Foxe's Book of Maryrs and Maryrs' Mirror

[Contarini]

why? It wasn’t just happening continents away. I note Thomas Fudge in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology wrote (at p. 26):
In practical terms, the Hussites raged against ecclesiastical and secular abuses, especially simony, social injustice, and immorality. The law of God was invoked to counter these offences, producing not insignificant results. Religious practice experienced renaissance with the introduction of renewed eucharistic observance. Apostolic rule controlled communities, while religion generally assumed broader dimensions, especially when the Hussites perceived themselves as God’s chosen people, anointed for the eschatological moment to defeat Antichrist, Satan, and all unrighteousness. Liturgical practices were overthrown in radical centres such as Tabor, but moderates consistently adopted a more traditional form of liturgical reformation. The social implications of these ideas enacted in society created numerous significant changes, many of which can be traced theologically to the Hussite conviction of the meaning and application of the law of God. Taborite religion is most illuminating and instructive here. The chalice became the dominant symbol and practice. Secular law was abolished in deference to divine law. Egalitarianism stemmed from this social levelling represented by eucharistic reform, and this was temporarily translated into social relations. Communism - the abolition of slaves, debts and secular authority structures - became a hallmark of the new faith; even material possessions were surrendered in order fully to realize the law of God. A national assembly at the town of Caslav effectively legalized the Four Articles for the Czech lands.Now, perhaps Fudge was sloppy and should have said that the Hussites only advocated the abolition of Christian slaves…he doesn’t give a primary source for the claim and I don’t know that he is major 21st century historian, so perhaps you are inclined to dismiss his comment too.

Fudge is a solid scholar–one of just a few specializing in this field (the problem is that you have to know Czech!).

I do wonder whether he’s talking about chattel slavery or serfdom. My inclination is still to think the latter. And note that as I suggested, he’s talking about the Taborite radicals, who dominated the years of military conflict (much as the more radical wing of the Puritans came to dominate in the 17th-century English civil war) but were eventually crushed by a combination of Catholics and Utraquists. A Pope would be likely to paint all Hussites as Taborites, though, so that’s no argument against the accuracy of the Cormenin quote.

As for my acceptance of Farsight’s first-hand claim to have looked at the text and not found it–if you had run into as many inflammatory things supposedly said by Catholics as I have which turn out to have no solid basis, you’d be willing to credit such a claim too.

The fact that CopticChristian thinks I credit anti-Catholic sources too much and you think I’m uncritical in my defense of Catholicism is, as far as I’m concerned, probably something I can take pride in.

Edwin

 

[Radical]

As for my acceptance of Farsight’s first-hand claim to have looked at the text and not found it–if you had run into as many inflammatory things supposedly said by Catholics as I have which turn out to have no solid basis, you’d be willing to credit such a claim too.

understandable

The fact that CopticChristian thinks I credit anti-Catholic sources too much and you think I’m uncritical in my defense of Catholicism is, as far as I’m concerned, probably something I can take pride in.

not altogether uncritical, just a tad too indulgent. In any event, if you are going to take any pride in how I view you, please take pride in the fact that I view you as someone who (almost) always adds to the discussion.

Cheers

 

[CopticChristian]

I had guessed this is what you were talking about**…though here we sometimes pay that rate for the opinion of Chiropractors**…I wasn’t sure which medical group you fell into

no, it was this thread post #24

well, that’s ok, some of my stuff has no value too.


hey, come to Canada and I’ll buy you a coffee (extra large even) in exchange for a few of your theological opinions.

I doubt that Chiropractors could ask for what I demand and get, $500-$1000 an hour or more. It is as you know what the market will bear. Your grouping me with Chiropractors is not generous.

Keep the popcorn going. I am sure that you will find the response entertaining. I am entertained by formulating it.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I tend to agree with you…that there were ATROCITIES visited upon Anabaptists by both Protestant and Catholics is not a fabrication.

That the Catholic church DID condemn as “heretics” AND consent to their execution of those who refused to embrace some Catholic doctrine is also true…denyinig that both Foxe’s Book and Martyr’s Mirror are fabrications is completely in accurate.

Heresy was viewed as a crime in Medieval Europe because there was one Faith. Heresy was treason against Christian society and government. Heresy is the murder of the soul which is a far greater crime than murdering the body.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

T
The Crusades against the Muslims can’t really be characterized as “defensive” either, except by stretching the word “defensive” to include counteroffensives designed to reconquer areas ruled by Christians 500 years earlier! (Yes, one goal was to protect the Byzantine Empire, though that goal soon evaporated. But they worked on the assumption that the best defense is a good offense. The slaughter involved in the sack of Jerusalem simply cannot be described as “defensive”–unless that’s the one Crusade you’re granting wasn’t defensive.)

Edwin

Islam not a threat to Medieval Europe and Byzantine? Rome sacked by Islamic forces 732 A.D., Battle of Poitiers in France against Islamic army in 846 A.D. and the defeat of Byzantine army at Mazikert 1071 A.D. by Islamic forces.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I wonder if the Hussites taught that there was nothing more agreeable to God than the killing of Catholics and that the killing of Catholics earned one a nice plenary indulgence…if so, that sure would sound like an official position…can you get an unofficial indulgence?

why don’t you post it, or some summaries of it from Catholic sources?

Fighting and dying in a Holy Crusade for Christ was a good thing.

 

[CopticChristian]

Foxe’s Book of Maryrs and Maryrs’ Mirror are **two Protestant classics ****that purport to narrate the brave struggles of Bible-believing Evangelicals **across the centuries, seemingly implying that the Protestant belief system was present from the beginning and was persecuted by the CC over the centuries.
**
What are your views of these “histories”? ** Are they reliable but biased? Falsified?

Has the CC made any statements regarding the truth or falsity of any of the contents of these books?

This post is a commencement of the thoughts that I have concerning the posting by Radical and the OP. I have thoughts on the Hussites however defer that until completion of this thought.

The OP states that these are Protestant Classics. The OP states that they narrate the brave struggle of Bible-believing Evangelicals. Is this true? I think not. After posting my view as it concerns the fiction of Martyrs Mirror and being steared to Brad Gregory,

I started thinking and asking why would Brad Gregory write this book “Salvation at Stake”. I then thought and asked why did van Braght write Martyrs Mirror.

I am also reading a book “The Lord of History…Christocentrism and the Philosophy of History” by Eugen Kevane…and it got me to thinking…In order to put everything into perspective I say the following.

van Braght wrote Martyrs Mirror. It occured in time and therefore it is part of history. On the other hand is it written for the purpose of relating history? Why did Bradford reference the book as part of his treatise? These are questions I asked.

So I ask Radical and the OP…

Why did van Bragh write Martyrs Mirror? What was the purpose of the treatise? Is it a Protestant Classic? Is it a narration of Bible-believing Evangelicals?

This should get things directed towards an answer in my opinion. I believe that the Hussites can wait.

p.s. I suggest every Catholic get a copy of Bradford’s book.

 

[Radical]

Why did van Bragh write Martyrs Mirror? …What was the purpose of the treatise?

the book is online…why not start by reading the Author’s Preface?..in other words, why not go to van Bragh for the answwer?

Is it a Protestant Classic?

I don’t consider it as such…Was it an Anabaptist classic at one time? How many of the Anabaptist deaths described in it were at the hands of Protestants?

p.s. I suggest every Catholic get a copy of Bradford’s book.

which one?

 

[AbideWithMe]

the book is online…why not start by reading the Author’s Preface?..in other words, why not go to van Bragh for the answwer?

I don’t consider it as such…Was it an Anabaptist classic at one time? How many of the Anabaptist deaths described in it were at the hands of Protestants?

which one?

Was Martyr’s Mirror a Protestant classic? I would say no----as Radical points out, the anabaptists had at least as big a problem with other Protestants as they did with Catholics. I’m going to a farm store owned by Mennonites in a few hours, and I know a bunch of other Mennonites----maybe I’ll ask if they still read it.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Heresy was viewed as a crime in Medieval Europe because there was one Faith. Heresy was treason against Christian society and government. Heresy is the murder of the soul which is a far greater crime than murdering the body.

I hope you’re not suggesting that if there were “one Faith” under Christian government again, heresy would once again become a crime?

 

[CopticChristian]

I hope you’re not suggesting that if there were** “one Faith” **under Christian government again, heresy would once again become a crime?

Disregarding the notion of heresy and crime do you not favor the Bible One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism?

 

[CopticChristian]

Was Martyr’s Mirror a Protestant classic? I would say no----as Radical points out, the anabaptists had at least as big a problem with other Protestants as they did with Catholics. I’m going to a farm store owned by Mennonites in a few hours, and I know a bunch of other **Mennonites----**maybe I’ll ask if they still read it.

All Christianity flows from the Catholic Church. The Mennonites. Menno Simmons was a Catholic priest. When you say that Anabaptists had as big a problem with other Protestants are you delegating the Anabaptists to the Protestant camp?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Heresy was viewed as a crime in Medieval Europe because there was one Faith. Heresy was treason against Christian society and government. Heresy is the murder of the soul which is a far greater crime than murdering the body.

CopticChristian----

I was asking Sword Brethren to clarify what he means here. Is he saying he believes that treating heresy as a crime --punishable in some manner—would be acceptable under a Christian government ? Or, if we were in a situation where there was one perfectedly united Christian faith, would heresy be punishable then according to him?

I put “one Faith” in quotes because I was quoting Sword Brethren. I normally don’t capitalize faith myself. Yes, I do believe in one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, since you asked. What’s next, the “comfy chair”?

 

[AbideWithMe]

All Christianity flows from the Catholic Church. The Mennonites. Menno Simmons was a Catholic priest. When you say that Anabaptists had as big a problem with other Protestants are you delegating the Anabaptists to the Protestant camp?

I’m not following you here. Mennonites and other Anabaptists are not Catholic, though, yes, Menno Simons was originally a Catholic priest.

 

[CopticChristian]

the book is online…why not start by reading the Author’s Preface?..in other words, why not go to van Bragh for the answwer?
I don’t consider it as such…Was it an Anabaptist classic at one time? How many of the Anabaptist deaths described in it were at the hands of Protestants?

which one?

In post 13 I quoted the title of the book…

THE BLOODY TREAT OR MARTYRS MIRROR OF THE —
ANABAPTIST OR DEFENSELESS CHRISTIANS
WHO SUFFERED AND WERE SLAIN FOR THE TESTIMONY
CHRIST, THEIR SAVIOUR, FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST
UNTIL THE YEAR A. D. 1660

In answer to why van Braght wrote the book…is this your understanding of why the book was written? I just want to be sure.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not following you here. Mennonites and other Anabaptists are not Catholic, though, yes, Menno Simons was originally a Catholic priest.

They are defective Catholics.

 

[CopticChristian]

the book is online…why not start by reading the Author’s Preface?..in other words, why not go to van Bragh for the answwer?

 

[Radical]

I suggest you and everyone else click on my posting that you responded to. I also ask that every post concerning “which one” be understood as the book is mentioned in the post and this book is the only book mentioned by Contarini and I.

This is an example of common communication filters.

actually…I think it was an example of a lack of clarity. Here are the facts:

a) you had mentioned a book by a Brad Gregory…not Bradford Gregory, but Brad Gregory and as far as I can tell, Mr Gregory, the author, goes by Brad (exclusively).

b) all the Bradfords that I know use the name as a surname

c) all the Brads that I know are Bradleys or Brads and not Bradfords

d) I didn’t realize that you were on a first name basis with Gregory and I tend to refer to an author by his surname.

e) you had been confused as to where you had disclosed your hourly rate (on which thread) and I thought you might have been similarly confused about where you had mentioned a book by Mr Bradford

…and so I asked “Which one?” to get some clarity.

Radical posted “which one” by deleting the content of what I wrote. I have thoughts on this and will leave that to future posting as I formulate my answer to Radical. The Hussites will have to wait.

The Hussites might have to wait, but the rest of us don’t (and shouldn’t have to)…get on with it already

 

[Radical]

In answer to why van Braght wrote the book…is this your understanding of why the book was written? I just want to be sure.

No, that would be my understanding as to how one translator may have translated the Title to the work. The Title is the Title. It isn’t the purpose nor is it the preface…I have no interest in these rabbit trails of yours.

 

[Contarini]

Islam not a threat to Medieval Europe

Not Western Europe in the late 11th century, no. It had been previously, and would be again. But not at that point.

Bear in mind that we are talking about a period of centuries. You’;re conflating things that happened hundreds of years apart.

and Byzantine?

Certainly the Seljuks were a threat to the Byzantine Empire. Insofar as the Crusades were genuinely designed to protect the Byzantines from the Seljuks, I think they were certainly justifiable. However, it very quickly became clear that the cultural differences between the two Christian groups, and the incomprehension and intolerance on both sides, made cooperation pretty much impossible. Furthermore, while the Pope may have originally intended the Crusades to protect the Byzantines, it’s pretty clear that the people who responded to the call saw it primarily in terms of recapturing Jerusalem.

Rome sacked by Islamic forces 732 A.D., Battle of Poitiers in France against Islamic army in 846 A.D.

Right. It’s rather absurd to say you are defending against things that happened 200 years ago. That’s why “counteroffensive” is the best term. Western Christians had taken quite a beating from Muslims in the early Middle Ages, and they were ready to dish it out in their turn. Very understandable–certainly not the monstrous act of genocidal aggression that some people foolishly consider it–but also perhaps somewhat questionable from a Christian perspective.

and the defeat of Byzantine army at Mazikert 1071 A.D. by Islamic forces.

Again, I grant readily that action to protect Eastern Christians from Seljuk aggression was justified.

Edwin