History of the RC to Church of England question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Whalljim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ltwin said:
Part of it had to do with the fact that the Vatican immediately tried to undermine Henry and his heirs once they made the switch. Catholics were at times encouraged to plot against the state to restore Catholicism. Spain, England’s rival, got involved. Because of all this political maneuvering Catholicism became associated with treason and foreign powers. Gradually, common people began to associate Catholicism with being unpatriotic and Catholics as potential foreign agents.
Click to expand...
Politics is always a part of it.
 
ltwin said:
Part of it had to do with the fact that the Vatican immediately tried to undermine Henry and his heirs once they made the switch. Catholics were at times encouraged to plot against the state to restore Catholicism. Spain, England’s rival, got involved. Because of all this political maneuvering Catholicism became associated with treason and foreign powers. Gradually, common people began to associate Catholicism with being unpatriotic and Catholics as potential foreign agents.
Click to expand...
Is that where Guy Fawke’s comes into play? Or is that another moment in British history? (Not sure of spelling)
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I’ll add the rapid spread might have been in part because a large number of people were ready for something different. It could be said the soil was rich and just waiting for a seed.
Click to expand...
That is certainly one way of putting it.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Is that where Guy Fawke’s comes into play? Or is that another moment in British history? (Not sure of spelling)
Click to expand...
Guy Fawkes came later, under the Stuart kings I believe. But essentially it’s the same thing. It was a Catholic conspiracy to blow up the Protestant government (literally), kidnap the king’s daughter and raise her to be a Catholic queen.
 
Kaninchen said:
I expect one can overestimate the involvement of most people in the details of religion in that (largely) pre-literate era.
Click to expand...
The details, yes, perhaps, although we should note that the Henrician Acts were in the middle of three centuries of upheaval, beginning with Lollards and the Peasants’ Revolt, and through to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, in which ordinary people were heavily involved, whether seeking to protect their traditional customs and old religion, or seeking political, economic and religious reform.

Certainly the conception that working people simply accepted the dictates of government is misplaced.
 
Picky_Picky said:
The details, yes, perhaps, although we should note that the Henrician Acts were in the middle of three centuries of upheaval, beginning with Lollards and the Peasants’ Revolt, and through to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, in which ordinary people were heavily involved, whether seeking to protect their traditional customs and old religion, or seeking political, economic and religious reform.

Certainly the conception that working people simply accepted the dictates of government is misplaced.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it the case, though, that we tend to reflect on the reports/feelings/experiences of the people who ‘mattered’ (local lower aristocracy, landowners, merchants, ‘professionals’) who were not identical to ‘the people’ but had considerable power over them.

I seem to remember from reading the ‘Early Modern’ historian Keith Thomas’ “Religion and the Decline of Magic” that internal (pre-Reformation) Church reports on the situation at parish level found that, for many (particularly agricultural labourers), understanding of even key beliefs was vague to say the least.
 
Kaninchen said:
Isn’t it the case, though, that we tend to reflect on the reports/feelings/experiences of the people who ‘mattered’ (local lower aristocracy, landowners, merchants, ‘professionals’) who were not identical to ‘the people’ but had considerable power over them.

I seem to remember from reading the ‘Early Modern’ historian Keith Thomas’ “Religion and the Decline of Magic” that internal (pre-Reformation) Church reports on the situation at parish level found that, for many (particularly agricultural labourers), understanding of even key beliefs was vague to say the least.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on what your comparison is. We tend to think modern Christians would have a keener understanding of the details of faith. Do they? I was brought up in Protestant (and I mean Protestant, not Anglican) surroundings, and I was clearly taught that if I was good I would go to Heaven and if I was bad I would go to Hell. I now know that is not mainstream Christian faith, and certainly not detailed Protestant faith, yet I suspect it is what most ordinary Christians (at least those who believe in Hell) think is mainstream truth.

If you look at, say, the Putney Debates, or the evidence before the trials of Lollards in the C14, I think you would find at least a similar level of understanding to that of most folk in the pews today (although I accept this would be particularly true of skilled artisans as opposed to agricultural labourers).
 
Yes, except I think the Reformation removed so much of the colour of church and life, with its destruction of traditional festivals and special days and general jollities, that it was very painful for many in the peasantry who had few other sources of colour and comfort.
 
Although I think if you lived in Orkney you would think the country to the left of England was the Netherlands.
 
Picky_Picky said:
If you look at, say, the Putney Debates, or the evidence before the trials of Lollards in the C14, I think you would find at least a similar level of understanding to that of most folk in the pews today (although I accept this would be particularly true of skilled artisans as opposed to agricultural labourers).
Click to expand...
(And, in eastern Europe, over many centuries, many a village bar brawl has started over the theology behind the Filioque.)

The Lollards were a very small group and the Putney debators were a small group in an era of ferocious civil and (Protestant) strife.

I still stand by my original suggestion.
 
Kaninchen said:
(And, in eastern Europe, over many centuries, many a village bar brawl has started over the theology behind the Filioque.)

The Lollards were a very small group and the Putney debators were a small group in an era of ferocious civil and (Protestant) strife.

I still stand by my original suggestion.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, although I think the extent of Lollardy, and the degree to which its influence persisted into the English Reformation, are subjects which occasion bar brawls between historians of the period.
 
Quite so. Sometimes you can hardly get in the pub for all those half-drunken historians bellowing about Schleswig-Holstein.
 
ltwin said:
Guy Fawkes came later, under the Stuart kings I believe. But essentially it’s the same thing. It was a Catholic conspiracy to blow up the Protestant government (literally), kidnap the king’s daughter and raise her to be a Catholic queen.
Click to expand...
Thanks for correcting my poor memory! 👍
 
I see that I have set up an insuperable problem. Which I will resolve by hoisting a glass to each of you, myself, here at home.

No charge to you.
 
GKC said:
I see that I have set up an insuperable problem. Which I will resolve by hoisting a glass to each of you, myself, here at home.

No charge to you.
Click to expand...
Your very good health, sir.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top