"Who was Thomas Cranmer?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Catholics were less bloody than the Anglicans in the English Reformation by a long shot according to everything I’ve read. Between Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, the body count wasn’t pretty. The drawing and quartering of Catholic bishops and priests and the blood-letting was far more pronounced and sickening as were the numbers than “bloody” Mary Tudor. Mary had the bones of Cranmer’s crony, Reformed theologian Martin Bucer, dug up, burned, and his tomb defaced. She had men like Cranmer burned at the stake as well. She was no shrinking violet with executions but the Anglicans killed more. Funny how Elizabeth I was never considered “Killer Beth” or anything of that nature. LOL…

It shows the politics and rise of nation-states during that age that informed people’s spirituality and their views of the various churches. Very nationalistic and prone to charicature, definitely.
Nine_Two said:
Funny that Bloody Mary comes up. Mary ordered the death, for heresy, of less people than Elizabeth. It was close to be sure, and though Mary’s reign was shorter, Elizabeth didn’t get started burning until a fair bit into her reign.
Click to expand...
 
Cranmer was so complex a character, in fact, that he actually tried his best to save the life of none other than … Thomas More.

The play, “Man for all Seasons” does tend to simplify things into “good and bad” guys, but that is not real human history with all manner of contradictions and such.

Thomas More believed in the papal primacy, to be sure. But he also believed in the authority of a Church Council and Cranmer found himself agreeing with More’s argumentation. Cranmer did not believe More merited death, even by his own “Reformed Catholick” standards.

His contribution to the English language and liturgy were, as has already been said, phenomenal and with the Anglican Use, Cranmer’s work is finally part of the Catholic heritage he once so avidly opposed (as will that of Miles Coverdale).

One other interesting thing about that time period - Thomas Cromwell, for all his warts, was never considered an enemy of Thomas More by the More family. Two years or so after More’s execution, the More family actually invited Cromwell to be a godfather to one of More’ grandchildren.

Alex
 
Is there a post here I’m missing? 😛
40.png
Jimmy_B:
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The Catholics were less bloody than the Anglicans in the English Reformation by a long shot according to everything I’ve read. Between Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, the body count wasn’t pretty. The drawing and quartering of Catholic bishops and priests and the blood-letting was far more pronounced and sickening as were the numbers than “bloody” Mary Tudor. Mary had the bones of Cranmer’s crony, Reformed theologian Martin Bucer, dug up, burned, and his tomb defaced. She had men like Cranmer burned at the stake as well. She was no shrinking violet with executions but the Anglicans killed more. Funny how Elizabeth I was never considered “Killer Beth” or anything of that nature. LOL…

It shows the politics and rise of nation-states during that age that informed people’s spirituality and their views of the various churches. Very nationalistic and prone to charicature, definitely.
Click to expand...
Mary burned over 300 English people for their religious beliefs.

Elizabeth executed Catholics in her latter reign because they directly threatened her rule. Unfortunately, the not very diplomatic pope of the period, Clement VIII had openly called for Elizabeth’s assassination. the Spanish and their front guard, the Jesuits, actively tried to assassinate her. But Elizabeth was the absolute ruler of England. This put the Catholics in England in a very awkward position. If they were loyal Catholics, then they were traitors. Many Catholics, especially Jesuits, plotted her overthrow, including Mary Queen of Scots, and were executed. not only plotted, but sneaked into England with elaborate and foolish plots to kill Elizabeth, invasions from France and the Spanish-occupied Netherlands. These were discovered by Elizabeth’s secy of state, William Cecil’s, elaborate spy network, with predictable results for the would-be assassins. Some Catholics harbored priests, especially Jesuits, because they were especially loyal to the pope, which made them and the Catholics harboring them traitors. Spain, an arch-Catholic country, was plotting to invade England, which they attempted and failed, with the Armada.

No country likes traitors, including the USA. Lincoln hanged a woman for plotting his assassination, the subject of a new Redford movie, “The Conspirator”. Eisenhower had the both of the Rosenbergs hanged, parents of two small boys. Traitors during the wars were hanged, others are now sentenced for life, including one who spied on the US for Israel, our ally.
 
I’m aware of all this history. You’re truly preaching to the choir, to a guy that has read enough about the English reformation and monarchy to make your head spin like Linda Blair!
1234 said:
Mary burned over 300 English people for their religious beliefs.

Elizabeth executed Catholics in her latter reign because they directly threatened her rule. Unfortunately, the not very diplomatic pope of the period, Clement VIII had openly called for Elizabeth’s assassination. the Spanish and their front guard, the Jesuits, actively tried to assassinate her. But Elizabeth was the absolute ruler of England. This put the Catholics in England in a very awkward position. If they were loyal Catholics, then they were traitors. Many Catholics, especially Jesuits, plotted her overthrow, including Mary Queen of Scots, and were executed. not only plotted, but sneaked into England with elaborate and foolish plots to kill Elizabeth, invasions from France and the Spanish-occupied Netherlands. These were discovered by Elizabeth’s secy of state, William Cecil’s, elaborate spy network, with predictable results for the would-be assassins. Some Catholics harbored priests, especially Jesuits, because they were especially loyal to the pope, which made them and the Catholics harboring them traitors. Spain, an arch-Catholic country, was plotting to invade England, which they attempted and failed, with the Armada.

No country likes traitors, including the USA. Lincoln hanged a woman for plotting his assassination, the subject of a new Redford movie, “The Conspirator”. Eisenhower had the both of the Rosenbergs hanged, parents of two small boys. Traitors during the wars were hanged, others are now sentenced for life, including one who spied on the US for Israel, our ally.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I’m aware of all this history. You’re truly preaching to the choir, to a guy that has read enough about the English reformation and monarchy to make your head spin like Linda Blair!
Click to expand...
So what’s your point? Yes, Elizabeth executed Catholics, because her government and she saw them as* traitors not as heretics. We’d do the same today–they were hanged or shot during WWII here and in England, and in WWI they would have been put in prison (pacifists, Hutterites) and mistreated, with a number of them dying. Now we send them to prison for life. Elizabeth’s government was responding to a direct threat to her, which came directly from Rome. If Rome had let up, it would have been much easier for the Catholics in England. The mistreatment of Catholics got worse in direct proportion to the threats on her life, and these were real.* Elizabeth was immensely popular, and her faithful and enthusiastic subjects wanted her to live a long life, after having experienced the upheavals under her brother and Mary I.

There’s a famous story that doubtless you know, about one of the Jesuit martyrs–Campion?–who from the scaffold stated that he supported no treason other than being faithful to his Roman Catholic faith. Someone in the crowd yelled, “In Rome all treason is contained!” That said it all.
 
Another commentary about life under Bloody Mary vs. Henry.

Thomas More was beheaded under Henry.

Thomas Cranmer was burned alive under Mary.
 
Go back and read my post. If you can’t get my point you’re in trouble. I’ll say it again for you: We call Mary Tudor, somewhat unfairly, “Bloody Mary” when in reality she killed less Anglicans than Elizabeth I killed Catholics. Yet we don’t call Elizabeth “Bloody Elizabeth?” Simple statement of a fact. Hope that helps. The numbers don’t lie. I don’t care if they were political or religious deaths (make no mistake that Elizabeth didn’t just kill political threats, religious executions as well) murder is murder, bloody is bloody. You can list the names and reasons, but executions are executions. You can reference Abe Lincoln, whatever, but we’re not talking the Civil War or making comparisons. It’s just about these two ladies. I feel it’s unfair Mary got the monicker and Elizabeth, who killed more than she, did. Simple.😉
1234 said:
So what’s your point? Yes, Elizabeth executed Catholics, because her government and she saw them as* traitors not as heretics. We’d do the same today–they were hanged or shot during WWII here and in England, and in WWI they would have been put in prison (pacifists, Hutterites) and mistreated, with a number of them dying. Now we send them to prison for life. Elizabeth’s government was responding to a direct threat to her, which came directly from Rome. If Rome had let up, it would have been much easier for the Catholics in England. The mistreatment of Catholics got worse in direct proportion to the threats on her life, and these were real.* Elizabeth was immensely popular, and her faithful and enthusiastic subjects wanted her to live a long life, after having experienced the upheavals under her brother and Mary I.

There’s a famous story that doubtless you know, about one of the Jesuit martyrs–Campion?–who from the scaffold stated that he supported no treason other than being faithful to his Roman Catholic faith. Someone in the crowd yelled, “In Rome all treason is contained!” That said it all.
Click to expand...
 
True. But this post truly deserves a “what’s your point?” :confused: Each had a man murdered…point?
1234 said:
Another commentary about life under Bloody Mary vs. Henry.

Thomas More was beheaded under Henry.

Thomas Cranmer was burned alive under Mary.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps. The discussion was about body counts and bloodiness. I think Elizabeth far outdid Mary in body count. Yet Elizabeth was remembered fondly, Mary as an old witch and murderer. History can be complicated and weird at times…
kamaan said:
I’m guessing that because burning alive hurts a lot more than beheading, he thinks that Queen Mary was more cruel… ?
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Perhaps. The discussion was about body counts and bloodiness. I think Elizabeth far outdid Mary in body count. Yet Elizabeth was remembered fondly, Mary as an old witch and murderer. History can be complicated and weird at times…
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps if Elizabeth was the Catholic who married a Spaniard, things would be different… 🤷

I have a great respect for Queen Mary I and her mother.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Perhaps. The discussion was about body counts and bloodiness. I think Elizabeth far outdid Mary in body count. Yet Elizabeth was remembered fondly, Mary as an old witch and murderer. History can be complicated and weird at times…
Click to expand...
Everything is complicated and weird.

Mary won the bodies per year on the throne award, Elizabeth the total body count crown.

GKC
 
Right on! Jimbo’s back. Good deal. You’ll have to IM me and tell me how your trip went!

Yes. Mary’s the leader of digging up dead people, cutting their heads off and setting them on fire after destroying their tomb. Elizabeth is the body count queen and her ability to stay alive despite the Vatican issuing death warrants against her is impressive indeed! 😛
GKC said:
Everything is complicated and weird.

Mary won the bodies per year on the throne award, Elizabeth the total body count crown.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
kamaan said:
Well, perhaps if Elizabeth was the Catholic who married a Spaniard, things would be different… 🤷

I have a great respect for Queen Mary I and her mother.
Click to expand...
The people of England began Mary’s reign with great respect for her, too but she squandered it with her incompetent bungling and fanaticism. They hated her husband, Phillip II of Spain, their hated arch-rival, and increasingly hated Mary’s vicious religious policies. She died unmourned. The people of England hailed Elizabeth as their savior.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Right on! Jimbo’s back. Good deal. You’ll have to IM me and tell me how your trip went!

Yes. Mary’s the leader of digging up dead people, cutting their heads off and setting them on fire after destroying their tomb. Elizabeth is the body count queen and her ability to stay alive despite the Vatican issuing death warrants against her is impressive indeed! 😛
Click to expand...
In due course. I need to sober up, and get about a ton of paperwork done. But I will send a IM.
 
How much paperwork can a retired aviation master have who’s been on vacation!? And sobering up? What kind of trip was this!? LOL 😃 What are you, Pippin or Merry? 😛
GKC said:
In due course. I need to sober up, and get about a ton of paperwork done. But I will send a IM.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Perhaps. The discussion was about body counts and bloodiness. I think Elizabeth far outdid Mary in body count. Yet Elizabeth was remembered fondly, Mary as an old witch and murderer. History can be complicated and weird at times…
Click to expand...
It’s basic history, Gurney. You should know that.

Mary reigned for 9 years; Elizabeth reigned for 45 years.

The reason Elizabeth is not remembered as “Bloody Elizabeth” is that she was immensely popular during her entire reign. By definitively defeating Spain’s attempts to invade and conquer England, she ended Spain’s attempts to conquer Europe. Her reign ushered in the Golden Age of England, which persisted until WWI and did not die until after WWII. That includes England’s domination of the seas, later defeat of the French, explorations, and her brilliant contributions to and virtual creation of English literature and the arts. The rise of England meant the downfall of Spain, and the ascendancy of *England, *not Spain, in the North American colonies, the colonization of North America by the English, not the Spanish, and the eventual evolution of the democracy in the United States of America, not the theocratic monarchies of New Spain. This country owes its democracy to its Founding Fathers who were almost all English, not Spanish, and virtually all Protestants.

The importance of the reign of Elizabeth I cannot be overestimated. All of this would have come to an end by her assassination. I think those around her realized that she was brilliant, like Henry was in his early days, and completely different from her two siblings. As her reign progressed, all of her supporters wanted their chief job to be finding her a husband, not having to protect her life from would-be martyrs, obeying a dangerous and incompetent pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top