Protestant persecution of Catholics

[Taliesin]

I am a staunch Protestant, and am also an avid student of history. Can anyone give me some good solid history, or at least websites to visit, on Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics. The kind of persecution on a par with Roman Catholic treatment of the likes of John Huss and William Tyndale. So, not just nominal Protestants persecuting nominal Catholics, for political reasons. I’m talking real persecuted-for-the-Gospel, here. I understand this is a hot button, but I don’t want debate (at least not in this thread), just information.

 

[DeFide]

I am a staunch Protestant, and am also an avid student of history. Can anyone give me some good solid history, or at least websites to visit, on Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics. The kind of persecution on a par with Roman Catholic treatment of the likes of John Huss and William Tyndale. So, not just nominal Protestants persecuting nominal Catholics, for political reasons. I’m talking real persecuted-for-the-Gospel, here. I understand this is a hot button, but I don’t want debate (at least not in this thread), just information.

Tydnale was “persecuted” by the church? Hardly. If you call denouncing his translation as “persecution”, then Protestants “persecuted” him too. Secular authorities went after both Tyndale and Huss. The secular authorities saw them as a threat to morality. So, you are talking about, at best, secular authorities who carried out characteristically harsh punishments for their times, who may or may not have been Catholic, nominal or otherwise.

I’m not sure what you mean by “persecuted for the Gospel”.

The English Martyrs

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM#IV.%20SYSTEMATIC%20SUPPRESSION%20OF%20CATHOLICISM

 

[Atreyu]

I am a staunch Protestant, and am also an avid student of history. Can anyone give me some good solid history, or at least websites to visit, on Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics. The kind of persecution on a par with Roman Catholic treatment of the likes of John Huss and William Tyndale. So, not just nominal Protestants persecuting nominal Catholics, for political reasons. I’m talking real persecuted-for-the-Gospel, here. I understand this is a hot button, but I don’t want debate (at least not in this thread), just information.

Wasn’t Tyndale executed by the post-schism Church of England?

 

[YADA]

Is it protestant “persecution” when the Klan pressed legislation [signed into law] that outlawed parochial schools in Oregon? I believe that that is a form of persecution.

How about when scripture was still being read in the pucblic schools but catholic students were not allowed to read from a ‘catholic’ bible but had to read from a ‘protestant’ one? This in New York where riots insued. The bishop asked for state funding for the parochial school [state funding was provided to non catholic religious schools at te time] so the catholics could educate their children [to read and write and read from a catholic bible]? The end ressult was the burning of a catholic school. Is that persecuted for the Gospel enough?

Ever wonder why religious “higher” education institutions can receive government funding but elementary and secondary schools cannot? Initially in this country most of the education was provided by churches and most of these were protestant. Compulsory attendence laws, and growing populations, tax bases saw more public elementary and secondary schools being formed with school districts etc. They still maintained the protestant character, scripture readings etc.

Then came great influx of immigrants, irish, italian and others, mainly catholic. They wanted to mainatain their religious identity and began to create parochial schools, especially in locations hostile to catholicism. They then demanded parity with the religious and secular schools. They lost…at the time of all these cases brought to court, catholic primary educational institutions out numbered protestant ones. Protestant higher educational institutions out numbered private and catholic institutions, and thus ‘protestant’ higher education was spared the financial hardship …

By the way, the Sister’s of the Holy Names [with the aid of the Knights of Columbus and others who supported their appeal] prevailed against the State of Oregon at the Federal Supreme Court, thus allowing all catholics in Oregon to have the option to send their children catholic schools!

 

[colliric]

Wasn’t Tyndale executed by the post-schism Church of England?

Nope, in fact he wasn’t executed by the Church of Rome either. He was killed by a Secular court for his crime of Heresy, in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor. Hence Protestants think it was the Catholic Church because they don’t understand politics nor the issue at hand, which was in fact treason to England and to the Christian faith the crime of Heresy, including to the Anglican protestants who also pursued him, he was therefore to be tried in a secular court.

Protestants make the mistake of assuming it was the Church of Rome itself that chased him to death, when in reality it was also the King and head of the Church of England(hey, that ain’t the catholic church! it’s Protestant! yes so stop saying it was only the Catholics guys!) who chased after him too:

“all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”

Simply put his bible suggested things most of christianity agreed were incorrect translations(with the exception only of anti-catholic lutherians) and therefore Heresy. Henry went after him on both fronts, he went after Tyndale because he published a work denouncing Divorce(an oddly catholic like opinion on that issue), Hence drawing the Treason charge, and he also translated the bible terribly.

It was the Public that did him in officially, Not either the Catholics or English church, even though both tried to derail him.

 

[colliric]

Some people will say the execution of Tyndale occured not long after the schism and therefore the Anglican church was yet a very early movement. The fact of the matter remains it was a Protestant movement against the Catholic Church and it too wanted Tyndale’s version obliterated because of the fact that Anglicans retained(to this day in the more conservative English churches) some of the Catholic doctrines like the real presence and his version of the bible went against this and for the safety of it’s own movement against the Catholic church, Henry wanted any opposition to his annulment obliterated too to keep his country in line.

Protestants considered him a heretic as much Catholics, and had even more reason to want him brought to Justice.

 

[NachoMama]

I am a staunch Protestant, and am also an avid student of history. Can anyone give me some good solid history, or at least websites to visit, on Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics. The kind of persecution on a par with Roman Catholic treatment of the likes of John Huss and William Tyndale. So, not just nominal Protestants persecuting nominal Catholics, for political reasons. I’m talking real persecuted-for-the-Gospel, here. I understand this is a hot button, but I don’t want debate (at least not in this thread), just information.

A friend recently posted an example of such persecution on her blog and intends to make a ‘category’ of them as she comes across them for just such occasions as this… Perhaps this might be an example, though I know there are more than this.

 

[Contarini]

Tydnale was “persecuted” by the church? Hardly. If you call denouncing his translation as “persecution”, then Protestants “persecuted” him too. Secular authorities went after both Tyndale and Huss. The secular authorities saw them as a threat to morality.

Only because their teaching contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church.

And I did not see any reference to Protestants of Tyndale’s day denouncing his translation or calling him a heretic.

You really don’t need to engage in this kind of vilification. You don’t need to dredge up old-fashioned propaganda citing high-church Anglicans out of context as if they could be expected to sympathize with Tyndale. You could choose to engage in serious theological argument instead of slinging vague dirt with no substantiation.

Please consider giving a rest to this ridiculous charge of “deliberate falsification.” No translation is perfect. Tyndale was a pioneer. He shouldn’t have had to be. Your source actually defends the despicable decision of the Church of England (while still in communion with Rome) to put off a vernacular translation. This is sheer madness.

I quote the Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church: “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful” (DV 22). Tyndale was being a good Catholic in this respect–he was just five hundred years ahead of his time (and driven into heterodoxy and schism by the fearful and faithless actions of the leaders of the Church).

So, you are talking about, at best, secular authorities who carried out characteristically harsh punishments for their times, who may or may not have been Catholic, nominal or otherwise.
%between%

This is nonsense. You’re right of course that it was the secular authorities who executed Tyndale. But they did so with the full approval of the Church, which labeled him a heretic. Phrases like “may have been Catholic, nominal or otherwise” are sheer obfuscation. They were acting as good Catholics and no one at the time doubted otherwise (except the Protestants who thought that Catholics weren’t good Catholics, if you get my meaning).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Some people will say the execution of Tyndale occured not long after the schism and therefore the Anglican church was yet a very early movement. The fact of the matter remains it was a Protestant movement against the Catholic Church and it too wanted Tyndale’s version obliterated because of the fact that Anglicans retained(to this day in the more conservative English churches) some of the Catholic doctrines like the real presence and his version of the bible went against this and for the safety of it’s own movement against the Catholic church, Henry wanted any opposition to his annulment obliterated too to keep his country in line.

Protestants considered him a heretic as much Catholics, and had even more reason to want him brought to Justice.

This is completely false. Henry was not a Protestant in any theological sense–he was a schismatic Catholic who wound up fostering Protestantism more or less against his will.

Name me one Protestant Reformer who called Tyndale a heretic.

Your understanding of Anglicanism is very mixed up. “Anglicanism” under Henry was a schismatic church with some Protestant influences. Under Edward it became thoroughly Protestant, reunited with Catholicism under Mary, and moved back to a more moderate Protestantism under Elizabeth. Most of the Catholic elements in Anglicanism today were restored in the 17th or the 19th century.

Edwin

 

[colliric]

**
And I did not see any reference to Protestants of Tyndale’s day denouncing his translation or calling him a heretic. **

Umm, I just quoted King Henry the 8th. did you not read it?

Was he not the leader of the worlds largest Protestant Church? or am I dreaming?

 

[colliric]

This is completely false. Henry was not a Protestant in any theological sense–he was a schismatic Catholic who wound up fostering Protestantism more or less against his will.

Name me one Protestant Reformer who called Tyndale a heretic.

Your understanding of Anglicanism is very mixed up. “Anglicanism” under Henry was a schismatic church with some Protestant influences. Under Edward it became thoroughly Protestant, reunited with Catholicism under Mary, and moved back to a more moderate Protestantism under Elizabeth. Most of the Catholic elements in Anglicanism today were restored in the 17th or the 19th century.

Edwin

I’m sorry but this wrong, Henry was by definition a Protestant. He protested against the catholic doctrines surrounding the sanctity of marriage.

There aren’t “levels of protesting”. There is simply protesting and no protesting, the vigor of protest can be higher or lower, but is no “Half-protesting” there is only “Protesting”. Henry was excommunicated and started his own Church, by definition it is a protestant church, there is no dancing around that.

Modern Anglicans no matter how close they are to some Catholic doctrines are also Protestant because they don’t accept the ideas of Rome.

A protestant church may have apostolic succession and therefore Valid mass like the Orthodox church, but they “protested” against the pope’s infallibility doctrine, and by definition became a protestant church too.

Henry may be considered “Anglo-Catholic”, but they also are protestants. Mary on the other hand was a Roman Catholic and returned the Church under the power of Rome and it once again became a Catholic church. Then once again it became a different Protestant Church not ruled by Rome.

P.S
Oh and for the Record from 1992 to 2001 I attended Anglo-Catholic mass services as a protestant who believed in the Catholic doctrines with exception of Papal infallibility, My ideas on that doctrine have changed. I attended an Anglican school and was taught history from an Anglican perspective. We in fact covered this topic, and my understanding of the topic formed from my study. Are you saying my Anglican teachers were wrong about the history of their own church?

 

[colliric]

I don’t like this idea of more fervent Protestants calling “softer” Protestants “Schismatic Catholics”, the fact is they are not Catholic because to be catholic one must acknowledge the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

“Anglo-Catholics” are not part of this because they are simply Anglicans who use that title to indicate their belief in the Real Presence and other shared doctrines(as I recall they also believe in praying to the dead Saints) with Catholics. But they are foremost Anglican and protest the Papal Infallibility doctrine and also hold Mary in somewhat of a slightly lesser regard(although I’ve heard that some of them do in fact pray the rosary as a prayer for Mary’s goodwill, as they also believe in prayers for the dead).

I would grant personally that title of “Schismatic Catholics” would be acceptable as a SUBCATEGORY of denominations of Protestantism. They are not Catholics.

 

[Taliesin]

Wasn’t Tyndale executed by the post-schism Church of England?

He was mercilessly hounded by “Sir” Thomas More, *before *the schism, and was forced into exile. All but 300 of his first NT translations were burned, as were the people who carried them. Not by post-schism COE. But this is off-topic. Links, please?

 

[colliric]

He was mercilessly hounded by “Sir” Thomas More, *before *the schism, and was forced into exile. All but 300 of his first NT translations were burned, as were the people who carried them. Not by post-schism COE. But this is off-topic. Links, please?

It is not offtopic.

The fact of the matter is Thomas More was one of two people who wanted Tyndale and who said his books should be burnt. King Henry, who both while he was still a catholic said Tyndale’s bible was outlawed, and then again after he went and created his own church reinforced the ENGLISH LAW THE TYNDALE’S BIBLE BE BURNT and holders of it be persecuted. It was actually English law set by the King of England!

Eventually it was the King of England that ordered he be found and arrested and deported to england to face the courts. He was arrested in Antwerp and put to trial.
And His last words were reportedly “Oh Lord, open the King of England’s eyes”.

why is that his reported last saying why isn’t it “Oh Lord, open the Thomas More’s eyes”?

Why do protestants glaze over this fact that the dying man blamed the head of the Anglican Church as much as he blamed Thomas More? why do they distort historical facts to purge King Henry of jointly being responsible for the death of Tyndale?

This is dangerous history censoring teaching fueled by anti-catholicism.

 

[YADA]

I’ll post this again…it is not Tynsdale or Henry VIII but:

Is it protestant “persecution” when the Klan [as in KKK] pressed legislation [signed into law] that outlawed parochial schools in Oregon? I believe that that is a form of persecution.

How about when scripture was still being read in the pucblic schools but catholic students were not allowed to read from a ‘catholic’ bible but had to read from a ‘protestant’ one? This in New York where riots insued. The bishop asked for state funding for the parochial school [state funding was provided to non catholic religious schools at te time] so the catholics could educate their children [to read and write and read from a catholic bible]? The end ressult was the burning of a catholic school. Is that persecuted for the Gospel enough?

Ever wonder why religious “higher” education institutions can receive government funding but elementary and secondary schools cannot? Initially in this country most of the education was provided by churches and most of these were protestant. Compulsory attendence laws, and growing populations, tax bases saw more public elementary and secondary schools being formed with school districts etc. They still maintained the protestant character, scripture readings etc.

Then came great influx of immigrants, irish, italian and others, mainly catholic. They wanted to mainatain their religious identity and began to create parochial schools, especially in locations hostile to catholicism. They then demanded parity with the religious and secular schools. They lost…at the time of all these cases brought to court, catholic primary educational institutions out numbered protestant ones. Protestant higher educational institutions out numbered private and catholic institutions, and thus ‘protestant’ higher education was spared the financial hardship …

By the way, the Sister’s of the Holy Names [with the aid of the Knights of Columbus and others who supported their appeal] prevailed against the State of Oregon at the Federal Supreme Court, thus allowing all catholics in Oregon to have the option to send their children catholic schools!

 

[rr1213]

I don’t like this idea of more fervent Protestants calling “softer” Protestants “Schismatic Catholics”, the fact is they are not Catholic because to be catholic one must acknowledge the doctrines of the Catholic Church. …I would grant personally that title of “Schismatic Catholics” would be acceptable as a SUBCATEGORY of denominations of Protestantism. They are not Catholics.

Are you of the belief that all non-Catholic Christians are Protestants? That is not the case by a long shot. There is a history to Protestantism and there is meaning to that title both as it originally developed in the 16th century and as it later evolved (or splintered if you wish) in the years since. To lump all non-Catholics together as “Protestants” does not accurately describe this history or the current situation.

 

[jimmy]

I am a staunch Protestant, and am also an avid student of history. Can anyone give me some good solid history, or at least websites to visit, on Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics. The kind of persecution on a par with Roman Catholic treatment of the likes of John Huss and William Tyndale. So, not just nominal Protestants persecuting nominal Catholics, for political reasons. I’m talking real persecuted-for-the-Gospel, here. I understand this is a hot button, but I don’t want debate (at least not in this thread), just information.

There were the Carthusian monks of the London Charterhouse who were martyred in the 1530’s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Greenwood

 

[jimmy]

Are you of the belief that all non-Catholic Christians are Protestants? That is not the case by a long shot. There is a history to Protestantism and there is meaning to that title both as it originally developed in the 16th century and as it later evolved (or splintered if you wish) in the years since. To lump all non-Catholics together as “Protestants” does not accurately describe this history or the current situation.

He wouldn’t define the Eastern Christians as protestants. All other Christians other than the Catholics and eastern Christians would be protestants since their seperation is a result of the protestant reformation in the 16th century.

 

[shirleytowers]

Two words: Irish history

Google it yourself, I am not going to give you links, it’s a big double duh.

Oh, and did you know thousands, perhaps as many as 100,000, Irish Catholics were kidnapped from Ireland by the English and sold into slavery in the Americas?

 

[colliric]

Are you of the belief that all non-Catholic Christians are Protestants? That is not the case by a long shot. There is a history to Protestantism and there is meaning to that title both as it originally developed in the 16th century and as it later evolved (or splintered if you wish) in the years since. To lump all non-Catholics together as “Protestants” does not accurately describe this history or the current situation.

The fact of the matter is, the protestant movement does not revolve solely around the Lutherian caused Reformation. By definition, protestants are in fact simply Christians who “protest against the teachings of the Catholic Church”, by this humble definition of the word “Protestant” any christian who is not specifically Catholic is Protestant in that they defy the teaching of the Catholic. I will grant that any church that has been granted “Valid mass” by Rome is not protestant because they have apostolic sucession, do not “protest” against rome and rather simply have minor disagreements, this of cause is the eastern Orthodox.

Luther personified Protestantism because he was christian protester against the teaching of the catholic church.

Some people make the mistake of assuming Socialism came into existence because of Marx. the fact is Socialism in it’s purest definition of the word existed before Marx and likewise Protestantism in it’s pure form of “Christians protesting against the catholic church” existed before Luther came along with his ideas on exactly what it was and how one sets up a protestant church.

Just ask any catholic about Transubstantiation. It was a term invented to describe more fully describe something which already existed.