St Thomas Moore

[Augustine3]

I’m not sure if I have the facts right but from what I gather many have objected to the canonization of St Thomas Moore because he allegedly persecuted individuals who attempted to translate the Bible into English.

Can anyone clarify this?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m not sure if I have the facts right but from what I gather many have objected to the canonization of St Thomas Moore because he allegedly persecuted individuals who attempted to translate the Bible into English.

Can anyone clarify this?

Just one "O’ (St. Thomas More).

As Lord High Chancellor of England, St. Thomas More was held responsible for the death of those heretics who obstinantly persisted in their heresy.

St. Thomas More was sorrowful at the deaths and tried his best to convince the people of their errors, but in the end, he obeyed the legal judgments of the time.

Apparently to SOME people, any person who presides over the death of another, even if he objects, but still carries out the sentence as his duty, has committed an UNFORGIVEABLE sin thereby. This sin is so ‘heinous’ that even if the person thereafter dies a heroic death upholding the Catholic faith, that heroism just isn’t ENOUGH to make the person even a ‘normal’ Christian let alone a saint.

I will never understand such muddled, fanatic, and wrong-headed thinking. The only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, unrepented at death. . .and there is no indication that St. Thomas committed such and died in that state. In fact, we have through the testimony of the Church absolute knowledge that he died in a state of grace!

Furthermore, the Church through the Holy Spirit has recognized his sainthood. . .and I find the Catholic Church a lot more credible than these ‘flaming antis’.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure if I have the facts right but from what I gather many have objected to the canonization of St Thomas Moore because he allegedly persecuted individuals who attempted to translate the Bible into English.

Can anyone clarify this?

There were other reasons for the persecutions.

There have been others (St. Paul, for example) who have indulged in activities which would not have been tolerated today but nevertheless have been canonized because their activities were deemed for the greater glory of God.

That said, St. Thomas More certainly had the right idea about English translations.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Just one "O’ (St. Thomas More).

As Lord High Chancellor of England, St. Thomas More was held responsible for the death of those heretics who obstinantly persisted in their heresy.

St. Thomas More was sorrowful at the deaths and tried his best to convince the people of their errors, but in the end, he obeyed the legal judgments of the time.

Apparently to SOME people, any person who presides over the death of another, even if he objects, but still carries out the sentence as his duty, has committed an UNFORGIVEABLE sin thereby. This sin is so ‘heinous’ that even if the person thereafter dies a heroic death upholding the Catholic faith, that heroism just isn’t ENOUGH to make the person even a ‘normal’ Christian let alone a saint.

I will never understand such muddled, fanatic, and wrong-headed thinking. The only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, unrepented at death. . .and there is no indication that St. Thomas committed such and died in that state. In fact, we have through the testimony of the Church absolute knowledge that he died in a state of grace!

Furthermore, the Church through the Holy Spirit has recognized his sainthood. . .and I find the Catholic Church a lot more credible than these ‘flaming antis’.

Hear hear! A thousand times - hear hear!

Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher (who died on the 22nd of June, my birthday) were strong defenders of the Faith and martyrs.

Saint Thomas More, pray for us.

Saint John Fisher, pray for us.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Augustine3]

There were other reasons for the persecutions.

There have been others (St. Paul, for example) who have indulged in activities which would not have been tolerated today but nevertheless have been canonized because their activities were deemed for the greater glory of God.

That said, St. Thomas More certainly had the right idea about English translations.

Which activity did St Paul indulge in?

God bless,

 

[SanAgustin]

Which activity did St Paul indulge in?

God bless,

Read about St. Paul’s conversion in Acts 9;
bible.catholic.net/home.php?option=versiculo&id=1248

Acts 8:1-3

01 Now Saul was consenting to his execution.On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.
02 Devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him.
03 Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment.

 

[Augustine3]

Oh I thought he meant it was after St paul was converted and baptised

God bless,

 

[1ke]

Heresy was considered a civil crime in those days-- treason against the Crown and State. Therefore, it was a capital crime.

Ironically, Evangelical Christians are some of the strongest supporters of the modern death penalty. Yet, they criticize a person who carried out capital sentences of his own day and time.

 

[TimothyH]

Which activity did St Paul indulge in?

God bless,

St. Paul was a Pharisee who, by his own admission, was zealous for the Law of Moses. by his own admission.

We have to remember that to the Israelites, holyness meant obedience to the Law of Moses. Those who did not obey the Mosaic law were considered unholy.Going further into Jewish belief at the time, it was believed that if everyone were holy (through obedience to the Mosaic Law), the messiah would come. Those who were not obeying the law of moses (the unholy) were believed to be actually preventing the messiah from coming.

Paul rounded up the Christians, stood by and consented while some were killed, and threw the rest into jail. He made it a mission to round up Christians (Acts 9) and throw them all in jail. But he did so because he sincerely believed that he was doing God’s will, according to what he had been taught about the Mosaic law. Paul believed that in rounding up the “Unholy” Christians who did not obey the Mosaic law and who taught others that there was no need to obey the laws of Moses, that he was working toward hastening of the coming of the Messiah.

We can look at the actions of an individual but the Church also looks at the intent of one’s heart and the circumstances of the times. So it is with St. Thomas Moore. It’s not like the Holy Father just woke up one day and decided to cannonize the guy. There is a process that looks at all of this.

-Tim-

 

[Barten]

I don’t understand your heart ! It is too boring !

Wow items gold

Tera Items

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Moore: Roper, the answer is no…

…and will be no as long as you’re a heretic.

Roper: Now, that’s a word I don’t like,
Sir Thomas!

Moore: It’s not a likeable word, it’s not a likeable thing.

Can’t let a St. Thomas Moore thread go on without something from “man for all seasons”

 

[_L]

We can’t judge St. Thomas More by the standards of today, it is really unfair to him. Heresy in those days as said above was a crime against the state as well against God, and it merited the death penalty. This system of justice may seem draconian or barbaric to us now, but which is more barbaric, the legalized killing of infants in the womb? or execution of heretics? I advocate neither, but I’m just putting it in those terms so we can see that the 16th century was no more shocking in terms of legal allowances and punishments than today is.

Now St. Thomas More is considered a Saint because he was martyred which as we believe sends one straight to Heaven. He was truly a heroic figure, and model for politicians everywhere,(if only all Catholic politicians today followed his example) he refused to give in to the state, refused to swear an oath to King Henry VIII that said he and not the Pope was the head of the Church in England. Even when his family members swore the oath, he still resisted; and his devotion to the Church cost him everything, his office, his status, and ultimately his life when King Henry VIII who was a dear friend of his ordered him to be beheaded.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m not sure if I have the facts right but from what I gather many have objected to the canonization of St Thomas Moore because he allegedly persecuted individuals who attempted to translate the Bible into English.

It depends on whose translation he was not fond of, but that doesn’t make him bad at all. In fact, St. Thomas More was quite supportive of vernacular English translations:

“The whole Bible long before Wycliffe’s day was translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read” (St. Thomas More, Dialogues, 3)."

 

[Bran_Stark]

Heresy was considered a civil crime in those days-- treason against the Crown and State. Therefore, it was a capital crime.

Ironically, Evangelical Christians are some of the strongest supporters of the modern death penalty. Yet, they criticize a person who carried out capital sentences of his own day and time.

I keep seeing this argument, but I am unconvinced by it. If heresy is indeed legally the same as treason, then Henry VIII was justified in killing More for his “heresy” against the Church of England. But if Catholic More could have faithfully served schismatic Henry, then the heretics whom More himself burned would have just as faithfully served Catholic Henry. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Augustine3]

Just one "O’ (St. Thomas More).

As Lord High Chancellor of England, St. Thomas More was held responsible for the death of those heretics who obstinantly persisted in their heresy.

St. Thomas More was sorrowful at the deaths and tried his best to convince the people of their errors, but in the end, he obeyed the legal judgments of the time.

Apparently to SOME people, any person who presides over the death of another, even if he objects, but still carries out the sentence as his duty, has committed an UNFORGIVEABLE sin thereby. This sin is so ‘heinous’ that even if the person thereafter dies a heroic death upholding the Catholic faith, that heroism just isn’t ENOUGH to make the person even a ‘normal’ Christian let alone a saint.

This question is open for anyone to answer – If St Thomas believed it was wrong and tried to convince the authorities that the prisoners should not be killed, wouldn’t St Thomas have the obligation to disobey his orders since his conscience told him it was an immoral act?

Brother in Christ,

 

[Bookcat]

This question is open for anyone to answer – If St Thomas believed it was wrong and tried to convince the authorities that the prisoners should not be killed, wouldn’t St Thomas have the obligation to disobey his orders since his conscience told him it was an immoral act?

Brother in Christ,

You are supposing that his conscience judged it was an immoral act.

 

[Bookcat]

In fact, St. Thomas More was quite supportive of vernacular English translations:

“The whole Bible long before Wycliffe’s day was translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read” (St. Thomas More, Dialogues, 3)."

 

[Augustine3]

You are supposing that his conscience judged it was an immoral act.

I wouldn’t call it supposing if he tried to convince the authorities that the death penalty was not the answer. He’s actions show us it was against his conscience.

Brother in Christ,

 

[Augustine3]

I don’t understand why people were executed for translating the bible into English, furthermore St Thomas was canonised a saint for assisting in such executions? I’ve never read or heard the church disapproving this action, why?

I say this with all respect, I love all the saints without exception. I’m just a little confused here…

Brother in Christ,

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t understand why people were executed for translating the bible into English, furthermore St Thomas was canonised a saint for assisting in such executions? I’ve never read or heard the church disapproving this action, why?

I say this with all respect, I love all the saints without exception. I’m just a little confused here…

Brother in Christ,

Regarding conscience. I do not think one can say that such was necessarily against his conscience which was formed during that time which what different from our own and knew different civil laws.

In regards to the Bible in English:

The Bible was already to a good extent (if not all) translated into English (which was developing into a more standard language) and continued to be.

Bad copies of the Bible yes were done away with…just as one would not want to use copies of the Bible today that are “bad” – read error filled --translations such as that of the JW Bible.

It was for heresy that some where executed by the State…many things were capital crimes during that period of time. Heresy attacked the good of man …such was seen as attacking the common good etc and fell under the penalty of capital punishment at times during that period…

One needs to understand those particular times to be able to understand the laws then. It is needed to put oneself back into the context of then…

He was not canonized for any of his official actions per se he may have done in office such as any possible assisting such by doing his duty of office …but for his heroic sanctity…especially his Martyrdom.

---

“more” from CA Apologist: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=231593&highlight=Thomas+More

and archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp