R
rr1213
Guest
Really? Do you have a source for this assertion?
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
If you want to play word games, fine, but then don’t use them as the basis for an argument. Henry was not a Protestant in the sense Tyndale was a Protestant or in the sense that we normally speak of a Protestant movement in the sixteenth century. By the end of his life he seemed to have softened toward Protestantism, but for most of his life he actively persecuted Protestantism. Quoting his condemnation of Tyndale as a “Protestant” condemnation of other “Protestants” is playing word games, nothing more. (A “Protestant” as normally used does not mean “someone who protests”–that’s just etymology and didn’t originally refer to a theological protest anyway.)
What are you trying to prove here? Henry held radically different religious views from Tyndale, so of course he would condemn him. The Protestant Reformers did not condemn him. Henry was not a Protestant Reformer just because he split from Rome.
R
rr1213
Guest
Wasn’t the ambiguity of the BCP the result of an attempt to forge a middle way between Calvinistic views of the Eucharist and the Lutheran view which affirms the Real Presence albeit in a manner different from transubstantiation?
S
shirleytowers
Guest
I found out about it when doing research for a paper with my daughter.
kavanaghfamily.com/articles/2003/20030618jfc.htm
us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/test_irish_slave.html
http://www.btpale.com/15x.htm
scoilgaeilge.org/academics/slaves.htm
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78714
rootsweb.com/~fianna/history/
republican-news.org/archive/1997/February20/20stkt.html
There are more, but I assume this is sufficient.
kavanaghfamily.com/articles/2003/20030618jfc.htm
us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/test_irish_slave.html
http://www.btpale.com/15x.htm
scoilgaeilge.org/academics/slaves.htm
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78714
rootsweb.com/~fianna/history/
republican-news.org/archive/1997/February20/20stkt.html
There are more, but I assume this is sufficient.
R
rr1213
Guest
Interesting. I knew Cromwell was not good to the Irish (an understatement obviously) but I had not heard of this. If these sources are accurate, it appears that most of this Irish slave trade was in the British West Indies although there is some reference in these websites to the American mainland.
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure how influential the Lutheran view ever was in England. Some people think Cranmer held it for a while, others disagree. The 1549 book certainly allowed for various interpretations–Bishop Gardiner argued that it could be interpreted to allow for transubstantiation. So Cranmer got rid of all such language in 1552. 1559 did take a more moderate path but basically followed 1552. 1662 was a little more Catholic again, but I still don’t see it swerving much from the Calvinistic view of the Eucharist (it has been argued that 1552 at least is basically Zwinglian!). Certainly all the BCP’s were relatively more succinct and cryptic than other Protestant liturgies, which usually hit you over the head with their theology.
Definitely by the end of the Elizabethan period many Anglicans were distancing themselves from the Reformed tradition and taking a middle path between Calvinism and Lutheranism. In the 17th century the notion of Anglicanism as a via media between Protestantism as a whole and Catholicism began to surface (people claim to find it in Hooker but I don’t see it).
Edwin
S
shirleytowers
Guest
I had not heard of it before a few years ago.
It is just part of the persecution of the Catholic Irish by the Protestants from across the Irish Sea. In Ireland they are now calling it genocide, which is certainly was.
It is just part of the persecution of the Catholic Irish by the Protestants from across the Irish Sea. In Ireland they are now calling it genocide, which is certainly was.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
The Irish Potato Famine. The famine wasn’t not caused by protestants but the starvation of the second class Catholic subject in Ireland was of no concern to the ruling class protestants.
The penal laws in Ireland. It was illegal to be Catholic. Catholic’s couldn’t own land, couldn’t education their children, couldn’t practice their Faith, provide shelter to priest’s, who at the time were hunted by protestants in Ireland, a priest’s head was valued the same as a wolfes head. All of these things were done by protestant to undermind the Catholic faith.
Before these laws and famine the population of the island was around 8 million after 4 million. The protestants weren’t as effecient as Hilter, but close.
The history of The KKK in the US backed by protestant organisations and in some cases whole protestant congreations. Originally formed to keep the Catholic population in check with threat of terror.
The Catholic newspaper in my home town in the 20’s and 30’s would publish the name of families with KKK members so their unsuspecting Catholic neighbors would know the dangers of living next to people that would kill or hurt them just because they were Catholic. Catholic’s didn’t venture more than eight miles south of the city. It was held by the Klan until the 50’s.
G
Gunger
Guest
If you’re looking for the root of Protestant persecution of Catholics, you are best to start with Martin Luther-- by his pen and at his command hundreds of thousands of Catholics were slaughtered. Just as an example, here is a quote (with historical references) from NewAdvent from their discourse on Martin Luther:
"This smouldering fire Luther fanned to a fierce flame by his turbulent and incendiary writings, which were read with avidity by all, and by none more voraciously than the peasant, who looked upon “the son of a peasant” not only as an emancipator from Roman impositions, but the precursor of social advancement. “His invectives poured oil on the flames of revolt”. True, when too late to lay the storm he issued his “Exhortation to Peace”, but it stands in inexplicable and ineffaceable contradiction to his second, unexampled blast “Against the murderous and robbing rabble of Peasants”. In this he entirely changes front, “dipped his pen in blood” (Lang, 180), and “calls upon the princes t slaughter the offending peasants like mad dogs, to stab, strangle and slay as best one can, and holds out as a reward the promise of heaven. The few sentences in which allusions to sympathy and mercy for the vanquished are contained, are relegated to the background. What an astounding illusion lay in the fact, that Luther had the hardihood to offer as apology for his terrible manifesto, that God commanded him to speak in such a strain!” (Schreckenbach, “Luther u. der Bauernkrieg”, Oldenburg, 1895,44; “Sammtl. W.” XXIV, 287-294).“His advice was literally followed. The process of repression was frightful. The encounters were more in the character of massacres than battles. The undisciplined peasants with their rude farming implements as weapons, were slaughtered like cattle in the shambles. More than 1000 monasteries and castles were levelled to the ground, hundreds of villages were laid in ashes, the harvests of the nation were destroyed, and 100,000 killed. The fact that one commander alone boasted that “he hanged 40 evangelical preachers and executed 11,000 revolutionists and heretics”, and that history with hardly a dissenting voice fastens the origin of this war on Luther, fully shows where its source and responsibility lay.”
nuff said.
G.
"This smouldering fire Luther fanned to a fierce flame by his turbulent and incendiary writings, which were read with avidity by all, and by none more voraciously than the peasant, who looked upon “the son of a peasant” not only as an emancipator from Roman impositions, but the precursor of social advancement. “His invectives poured oil on the flames of revolt”. True, when too late to lay the storm he issued his “Exhortation to Peace”, but it stands in inexplicable and ineffaceable contradiction to his second, unexampled blast “Against the murderous and robbing rabble of Peasants”. In this he entirely changes front, “dipped his pen in blood” (Lang, 180), and “calls upon the princes t slaughter the offending peasants like mad dogs, to stab, strangle and slay as best one can, and holds out as a reward the promise of heaven. The few sentences in which allusions to sympathy and mercy for the vanquished are contained, are relegated to the background. What an astounding illusion lay in the fact, that Luther had the hardihood to offer as apology for his terrible manifesto, that God commanded him to speak in such a strain!” (Schreckenbach, “Luther u. der Bauernkrieg”, Oldenburg, 1895,44; “Sammtl. W.” XXIV, 287-294).“His advice was literally followed. The process of repression was frightful. The encounters were more in the character of massacres than battles. The undisciplined peasants with their rude farming implements as weapons, were slaughtered like cattle in the shambles. More than 1000 monasteries and castles were levelled to the ground, hundreds of villages were laid in ashes, the harvests of the nation were destroyed, and 100,000 killed. The fact that one commander alone boasted that “he hanged 40 evangelical preachers and executed 11,000 revolutionists and heretics”, and that history with hardly a dissenting voice fastens the origin of this war on Luther, fully shows where its source and responsibility lay.”
nuff said.
G.
R
rr1213
Guest
For what it’s worth, the peasants were radical Protestants not Catholics.
G
Gunger
Guest
“radical Protestants?” The religious wars (not theological, but with weapons) rammed down Europe’s throat by Luther saw no consistency. He killed indiscriminantly. The Peasant Wars in particular were his excuse to exterminate the mob (Catholic and Protestant alike) and at the same time cripple the leadership of the Catholic Church-- all the while without costing him a penny, and at the expense of all of Europe. Even further and often overlooked, in one fell swoop, he killed the Rennaisance. What a guy.
You could also look on NewAdvent under England, Ireland, Scotland and, perhaps most directly, under Penal Laws. Not only were Catholics persecuted and their faith ripped out from underneath them (in fact, they were in some cases forbidden to LEAVE for fear they may take up proper worship again), but Protestantism demanded more: their lives.
R
rr1213
Guest
You have a distorted view of Luther.
G
Gunger
Guest
I admit I don’t care for him. By his own admission, he created a religion (Protestantism) because he thought God commanded him to do it. And I find his fascination with his posterior and the credit he attaches to it…while humorous at times…chillingly indicative of the strength of his theological and historical positions.
OK OK…enough of my rhetoric.
If you haven’t read it, I would recommend Richard Marius, Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. Written by a non-catholic historian, easy to read (if you like history) and, with a few exceptions, dead on accurate. Luther indicts himself. It’s almost tragic.
G.
T
Taliesin
Guest
Because More was dead.
Stay on target. Links, please. I haven’t gotten any information from you about my opening question. I brought up Tyndale to illustrate the kind of persecution I was looking for, but from Protestants to Catholics.
T
Taliesin
Guest
Yup. Saw the museum myself, in Ireland. Why the hostility?
T
Taliesin
Guest
Thank you.
D
dalcent
Guest
Try onvent.org.ukc
There is now a convent in Marblearch, London at the site of the multiple gallows where the British Protestant regime murdered hundreds of Catholics for several centuries following the Reformation.
Blessed Philip Powel announced from the Tyburn Tree - “This is the happiest day and the greatest joy that ever befell me, for I am brought hither for no other cause or reason than that I am a Roman Catholic priest and a monk of the Order of St Benedict.” (1646)
There is now a convent in Marblearch, London at the site of the multiple gallows where the British Protestant regime murdered hundreds of Catholics for several centuries following the Reformation.
Blessed Philip Powel announced from the Tyburn Tree - “This is the happiest day and the greatest joy that ever befell me, for I am brought hither for no other cause or reason than that I am a Roman Catholic priest and a monk of the Order of St Benedict.” (1646)
T
Taliesin
Guest
Blaming Luther for the peasant revolt!
That’s like blaming Jesus for Masada and the Jewish revolt.
B
Brendan
Guest
Here are the list of recognized English martyrs.
These men and women were sent to the scaffold, beheaded or died in prison because they adhered to the Catholic faith.
newadvent.org/cathen/05474a.htm
You will note that several of the lay people were killed because they gave refuge to a priest, or allowed a Catholic Mass to be said in their houses. Both of these were captial crimes in Elizabethan England ( as well as just being a Catholic priest)
One of them, St. Margaret Clitherow, was killed in the public square by having large stones placed upon her until she was crushed. She was pregnant at the time.
catholictradition.org/Saints/clitherow.htm
You can also check out the Penal Laws (officially called the “Laws in Ireland for the Supression of Popery”) placed on Ireland. Those prohibited, for example, Catholics to own land, be educated, practice a trade or profession or to bring a law suit against a Protestant.
law.umn.edu/irishlaw/
C
Contarini
Guest
Interesting. So do you agree with Marius that late medieval Christians generally were plagued by incessant doubt and tried to cover up their doubt by elaborate, beautiful ceremonies that would emotionally lure them back to faith? I can’t see what about the book is “dead on accurate.” I strongly suspect that you say this only because it suits your prejudices. Do you feel the same way about Marius’s take on St. Thomas More? Why would he be “dead on accurate” in one case and not on the other? Did he have a charisma of historical accuracy that came on him only when he wrote about people you happen not to like?
Marius was a literary scholar rather than a historian, and he was not an expert on Luther. Luther scholars uniformly condemned the book as inaccurate; it was shaped more by Marius’s own issues (he had lost his Christian faith and clearly was still struggling emotionally with this) than by a careful reading of the evidence. It is a beautiful book written by a dying man, but that doesn’t make it good history.
The consistent prejudice and vitriol on these boards whenever Luther was mentioned is really astonishing.
Your claim that Luther had “hundreds of thousands of Catholics” killed isn’t even bad history–it’s pure absurdist fantasy on a level with the claim of fundamentalist Protestants that the Catholic Church killed millions of “Protestants” in the Middle Ages.
As rr pointed out, the peasants identified themselves with the evangelical (“Protestant,” though the term hadn’t yet been coined) cause. Luther wrote vitriolically about them and sanctioned their suppression because he wanted to make it clear that he did not endorse revolutionary violence (albeit his earlier intemperate language could easily have given that impression). The monasteries sacked during the revolt were sacked by the rebels (in part because in many cases the monasteries were oppressive landlords, in contrast to the picture that some Catholic propagandists want to paint). You can’t have it both ways. You can’t blame Luther both for the violence against Catholics committed by the rebels and the violence against the rebels committed by the rulers. But what passes all rational bounds is that you merge the two and allege that Luther was responsible for the death of “hundreds of thousands of Catholics” because the secular rulers (with Luther’s approval) killed some thousands of rebellious peasants who had themselves committed acts of violence against Catholicism!
A further level of dishonesty and hypocrisy in your argument is your insistence that Luther is responsible for the acts of the secular government just because he approved of them. Would you then disagree with your Catholic compatriots and admit that the Catholic Church is responsible for the deaths of those killed by secular rulers with the approval of the Church? Church courts actually condemned heretics and handed them over to the secular courts, yet Catholics on this board make a great deal out of the fact that the Catholic Church didn’t actually execute them. Yet when Luther, at a moment of national crisis and based on lurid stories he had been fed, writes an intemperate pamphlet encouraging the rulers to do what they were going to do anyway, he is somehow the primary one responsible!
Name one single Catholic who was executed in Germany (or anywhere on the Continent) for religious reasons. Name one single killing of a Catholic that Luther can be recorded as approving. I’m not talking about general rhetoric about how the bishops deserve to be hung–I’m talking about an actual killing *of a Catholic *that can be traced to Luther.
In Christ,
Edwin
- Status