G
goneiri
Guest
Well it means you’re not listening to any other views. Just pushing back on anything that doesn’t suit you and cheering on those who agree with you.And?
Well it means you’re not listening to any other views. Just pushing back on anything that doesn’t suit you and cheering on those who agree with you.And?
Just because I haven’t changed my views does not mean I was not listening. I didn’t find the show to be as anti-Catholic as I imagined it would be. And I thought it showed the consequences of their actions once Henry declared himseld the head of the Church of England.Well it means you’re not listening to any other views. Just pushing back on anything that doesn’t suit you and cheering on those who agree with you.
Reading over your posts on this thread I think your anglican roots are showing. Maybe you are not fully aware of this defensive position you are emotionally attached to.Just because I haven’t changed my views does not mean I was not listening. I didn’t find the show to be as anti-Catholic as I imagined it would be. And I thought it showed the consequences of their actions once Henry declared himseld the head of the Church of England.
This is a forum and we are all allowed to have our own opinions I believe. I watched the show with my neighbor, a protestant. I told her of the ramifications of what happened when the monasteries were shut down and that the monks had been feeding and caring for the poor. I explained to her why St. Thomas More was a saint in the Catholic Church. I was not rooting for Cromwell if that is what you mean. To me it showed Cromwell as someone manipulating his way around the King’s Court and putting his spies around to make sure he kept his position close to the king. I don’t see how anyone could come away having a favorable view of either the king or Cromwell.Reading over your posts on this thread I think your anglican roots are showing. Maybe you are not fully aware of this defensive position you are emotionally attached to.
I agree but it’s not worth pursuing that route. I think now that someone would have to have a strong basis and background in Catholic knowledge and Catholic history to understand what the series was doing and the lies it spreads. That’s why historians and Catholic bishops came out so strongly against it. They knew.Reading over your posts on this thread I think your anglican roots are showing. Maybe you are not fully aware of this defensive position you are emotionally attached to.
I agree but it’s not worth pursuing that route. I think now that someone would have to have a strong basis and background in Catholic knowledge and Catholic history to understand what the series was doing and the lies it spreads. That’s why historians and Catholic bishops came out so strongly against it. They knew.
But to the average uninformed viewer, especially someone like this poster with little Catholic background, it appears to be innocuous. But in fact, I agree with you, it’s poison.
That may be so, but look at it this way. You have been given mountains of evidence against this show, and still for twelve pages you’ve been defending and promoting it like nothing is wrong. So please excuse us if we can’t quite understand why someone of Catholic faith wants to cling so tightly to the show.I have a lot more background in Catholic knowledge and Catholic history than you are giving me credit for.
Can you counter with a good historical fiction or movie (other than A Man for All Seasons) to read or watch? I am always looking for a good book to read. And I love movies.Oh, but we can change history. All it takes is a rewrite, some novels and a PBS miniseries!
I recently viewed and much enjoyed The Cardinal (1963).Can you counter with a good historical fiction or movie (other than A Man for All Seasons) to read or watch? I am always looking for a good book to read. And I love movies.
Ok. Thanks. I will check it out.I recently viewed and much enjoyed The Cardinal (1963).
I haven’t read them yet but will try to read Eamon Duffy books.I think I have watched part of that movie before. It was nominated for several awards and the director Otto Preminger won for best director.
I always liked Tom Tyron as an actor.
I was wondering if you knew of any books or movies set in the times of Henry VIII that come from a Catholic perspective or tell the true history of the events that took place back then to counter the Hilary Mantel books.
I don’t believe for a minute that Britain became a great nation as a result of breaking away from Rome. I want to be clear about that.I haven’t read them yet but will try to read Eamon Duffy books.
I gave up watching the series as it was somewhat boring and I felt a little over the top on Cromwell.
What confuses me is they discuss the corruption of the church but the church has had some level of corruption throughout history. Was this any worse a period and where did this anti-catholic feeling come from during the reformation.?
Was this period any different than the period we are now living in. I am sure that if historians wanted to, they could tell us all how wonderful gay marriage is and how people in the Church were in favor of it.
This period was probably no better or worse but there were enough men who wanted to change things and a king in need of a son.
I love most things English (books and theater)but I agree that to blame the church for holding them back and then to say that Britain became the greatest nation because it left the church behind is inaccurate.
I think the Tudors was a much better series but way too sexualized so I couldn’t watch it.
You’ll probably see him play many more parts in future, he’s been honoured with a Knighthood.Yes. He had someone do a small porttait of her to get an image of her.
I am enjoying the show immensely. I like the actor who plays Cromwell. I sort of see him as someone who is a manipulator, and quietly watches all and hears all that goes on in the king’s court. I like the actor playing the king as well.
Yes I have seen him in 2 movies since then. I did not know he was honoured withYou’ll probably see him play many more parts in future, he’s been honoured with a Knighthood.
Sir Mark Rylance.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/30/new-years-honours-2017-pictures/mark-rylance-wolf-hall-knighthood/
Yes the Tudors was very sexualized.I haven’t read them yet but will try to read Eamon Duffy books.
I gave up watching the series as it was somewhat boring and I felt a little over the top on Cromwell.
What confuses me is they discuss the corruption of the church but the church has had some level of corruption throughout history. Was this any worse a period and where did this anti-catholic feeling come from during the reformation.?
Was this period any different than the period we are now living in. I am sure that if historians wanted to, they could tell us all how wonderful gay marriage is and how people in the Church were in favor of it.
This period was probably no better or worse but there were enough men who wanted to change things and a king in need of a son.
I love most things English (books and theater)but I agree that to blame the church for holding them back and then to say that Britain became the greatest nation because it left the church behind is inaccurate.
I think the Tudors was a much better series but way too sexualized so I couldn’t watch it.