Henry VIII and the Anglican Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuckinavortex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimmyG88 said:
I was taught that a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace ordained by Jesus Christ by which grace is given to our souls. So I understand Jesus instituted baptism, holy communion, ordination, confirmation (Pentecost??) marriage, last rites and confession I can’t remember when he instituted them. I’m sure I knew once. But if the ‘institution’ part is not necessarily clear and if medieval people believed the monarch was chosen by God it’s not a huge stretch to seeing coronation as a sacrament. Although it’s not ever going to be open to the public (or maybe it should be)
Click to expand...
Or if you believe this monarch is ordained — invested with the order of kingship and God’s service — by this rite of anointing and crowning.
 
7_Sorrows said:
May I ask how the carpet got to Washington D. C. for your feet to trod on it? 😉
Click to expand...
The carpet from the Abbey was removed and cut up for distribution to certain worthy locations, perhaps for a worthy donation. I was told that the location I was visiting, New York Ave. Presbyterian Church, in DC, had made the necessary arrangements, and received a portion of both the gold and the blue carpets. I don’t recall seeing the blue, but the gold was in a small chapel, in which a service I attended was held.
 
JimmyG88 said:
Well you have conjured up more supposition and fiction in a couple of paragraphs than Ackroyd could have done in his whole literary career. Fondly imagining as you do that the Tower was full as a rationale for taking heretics home is odd to say the least. I imagine you think that the tower was a miserable dungeon when in fact many prisoners lived there in comfort (not least Sir Walter Raleigh whose wife actually moved in with him). Your unwillingness to balance or inform your beliefs with evidence from both sides simply weakens your position. Any theory or belief always has a counterpoint. Knowing the other side of an argument is absolutely essential if you wish to defend your standpoint adequately. Simply ignoring the other side of the argument is puerile. Ackroyd cannot claim to be infallible but he is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and an honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. If nothing else he paints a vivid picture of Tudor London. I think you will find in his Apoligia he writes of the prisoners at home issue admitting he whipped one or had one whipped I can’t remember off hand
Click to expand...
The premise is either weak sensationalism or it isn’t. In the case of the source of your knowledge - it is.

My knowledge goes on what respectable sources have based their opinions on excluding the purposeful casting of historical people in bad light. Which is what this author has evidently done with More.

This kind of sensationalism has been ripe for some time. No historical figure is free from the mind-set of the contemporary historian who wants to have something new to say about their lives with their psycho-babble elephant dung (which gives elephant dung a bad name).

There are many writers who all claim this and that. And the only reason some are heralded as great are because they appeal to the mind-set of the age. The current majority mind-set being puerile. Or because they have connections.

This author’s writing history seems to give across the impression of bringing himself into his characters. Possibly because of his own suspicious dark side that he often brings into his writing.

My hypothesis were not actually really ideas but I was just showing you how it is that when people make massive statements - he did this or that - they ignore the subtleties which can involve many grey areas. History is in a sense subjective but it is more likely that his family would have kept the most intimate notes about More and his life, and which are going to be more truthful than secular historian accounts, mainly because, the atheist ‘outside’ historian will not necessarily appreciate the whys and hows etc…and will be deeming any solid Christian sources as tainted with bias.

All of my points are actually very sensible. Especially about More possibly wanting to convert them. But this would not read well by readers of your sensationalist source. And I don’t think it is true because I suspect he did not keep people in a dungeon in his house.

For a saint to be a saint, they need to know a thing or two about love, which often comes in the form of extra grace, which could of course make many categories of people jealous in the wider world. Or envious.

Either way, I remain to think well of saints, because they sum up what is missing in those who wish to only cast illness and doubt.

Your author actually sounds a bit passive-aggressive, but I don’t want to read any of his nonsense to find out, and if I had any books in the house written by this author I’d throw them out as these objects might be causing diabolic infestations to occur, which evil material can cause, believe or not.
 
friardchips said:
The premise is either weak sensationalism or it isn’t. In the case of the source of your knowledge - it is.

My knowledge goes on what respectable sources have based their opinions on excluding the purposeful casting of historical people in bad light. Which is what this author has evidently done with More.

This kind of sensationalism has been ripe for some time. No historical figure is free from the mind-set of the new historian who wants to have something new to say about their lives with their psycho-babble elephant dung (which gives elephant dung a bad name).

There are many writers who all claim this and that. And the only reason some are heralded as great are because they appeal to the mind-set of the age. The current majority mind-set being puerile. Or because they have connections.

This author’s writing history seems to give across the impression of bringing himself into his characters. Possibly because of his own suspicious dark side that he brings into his writing.

My hypothesis were not actually really ideas but I was just showing you how it is that when people make massive statements - he did this or that - they ignore the subtleties which can involve many grey areas.

All of my points are actually very sensible. Especially about More possibly wanting to convert them. But this would not read well by readers of your sensationalist source. And I don’t think it is true because I suspect he did not keep people in a dungeon in his house.

For a saint to be a saint, they need to know a thing or two about love, which often comes in the form of extra grace, which could of course make many categories of people jealous in the wider world. Or envious.

Either way, I remain to think well of saints, because they sum up what is missing in those who wish to only cast illness and doubt.
Click to expand...
More was undoubtedly a martyr. I understand that he was canonised for giving his life because he refused to acknowledge the King as head of the Church. He was however Lord Chancellor of England. I am just interested in how he got there. Certainly the Tudor court wasn’t for the shy. He must have participated in all the intrigue and machinations that all ambitious men participate in.
 
JimmyG88 said:
More was undoubtedly a martyr. I understand that he was canonised for giving his life because he refused to acknowledge the King as head of the Church. He was however Lord Chancellor of England. I am just interested in how he got there. Certainly the Tudor court wasn’t for the shy. He must have participated in all the intrigue and machinations that all ambitious men participate in.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how long he was Lord Chancellor, but I believe he resigned eventually. So I don’t think he liked what he saw or heard.
 
JimmyG88 said:
More was undoubtedly a martyr. I understand that he was canonised for giving his life because he refused to acknowledge the King as head of the Church. He was however Lord Chancellor of England. I am just interested in how he got there. Certainly the Tudor court wasn’t for the shy. He must have participated in all the intrigue and machinations that all ambitious men participate in.
Click to expand...
Which is why he did such an amazing job. Granted, to hold a position of office in government and try and be holy, must have been an extremely difficult thing. Remember that he had a family. In many respects, this must have been one of the most frightening and disturbing positions to hold which must have made him fear for everyone. But what I understand of him is that he was very articulate and very precise. He knew how to do his job and not put his own soul in danger and knew how not to let himself be caught in such a bind should one be on the horizon. He knew his theology and he knew law. For his Creator and for his family he did his best. He would not have let politics come before his faith. And we know this because in the end it cost him his life.

It sounds so simple. But why do you think he would have gone to the extents of wearing a hair shirt. He would have been in constant thought about how he could serve both his Creator and also serve the common good. A real life-long trial. His hair shirt being a constant reminder to him of the absolute seriousness of his position. People need to look to him first and his personal life if they want to have questions answered; meanwhile, being very, very wary about some contemporary secular interpretations of history.
 
So why could Catholic priests have families back then? was that common? the thought just occurred to me since Thomas More was married.
 
7_Sorrows said:
So why could Catholic priests have families back then? was that common? the thought just occurred to me since Thomas More was married.
Click to expand...
More was not a priest, if that is what you mean. Though early in his life he thought long on becoming one.
 
7_Sorrows said:
what was he before becoming Lord Chancellor?
Click to expand...
He was a lawyer and author, had been in Parliament, including as Speaker, and held a variety of government positions before being appointed Lord Chancellor.
 
GKC said:
He was a lawyer and author, had been in Parliament, including as Speaker, and held a variety of government positions before being appointed Lord Chancellor.
Click to expand...
that is right! I knew that. my brain is on holiday today I think.
:doh2:
 
friardchips said:
Which is why he did such an amazing job. Granted, to hold a position of office in government and try and be holy, must have been an extremely difficult thing. Remember that he had a family. In many respects, this must have been one of the most frightening and disturbing positions to hold which must have made him fear for everyone. But what I understand of him is that he was very articulate and very precise. He knew how to do his job and not put his own soul in danger and knew how not to let himself be caught in such a bind should one be on the horizon. He knew his theology and he knew law. For his Creator and for his family he did his best. He would not have let politics come before his faith. And we know this because in the end it cost him his life.

It sounds so simple. But why do you think he would have gone to the extents of wearing a hair shirt. He would have been in constant thought about how he could serve both his Creator and also serve the common good. A real life-long trial. His hair shirt being a constant reminder to him of the absolute seriousness of his position. People need to look to him first and his personal life if they want to have questions answered; meanwhile, being very, very wary about some contemporary secular interpretations of history.
Click to expand...
Great post, and the one preceding it too. 👍

While historians and modern commentators may provide good write up and argument, they may not appreciate the spiritual aspect of the life and action of a person. Yes, one needs to be wary about that. Similarly Pope Francis was quite often quoted out of context by contemporary writers and the media, which trying to clarify would be futile as he would be basically against people who do not believe.

Notedly for St. Thomas More and which matters was that he disagreed with Henry’ rejection of the annulment of his marriage with Catherine. He rejected Henry’s remarrying, to Anne Boleyn (and refused to attend her coronation) and more importantly Henry’ separation from the Pope and made himself Head of the Church of England. These, from a Catholic’s standpoint, were sins basically against God and against the Church. For a very educated and bright person, enjoying great position in the court, his belief ultimately cost him his life.

For a person he was, not only he was made saint by the Catholic Church but was also honored as a martyr by the Church of England.
 
7_Sorrows said:
So why could Catholic priests have families back then? was that common? the thought just occurred to me since Thomas More was married.
Click to expand...
I suspect More and Becket are becoming merged in the public imagination. Both Lord Chancellor, both martyred having put Pope before King. But only Becket was a priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top