divine nature, he was that who maintained the cosmos, was omniscient and omnipresent, etc, but that it could not have been his divine nature who had suffered and died, for it would be logically inconsistent for the Logos (Word) to- as God, die, for Jesus declared himself (as God): "I am the way the truth and the LIFE", and in Him and through Him were all things wrought since the beginning of the world. \n\nHis humanity therefore was the only substance that could have on our behalf, suffered and died, and that it was through the empowerment of his human nature, by the divine nature that (was Life) that ressurected the body from the grave, for apart from the Logos (Life, the Word), there could have been no ressurection. \n\nIf you read the work "On the Incarnation of the Word" by Athanasius, in it, it is discussed that the cross was a befitting death for the God-man. It was by no means an underscored type death for one who was also fully man as well as God. For in His death, it was his humanity which suffered and died, not his divine nature.\n\nIn response to the pre-ordainment of the Temple and the events leading to the incident with Judas, again this relied on human agency (will) as well as the "media scientia" (middle knowledge)-where God knows all contingent effects from all and every act that could possibly exist. In other words, he knew what would happen if Judas betrayed him, and yet he also knew what would happen if Judas did not betray him.  \n\n--Hope that helps--
1021867
I looked for the statement by Cardinal Castrillon but couldn't find it. So I can't state an opinion.\n\nPlease add a link next time. \n\nThank you.
602308
There was a time in European history where the Church held absolute sway in the appointment and endorsement of political rulers, as well as their own "police force" of inquisitors where free-thinkers and political opponents were burned, tortured, and murdered.  Wars were repeatedely fought against the Muslim in Muslim lands to distract and divide the folks at home and to keep the people militarized and the money flowing into the coffers of the tyrannical kings.  This period was affectionately known as "The Dark Ages" and "Medievel Age" appropriately.  Woe betide the man who willfully repeats disastrous history.
384089
Well, along time ago, before we had all the new fly by night purse stealing money grubbing preachers, we had the Holy Roman Catholic Church. We also had this nice King Henry the 8Th.\nNow old Henry loved to party, drive his Maserati and just have a good time, but the problem was his WIFE.  She wasn't going to have it in HER house, so she continually nagged him, locked him out of the house, took his keys, and wouldn't let him have any money for beer.  So old Henry got pissed off one day and called the POPE and asked for a DIVORCE. Pope said "Cant happen, you gotta stay married to the B---H forever cause that's the rule".\nWell Henry didn't like that answer, so he went back home and laid down (without his wife) cause she went to stay at her girlfriends house for the night, and thought about what he should do.  Well low and behold he came up with a bright idea,  "I still love drinking wine, singing hymns, and eating those crackers, but I hate this NO DIVORCE rule, So I'm going to make me a church with different rules" and so started the Church of England (Protestant) and Henry got his divorce and lived happily ever after and a Bunch of wives later.
575875
He was a Puritan, which basically means anti-Catholic.  Charles I was being manipulated by his blatantly Catholic wife to tolerate Catholicism in England and he also adopted a type of "High Anglicanism", refering to the Anglican (English National) Church becoming increasingly catholic (involving elaborate ceremonies, gold, latin, etc.), and the Puritans believed in living a simple life.  \n\nBasically, it was a religious War
825547
"The age of martyrs also produced a great number of writers who wrote about Christianity and what they believe in order to dispel some of the myths about Christians (some said they were cannibals because they ate the “body and blood”) These writers became known as “The Apologists” and they were able to help clarify Christian theology to the pagans, leaving us with some of the greatest explanations of the Christian faith."\n\n\nWhat you teacher tells you is true.  Christians were deemed to be cannibals because of the whole blood host thing with communion and they were martyred by mass murders.\n\nThis is an important lesson in not taking the time to really learn about something and just assuming that rumors are true - like what you hear on TV - \n\nBig spin off in the Catholic religion when King Henry VIII of England wanted to divorce his wife and the Pope said NO.  So, Henry got out of the Catholic religion, made himself the King of Religion in his country and tried to make all the Catholics in England convert to the Church of England - a lot of people were murdered for not changing over as it was deemed treacherous not to obey Henry.\n\nThe irony of the whole protestant England thing was that in Germany a monk name Martin Luther was trying to lead reforms in the Catholic Church too.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther\n\nIt is a strange thing that ofter two or more people will arrive at the same idea in different ways by different methods but almost simultaneously\n\nNow we have Protestants because a man wanted a divorce - which would have been better because Henry usually cut off their heads after that and his first wife was, in a way lucky to have got away with her head.\n\nYou have a very good teacher
463003
This is EXACTLY how you should feel and I don't blame you a bit. I'm not catholic, but I have been wondering the same things. Why aren't more people in an uproar about this??
823515
The consensus of the secular establishment is that one is not in the right frame of mind when the think they want  to  kill themselves anymore than a murderer who wants to murder someone else.  The only difference is the direction of that person's projection of the dysfunction from another to oneself.  This view is from the preponderance of evidence which shows that when treated  for biological, chemical, hormonal, or other dysfunctions within or around the person the vast majority of those people go on to lead happy productive lives without the desire to commit suicide any longer and glad that some one talked them off the ledge.  Civilized culture as a pattern and time proven rule builds, creates and nurtures life.  Although it has within it,  radicles like in any healthy biological body, which if unchecked destroy, mutate and seek death, these are the exception ,however; and not the rule.  Barbarity,  anarchist, and the like of chaos theories or fatalistic tendencies as  a rule, destroys, and kills without noticeable creation, and or helping of life.  If part of a civilizec culture or body is malignant then it is civilized to kill it or let it be killed to save the culture or body, just as we would with any cancer or disease of that nature.  If however it is benign or an attack, like and heart attack ir anxiety attack we treat this symptom and do not let the body die if possible since once the hear is healed many more happy years are possible. Likewise, the person that wants to commit suicide generally has a sick "heart" that needs healing and then they will be fine.