wars were pretty ugly fought back then. I think many were responsible for acts of barbarism. I don’t know that they had war crime tribunals, but I am not an expert on military warfare either. I remember the Nuremburg trials.
Sure he wasn’t perfect. Sure he had blood on his hands. He was a 16th Century politician, what do you expect? But like some other very brave but very human men (I’m thinking in particular of the rather Peter-like Cranmer) his courage at the last deserves our considerable respect.
And the victors write the history books
So say I.
More to Erasmus, 1533:
yes. I agree. dreadful things were done on both sides so it shouldn’t be a trial of who was worse than the other.
I find it’s much easier to respect and like Cranmer than it is to agree with everything he taught and did. Likewise More, Pole, etc. I’m very glad that I haven’t had to make the decisions they had to make!
Yes, as Marius recounts (had to make recourse to the bookcase; it’s been far too long since I read much on More). Marius references a few names: John Feild, George Constantine, a bookseller named Segar, others likewise. Some of the imprisoned were sources for Foxe. Segar claimed “tied to a tree and beaten”. Marius seems doubtful of the physical abuse; More only admits to two minor, non heretical instances, but imprisonment and restraint at Chelsea, yes. Marius’s usual source here is the Collected Works; I assume the Apologia
Hi. Hope you get your answer finally. The fact that we spent 90 percent of the pages of this thread on the politic of the era, or the political motive of Henry or the Popes, suggests that you are quite spot on.
I never believed Henry started the Church of England because he sided with Martin Luther. it was all about his marital woes and the need for a legitimate male heir.
Yes, there was, as ever, disagreement about whether Henry’s actions in removing the English church from papal control represented the “formation” of a new church, but there has been, I think, no dissenting from the view that his motivation was essentially political. Perhaps not surprisingly, no Anglican has come forward to admit that this makes their whole church “slightly hypocritical”, but several have given their opinion on the actions of Henry and none seems to doubt the legitimacy of their church.
A political motive, continued in the face of excommunication, which indicates malice, and giving scandal to the faithful and to Elizabeth I.
And the relationship between the Church, and the Throne, in England had often been a contentious one for several hundred years, minimum, with the Throne/Parliament maneuvering to increase the government’s power over the Church in England, and reduce the power of any external agency over it, from outside the kingdom (i.e., Rome). You can trace the struggle in a number of Acts and Royal decrees, running back to the First Statute of Westminster, and culminating in the Henrician Acts in 1534. Henry (and Catherine and Anne and Clement and Pius and Cromwell and Wolsey and Charles, etc, etc) was the occasion of the split from Rome; the cause was much deeper, and lay in emerging nationalism, as much as Hanks’ dynastic and hormonal issues.
No. It suggests that if someone makes a claim about the political motivations, the political motivations need to be discussed.
The recent Anglican converts to Catholicism have kept their own liturgy if they wished to. My mothers parish priest is a convert with a wife and 3 children he has made the decision to be a parish priest and uses the liturgy we are used to but in my opinion he is far move reverent than I have seen in some years. He’s a real tonicNo. It suggests that if someone makes a claim about the political motivations, the political motivations need to be discussed.
If you want to know why Anglicans are Anglicans, you could try asking them. Without malicious leading questions or putting them on the defensive. For most Anglicans, liturgy is key to who they are. But oddly, Catholics don’t want to talk about that
Edwin
Liturgy. sure. And (quaintly) apostolic succession.No. It suggests that if someone makes a claim about the political motivations, the political motivations need to be discussed.
If you want to know why Anglicans are Anglicans, you could try asking them. Without malicious leading questions or putting them on the defensive. For most Anglicans, liturgy is key to who they are. But oddly, Catholics don’t want to talk about that
Edwin
well said.