Refuting: Foxe's book of martyrs

[De_Maria]

The Catholic wiki needs a refuting of this work of anti-Catholic propaganda:

catecheticsonline.com/wik…itle=Refutings

The book is huge. I’m not aware of any Catholic response in existence. I wonder if we could all, on this forum, collaborate to debunk it. Maybe each take one chapter apiece or some other strategy.

We can discuss it here if permitted by the mods or on the Catholic wiki discussion page after you’ve registered there.

Many hands make light work!

Sincerely,

De Maria

P.S.
Here is the online book - ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic wiki needs a refuting of this work of anti-Catholic propaganda:

catecheticsonline.com/wik…itle=Refutings

The book is huge. I’m not aware of any Catholic response in existence. I wonder if we could all, on this forum, collaborate to debunk it. Maybe each take one chapter apiece or some other strategy.

We can discuss it here if permitted by the mods or on the Catholic wiki discussion page after you’ve registered there.

Many hands make light work!

Sincerely,

De Maria

P.S.
Here is the online book - ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

Why do you need to debunk it? Which parts are you trying to debunk? It’s commonly accepted that Foxe is not entirely reliable, but much of it is still a valuable source for 16th-century English Protestant martyrdom.

For a good Catholic treatment of the subject (16th-century martyrdom) in general, including Foxe, see Brad Gregory, Salvation at Stake.

No one disputes that 16th-century Catholic governments executed heretics (so did Protestant governments occasionally). What’s to refute? Details, sure, but is that really worth it? Do you have the expertise necessary to quarrel with Foxe’s details?

Perhaps you are thinking of the broader narrative of church history presented by Foxe. Sure, that could use a good refutation.

One interesting bit of information–Foxe actually interceded for Edmund Campion, the Jesuit missionary brutally tortured and executed (along with many others, as you all know) by the Elizabethan government. Foxe seems to have been one of the few people in the sixteenth century who really did find religious persecution in general revolting, and not just when the other side was doing it.

Edwin

 

[De_Maria]

Why do you need to debunk it? Which parts are you trying to debunk? It’s commonly accepted that Foxe is not entirely reliable, but much of it is still a valuable source for 16th-century English Protestant martyrdom.

Unfortunately, too many Protestants still believe the unbelievably ridiculous claims in that book, such as:

As I understand it, for the Whore of Babylon book Hunt relies on evil, dishonest sources like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (which laughably claims the Cathari to be of the “Reformed Fayth”) to create a caricature of history in which more people die in the Inquisition than lived in Europe during the Inquisition.
catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-aug-05.htm

For a good Catholic treatment of the subject (16th-century martyrdom) in general, including Foxe, see Brad Gregory, Salvation at Stake.

No one disputes that 16th-century Catholic governments executed heretics (so did Protestant governments occasionally). What’s to refute? Details, sure, but is that really worth it? Do you have the expertise necessary to quarrel with Foxe’s details?

Not yet. But the expertise is available on the internet and that is why I am requesting assistance.

Besides, these type of exercises have helped me to understand my faith and Christian history.

Perhaps you are thinking of the broader narrative of church history presented by Foxe. Sure, that could use a good refutation.

One interesting bit of information–Foxe actually interceded for Edmund Campion, the Jesuit missionary brutally tortured and executed (along with many others, as you all know) by the Elizabethan government. Foxe seems to have been one of the few people in the sixteenth century who really did find religious persecution in general revolting, and not just when the other side was doing it.

Edwin

Thanks for the info. I’ll see how I can fit it in.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Contarini]

Unfortunately, too many Protestants still believe the unbelievably ridiculous claims in that book, such as:

As I understand it, for the Whore of Babylon book Hunt relies on evil, dishonest sources like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (which laughably claims the Cathari to be of the “Reformed Fayth”) to create a caricature of history in which more people die in the Inquisition than lived in Europe during the Inquisition.
catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-aug-05.htm

First of all, Foxe’s book is not evil or dishonest. It is a work of hagiography written in a period of intense religious conflict. It cannot be used uncritically, but all in all considering the historical context I admire Foxe. I think he was terribly wrong in his judgment of Catholicism, but lots of people on both sides made harsh and unfair judgments.

Of course Foxe’s account of early and medieval church history is way off in numerous ways. If that is what you want to refute, more power to you. I should have known that was primarily what you have in mind, since I grew up on this stuff as well. But as a church historian of the Reformation, I tend to think mainly of Foxe’s account of contemporary events, which is still biased and often unreliable but frequently indispensable nonetheless.

It is amazing how much fundamentalists rely on the first few chapters of Foxe. . . . in fact, many fundamentalists derive everything they know about the persecution of early Christians by the Romans from that source!

However, bear in mind that Foxe is just one source among many.

The most authoritative general work on medieval dissenting movements is Malcolm Lambert, *Medieval Heresy *(most recent edition in 2002–he keeps updating it with reference to contemporary scholarship, making it a good summary of the current state of research).

Edwin

 

[Fidelis]

No one disputes that 16th-century Catholic governments executed heretics (so did Protestant governments occasionally).

Occasionally, Edwin? :ehh:

 

[Donald45]

Here you go, hope this helps:

geocities.com/militantis/actsandmonuments.html

Don
+T+

 

[Contarini]

Occasionally, Edwin? :ehh:

Yes, occasionally. I said “heretics.” That was a precise legal charge. No Catholics, for instance, were executed in England as heretics–they were executed as traitors. That doesn’t make it OK, and it doesn’t make them any less martyrs. But I was speaking specifically of executions for heresy. And Protestant governments did this on only a handful of occasions. Servetus in Geneva, and several radical Protestants in England. Probably we should count the Anabaptists drowned at Zurich, though I’m not sure what the formal charge was. In a number of cases continental Protestants executed radicals for “blasphemy,” which arguably was so close to heresy as to make no difference. Generally executions for blasphemy involved a more open offense against the dominant religious opinion than executions for heresy.

I know that Catholics on this forum are impatient with these fine distinctions. But they’re essential if you want to understand our common past rather than simply racking up propaganda points. (Similarly, the fact that the Catholic Church never directly executed anyone is extremely important, even though it often appears to non-Catholics like a distinction without a difference.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Here you go, hope this helps:

geocities.com/militantis/actsandmonuments.html

Don
+T+

Yes, it’s generally agreed that the details of these martyrdom stories can’t be trusted.

However, the article isn’t entirely reliable either. For instance, it speaks of Catholics being “sent to the stake” under Henry VIII. Please name one such Catholic. Catholics were sent to the scaffold, not the stake.

Furthermore, the accounts of Latimer and Ridley are extremely one-sided. You can’t give a fair account of anyone’s character by listing everything bad you can find about them. For instance, Latimer’s concern with the poor and his denunciation of enclosures is never mentioned. Many of the accusations against him are matters of innuendo and supposition: for instance, we are not told exactly what he abjured “to keep his bishopric” (I am dubious of the claim that he became Protestant in opinion after he became bishop; this certainly doesn’t match Foxe’s account of his conversion by Bilney, but I agree that Foxe is not necessarily reliable); we are not told that in fact he fell into disfavor for opposing the Six Articles in 1539 and was imprisoned twice (so much for his keeping his opinions under wraps for 20 years, a presumptuous bit of mind-reading on Mr. Clarke’s part even if no facts actually contradicted it). Mr. Clarke is distorting things in the other direction to oppose Foxe’s distortions. When will this end? Why not just try to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may?

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

Why do you need to debunk it? Which parts are you trying to debunk? It’s commonly accepted that Foxe is not entirely reliable, but much of it is still a valuable source for 16th-century English Protestant martyrdom.

For a good Catholic treatment of the subject (16th-century martyrdom) in general, including Foxe, see Brad Gregory, Salvation at Stake.

No one disputes that 16th-century Catholic governments executed heretics (so did Protestant governments occasionally). What’s to refute? Details, sure, but is that really worth it? Do you have the expertise necessary to quarrel with Foxe’s details?

Perhaps you are thinking of the broader narrative of church history presented by Foxe. Sure, that could use a good refutation.

One interesting bit of information–Foxe actually interceded for Edmund Campion, the Jesuit missionary brutally tortured and executed (along with many others, as you all know) by the Elizabethan government. Foxe seems to have been one of the few people in the sixteenth century who really did find religious persecution in general revolting, and not just when the other side was doing it.

Edwin

Umm, you may need to walk “occasionally” back. Calvin himself burned a man at the stake, didn’t he?

The Reformers were quite a bloody bunch, you know. Ask the 100,000 German peasants buried on Luther’s wedding day, and at his encouragement.

 

[Contarini]

Umm, you may need to walk “occasionally” back. Calvin himself burned a man at the stake, didn’t he?

Yes. I mentioned this. So far you are falling short even of my allegedly objectionable “occasionally.”

The Reformers were quite a bloody bunch, you know.

Oh please, not this again. . . . . what does “quite a bloody bunch” mean? That they were bloodier than any of us on this forum? No doubt. But were they bloodier than other people of their own time and place who were not Reformers?

Ask the 100,000 German peasants buried on Luther’s wedding day, and at his encouragement.

Substitute “Islamic terrorists” for “German peasants” and you have a better sense of why Luther responded as he did (not that the peasants were equivalent to Islamic terrorists–but Luther certainly thought they were). Luther believed that the peasants were raping, plundering, and killing on a large scale (some of them were, but not anything like the propaganda Luther was hearing), and he thought that ruthless violence was the only way to stop them. This does not justify him morally. His response was reprehensible. But was he any bloodier than other people of his day?

The problem is that Protestants have promoted for centuries a lot of silly propaganda about the Reformers being nice, democratic, tolerant modern Protestants. They weren’t. They were early modern European Christians with a pretty high threshold for violence (if engaged in by the proper authorities) and a preoccupation with preserving law and order.

Anyway, since the peasants were killed as rebels and not heretics, this is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of my statement.

In some ways, the fact that the Protestants tended to kill people for treason or sedition or blasphemy rather than heresy can count against them–it was the beginning of the rise of the State and the idea that religious truth didn’t matter as much as peace and order (not something the Reformers believed, but since they–the Anglicans and Lutherans at least-- abolished the separate institutional structures of the Church and rejected the “two swords” doctrine, they unwittingly promoted the growth of this attitude). But at the same time, it also allowed a lot more leeway for people who disagreed with the dominant religion as long as they kept pretty quiet about it.

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

Yes. I mentioned this. So far you are falling short even of my allegedly objectionable “occasionally.”

Oh please, not this again. . . . . what does “quite a bloody bunch” mean? That they were bloodier than any of us on this forum? No doubt. But were they bloodier than other people of their own time and place who were not Reformers?

Substitute “Islamic terrorists” for “German peasants” and you have a better sense of why Luther responded as he did (not that the peasants were equivalent to Islamic terrorists–but Luther certainly thought they were). Luther believed that the peasants were raping, plundering, and killing on a large scale (some of them were, but not anything like the propaganda Luther was hearing), and he thought that ruthless violence was the only way to stop them. This does not justify him morally. His response was reprehensible. But was he any bloodier than other people of his day?

The problem is that Protestants have promoted for centuries a lot of silly propaganda about the Reformers being nice, democratic, tolerant modern Protestants. They weren’t. They were early modern European Christians with a pretty high threshold for violence (if engaged in by the proper authorities) and a preoccupation with preserving law and order.

Anyway, since the peasants were killed as rebels and not heretics, this is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of my statement.

In some ways, the fact that the Protestants tended to kill people for treason or sedition or blasphemy rather than heresy can count against them–it was the beginning of the rise of the State and the idea that religious truth didn’t matter as much as peace and order (not something the Reformers believed, but since they–the Anglicans and Lutherans at least-- abolished the separate institutional structures of the Church and rejected the “two swords” doctrine, they unwittingly promoted the growth of this attitude). But at the same time, it also allowed a lot more leeway for people who disagreed with the dominant religion as long as they kept pretty quiet about it.

Edwin

“Occasionally” is used to minimize. The sentence reads differently (and more accurately) without it, no?

Yes, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were more violent than many in their time or ours. They claimed to speak with Christ’s mouth, and yet acted in so unChristian a manner as to horrify contemporaries as well as moderns.

It is worthwhile to note this because while the horrors of the Inquisition are quite well known and widely taught, Calvin watching a man burn before his eyes is not. Luther inciting a peasant uprising then exhorting his masters to slaughter them is not.

That’s a lot of blood to pay for the “leeway” you imagine people had, which was no leeway at all, as you well know. Ask the Catholics of northern Germany, or of Switzerland, or of England, how much “leeway” they were given while forced to renounce their religion, sent into exile, or murdered.

This was what the Reformers birthed, and you’ll excuse me for noting that it doesn’t bear much resemblance to Christ’s church to me.

Wallpapering over it is a tremendous disservice to the truth, and to all those who died in the religious wars Luther and his lot wrought.

You might be tired of such things, but it is important to call attention to the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say.

 

[Contarini]

“Occasionally” is used to minimize. The sentence reads differently (and more accurately) without it, no?

No, it doesn’t read more accurately. Omitting it would have implied that Protestant and Catholic governments invoked the death penalty for heresy with approximately equal frequency, which would be highly misleading. Protestant governments were relatively slow to execute people for heresy, even while engaging in other forms of religious persecution. And that’s an interesting historical fact that can help us understand the period better.

Note that I was not making some huge point about this. I used a perfectly accurate and rather understated adverb, and you made an issue of it. (“Occasionally” actually doesn’t minimize–i.e., I could have said “rarely” or “in exceptional circumstances” or most specifically “in England a few times and Geneva once.” That would have been minimizing, but perhaps defensible, depending on what we decide the formal charge in Zurich 1525 and other similar cases was. At any rate, I had no interest in minimizing, but rather in strict accuracy.)

Yes, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were more violent than many in their time or ours. They claimed to speak with Christ’s mouth, and yet acted in so unChristian a manner as to horrify contemporaries as well as moderns.

This is a valid point, although of course contemporary criticisms often had agendas and the critics were often themselves open to censure. You are right that Luther’s violent language, his advocacy of the slaughter of the peasants, and his support for the bigamy of Philip of Hesse were criticized by contemporaries. Zwingli’s willingness to use military force to defend and promote his beliefs was also criticized (chiefly by Luther, hence my reference above to critics being themselves open to censure!). The drowning of the Anabaptists and the execution of Servetus, which seem horrifying to use, were relatively less controversial.

However, the fact that ethically sensitive or polemically biased contemporaries criticized them does not show that they were, by and large, bloodier than other people of their time. I just don’t think these generalizations help us understand the specific actions in question. Were there gentle humanist intellectuals who were far less bloody? Yes, and I spoke too hastily insofar as I implied otherwise. But if you look at the way governments generally behaved in the 16th century, and if you look at the kind of violence the Catholic Church explicitly sanctioned to maintain its religious monopoly (or, more positively phrased, to maintain religious unity), I don’t think the Reformers look that bad. Not particularly good either, mind you–I have no interest in holding them up as role models. I’d say that taking into account their circumstances and their belief that the truth of God was at stake, they were more or less average in terms of a propensity to advocate violence.

It is worthwhile to note this because while the horrors of the Inquisition are quite well known and widely taught, Calvin watching a man burn before his eyes is not.

Calvin was not present–Farel was, not that it matters. And in my experience the burning of Servetus is widely known. Agreed, probably more people know about the Inquisition (in a highly garbled and exaggerated version) than about Servetus, but a lot of people know about Servetus.

Luther inciting a peasant uprising then exhorting his masters to slaughter them is not.

Luther did not incite a peasant uprising. He said things which could be taken in that direction, which is not the same thing. And again, in my experience this is very well known.

Anyway, the point really isn’t how many people know about it. The answer to one set of caricatures is not another set of caricatures, but the whole truth, with as much detail and nuance as we can provide.

 

[Contarini]

That’s a lot of blood to pay for the “leeway” you imagine people had, which was no leeway at all, as you well know.

No, if I knew it I obviously would not have said what I did. The proper response to my statement is to argue the facts and challenge me to support my views, not to insult me by assuming that I am insincere.

Ask the Catholics of northern Germany, or of Switzerland, or of England, how much “leeway” they were given while forced to renounce their religion, sent into exile, or murdered.

Yes, indeed. Take England–by far the most ruthless Protestant country in terms of its treatment of dissenters (Geneva arguably gave it a close run and was certainly more restrictive, which is not quite the same thing). There was far less “leeway” there than on the Continent. And yet it was quite possible to disagree with the dominant religion without undergoing any penalties at all, unless you wanted to attend Oxford or Cambridge or be ordained (most who attended the universities were headed for ordination). No one asked what you believed about transubstantiation. Granted, you had to put in a token attendance at the parish church or else face crippling fines, and if you harbored missionary priests you could be executed as a traitor. It was a viciously repressive regime. But in terms of mere opinion, yes, there was leeway, and there were a number of recusants who managed to keep their heads down, avoid going to the parish church somehow or other, and keep Catholicism alive.

The Inquisition, on the other hand, for all its virtues (and it had many–I’m not being sarcastic), did concern itself with what you *believed. *Under laws against heresy (whether enforced by the Inquisition in Spain and Italy or by the episcopal and secular courts elsewhere), you could be asked if you believed in transubstantiation and executed if you said you didn’t.

That is less leeway than in England. And England gave considerably less “leeway” than many of the Continental Protestant territories, where people were allowed to go outside the city to Mass as long as they did so in small groups. (In all fairness, some Catholic territories allowed the same “leeway” to Protestants.)

I’m not claiming that Protestants were tolerant. I’m saying that the religious repression they engaged in had public behavior, not private opinion, in view. I do not know of a single Protestant government that executed people for believing in transubstantiation. Quite a few Protestants were executed by Catholic governments for not believing in transubstantiation. There is a difference, however small it may appear to us fortunate modern Westerners who live under pretty much complete religious liberty.

This was what the Reformers birthed, and you’ll excuse me for noting that it doesn’t bear much resemblance to Christ’s church to me.

Then how can you be Catholic? You surely aren’t claiming that Catholics were, by and large, more tolerant than Protestants? I understand the resistance to my assertion that Protestants were, on the whole, at least marginally more tolerant than Catholics (for reasons that I don’t think have anything to do with greater virtue or holiness on the part of Protestants, I hasten to add). And there are certainly counterexamples–Catholic Poland and some of the smaller German Catholic territories were considerably more tolerant than Protestant England or Geneva, and admittedly much of the bad Catholic record comes from the Hapsburgs alone. But if Protestant intolerance discredits Protestantism, doesn’t Catholic intolerance discredit Catholicism?

Don’t tell me this is irrelevant (you haven’t said this but some other posters have in similar circumstances). It becomes relevant the moment you use a word like “birthed” (which implies something new coming into being) or say that the Protestant record of intolerance discredits Protestant claims to be (at least) part of the true Church.

Wallpapering over it

I’m not wallpapering over anything. I was speaking specifically of Catholic persecution of heretics, and I mentioned that Protestants sometimes did the same thing precisely so as not to wallpaper over Protestant persecution.

You might be tired of such things, but it is important to call attention to the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say.

I want the whole story, not just the “rest of the story.”

It is time for Catholics on this forum to stop using Protestant distortion and prejudice as an excuse for responding in kind. This is a predominantly Catholic forum. The Catholic story is well known here. There is no excuse for settling for anything less than complete accuracy.

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

I want the whole story, not just the “rest of the story.”

It is time for Catholics on this forum to stop using Protestant distortion and prejudice as an excuse for responding in kind. This is a predominantly Catholic forum. The Catholic story is well known here. There is no excuse for settling for anything less than complete accuracy.

Edwin

Well, perhaps you could point out some of my distortions and prejudice.

This is the typical way you argue, Edwin—you claim that Catholics are unfairly questioning your motives, then you proceed to smear them in the very same post. Why not just cut to the chase and enumerate the distortions you see?

My issue is that you are trying to paint the picture of Protestant tolerance and Catholic intolerance during the Reformation. How about sticking to that period and comparing apples to apples?

Do you really think that Leo X’s treatment of Luther and Luther’s treatment of the Pope were equivalent?

Do you really think that England became virtually Catholic-free
(as it was nearly Jewish-free) because of its tolerance?

Do you not make a distinction between the considerable violence and blood on the hands of the very men who founded Protestantism (and who in the cases of Calvin and Luther claimed to speak with Christ’s mouth) and the founder of the Catholic Church?

The violence matters because these were men purporting to found “true” Christianity. You no doubt admire them, but can you say these were men who were Christlike? Who were apostle-like?

When I was Episcopalian, it sure bothered me that Henry VIII was a murderer and a lecher. When a church is founded by men not manifestly Christian at all, it is founded not on rock, but on sand. And given the virtually absolute power Henry, Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin wielded over their flocks, more power than Popes have ever held, this presents a huge problem, I think.

Your mileage may vary, but for mine, I think you’ve got a bit of a blind spot when it comes to the Reformers. Why defend the violence and hate at all?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

Umm, you may need to walk “occasionally” back. Calvin himself burned a man at the stake, didn’t he?

Whoops!

 

[Teflon93]

And yet it was quite possible to disagree with the dominant religion without undergoing any penalties at all…No one asked what you believed about transubstantiation. Granted, you had to put in a token attendance at the parish church or else face crippling fines, and if you harbored missionary priests you could be executed as a traitor.

Okay, you do realize that the above resulted in the denial of sacraments to Catholics, right? Catholics who have no access to Confession, to Baptism, to Last Rites are in danger of not being saved. You understand that this was a much bigger problem than simply being tortured or executed, whereby one at least became a martyr of the faith, right?
Under laws against heresy (whether enforced by the Inquisition in Spain and Italy or by the episcopal and secular courts elsewhere), you could be asked if you believed in transubstantiation and executed if you said you didn’t.

A reference would help here. Is there a specific instance where this happened you could excerpt? I get leery when “could be asked” and “if you said” enter the picture.

I’m not claiming that Protestants were tolerant. I’m saying that the religious repression they engaged in had public behavior, not private opinion, in view. I do not know of a single Protestant government that executed people for believing in transubstantiation. Quite a few Protestants were executed by Catholic governments for not believing in transubstantiation. There is a difference, however small it may appear to us fortunate modern Westerners who live under pretty much complete religious liberty.

Some examples of the “quite a few” and the “Catholic governments” would buttress your point. Of course, you’re engaging in sleight of hand on transubstantiation. Denying transubstantiation was equivalent to denying Christ.

What happened to those who refused to adopt sola fide and sola scriptura? Who sought Mass? Who didn’t want to use Luther’s Bible?

Or, God forbid, who disagreed with Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin?

You have also managed to swap cause and effect here. How many heresy prosecutions were there instigated by the Catholic Church in the century before 1520? How many in the century after? Do you think something might have happened in-between?

You have read Luther’s correspondence with the Pope, haven’t you? Applying an honest, objective lens to it, does the Pope strike you as more intolerant, more willing to persecute dissenters than Martin Luther?

But if Protestant intolerance discredits Protestantism, doesn’t Catholic intolerance discredit Catholicism?

Here we have more sleight of hand. Christ founded the Catholic Church; Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Henry VIII the various Protestant ones. Quite the difference, no?

Why is criticizing the founders of the Reform communities on Christian grounds out of bounds?

The Catholic Church’s authority stems not from the righteousness, nor the tolerance, nor the perfect behavior of any Catholic. It stems from Christ, its founder. Calvin and Luther claimed to speak with Christ’s mouth. Do their words sound like Christ to you? Do their actions imitate Christ? These are reasonable questions to ask. After all, do we not ask the same of Mohammed, of Joseph Smith, of anyone else claiming to represent God?

It becomes relevant the moment you use a word like “birthed” (which implies something new coming into being) or say that the Protestant record of intolerance discredits Protestant claims to be (at least) part of the true Church.

The violence, the intemperance, and the colossal intolerance of the Reformers themselves is what I’m talking about. Sleight of hand on your part to try to claim this as ALL Protestants. Luther himself of course recognized what he had wrought; he lamented the chaos he brought about.

I’m not wallpapering over anything. I was speaking specifically of Catholic persecution of heretics, and I mentioned that Protestants sometimes did the same thing precisely so as not to wallpaper over Protestant persecution.

Okay, you do see that you imply routine persecution of heretics by Catholics and rare persecution of heretics by Protestants in your formulation, right?

Hmm, how did Protestants define “heretic”?

Was the definition not different than the Catholic one?

I think the general tendency is to minimize the violence and hatreds of the Reformers. Anyone so inclined can read both the Reformers and the Popes in their own words. They can judge for themselves which sound more temperate and more Christian.

And that’s a judgment we pampered Moderns can easily make thanks to the Internet.

Last I saw, Christian values were eternal. God won’t give us a pass for breaking Commandments contemporary society makes it easy to break, will He?