The Catholic Message Board
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/

The Reformation.
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=168323
Page 1 of 2

Author:  sunshine1 [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:36 am ]
Post subject:  The Reformation.

Why did the Reformation happen. Who did this to Roman Catholicism in Britain?

I think that historically there were tribes living in Britain. These tribes go back thousands of years. It is quite common for tribes to live on islands. They would be closer to natives living on the Island. They don't wear many clothes and they also have tattoos. This is one explanation. They have different names like Picts, Icenis, Viking warriors. There were attempts to conquer them. Rome tried to conquer them. There was a Norman attempt to conquer them. However, there has always been conflict between these native people and the Romans. There have been previous fights between Rome and these people. I think that these people have not really fully integrated. They're still sort of present in the community. They wear tattoos which mean that they are still warriors, or they may not be fully Christianised. It could be that they had another fight with the Romans around the time of the Reformation. This is actually private. There is a problem with them as they are still warriors in the community.

It could be that things never fully change. If you're descended from natives, you still wander around with little clothing and tattoos. If you used to be a member of a tribe like the Picts, you're still basically a warrior. If you followed Boudica, you might still look up to Warrior Queens and the women are still fighters. You were an Iceni and you fought with Rome. To this day, you would fight with Roman Catholicism. You wanted to be independent from the Roman Empire and you do not want to be part of the European Union either. You've always wanted independence.

http://www.tattooeasily.com/warrior-tattoos/

Author:  GKC [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

sunshine1 wrote:
Why did the Reformation happen. Who did this to Roman Catholicism in Britain?

I think that historically there were tribes living in Britain. These tribes go back thousands of years. It is quite common for tribes to live on islands. They would be closer to natives living on the Island. They don't wear many clothes and they also have tattoos. This is one explanation. They have different names like Picts, Icenis, Viking warriors. There were attempts to conquer them. Rome tried to conquer them. There was a Norman attempt to conquer them. However, there has always been conflict between these native people and the Romans. There have been previous fights between Rome and these people. I think that these people have not really fully integrated. They're still sort of present in the community. They wear tattoos which mean that they are still warriors, or they may not be fully Christianised. It could be that they had another fight with the Romans around the time of the Reformation. This is actually private. There is a problem with them as they are still warriors in the community.

http://www.tattooeasily.com/warrior-tattoos/



Wow.

Author:  Mrs. Timmy [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a public display of a total lack of general knowledge since Dan Quayle tried to spell the word “potato.” :shock:

Author:  Doom [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Mrs. Timmy wrote:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a public display of a total lack of general knowledge since Dan Quayle tried to spell the word “potato.” :shock:


According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'Potatoe' is an acceptable alternative spelling, even if a little archaic, but beyond that, it's important to remember that the reason why he told the kid to add an 'e' is that the teacher in the class was telling the kid to add an 'e', and Quayle was following what the teacher was saying. in short, the ridicule that he got for that was completely unjustified.

Author:  Doom [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

sunshine1 wrote:
Why did the Reformation happen. Who did this to Roman Catholicism in Britain?




Mostly Thomas Cranmer, with some help from Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I.

It is commonly believed that Henry VIII was an orthodox Catholic who only wanted to make one change, namely putting himself at the head of the Church of England, and keeping everything the same. This common belief is wrong. Henry did far more than just expel the Pope and put himself at the head of the Church, he also abolished monasticism, abolished many popular devotions abolished and destroyed all the popular shrines to saints, especially those devoted to the Virgin Mary, he even desecrated the shrine of St. Thomas a Beckett, even going so far as to disinter Beckett's body and throw it onto a dung heap.

As Henry got older, he became more and more evangelical in theology, this is probably at least in part due to the influence of his last wife Catherine Parr, (who is the only Protestant wife had, the one other Protestant, Anne of Cleaves, was later converted to Catholicism due to the influence of Henry's daughter, the future Mary I) who published several popular Protestant tracts, including severe attacks on the Catholic Church, but it is mostly due to the natural evolution of his views over time.

And if there is any doubt that by the end of this life, Henry was fully committed to creating a Protestant state, or at least, that he recognized that the transformation of England into a Protestant state was inevitable, one need only look at his plans for the succession, in which he chose his Protestant son Edward as his heir, and put Edward's care in the charge of a bunch of men whom he knew to be evangelicals. He knew when he did this that the result would be that Edward would make the Chuch of England fully Protestant.

Popular belief holds that the chief cause of Henry's revolt against Papal authority was his need for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragorn, which was primarily driven by his need for a male heir to secure the succession. These events were indeed important, but historian AF Pollard and other experts on the Tudor's have argued, I think convincingly, that even if everything had been okay on the marriage front, Henry probably would have rebelled against papal authority at some point anyway, for purely political reasons.


Wait....did you not want to discuss the causes of the English Reformation? :scratch:

Author:  TreeBeard [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

:D :)

Author:  GKC [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Doom wrote:
sunshine1 wrote:
Why did the Reformation happen. Who did this to Roman Catholicism in Britain?




Mostly Thomas Cranmer, with some help from Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I.

It is commonly believed that Henry VIII was an orthodox Catholic who only wanted to make one change, namely putting himself at the head of the Church of England, and keeping everything the same. This common belief is wrong. Henry did far more than just expel the Pope and put himself at the head of the Church, he also abolished monasticism, abolished many popular devotions abolished and destroyed all the popular shrines to saints, especially those devoted to the Virgin Mary, he even desecrated the shrine of St. Thomas a Beckett, even going so far as to disinter Beckett's body and throw it onto a dung heap.

As Henry got older, he became more and more evangelical in theology, this is probably at least in part due to the influence of his last wife Catherine Parr, (who is the only Protestant wife had, the one other Protestant, Anne of Cleaves, was later converted to Catholicism due to the influence of Henry's daughter, the future Mary I) who published several popular Protestant tracts, including severe attacks on the Catholic Church, but it is mostly due to the natural evolution of his vies over time.

And if there is any doubt that by the end of this life, Henry was fully committed to creating a Protestant state, or at least, that he recognized that the transformation of England into a Protestant state was inevitable, one need only look at his plans for the succession, in which he chose his Protestant son Edward as his heir, and put Edward's care in the charge of a bunch of men whom he knew to be evangelicals. He knew when he did this that the result would be that Edward would make the Chuch of England fully Protestant.

Popular belief holds that the chief cause of Henry's revolt against Papal authority was his need for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragorn, which was primarily driven by his need for a male heir to secure the succession. These events were indeed important, but historian AF Pollard and other experts on the Tudor's have argued, I think convincingly, that even if everything had been okay on the marriage front, Henry probably would have rebelled against papal authority at some anyway, for purely political reasons.


Wait....did you not want to discuss the causes of the English Reformation? :scratch:


Wow. But not an identical Wow.

Can you add to the body/dung heap story? Most accounts say the bones were burned; some say that relics of Thomas survived.

Popular and well read accounts put the onus more on Cromwell than Cranmer, overall, though Cranmer does seem to have been the driving force behind the desecration of a Beckett's shrine. And that for the symbolic reason of his issues with Henry II, which resonated with Hank's position, and for the jewels. Henry always liked picking up things like those.

And he did move further from the base Catholicism he had when he first made the split. Slowly, of course, as one can see from the Six Articles in 1539. And as late as Catherine Parr (who did indeed continue to move him in the reformed direction) he was dangerous to cross directly, on any orthodox point he might still hold, as Parr well knew.

As to the relative weight to be given to the Great Matter, as opposed to political factors in the split, I say the decree of nullity he sought was the primary push. Of course, the search for a decree of nullity was a political move: politics/theology intertwined. I'd bet would that no split would have occurred in his day, had his causa prevailed. And an eventual split would have followed at some later date, anyway, after Hank was gone. But he and the causa and the time were all the perfect storm, and look what happened.

Pollard is passe. Go to Scarisbrick.

I for one don't want to talk about the causes of the English Reformation. I'm 200+ pages into a Lewis bio.

Author:  Doom [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

GKC wrote:

Wow. But not an identical Wow.

Can you add to the body/dung heap story? Most accounts say the bones were burned; some say that relics of Thomas survived.


This is what Alison Weir says happened to Beckett's body in 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' which is the first place I heard of the incident.



Quote:
Popular and well-read accounts put the onus more on Cromwell than Cranmer, overall, though Cranmer does seem to have been the driving force behind the desecration of a Beckett's shrine. And that for the symbolic reason of his issues with Henry II, which resonated with Hank's position, and for the jewels. Henry always liked picking up things like those.

And he did move further from the base Catholicism he had when he first made the split. Slowly, of course, as one can see from the Six Articles in 1539. And as late as Catherine Parr (who did indeed continue to move him in the reformed direction) he was dangerous to cross directly, on any orthodox point he might still hold, as Parr well knew.


Cromwell and Cranmer were both important, it was Cromwell who gave Henry the way out of his marriage with Catherine of Aragorn, which is important. But Cromwell's influence was mostly political, and it was short-lived because he fell out of favor with Henry almost as quickly as he first fell into favor, and was beheaded on mostly trumped up charges of 'heresy' and 'treason, which were a convenient excuse to get him out of the way. But, since, making false charges of 'treason' against people based on non-existence evidence was Cromwell's specialty, his being responsible for the execution of Anne Boleyn and the imprisonment of Margaret Pole, I don't really feel sympathetic that he fell victim to the very same fate,

Cranmer's influence was mostly theological, and his influence was long-lived, lasting more than 30 years until he was executed by Queen Mary. And it was Cranmer who oversaw the publication of the Book of Common Prayer, and its revisions, which has had a lasting influence.

Indeed, I would rank Cranmer higher in importance than Cromwell if only because Cranmer was politically savvy enough to stay in Henry's favor for his entire reign, despite the monarch's mercurial nature, erratic and unpredictable behavior, and the fact that most of Henry's advisors didn't stick around much longer than his wives did, to be a significant accomplishment. People tended to fall out of favor with Henry quite easily, their fall just as quick as their rise, so it took a grade A political operator just to avoid being sent to the Tower. Cranmer was able to successfully navigate that storm, Cromwell could not.

Quote:
As to the relative weight to be given to the Great Matter, as opposed to political factors in the split, I say the decree of nullity he sought was the primary push. Of course, the search for a decree of nullity was a political move: politics/theology intertwined. I'd bet would that no split would have occurred in his day, had his caus3 prevailed. And an eventual split would have followed at some later date, anyway, after Hank was gone. But he and the causa and the time were all the perfect storm, and look what happened.



But, even if Catherine of Aragorn had given birth to a viable male heir and Henry had remained married to her for her entire life, I think a conflict between the Pope and Henry was probably inevitable. Henry was the most powerful English monarch in history, no monarch either before or after Henry had the kind of control over the state and parliament that Henry would enjoy, Henry's reign was the closest England has ever come to living under an absolute monarchy. It seems inevitable that Henry would have come to resent Papal authority in England and come to see it as an obstacle to his ambitions. For one thing, seizing the monasteries became a necessary step just to get out of debt after Henry burned through his inheritance and nearly bankrupted the treasury. Where else would have gotten the revenue he needed except by taking the wealth of the Church? There weren't many other sources of revenue for a king in the 16th century. He could find an easy excuse to accuse some nobles of treason and seize their estates, but he did that, and it wasn't enough. And he couldn't that too much, or the nobility would likely revolt.

Whether it would have led to a permanent break, or been a smaller, short-term conflict that would have eventually blown over similar to the conflicts during the reign of King Stephen or King John, is anyone's guess.

Author:  MichaelD14 [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Mrs. Timmy wrote:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a public display of a total lack of general knowledge since Dan Quayle tried to spell the word “potato.” :shock:


At least Dan Quayle didn't apply for Sainthood prior to his/her particular judgment. :mrgreen:

Author:  GKC [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Doom wrote:
GKC wrote:

Wow. But not an identical Wow.

Can you add to the body/dung heap story? Most accounts say the bones were burned; some say that relics of Thomas survived.


This is what Alison Weir says happened to Beckett's body in 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' which is the first place I heard of the incident.



Quote:
Popular and well-read accounts put the onus more on Cromwell than Cranmer, overall, though Cranmer does seem to have been the driving force behind the desecration of a Beckett's shrine. And that for the symbolic reason of his issues with Henry II, which resonated with Hank's position, and for the jewels. Henry always liked picking up things like those.

And he did move further from the base Catholicism he had when he first made the split. Slowly, of course, as one can see from the Six Articles in 1539. And as late as Catherine Parr (who did indeed continue to move him in the reformed direction) he was dangerous to cross directly, on any orthodox point he might still hold, as Parr well knew.


Cromwell and Cranmer were both important, it was Cromwell who gave Henry the way out of his marriage with Catherine of Aragorn, which is important. But Cromwell's influence was mostly political, and it was short-lived because he fell out of favor with Henry almost as quickly as he first fell into favor, and was beheaded on mostly trumped up charges of 'heresy' and 'treason, which were a convenient excuse to get him out of the way. But, since, making false charges of 'treason' against people based on non-existence evidence was Cromwell's specialty, his being responsible for the execution of Anne Boleyn and the imprisonment of Margaret Pole, I don't really feel sympathetic that he fell victim to the very same fate,

Cranmer's influence was mostly theological, and his influence was long-lived, lasting more than 30 years until he was executed by Queen Mary. And it was Cranmer who oversaw the publication of the Book of Common Prayer, and its revisions, which has had a lasting influence.

Indeed, I would rank Cranmer higher in importance than Cromwell if only because Cranmer was politically savvy enough to stay in Henry's favor for his entire reign, despite the monarch's mercurial nature, erratic and unpredictable behavior, and the fact that most of Henry's advisors didn't stick around much longer than his wives did, to be a significant accomplishment. People tended to fall out of favor with Henry quite easily, their fall just as quick as their rise, so it took a grade A political operator just to avoid being sent to the Tower. Cranmer was able to successfully navigate that storm, Cromwell could not.

Quote:
As to the relative weight to be given to the Great Matter, as opposed to political factors in the split, I say the decree of nullity he sought was the primary push. Of course, the search for a decree of nullity was a political move: politics/theology intertwined. I'd bet would that no split would have occurred in his day, had his caus3 prevailed. And an eventual split would have followed at some later date, anyway, after Hank was gone. But he and the causa and the time were all the perfect storm, and look what happened.



But, even if Catherine of Aragorn had given birth to a viable male heir and Henry had remained married to her for her entire life, I think a conflict between the Pope and Henry was probably inevitable. Henry was the most powerful English monarch in history, no monarch either before or after Henry had the kind of control over the state and parliament that Henry would enjoy, Henry's reign was the closest England has ever come to living under an absolute monarchy. It seems inevitable that Henry would have come to resent Papal authority in England and come to see it as an obstacle to his ambitions. For one thing, seizing the monasteries became a necessary step just to get out of debt after Henry burned through his inheritance and nearly bankrupted the treasury. Where else would have gotten the revenue he needed except by taking the wealth of the Church? There weren't many other sources of revenue for a king in the 16th century. He could find an easy excuse to accuse some nobles of treason and seize their estates, but he did that, and it wasn't enough. And he couldn't that too much, or the nobility would likely revolt.

Whether it would have led to a permanent break, or been a smaller, short-term conflict that would have eventually blown over similar to the conflicts during the reign of King Stephen or King John, is anyone's guess.



I have 7 Weirs, none of this title, which disappoints me. But I would tend anyway to what I have read more than once. Ackroyd (TUDORS) speaks for a page + of the despoiling of Becket's tomb, ending with the burning of the body, the ashes then gathered and fired from a cannon, to do the thing right. Ridley (THE TUDOR AGE) says body was burnt. Pollard (though passe) says the same. It's a minor point. I'll stick to burning. More logical. In the despoiling of Beckett's tomb in 1538, the jewels and goodies were grabbed and the body burned, to prevent a trade in 1st class relics. Though there is a school which says such relics exist.

Cranmer and Cromwell were indeed both important. But Cromwell made Henry what he was and therefore defined what he was able to do. Cranmer served to carry out what what Henry wanted done. I'll go with John Guy(TUDOR ENGLAND): "Cromwell was therefore the driving force behind the Reformation in the 1530s", followed by other stuff you might read. Me, I'm not doing Tudors right now. But the point was, Cromwell set Henry in the power seat. Cranmer could never have done that.

As to your last para, I'm not totally out of sympathy. But I am of the studied opinion that Henry would have died in the arms of Mother Church, had he sired a healthy, legitimate male heir. The idea of grabbing the monasteries (and the shrines) wealth followed after the break with Rome that was to put the idea of the dissolution into Cromwell's mind in the first place. And it was the failure to procure either the heir, or a decree of nullity that put Henry in the position of even imagining what was done. Though Henry V had done something similar and Henry VIII was never one to pass up a chance to grab some loot. But, eventually, the strain that had existed between the Throne and Rome, as far back as Becket (which explains Henry VIII's severe actions on his tomb and cultus, never mind the jewels) through all those Parliamentary Acts and stuff I often cite, for control of the national polity, was going to cause a nationalistic break. It was in the air, for centuries. Might have come with Henry, but I think later.

So, I differ, but it is not a negligible assertion.

Back to Lewis.

Author:  Obi-Wan Kenobi [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

There are a few 1st class relics of St. Thomas Becket, distributed before the destruction of his shrine. I've seen one in the cathedral in Burgos.

Author:  GKC [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
There are a few 1st class relics of St. Thomas Becket, distributed before the destruction of his shrine. I've seen one in the cathedral in Burgos.


Yes. As I said. If such were out and about before 1538, Henry was likely making sure that there would be no more.

Author:  Doom [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

No, we are actually in agreement here, Cromwell was politically important, but Cranmer was theologically important. And when it comes to the question of what defined the nature of the English Reformation, I think theology is more important than politics.

The English Reformation could have been a moderate Reformation in which papal authority was curtailed, but the theology and liturgy remained the same, something more like the Gallican revolution in France under Louis XIV a century later.

It was Cranmer, and later Richard Hooker and other early Anglican divines, who provided the intellectual foundations for the English Reformation and turned it into a Protestant Reformation rather than a Catholic one.

During the 1530's and 1540's as Protestantism spread throughout Europe, and started to splinter between the Lutherans, the Reformed and the radicals (Anabaptists, Mennonites, anti-Trinitarians etc) many rulers in Europe, and many of the leading intellectuals. started to seek what became known as the 'third way', by which they meant, find some kind of compromise which would be acceptable to Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians. Among those who were interested in finding a 'third way' were Emperor Charles V, Philip Melanchthon, and Cardinal Contarini. This goal was hopeless, of course, if for no other reason than because the negotiations were guaranteed to break down on the question of the Papacy, and the doctrine of the Eucharist.

Originally, third-way proponents were hoping that the Church of England would embody such a 'third way', the main reason it did not but ended up being Protestant, was the influence of Thomas Cranmer.

Author:  GKC [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Doom wrote:
No, we are actually in agreement here, Cromwell was politically important, but Cranmer was theologically important. And when it comes to the question of what defined the nature of the English Reformation, I think theology is more important than politics.

The English Reformation could have been a moderate Reformation in which papal authority was curtailed, but the theology and liturgy remained the same, something more like the Gallican revolution in France under Louis XIV a century later.

It was Cranmer, and later Richard Hooker and other early Anglican divines, who provided the intellectual foundations for the English Reformation and turned it into a Protestant Reformation rather than a Catholic one.

During the 1530's and 1540's as Protestantism spread throughout Europe, and started to splinter between the Lutherans, the Reformed and the radicals (Anabaptists, Mennonites, anti-Trinitarians etc) many rulers in Europe, and many of the leading intellectuals. started to seek what became known as the 'third way', by which they meant, find some kind of compromise which would be acceptable to Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians. Among those who were interested in finding a 'third way' were Emperor Charles V, Philip Melanchthon, and Cardinal Contarini. This goal was hopeless, of course, if for no other reason than because the negotiations were guaranteed to break down on the question of the Papacy, and the doctrine of the Eucharist.

Originally, third-way proponents were hoping that the Church of England would embody such a 'third way', the main reason it did not but ended up being Protestant, was the influence of Thomas Cranmer.


We agree far more than is seemly.

Author:  Obi-Wan Kenobi [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

:BAN

Author:  Signum Crucis [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

GKC wrote:

We agree far more than is seemly.


:shock:

Author:  GKC [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Next thing you know, I'll be agreeing with gherkin.

Author:  Doom [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

GKC wrote:

We agree far more than is seemly.


But, I can't believe that you haven't read 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' :shock: It's the third book I have read by Weir, the other two being 'Henry VIII the King and his Court', and 'The Life of Elizabeth I', next up will be 'The Children of Henry VIII', and probably 'The War of the Roses', even though I've already read several other books on The Wars of the Roses, I figure one more won't hurt. What I would really like is a biography of Queen Mary, but I haven't been able to find an adequate one.

Author:  GKC [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Doom wrote:
GKC wrote:

We agree far more than is seemly.


But, I can't believe that you haven't read 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' :shock: It's the third book I have read by Weir, the other two being 'Henry VIII the King and his Court', and 'The Life of Elizabeth I', next up will be 'The Children of Henry VIII', and probably 'The War of the Roses', even though I've already read several other books on The Wars of the Roses, I figure one more won't hurt. What I would really like is a biography of Queen Mary, but I haven't been able to find an adequate one.



I've have 3 books of such a generic title: THE SIX WIVES OF HENRY VIII /Rival, SIX WIVES: THE QUEENS OF HENRY VIII/Starkey, THE SIX WIVES OF HENRY VIII/Fraser (signed, which counts more). And I have 6 Weirs, which seems respectable. I buy Tudor as the whim takes me; and as the cheap titles appear at the library sale. I got a lot of Tudor already. I rarely look at the English history shelves at the B&N. As I told you, I'm not Tudoring much at the moment. I'm focused on a double aspect of my favorite part of WWII, which shall not be mentioned. Also, reading SF.

But you are right. One more won't hurt.

Author:  Mrs. Timmy [ Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The Reformation.

Have you read Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens? Just curious,since that one is in my library.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/