Foxe's Book of Maryrs and Maryrs' Mirror

[Contarini]

“The Protestant historian James Gairdner, in his “History of the English Church in the 16th Century,” has demonstrated that Fox was dishonest and worthless as a witness in the matter of the cruel excesses of that reign.” The reign of Queen Mary I of England.

A Catholic Dictionary
p.200

Gairdner wrote 100 years go.

Contemporary scholars do not treat Foxe as worthless, though they do take his anecdotes with a pinch of salt.

Edwin

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Gairdner wrote 100 years go.

Contemporary scholars do not treat Foxe as worthless, though they do take his anecdotes with a pinch of salt.

Edwin

Please, list me some of the “Contemporary scholars”.

 

[Cat_Herder]

So do any of these Anabaptist “martyrs” have any miracles to back them up? After all, if what they were doing was sanctioned by Jesus Christ, then wouldn’t He have granted them the kinds of charismatic graces He gave to the Apostles and the prophets?..

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=7617

Allow me to reiterate again the Question that Protestants Can’t Answer. What were these “martyrs” dying over? The truth? That’s only possible if the Catholic Church had lost the truth, and how can that happen when…
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

How then could the billions of people who lived before the Reformation be saved? How could they have knowledge of the truth? Only if Catholicism IS the Truth.

 

[CopticChristian]

Haven’t found a free one. But I’m not a good researcher.
This is from a reviewer on Amazon:

QUOTE:

Readers of John Foxe’s book of martyres should realize that the most complete edition of this work was published in the 1800s and comprised 8 volumes. A bound photocopy of that edition is available from Still Waters Revival Books in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. They have a web site. The present edition is a small sampling of the real Foxe.

END QUOTE

Still Waters Revival Books offers a download of all eight original volumes for $14.95. They also offer a paperback of Rome’s Responsibility in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

The one being offered by the many booksellers I have checked is the 1981 paperback cut version mentioned in the review above. I suppose any free ones are also the 1981 short version. I haven’t found a bound photocopy of the original to which the reviewer referred.
The original eight volumes are probably rare and available on the used book market – which means they’ll cost plenty, plenty. I haven’t found any reprints of the eight. I’ll continue searching.

Does anyone know of a real historian who quotes John Foxe’s book as a reliable historical source? From what I’ve read, his work seems to be part fact, part fiction.

Use the search engine www.dogpile.com

Enter
Martyrs Mirror online and you will get these.

homecomers.org/mirror/

bethelks.edu/mla/holdings/scans/martyrsmirror/

Enter Foxe’s Book of Martyrs online and you will get these.

ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

biblestudytools.com/history/foxs-book-of-martyrs/

Note the chapter in foxe…Papal Persecutions. The book is used as a Bible study tool.

I only know one historian that quotes foxe as a reliable source, Edwin Contarini and he says it is propaganda.

 

[Contarini]

Please, list me some of the “Contemporary scholars”.

You could start with Brad Gregory, a Catholic scholar who uses Foxe as a major source in his excellent book *Salvation at Stake. *Gregory deals with Foxe’s inaccuracies, in particular his attempt to portray Protestant martyrs as more unified than they really were. But he certainly doesn’t treat Foxe as fiction.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

You could start with Brad Gregory, a Catholic scholar who uses Foxe as a major source in his excellent book *Salvation at Stake. *Gregory deals with Foxe’s inaccuracies, in particular his attempt to portray Protestant martyrs as more unified than they really were. But he certainly doesn’t treat Foxe as fiction.

Edwin

Edwin,

Thank you. In my world this work would be listed as a book based on a real story and not fact. Inaccuracies and an attempt to protray something as true that is false in my library goes in the section called fiction.

 

[CopticChristian]

You could start with Brad Gregory, a Catholic scholar who uses Foxe as a major source in his excellent book *Salvation at Stake. *Gregory deals with Foxe’s inaccuracies, in particular his attempt to portray Protestant martyrs as more unified than they really were. But he certainly doesn’t treat Foxe as fiction.

Edwin

Edwin,

I obtained this book from the Library. It is interesting and I am not yet sure I can say much. What I can say is that he wrote a treatise to discuss Protestant, Anabaptist and Catholic Martyrdom. In the context of the Anabaptist this book is used as a source. He does lead me to believe that the book, Mirror, was written for purposes other than what people today use it as and that it was written as I would say retrospectively. In other words the history of “Anabaptist Martyrs” is not a continuum as you find historically for Catholics because there were not always Anabaptists. The undertaking was done at a time for a purpose that had nothing to do with outlining the history of Martyrdom to prove that people died for Faith…and Gregory admits that the similarity in Faith that those that are listed as having died for is not necessarily similar as does van Braght…

The tragedy is that as a historical piece, as is seen in this treatise, is not used today as a Menonite/Anabaptist treatise, it is used and has been acquired as a tool for Protestant propaganda…this is the tragedy. I can see as a historian that this is appreciated however when the average joe sees it, it only adds fuel to the anti-Catholic sentiment that is disseminated by those that are distant from denominational Christianity…and know less than you do.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

I obtained this book from the Library. It is interesting and I am not yet sure I can say much. What I can say is that he wrote a treatise to discuss Protestant, Anabaptist and Catholic Martyrdom. In the context of the Anabaptist this book is used as a source. He does lead me to believe that the book, Mirror, was written for purposes other than what people today use it as and that it was written as I would say retrospectively. In other words the history of “Anabaptist Martyrs” is not a continuum as you find historically for Catholics because there were not always Anabaptists. The undertaking was done at a time for a purpose that had nothing to do with outlining the history of Martyrdom to prove that people died for Faith…and Gregory admits that the similarity in Faith that those that are listed as having died for is not necessarily similar as does van Braght…

The tragedy is that as a historical piece, as is seen in this treatise, is not used today as a Menonite/Anabaptist treatise, it is used and has been acquired as a tool for Protestant propaganda…this is the tragedy. I can see as a historian that this is appreciated however when the average joe sees it, it only adds fuel to the anti-Catholic sentiment that is disseminated by those that are distant from denominational Christianity…and know less than you do.

I entirely agree with you. I know what you are dealing with–I grew up around folks who think this way.

My point remains that simply labeling these works as “fiction” is not only less than accurate but also gives the folks you want to refute an easy out. It’s pretty easy to show that in fact many of the executions described in these books did occur. Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Hooper, Askew, etc., were killed for their Protestant beliefs. Many Anabaptists were killed (most often by Catholic authorities but also by Protestants) for their faith.

When you say that these books are fiction, it will appear to most people that you are claiming that none of these things happened. And that’s simply denying the historical evidence. This will discredit Catholicism further in the eyes of the Protestants you are trying to communicate with–it will confirm their stereotype that Catholic claims about history are bogus and that Catholics can’t deal with the real historical evidence. And it will give them a free pass to go on believing their own highly inaccurate view of church history.

The answer to one stereotype isn’t an opposing stereotype. It’s an accurate presentation of the evidence in all its ambiguity and complexity.

I’m glad (and impressed) that you’re reading Gregory.

Apparently he has a new book coming out talking about the connection between Protestantism and secularization. Should be very interesting.

Edwin

 

[mrasell]

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.

Luther once said that the church never burned heretics (meaning the true church). Cardinal Bellarmine in debate at a later date referred to Luther’s statement, he thought he was referring to the Catholic Church and said, “This argument proves not the sentiment, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther; for as almost an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put to death, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant; or if he knew it, he is convicted of impudence and falsehood-for that heretics were often burned by the church, may be proved by adducing a few from many examples.” John Dowling, The History of Romanism, p. 547

Pope Martin V in a letter to the King of Poland said, “burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than the extermination of the Hussites” L M de Cormenin, The Public and Private History of the Popes of Rome, Vol. II, pp. 116,117

The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the inquisition, especially in Spain towards the close of the Middle Ages was “one of the darker chapters in the history of the church”. It admits to about 5-6000 deaths of protestants. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Inquisition”, “Auto-da-Fe”, “St. Bartholomew’s Day, Massacre of”)

However, these figures are very modest, overlooking the crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and omitting such things as the Thirty Year War, in which military and civilian casualties, Protestant and Catholic exceeded 8 million.

There is no doubt that terrible things happened in the past, which is why it is so important to uphold the principle of religious liberty, and let people practice their religion whether Catholic or Protestant according to their conscience.

 

[CopticChristian]

Luther once said that the church never burned heretics (meaning the true church). Cardinal Bellarmine in debate at a later date referred to Luther’s statement, he thought he was referring to the Catholic Church and said, “This argument proves not the sentiment, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther; for as almost an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put to death, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant; or if he knew it, he is convicted of impudence and falsehood-for that heretics were often burned by the church, may be proved by adducing a few from many examples.” John Dowling, The History of Romanism, p. 547

Pope Martin V in a letter to the King of Poland said, “burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than the extermination of the Hussites” L M de Cormenin, The Public and Private History of the Popes of Rome, Vol. II, pp. 116,117

The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the inquisition, especially in Spain towards the close of the Middle Ages was “one of the darker chapters in the history of the church”. It admits to about 5-6000 deaths of protestants. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Inquisition”, “Auto-da-Fe”, “St. Bartholomew’s Day, Massacre of”)

However, these figures are very modest, overlooking the crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and omitting such things as the Thirty Year War, in which military and civilian casualties, Protestant and Catholic exceeded 8 million.

There is no doubt that terrible things happened in the past, which is why it is so important to uphold the principle of religious liberty, and let people practice their religion whether Catholic or Protestant according to their conscience.

I agree with your rationale after the Why. It is important for people to have liberty in their conscience. The dialogue that preceeds the Why has no relationship with this thought. People died for what they believed. What they believed may have been wrong. Dying for a wrong cause is not a reason to have freedom of consicence. They are not related.

 

[mrasell]

I agree with your rationale after the Why. It is important for people to have liberty in their conscience. The dialogue that preceeds the Why has no relationship with this thought. People died for what they believed. What they believed may have been wrong. Dying for a wrong cause is not a reason to have freedom of consicence. They are not related.

Unless the church supports religious liberty then persecution may arise again.

 

[Farsight001]

Luther once said that the church never burned heretics (meaning the true church). Cardinal Bellarmine in debate at a later date referred to Luther’s statement, he thought he was referring to the Catholic Church and said, “This argument proves not the sentiment, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther; for as almost an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put to death, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant; or if he knew it, he is convicted of impudence and falsehood-for that heretics were often burned by the church, may be proved by adducing a few from many examples.” John Dowling, The History of Romanism, p. 547

Why are you citing an obviously twisted and biased text by someone who was so strongly anti-Catholic he puts slurs in the very title of his text? And he is in no way an expert, either.

Pope Martin V in a letter to the King of Poland said, “burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than the extermination of the Hussites” L M de Cormenin, The Public and Private History of the Popes of Rome, Vol. II, pp. 116,117

This quote appears to be a fake, having no apparent record of such a letter in existence. In fact, the first search result for that quote is this very thread. Having just read pages 116 and 117 of that book, I can also attest that the quote is not even there.

The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the inquisition, especially in Spain towards the close of the Middle Ages was “one of the darker chapters in the history of the church”. It admits to about 5-6000 deaths of protestants. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Inquisition”, “Auto-da-Fe”, “St. Bartholomew’s Day, Massacre of”)

No. It admits to 5-6000 deaths of heretics, specifically, those claiming Catholicism as their belief, but accepting heresy as truth. Those who were open about their protestantism were not executed. Foxe’s Book claims those executed were openly protestant. This is false.

However, these figures are very modest, overlooking the crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and omitting such things as the Thirty Year War, in which military and civilian casualties, Protestant and Catholic exceeded 8 million.

Why would you add defensive wars? The crusades, with the exception of one, were defensive responses to Muslim aggression. This is also not the subject of this thread.

 

[Contarini]

This quote appears to be a fake, having no apparent record of such a letter in existence. In fact, the first search result for that quote is this very thread. Having just read pages 116 and 117 of that book, I can also attest that the quote is not even there.

Thanks for checking this. It sounded suspicious to me.

No. It admits to 5-6000 deaths of heretics, specifically, those claiming Catholicism as their belief, but accepting heresy as truth. Those who were open about their protestantism were not executed.

That’s just not true. You are right, however, that most people killed by the Spanish Inquisition were not Protestant. The Roman Inquisition had a pretty low death count. The medieval Inquisitions varied wildly in their lethality, but when we have detailed records of an inquisitor’s activities, usually what’s striking is his reluctance to condemn someone to death.

Foxe’s Book claims those executed were openly protestant. This is false.

No, it’s true.

Perhaps you can provide the source for your claim, which has not one shred of truth behind it as far as I know.

Read Aquinas’s discussion of heresy in the Summa, or a good secondary source such as Gregory.

Why would you add defensive wars? The crusades, with the exception of one, were defensive responses to Muslim aggression. This is also not the subject of this thread.

He specifically named the Albigensian and Waldensian Crusades, which had nothing to do with Muslims.

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

 

[Radical]

This quote appears to be a fake, having no apparent record of such a letter in existence. In fact, the first search result for that quote is this very thread. Having just read pages 116 and 117 of that book, I can also attest that the quote is not even there.

The quote shows up on page 553 of the The Papacy and the Civil Power by R W Thompson (1876 version available on googlebooks) and it cites pages 116-117 of Cormenin…just wondering if you read those pages in an edition that was available in 1876?

 

[Radical]

PS you’ll find Cormenin’s work here and the quote at the very start of page 117…just search “burn”

 

[CopticChristian]

Unless the church supports religious liberty then persecution may arise again.

Persecution exists in the world. It is one of many sins of man. The OHCAC opposes sin as should you.

 

[C_the_K]

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.

When I run across these books in used book stores I buy them and donate them to the local land fill.

 

[CopticChristian]

PS you’ll find Cormenin’s work here and the quote at the very start of page 117…just search “burn”

This is proof positive that the sin of man cannot change the infallible teachings on Faith and Morals of the OHCAC.

It is most important that the faithful look to what is taught.

 

[Radical]

This is proof positive that the sin of man cannot change the infallible teachings on Faith and Morals of the OHCAC.

so the Pope writing/teaching that nothing could be more ageeable to God than the killing of Hussites is “proof positive that the sin of man cannot change the infallible teachings on Faith and Morals of the OHCAC”? You called persecution a sin…so a Pope teaching/advocating sin is proof that the CC hasn’t taught error? It seems that we have taken a big step down that rabbit hole with our friend Alice…where “left” means “right” and “yes” means “no”.

It is most important that the faithful look to what is taught.

yes, by all means look at what was actually taught…not what you are prepared to categorize as official (so as to preserve a claim)…but look at what Pope Martin V actually taught in word (letter and Bull) and deed. Shoot, allow any person to categorize anything that he now finds embarassing as an “unofficial statement on his behalf” and allow that person to redefine, develop or clarify any other teaching (of his) that doesn’t quite sit well with him any more and, presto, infallibility on the matter of Faith and Morals could be claimed for anybody and any institution…when the claimant gets to solely select what will count and gets absolute liberty to modify what has been said, the claim to infallibility is very easily made and achieved.

 

[CopticChristian]

so the Pope writing/teaching that nothing could be more ageeable to God than the killing of Hussites is “proof positive that the sin of man cannot change the infallible teachings on Faith and Morals of the OHCAC”? You called persecution a sin…so a Pope teaching/advocating sin is proof that the CC hasn’t taught error? It seems that we have taken a big step down that rabbit hole with our friend Alice…where “left” means “right” and “yes” means “no”.

yes, by all means look at what was actually taught…not what you are prepared to categorize as official (so as to preserve a claim)…but look at what Pope Martin V actually taught in word (letter and Bull) and deed. Shoot, allow any person to categorize anything that he now finds embarassing as an “unofficial statement on his behalf” and allow that person to redefine, develop or clarify any other teaching (of his) that doesn’t quite sit well with him any more and, presto, infallibility on the matter of Faith and Morals could be claimed for anybody and any institution…when the claimant gets to solely select what will count and gets absolute liberty to modify what has been said, the claim to infallibility is very easily made and achieved.

Can the Pope sin? Peter committed sin. He denied Christ. That did not change the deposit of Faith.