Foxe's Book of Maryrs and Maryrs' Mirror

[x1980x]

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?

 

[thequeen]

I take care of our parish library and people have tried to donate those two books however i do not allow them in there i put them with the rejects and sell them at the half price book store then i get something more appropriate for a Catholic Library.

 

[Edmundus1581]

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?

Nice summary of the books! That is exactly how they have influenced thousands of Protestants, right up to the present day, and millions (?) who have not read them, but have accepted the anti-Catholic myths that largely trace to these books.

I hope you get a reply to your questions. If not, I’ll post back here in a couple of days with the little that I know about the Catholic response. Basically, AFAIK, they are reliable, but biased, in some aspects, and falsified in others.

 

[x1980x]

Oops, it should be " Foxe’s Book of Martyrs " and " Martyrs’ Mirror ".

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

I think I have a copy of Martyrs’ Mirror somewhere. It came down to me from a elderly friend who had been reared in the Old Order River Brethren Church (a very strict version of the Amish), but who later converted to Methodism. I think it is a book that tells of all the “martyrs” of Anabaptists by Catholics.

I haven’t read it, yet, but when I come across it again, I will, just for my own edification, as Sister Beatrice said.

I’d be interested in what the rest of you have to say about it.

 

[JustaServant]

Discovering that John Foxe was safely abroad, writing his propaganda in Strasbourg, Frankfurt and Basle, during Mary Tudor’s reign was an eye-opener for me when I was still Baptist. He falsified and twisted much of what he wrote.

 

[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?

It is a joke. I don’t believe the Catholic Church has to make any statement. If you read these books and compare historical research with them they outright lie. They claim Catholic martyrs as their own and accept teachings of those that also declare Catholic truths, speaking only of the Baptism they want to prove. If anyone reads these and believes that they are accurate then they are not educated, are ignorant of truth, and didn’t take the time to compare what is written here.

If these guys lie to promote what they want you to believe then what else did they lie about. These books should be a good reason for Protestants to flee to the OHCAC.

You cannot do evil, lie, to produce good, by no means.

 

[Contarini]

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?

The CC doesn’t generally make statements about such things.

I would largely go with the former option. Certainly both texts contain much valuable historical information. I have heard fewer questions raised about the “contemporary” sections of the Martyrs’ Mirror than about the equivalent (i.e., Marian-era) sections of Foxe, but that may be because I know less about scholarship on the former than on the latter. Foxe certainly was ideological and uncritical in his use of sources, but there is no doubt that many of the events described in both texts did happen. On the whole, most historians who have checked closely seem to think that Foxe is fairly reliable, making allowances for the fact that he certainly had an ideological point to make and was heavily biased. He shouldn’t be used uncritically, but he’s a valuable source not only for his own time but for Lollard history (for which many sources have disappeared).

Neither text, of course, should be used as a source for general church history beyond their specific areas of focus–as they often are by religious groups that revere them as hagiographical collections.

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

The CC doesn’t generally make statements about such things.

I would largely go with the former option. Certainly both texts contain much valuable historical information. I have heard fewer questions raised about the “contemporary” sections of the Martyrs’ Mirror than about the equivalent (i.e., Marian-era) sections of Foxe, but that may be because I know less about scholarship on the former than on the latter. Foxe certainly was ideological and uncritical in his use of sources, but there is no doubt that many of the events described in both texts did happen. On the whole, most historians who have checked closely seem to think that Foxe is fairly reliable, making allowances for the fact that he certainly had an ideological point to make and was heavily biased. He shouldn’t be used uncritically, but he’s a valuable source not only for his own time but for Lollard history (for which many sources have disappeared).

Neither text, of course, should be used as a source for general church history beyond their specific areas of focus–as they often are by religious groups that revere them as hagiographical collections.

Edwin

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.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Name a few of the heretics that the Catholic Church consented to execution so I can check it with my Martyrs Mirror and Foxs Book.

 

[Publisher]

Name a few of the heretics that the Catholic Church consented to execution so I can check it with my Martyrs Mirror and Foxs Book.

Savanarola is the only one which sticks out iin my mind…it’s been decades since I read Martyrs Mirror…and longer still since I’ve read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.

Are you denying that no one listed as “martyr” in either book really were not condemend by the Catholic church…and they were not executed?

 

[Farsight001]

I’ve never heard of Martyr’s Mirror, but regarding Foxe’s book of Martyrs, from what I have learned, I am to understand that historians consider only a handful of the people in that book as ever having existed, with the vast majority being the imaginings of the author. Which of course makes it horribly unreliable.

 

[CopticChristian]

Savanarola is the only one which sticks out iin my mind…it’s been decades since I read Martyrs Mirror…and longer still since I’ve read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.

Are you denying that no one listed as “martyr” in either book really were not condemend by the Catholic church…and they were not executed?

Here is what you said and I saw it as a generalization. I am a victim of the truth and facts.

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

.

You say you only recall Savanarola. I want a list of names and page references. For instance in my copy of Martyrs Mirror on page 187 you will read…

“The fourth Council of Carthage establishes that those who desire to be baptized must first be examined and sounded relative to their faith”

and

“Cyril of Alexandria speaks soundly on baprism and opposes the errors of the Nastorians and Valentians”

The Book opens with this…

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

.It is supposed to be a testimony of persecution of Anabaptist. It is a complete lie. Cyril and the Council of Carthage are Catholic entitiies used to promote the lie. Do you have a copy of the book?

Where is this name found…in the book…Savanarola

 

[Contarini]

I’ve never heard of Martyr’s Mirror, but regarding Foxe’s book of Martyrs, from what I have learned, I am to understand that historians consider only a handful of the people in that book as ever having existed, with the vast majority being the imaginings of the author.

What historians? Where have you heard this?

This is certainly not what I have heard, and I have a Ph.D. in church history, specializing in the 16th century, though not in Foxe in particular.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve never heard of Martyr’s Mirror, but regarding Foxe’s book of Martyrs, from what I have learned,** I am to understand that historians** consider only a handful of the people in that book as ever having existed, with the vast majority being the imaginings of the author. Which of course makes it horribly unreliable.

It may be proper to say that as I understand it “history” does not confirm the claims of Foxe’s book of Martyrs, a work of fiction, in my opinion. One does not have to be a historian to investigate, understand and discuss history. Is it your experience that you found this book to be somewhat fictional?

I have this and other Protestant fictional propaganda and when I investigate the claims I find them not to be true. This has kept me in the bosom of the OHCAC and at a distance from those that do not tell the truth.

 

[Contarini]

It may be proper to say that as I understand it “history” does not confirm the claims of Foxe’s book of Martyrs, a work of fiction, in my opinion. One does not have to be a historian to investigate, understand and discuss history. Is it your experience that you found this book to be somewhat fictional?

I have this and other Protestant fictional propaganda and when I investigate the claims I find them not to be true.

You have investigated all or most of the stories and found them to be fictional?

Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Anne Askew–none of these folks were actually killed for their Protestant beliefs?

This is quite a stunning discovery on your part. Where and how did you make it?

I will make a more modest challenge: pick one martyrdom account in Foxe and explain which aspects of it are fictional and why you believe this.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

You have investigated all or most of the stories and found them to be fictional?

Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Anne Askew–none of these folks were actually killed for their Protestant beliefs?

This is quite a stunning discovery on your part. Where and how did you make it?

I will make a more modest challenge: pick one martyrdom account in Foxe and explain which aspects of it are fictional and why you believe this.

Edwin

Read Post #13. I don’t have to prove anything except one falsehood. One falsehood proves that the treatise is fiction. The tretise suggests a history of Anabaptist.

On page 106 Ignatius of Antioch is portrayed as one that died for the cause of Anabaptist.

On page 113 Polycarp is listed as one that was martyred as per the cause of Anabaptist.

Sorry I usually only need one falsehood. I gave you two.

Whenever I read something and I find falsehood I discard the entire treatise. That is how we Doctors are Doctor.

 

[Publisher]

Read Post #13. I don’t have to prove anything except one falsehood. One falsehood proves that the treatise is fiction. The tretise suggests a history of Anabaptist.

On page 106 Ignatius of Antioch is portrayed as one that died for the cause of Anabaptist.

On page 113 Polycarp is listed as one that was martyred as per the cause of Anabaptist.

Sorry I usually only need one falsehood. I gave you two.

Whenever I read something and I find falsehood I discard the entire treatise. That is how we Doctors are Doctor.

Surely you’re not going to dismiss the book simply because true to their own teachings their beliefs stretched back through time connected by those who share a similar faith…Ignatius of Antioch was thought of to be “their own” as he was a “forebearer” of a tradition that Ignatus had also embraced…they were not being deceitful…they were stating the situation as they believed it to be…just as Christians can count Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Daniel, Ruth, David, Solomon as “spiritual ancestors”…see book of Hebrews…so too did the Anabaptists count Ignatius as one of their “spiritual ancestors”…

 

[CopticChristian]

Surely you’re not going to dismiss the book simply because true to their own teachings their beliefs stretched back through time connected by those who share a similar faith…Ignatius of Antioch was thought of to be “their own” as he was a “forebearer” of a tradition that Ignatus had also embraced…they were not being deceitful…they were stating the situation as they believed it to be…just as Christians can count Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Daniel, Ruth, David, Solomon as “spiritual ancestors”…see book of Hebrews…so too did the Anabaptists count Ignatius as one of their “spiritual ancestors”…

In your opinion. Protestant history when including Catholic history in an attempt to deny Catholic teaching using Catholic history to support the reason for departure is not good evidence that they have a treatise worth reading.

No treatise I know of that is honestly written calls any of the ancestors like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Daniel, etc anything but OT ancesctors, later members of a tribe, people of Israel…you see no attempt to say that they were Christians that were martyred.

Paul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin and had a change of mind…all he writes is consistent with a change of mind and he discusses that. He calls the people of Israel the people of Israel…a Jew a Jew…a Hebrew a Hebrew…

My criteria for acceptance of worthy reading is as it is and yours is as it is…you may continue to believe that this is a trustworthy source…I have a copy and find it to be nonsense…many people like reading nonsense. I find that the reason for which it was wrtitten is pure fiction and does not prove the case for which it was written and is to be discarded as such.

 

[Publisher]

In your opinion. Protestant history when including Catholic history in an attempt to deny Catholic teaching using Catholic history to support the reason for departure is not good evidence that they have a treatise worth reading.

No treatise I know of that is honestly written calls any of the ancestors like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Daniel, etc anything but OT ancesctors, later members of a tribe, people of Israel…you see no attempt to say that they were Christians that were martyred.

Paul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin and had a change of mind…all he writes is consistent with a change of mind and he discusses that. He calls the people of Israel the people of Israel…a Jew a Jew…a Hebrew a Hebrew…

My criteria for acceptance of worthy reading is as it is and yours is as it is…you may continue to believe that this is a trustworthy source…I have a copy and find it to be nonsense…many people like reading nonsense. I find that the reason for which it was wrtitten is pure fiction and does not prove the case for which it was written and is to be discarded as such.

But they were not written from a Catholic perspective…but an Anabaptist perspective…their “sacred story/myth” of themselves as they perceived themselves to be…the People of God…and under persecution…facing drownings and fires and prison wove for them “proof” they were the “restoration of primitive Christianity” and Ignatius for what ever reason to them appeared to embrace some of the very tenets Anabaptists embraced…perhaps martyrdom…rather than deny Christ…to them THAT IS what they were being asked to do…history from their perspective is NOT deceit or malicious intent…in Ignatius the Anabaptists found a man in church history who faced death with grace and hope…many of them were living with a similar threat for simply being Anabaptist…