Elizabeth I and the Church of England

  • Thread starter Thread starter Picky_Picky
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimmyG88 said:
He doesn’t make a secret of it
Click to expand...
this is the first I have ever heard of his name so I am not familiar with any of his works or anything about his biography other than I assume he might be British.
 
7_Sorrows said:
this is the first I have ever heard of his name so I am not familiar with any of his works or anything about his biography other than I assume he might be British.
Click to expand...
Yep. And once a deacon in the CoE. Openly gay for many years.
 
ltwin said:
All of this, by the way, was made worse by papal politics. Pope Julius III had sent Cardinal Pole to England in November 1554 with legatine powers to reconstruct Catholicism, and he was doing a pretty good job before he died in 1558. But only 6 months after England reconciled with Rome, Paul IV became pope. He removed Pole as his legate and summoned him back to Rome to be tried for heresy. The very Catholic Queen Mary :rolleyes: protected Pole and allowed him to continue his efforts at restoring Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Pole also absolved the Kingdom of its ecclesiastical “sins” that occurred during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. They’re simply not responsible for the split from the RCC.
 
mjwise said:
Cardinal Pole also absolved the Kingdom of its ecclesiastical “sins” that occurred during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. They’re simply not responsible for the split from the RCC.
Click to expand...
Sorry, lost it. Who are not responsible?
 
mjwise said:
Henry VIII/Edward VI.
Click to expand...
Leaving Edward VI to his sick bed, poor lad, surely absolution from a sin doesn’t mean one is no longer responsible for the sin? At any rate absolution or no absolution the truth, surely, is otherwise. Harry split the English church from the Roman one. Whether that is a sin I leave in other hands.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Leaving Edward VI to his sick bed, poor lad, surely absolution from a sin doesn’t mean one is no longer responsible for the sin? At any rate absolution or no absolution the truth, surely, is otherwise. Harry split the English church from the Roman one. Whether that is a sin I leave in other hands.
Click to expand...
Yes, but whatever ecclesiastical sin either of them may have committed was wiped clean by the absolution. Henry VIII by all accounts went to his deathbed believing he was a Catholic and he greatly disliked most of what had happened in the continental reformation anyway. Edward VI, as you pointed out, was barely more than a child. The pope and Cardinal Pole obviously thought restoration was well enough in hand under Mary to absolve the country. 🤷

The responsible party is much more obviously Elizabeth, but she is not vulnerable to the same types of criticism as Henry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top