G
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, GKC,
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww … a fantastic chance to be nice, and you blew it!
And, while I think Kathryn Ann has made several valid comments - I must confess that I am not aware of anyone as knowledgeable about the world of Henry VIII as GKC. Given a choice between style and content - I’d go with content every time. Of course, this is just a persona opinion - and others may be offended by GKC’s occasional overbearing tone - but, I’d just recommend that they challenge him on content before going after style.
God bless
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww … a fantastic chance to be nice, and you blew it!
And, while I think Kathryn Ann has made several valid comments - I must confess that I am not aware of anyone as knowledgeable about the world of Henry VIII as GKC. Given a choice between style and content - I’d go with content every time. Of course, this is just a persona opinion - and others may be offended by GKC’s occasional overbearing tone - but, I’d just recommend that they challenge him on content before going after style.
God bless
G
GKC
Guest
That might work. Occasionally, I might be wrong.Hi, GKC,
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww … a fantastic chance to be nice, and you blew it!
And, while I think Kathryn Ann has made several valid comments - I must confess that I am not aware of anyone as knowledgeable about the world of Henry VIII as GKC. Given a choice between style and content - I’d go with content every time. Of course, this is just a persona opinion - and others may be offended by GKC’s occasional overbearing tone - but, I’d just recommend that they challenge him on content before going after style.
God bless
And I think of myself as irenic, to an extent that can make your teeth ache.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
It’s more often attributed to my cloying, saccharine qualities.Hi, GKC,
Ahhhhhhhhhh… is this from clenching them?
God bless
But, could be.
GKC
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Would anyone care for a cup of tea?..
GKC, I am reading now, ‘How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization’, and the significance of the celibate lives of monks and priests who gave their all for the kingdom. There is quite a bit in so many chapters regarding the monasteries…another is the first level book for seminarians regarding Church history…likewise, yes as Henry did his, there were brothels exclusively for priests…but how many priests actually were like Dominican Fr Tetzel in Germany ‘selling’ indulgences in the market place…?
Reading comments here during times leading up the disdmantling, and elsewhere, the Reformation is certainly reacting to Church corruption, but then it is looking like the Reformist themselves were in need of reform as the Catholics…!!
GKC, I am reading now, ‘How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization’, and the significance of the celibate lives of monks and priests who gave their all for the kingdom. There is quite a bit in so many chapters regarding the monasteries…another is the first level book for seminarians regarding Church history…likewise, yes as Henry did his, there were brothels exclusively for priests…but how many priests actually were like Dominican Fr Tetzel in Germany ‘selling’ indulgences in the market place…?
Reading comments here during times leading up the disdmantling, and elsewhere, the Reformation is certainly reacting to Church corruption, but then it is looking like the Reformist themselves were in need of reform as the Catholics…!!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Kathleen,
This may be a slightly biased view …
… but, I think that even on a secular level - when the civic good was measured against the corruption in the Catholic Church (Tetzel, et al) - is contrasted against the civic chaos, blood shed and wars against their efforts at ‘reform’ turned revolt - a purely secular evaluation can be made. The Catholic Church of the 16th Century really did: feed the hungry, care for the sick, clothe the naked, etc. The absence of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy represented a downward spiral for most Europeans.
God bless
This may be a slightly biased view …
… but, I think that even on a secular level - when the civic good was measured against the corruption in the Catholic Church (Tetzel, et al) - is contrasted against the civic chaos, blood shed and wars against their efforts at ‘reform’ turned revolt - a purely secular evaluation can be made. The Catholic Church of the 16th Century really did: feed the hungry, care for the sick, clothe the naked, etc. The absence of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy represented a downward spiral for most Europeans.God bless
S
Symphorian
Guest
An interesting comment Kathryn Ann and indeed true.
Do you think that the Church today is perhaps too insistent on scholarship? For example, the many years spent in the Seminary preparing for the Priesthood or some religious houses not accepting novices unless they hold a Theology degree?
I sometimes watch Mother Angelica on EWTN. (I like her sense of humour). In a program I saw recently she seemed to be of this opinion and said that were the Apostles on earth today, many probably wouldn’t be accepted for training!
G
GKC
Guest
I’m not aware of any case of a parallel to Tetzel in England. Nor am I any sort of expert on the Reformation in Europe generally. For that you need Contarini, and it’s a different creature from what happened in England. What has interested me, for however many years that might have been, was what happened to Henry, when he sought a decree of nullity, why he sought it, how the system worked at the time, and some history of how it developed, what the story had been for several centuries as to the give and take between the Crown and Rome, in Britain, how politics and theology were closely intertwined in every aspect of their spheres of influence, and how this situation was changed, when and why it was. That is to say, it’s history, of certain things, in certain places, at certain times, that interests me.
Often, on boards like this (I only frequent one other), I see history, of various topics, being slightly/grossly distorted, in one direction or another, by presentation of what amounts to historical urban legends, what I called cartoon cutouts, of Henry, for example, or what happened or why (see Defensor Fidei). That is what I reply to. I do this in a couple of areas, at least three of which I do often on this board (Henry’s Great Matter is not my favorite subject, it just happens to be one I’m fairly good at). In discussing stuff in such areas, I am not usually judgmental of the history. I only present it. What I think of Henry is best expressed in my oft used phrase “a fascinating train wreck”. But since what my reading tells me (and in my favorite subjects I read all sides, something I recommend) sometimes contradicts some folks’ conventional wisdom, some folks think I’m necessarily defending Hank. Sometimes I am, sometimes I’m not. It is certainly not an uncritical attitude. But my take on the RCC of the day is similar. It’s not a pietistic one. The Church was tightly intertwined in secular politics, and Henry’s day shows that, warts and all. Nascent nationalism, mentioned before, eventually was going to put an end to that. And did.
As to the monasteries in England, I said a few things about that before. It was a mixed bag. Some corruption, some what were called “decayed” houses, much good works done, perhaps not as much as some folk think. And Henry didn’t invent plundering, as I noted. And, as I noted, when he did do it, it was for the money, not for “reform”. Which money he used for a number of things, including military adventures, and consolidating his power. And, in small ways, for education and a few other good things. I recommend J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, chap. 15, for an overview; indeed an overview of Hank in general. In fact, Scarisbrick’s book is the single best source I know of for understanding what was going on and why; I recommend it often. And Scarisbrick is RC, one of those pushing for Chesterton’s beatification. But one book does not an understanding make.
History is complicated. That is the single most important thing to remember about it. It’s full of people and things, and people are complicated. If you want to know what happened and why, takes some reading. Maybe even over a few years, and in a variety of places, and you can wind up having trouble moving around the house, because of all the books. In a number of areas, I do that. And that’s what I present, as best I’ve digested it.
GKC
K
KathleenGee
Guest
GKC, Most certainly agree we must certainly check our sources, and it is said to find the true understanding you have to look at the event in context of its times.
I was reflecting on Henry’s coffin, etc…a statement of his choices?
I read some more on Henry from a ‘travel to England’ magazine, reflection of its entire culture, and he was not the cutthroat in terms of the martyrdom of St. Thomas. He grieved for several days regarding Thomas’ death, not his intention the saint be killed, but was the work of two of his attendees who mistook his words.
Yes, and in those times the Church and ruling cultures were most complex…I am still trying to understand the history of the Papal States vs others in Italy and the ruling monarchies. The growth of knowledge, inventions, sense of national identities and cultures with their own specific jurisdictions.
For my historical texts, I consult my pastor…I want to read objective history…that covers the truth of all of us. We are all sinners.
But the more we understand history, the more we can better see one’s intentions and how things turned into disasters…usually many factors coming together at one time…either as you state as a trainwreck of a human being or culture…or a theophany of God’s great presence among us.
The more we can distinguish, understand about each other, and apply the theophany of Christ’s presence of forgiveness, the more we can return to the common faith of one bread and one body.
I was reflecting on Henry’s coffin, etc…a statement of his choices?
I read some more on Henry from a ‘travel to England’ magazine, reflection of its entire culture, and he was not the cutthroat in terms of the martyrdom of St. Thomas. He grieved for several days regarding Thomas’ death, not his intention the saint be killed, but was the work of two of his attendees who mistook his words.
Yes, and in those times the Church and ruling cultures were most complex…I am still trying to understand the history of the Papal States vs others in Italy and the ruling monarchies. The growth of knowledge, inventions, sense of national identities and cultures with their own specific jurisdictions.
For my historical texts, I consult my pastor…I want to read objective history…that covers the truth of all of us. We are all sinners.
But the more we understand history, the more we can better see one’s intentions and how things turned into disasters…usually many factors coming together at one time…either as you state as a trainwreck of a human being or culture…or a theophany of God’s great presence among us.
The more we can distinguish, understand about each other, and apply the theophany of Christ’s presence of forgiveness, the more we can return to the common faith of one bread and one body.
S
Symphorian
Guest
The smallest monasteries (those with an annual value of less than £200) were suppressed by an Act of 1536. (Some monasteries were little more than farms). Even after that. it seems that Henry VIII may not have originally intended dissolving all the monasteries as he re-founded two houses in 1537. Even in 1538 the nunnery at Kirklees received a patent of re-foundation. From November 1537 the bigger and wealthier monasteries began to surrender or dissolve themselves by agreement. Waltham Abbey in Essex was the final house to surrender in March 1540.
There is some evidence for unofficial continuity of monastic life. For example, five of the nuns from Kirklees lived with the Prioress at Mirfield for many years. A handful of monks from Monk Bretton continued to live with the prior nearby, taking their library with them. The Abbess of Denney in Cambridgeshire retired to her home with some of her nuns and continued to keep the convent rule. This was not a common occurrence however. Many ex-monks became parochial clergy and Henry VIII founded several new Bishoprics, some ex-monks becoming Bishops or Canons of Cathedrals. Generally (not always) ex monastics were well treated and received pensions. It was often the the lay brothers/sisters who didn’t fare so well as no provision was made for them - they did not receive pensions. Some monastics were happy to be released from their vows.
Mary Tudor re-established a few monastic houses, the most important being Westminster Abbey. When Elizabeth came to the throne she was prepared to let the monks of the Abbey remain provided they conform to the Prayer Book, they refused to do so however.
There is some evidence for unofficial continuity of monastic life. For example, five of the nuns from Kirklees lived with the Prioress at Mirfield for many years. A handful of monks from Monk Bretton continued to live with the prior nearby, taking their library with them. The Abbess of Denney in Cambridgeshire retired to her home with some of her nuns and continued to keep the convent rule. This was not a common occurrence however. Many ex-monks became parochial clergy and Henry VIII founded several new Bishoprics, some ex-monks becoming Bishops or Canons of Cathedrals. Generally (not always) ex monastics were well treated and received pensions. It was often the the lay brothers/sisters who didn’t fare so well as no provision was made for them - they did not receive pensions. Some monastics were happy to be released from their vows.
Mary Tudor re-established a few monastic houses, the most important being Westminster Abbey. When Elizabeth came to the throne she was prepared to let the monks of the Abbey remain provided they conform to the Prayer Book, they refused to do so however.
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Greetings Dear Symphorian, that’s very kind of you. :heaven:
You may be very right: Imagine our dear fisherman Disciples having to pass muster with today’s stringent expectations. But then we are always delightfully surprised with saints who are auto-didactic, self- taught and right in their every doctrinal theses of the heart.
Of course we must have our priests and our good Sisters knowledgeable. “Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom,” though, and God would certainly require Christ’s humility before the first book is cracked open. A dash of self- deprecating humor, a joyful spirit as you mentioned in the person of Mother Angelica, is always welcome.
So, I’m all for scholarship, and enjoyed posting a few moments ago that scholarship and gentility are not mutually exclusive.
*
Often, the most knowledgeable people whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting do not announce their self- perceived genius beforehand, or call attention to what they perceive as a lack of it in others. *
I’m thinking now of that riveting, heartbreaking scene early on in the film of William Styron’s masterpiece, Sophie’s Choice, where the heroine asks for a library book but has the author’s name wrong. I believe she asks for a book by * Emile* Dickinson, instead of* Emily,* and is meanly corrected by the pompous librarian who knows quite well to whom she is referring, but chastises and demeans Sophie rather than simply offering to help. He is a bully of the worst order, proud of his correct assumptions, and so causes our poor Sophie to weep. What is gained here? She loves learning, yet, with English as her second language, has made an understandable error. The ungracious, small minded, ungenerous librarian can think only that he is correct. This is the dark side of learning, because it lacks the wisdom of compassion.
If one watches that scene, it’s clear that mean-ness or cruelty has no place in scholarship. To my knowledge, no one on these forums has ever been cruel, or at least one would hope that would not happen here, but there are sometimes prideful statements pointing out others lack of knowledge, and that is not conducive to the journey we are on.
We need good theology, and the study of it should include a strong dose of civility, gentility, and chivalry, :knight1::knight2:which is found among both genders:nun1:
equally.I can tell a real scholar by his or her delight in sharing, not battering, others with his or her viewpoints. But then, I had a father who was a master at this. I tend to measure my own behavior by his gentle tutoring. I had no idea until I was seventeen what a great man he was. Now that he is gone, I tend to measure other’s manners by his own gracious ways. Alas, there are few who can stand up to that, but there are some. From your gentle posting to me, I sense that you are one of those rare people.
And as to your question, I do hope that any degree in theology will include the study of that ancient and most delightful art of chivalry, a blend of gentle ways and the way of placing oneself in the kind service of others. Certainly there is a place for that spirit in life, in studies, and open debate. I tend to opt out of discussions the moment I perceive unkindness.
As to our topic here, I am reminded of another famous saying “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” While the brutish Martin Luther called for “reform,” causing the peasants to revolt, he chastised them at the same time for their ignorance. Those poor faithful followed only what the “great” Luther suggested. Had he allowed himself a tincture of humility, had he been loyal to Holy Church, (compare him to St. Catherine of Sienna) he may have met another fate and left a legacy other than a thousand or more splintered denominations.
As for me, I would rather be on Sophie’s:angel1: side, if you will, than that of the ungenerous librarian who only* seems* to know it all. Humility is the greatest teacher. I believe this is the side of the angels, a path Luther did not see fit to travel.
Many blessings,
Kathryn Ann:heaven:
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I think it likely that you are confusing the execution of More with the murder of Thomas a Beckett. Henry indeed purposed the death of More, and it didn’t come from a misunderstanding of two attendants. Which was the story of a Beckett’s murder. More had a lengthy series of interrogations and a trial. It was a stacked deck from the start. Though not, as someone said here, based on More’s refusal to swear an oath to Henry’s being head of the Church in England. There was no oath in the Supreme Head Act. They got him on something else. After the sentencing , Henry changed the method of execution from the full hung/drawn/quartered at Tyburn to the simple beheading at the Tower. It was accounted a mercy, may have been that and something more. I again recommend Scarisbrick. Or perhaps Reynolds THE FIELD IS WON. Or something.
What in particular about Henry’s coffin are you thinking of?
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I agree. But here we confront the difference between opinion and history. History, as reported may be wrong or right, more or less, true or false.
That Henry based his causa on the Levintine Prohibition being applicable in his case, and ultra vires, is a fact.
Whether that was the best approach he could have used, is an opinion.
Whether I have been more or less gentile is an opinion. I have mine, you yours. Among other things mine is based on what reaction I have have gotten, on average, to my posts, over the years.
That I suspect you are not well read in the era is also an opinion, at least.
GKC
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
GKC, I believe you meant to say “genteel,” not gentile. :heaven:
That I suspect that this is a mere typo is* my*** gentler** way of expressing an opinion, rather than yours,( which would be to say that the error was caused by “not being well read” in points of grammar. There is a key difference.
To state that one suspects that someone" is not well read" in an era/ or in any area, is not merely an opinion, but is not the gentle approach to say the least. This may be why I fail to see much heroism in the person of Henry VIII, who ordered the execution of a saint and just a few wives. Whatever his mark on history, he lived in the same times as St. Thomas More. One was brutish, one was a saint.
But back to scholarship: Because someone dis-agrees with another does not mean one is more “well read.”
If I’m the first to point all this out to you, how fortunate you are. I leave you now to your followers. You seem to enjoy holding court (gentle pun intended) with Henry VIII, while I will spend the weekend enjoying the writings of St. Thomas More.
We all know how it turned out in the end, so I’m happier in the company of Saints. :getholy::angel1:
Kathryn Ann:harp:
G
GKC
Guest
“Genteel”, indeed. Best rule is type, read, post, not type, post, go to lunch because wife is yelling for you.GKC, I believe you meant to say “genteel,” not gentile. :heaven:
That I suspect that this is a mere typo is* my*** gentler** way of expressing an opinion, rather than yours,( which would be to say that the error was caused by “not being well read” in points of grammar. There is a key difference.
To state that one suspects that someone" is not well read" in an era/ or in any area, is not merely an opinion, but is not the gentle approach to say the least. This may be why I fail to see much heroism in the person of Henry VIII, who ordered the execution of a saint and just a few wives. Whatever his mark on history, he lived in the same times as St. Thomas More. One was brutish, one was a saint.
But back to scholarship: Because someone dis-agrees with another does not mean one is more “well read.”
If I’m the first to point all this out to you, how fortunate you are. I leave you now to your followers. You seem to enjoy holding court (gentle pun intended) with Henry VIII, while I will spend the weekend enjoying the writings of St. Thomas More.
We all know how it turned out in the end, so I’m happier in the company of Saints. :getholy::angel1:
Kathryn Ann:harp:
I must admit it’s ironic. In that I had considered pointing out that Pope’s original line, the origin of the idea of what is a dangerous thing, reads a little “learning”, not a little “knowledge”. It was, I decided, a petty point. And not as blatant as “genteel”, sure. I passed on it.
Please, if you spot me committing a typo, or, worse yet, a factual faux-pas, post a correction/rebuttal. I’ll do the same, as for facts. It’s one method, though an uncertain one, of learning. Which is a good thing, in itself.
As to disagreement, I have a different take on it. Because one disagrees with with another does not necessarily mean one is more well read. But it very well might.The issue could be further explored. If I am the first to point this out, to you, no need to thank me.
And you can find someone who finds Hank heroic? Amazing.
Enjoy More. Two days ago I was rereading portions of John Guy’s THOMAS MORE. Guy is good.
Ok, followers, if any are around, fan club is dismissed until the next scheduled meeting.
GKC
- Status