Ship of Fools: Saints, Sacrilege and Sedition

Thread: Saints, Sacrilege and Sedition Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025227

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

It is quite extraordinary how many, and for how long, have had an undiluted AG Dickens view of the Reformation in their DNA, and how this is expressed slightly differently outside the UK, and how it has passed slightly refined into secular thought. But it is broadly expressed in two cariactures of the Tudor past, in the words of the American historian Professor Norman Jones:

Once upon time, the people were oppressed by corrupt churchmen. They yearned for the liberty of the Gospel. Then, Good King Harry gave them the protestant nation for which they longed

Neither of course is the crude opposite quite true:

Once upon time the people of England were happy medieval Catholics, visiting their holy wells, attending frequent masses and deeply respectful of Purgatory and afraid of hell. Then lustful King Henry forced them to abandon their religion. England was never merry again.

The publication of the Cambridge Professor of the History of Christianty Eamon Duffey's latest volume of essays Saints, Sacriledge and Sedition: Religion and Conflict in the Tudor Reformations is the latest in revisionist (or 're-visitation' an expression preferred by Professor Duffy) studies of the Tudor unheavals and the Reformation in England.

Have any shipmates read this volume yet? If so what might your take on Eamon Duffey's line be? Is his attack on the AG Dickens school with a swing to a more catholic appreciation (as it were) justified? Any other views?

[thread title corrected, no "d" in sacrilege]

[ 26. March 2013, 16:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've read Eamonn Duffy's 'The Stripping of the Altars'. It's a good read. I think like most revisionist historians, though, he swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction ... you could come away with the impression that there was no real desire for Reform in England at all.

I came away from the book thinking, 'So why did the Reformation in England take place then and why didn't things simply revert back to normal once Elizabeth came to the throne and the fires of Smithfield had cooled?'

It's a bit like all this rehabilitation of the Vikings. Sure, the Vikings did trade as well as raid and they were tremendous craftsmen and so on - but that doesn't mean that they didn't go around raping and pillaging ...

Of course, when a pendulum swings one way or another the hope is that it finds some equilibrium. On balance, I'm glad that some issues in the historiography of the Reformation are being addressed but it's easy to swing too far the other way.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Henry VIII was NOT a Protestant, and had Protestants burnt at the stake for heresy (note that burning was for heresy, not witchcraft!). Henry wanted English control of the Catholic church in England, he didn't want a theologically-different church. His approach to Catholicism wasn't hugely different from Phillip II of Spain, it's just that Phillip couldn't be bothered to challenge the church hierarchy.

Henry undoubtedly did see Protestantism on the horizon for England, though - when he was dying, he made no moves to stop Protestant nobles (and nobles were keen on Protestantism because it gave them an excuse to take church land) from getting his son Edward's favour.

I think the biggest reason for the success of the Elizabethan church reforms was the very effective government propaganda which painted Catholicism as 'foreign' and linked Englishness with Protestantism. Clearly there was still enough Catholicism after the Act of Uniformity and in the subsequent century to require Catholic Emancipation - if English Catholicism could survive Cromwell it must have been pretty tenacious.

I very much recommend The Stripping of the Altars by Duffy - was great to see Duffy on TV during Francis' enthronement!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think Sebby is right about the DNA of many white anglo-saxon protestants, especially of the superficially sophisticated public-school-and-Oxbridge types. There seems to be a deep-rooted suspicion of 'Rome' which is as vitriolic as that of Ian Paisley even if not expressed as crudely. All Christians are targets of the sneering condescension of the liberal intelligentsia, but Roman Catholics come in for it more than most.

So Eamon Duffy is only redressing the balance. It's clear that the Reformation in England was imposed by political power, and political power is very clever at covering up its real motives and persuading people it is in their interests to accept the changes. Just like today with the media conspiracy brainwashing people against immigrants and benefit claimants.

That is not to say that there was not a need for reformation in the Church. Nor is it to deny (even if Duffy comes close to it) that there was a popular demand for some aspects of the 'new religion'. But nearly 500 years on we shouldn't be trapped in the clichés and prejudices of the old battles. Unfortunately even on the Ship they are still being fought.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've read Eamonn Duffy's 'The Stripping of the Altars'. It's a good read. I think like most revisionist historians, though, he swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction ... you could come away with the impression that there was no real desire for Reform in England at all.

I came away from the book thinking, 'So why did the Reformation in England take place then and why didn't things simply revert back to normal once Elizabeth came to the throne and the fires of Smithfield had cooled?'

It's a bit like all this rehabilitation of the Vikings. Sure, the Vikings did trade as well as raid and they were tremendous craftsmen and so on - but that doesn't mean that they didn't go around raping and pillaging ...

Of course, when a pendulum swings one way or another the hope is that it finds some equilibrium. On balance, I'm glad that some issues in the historiography of the Reformation are being addressed but it's easy to swing too far the other way.

I don't quite understand your point about Elizabeth - she was a Protestant, Henry was very much not. Elizabeth actually burnt as many people as Mary did, but over a much longer reign. Sure, she worked for a via media but she did not tolerate open Catholicism, priest holes and Margaret Clitheroe attest to this.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Jade:

quote:
Sure, [Elizabeth] worked for a via media but she did not tolerate open Catholicism, priest holes and Margaret Clitheroe attest to this.

You are of course aware that Elizabeth had been declared apostate by the Pope of the day, who offered to absolve any English Catholics who assassinated her?

It wasn't just about religion in Elizabeth's reign; there was a political dimension as well.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There were Catholics in highish places in Elizabeth's reign, such as Norfolk, and Anthony Browne (who delivered a nicely phrased speech in her honour in Parliament), so her intolerance was nuanced.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

I've read Saints, Sacrilege and Sedition. It is an interesting book, especially so the chapters of St John Fisher. I, too, shared Gamaliel's reaction to Stripping and it Santa until I read Duffy's Voices of Moreath that I felt comfortable with his thesis. His Fires of Faith is also a good read.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade:
quote:
Sure, [Elizabeth] worked for a via media but she did not tolerate open Catholicism, priest holes and Margaret Clitheroe attest to this.
You are of course aware that Elizabeth had been declared apostate by the Pope of the day, who offered to absolve any English Catholics who assassinated her?

It wasn't just about religion in Elizabeth's reign; there was a political dimension as well.

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that Catholics (and Nonconformist Protestants, particularly Anabaptists) were treated badly during Elizabeth's reign, just as Protestants were treated badly during Mary's. It was just spread out during Elizabeth's longer reign.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Mary executed as many of her religious opponents in five years as Elizabeth did in forty-four. Who knows how many more Mary would have executed if she had lived longer? It is hard to argue from this evidence that Elizabeth's regime was as oppressive as Mary's.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And Mary killed people for being Protestants: Elizabeth killed people (RCs at least) for being a security risk. Not sure this makes it right, mind, but still...

I don't like to admit this, but deep down inside this AffCath there's a vestigial Prod who gets very uncomfortable with the idea of an RC such as Eamon Duffy having a chair of the History of Christianity at Cambridge. It's the same little Prod who gets cross when occasionally Radio 3 replaces Choral Evensong with RC Choral Vespers.
I am not proud of this but I wonder whether I'm the only one in this position.

[ 25. March 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
I think the biggest reason for the success of the Elizabethan church reforms was the very effective government propaganda which painted Catholicism as 'foreign' and linked Englishness with Protestantism. Clearly there was still enough Catholicism after the Act of Uniformity and in the subsequent century to require Catholic Emancipation - if English Catholicism could survive Cromwell it must have been pretty tenacious.

The real issue viz-a-viz Catholic Emancipation was Ireland. Pitt the Younger actually wanted to pass the bill for the same reason in the early 1800s but George III declined on the grounds that it would violate his coronation oath.

Once Catholic Emancipation was passed then, of course, you have space for a Catholic revival. But not really before, AFAICS.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, it was Ireland- all to do with nervousness about Ireland as a potential way in for the French or any other enemy. English RCs were tenacious but comparatively few in number and tended to keep their heads down and avoid drawing attention to themselves.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Interestingly, Duffy makes the following observation about John Fisher and Reginald Pole:

'...each of these in their own day enjoyed a European celebrity which far outstripped any of their protestant contemporaries and opponents,though history has reversed that order of celebrity, and it is their lesser adversaries - Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer - who are remembered as the greatest of Tudor churchmen.'

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

I don't like to admit this, but deep down inside this AffCath there's a vestigial Prod who gets very uncomfortable with the idea of an RC such as Eamon Duffy having a chair of the History of Christianity at Cambridge. It's the same little Prod who gets cross when occasionally Radio 3 replaces Choral Evensong with RC Choral Vespers.
I am not proud of this but I wonder whether I'm the only one in this position.

Whereas this AffCath is quite glad to see such things. I'm sure that doesn't make me more virtuous than Albertus, but has something to do with my DNA. In my case, a mix of atheist and devout RC on my father's side, and protestant nonconformist on my mother's. Plus a strong dose of northern bloody-mindedness and allergy to Establishment.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I came away from the book thinking, 'So why did the Reformation in England take place then

I claim no expertise but recall reading/hearing a statement that Henry was broke and one-third of his country's GDP was being shipped out to Rome.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
..... very uncomfortable with the idea of an RC such as Eamon Duffy having a chair of the History of Christianity at Cambridge.

Well! I thought the University had gone down hill ... know I know. All the lights in Cromwell's head in Sidney Chapel MUST be flashing with disbelief

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I came away from the book thinking, 'So why did the Reformation in England take place then and why didn't things simply revert back to normal once Elizabeth came to the throne and the fires of Smithfield had cooled?'

The Reformation happened as a result of a personal issue (at least in Henry's case). When the Pope wouldn't play ball (because he didn't want to even consider the possibility of his power in England declining), Henry ditched him lock, stock and smoking barrel. If anything, Henry's son Edward was the great reformer. Katrherine Parr, Henry's last wife has considerable sympathy with the Lutherans although kept it quiet from Henry for fear of losing her life. She influenced Edward

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Religion and the Decline of Magic by Keith Thomas, a pretty old book now, takes a different perspective from those expressed above.

Mediaeval Christianity in England, according to Thomas, was pretty heterodox - magical even - from the perspective of a modern Protestant or Catholic, and frequently not observed at all.

Protestantism gained ground amongst the intellegensia and political elite in the early sixteenth century, but not really amongst the ordinary people. The imposition of the Reformation by Henry VIII did cause dissent, for example the Pilgrimage of Grace, but one could just as easily point to the significance that dissent was not greater than it was. By and large, according to Thomas, the reaction of the laity was a shrug and a 'whateva'.

In response to Angloid's comment about anti-Catholicism, I deny that it can never be more than simple bigotry: ig one takes a Whiggish view of history, there is very much to condemn the RC church for down the years to the present day.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
AG Dickens view of the Reformation Once upon time, the people were oppressed by corrupt churchmen. They yearned for the liberty of the Gospel. Then, Good King Harry gave them the protestant nation for which they longed

Even undiluted Dickens seems insipidly moderate to someone such as myself who grew up in a home in which the bookshelves carried the collected works of J.A. Froude!

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Duffy on JA Froude:

Froude was a fiercely patriotic liberal Protestant, anti-clerical, suspicious of dogma, but persuaded that a robust and rationalistic Protestantism was a sort of spiritual and moral disinfectant, which had helped to liberate sixteenth-century England from the dark ages of monkish superstition and opened the way for modernity. His 'History of England' in the sixteenth century, genuinely scholarly and largely based on archival research, was also an enormous tract for the times, designed to dispel the cobwebs of Catholic clericalism and dogma, and to inclucate sound rational religious values, the values which underpinned England's rise to imperial greatness

To an extent I also had the AG Dickens model thrust at me in the Sixth Form. I do remember sitting there at the time thinking (although without evidence) 'but things couldn't have actually been so'. Twenty years later, Duffy gave us a voice!

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
...I don't like to admit this, but deep down inside this AffCath there's a vestigial Prod who gets very uncomfortable with the idea of an RC such as Eamon Duffy having a chair of the History of Christianity at Cambridge. It's the same little Prod who gets cross when occasionally Radio 3 replaces Choral Evensong with RC Choral Vespers.

I am not proud of this but I wonder whether I'm the only one in this position.

I'm evangelical through and through, with a sprinkling of charismatic cinnamon on top, and this would not bother me at all.

I love listening to Evensong. [Smile]

Or RC Vespers. [Big Grin]

Whatever. It's all liturgical, innit? [Two face]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Albertus:

quote:
I don't like to admit this, but deep down inside this AffCath there's a vestigial Prod who gets very uncomfortable with the idea of an RC such as Eamon Duffy having a chair of the History of Christianity at Cambridge.

All historians have personal agendas, some more obviously than others. We tend not to notice unless we disagree with them.

FWIW I agree with Cod; the political elite and intelligentsia mostly supported the Reformation (quietly, during Henry's reign, and in some cases probably because they made a killing on the Dissolution of the Monasteries and didn't want to give the loot back), the ordinary people mostly shrugged and said 'whateva'. The further away from London you were, the safer it was to carry on being quietly Catholic.

England was no more monolithic then than it is now. A lot of people probably just wanted a stable government, which is why Mary was able to gain enough support to uphold her claim to the throne against Lady Jane Grey at the beginning of her reign. They weren't all supporting her because she was Catholic; most supported her because she was Henry VIII's daughter.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

In response to Angloid's comment about anti-Catholicism, I deny that it can never be more than simple bigotry: ig one takes a Whiggish view of history, there is very much to condemn the RC church for down the years to the present day.

I don't doubt. But the patronising ignorance of the so-called intelligentsia seems to be more motivated by visceral contempt. And it's quite possible to argue that, while the C of E might have reformed its doctrinal statements, it remained and remains unreformed in many significant ways: its medieval structures, its compromise with political power, and so on.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

Some years ago I attended a lecture by Eamon Duffy at a Cambridge college. It was at an annual gathering of schoolteachers, usually a rather quiet affair. As he described the gouging out of the eyes – not of live martyrs, I hasten to add, but of the paintings of saints in an East Anglian church – his voice thundered: 'What sort of mindset did the people have who could do things like this?' or words to that effect. As he dismissed the whole idea of any continuity between Wycliffe, the Lollards, and the later Protestant Reformers, feathers were not just ruffled, but scorched - so much so that at the meeting in the following year the organisers invited a different historian, this time to talk about the idea that the AG Dickens thesis was certainly challenged but not completely overthrown!

I taught this period at 'A' level for about 25 years, during which time Revisionists had a field day. And they needed to have one: 'Protestant DNA' dates back long before Dickens and takes much disentangling. It is striking the number of historians with a Roman Catholic background who have been doing the disentangling and presenting a different mainstream narrative. John Guy, for example, has probably replaced GR Elton as providing a standard textbook on the Tudor period.

One or two thoughts then, and a declaration of my own bias, unconscious or otherwise: I was converted in a tin tabernacle (hot prot DNA) and now find myself, somehow, a Reader in the C or E (complacency DNA). I don't think the Elizabethan Reformation was initially anti-foreign, even though at the time public opinion was simultaneously anti-Spanish and anti-French! At the beginning of the Elizabeth's reign England was at war with France (who had Mary Queen of Scots up their sleeve, with a strong claim to the English throne). England had also suffered a catastrophic military defeat by losing Calais. Elizabeth therefore relied on the support of her deceased sister's husband Philip, and gave him every impression for the next few years that she was prepared to marry him.

The Church Settlement of 1559 was probably more the work of Elizabeth than of anyone else, and her concerns seem to have been the balance of power among the magnates of England, the expectations of her Protestant supporters, a balance of power among the countries of Western Europe, and her own personal theological beliefs (and even aesthetic taste). She managed to persuade Philip that only her difficult Parliament prevented her from declaring England part of Catholic Europe, and the Spanish ambassador that her private chapel was all set out for what looked like a Mass.

In fact the new liturgy was ignored in many areas of England, and many individual priests carried on with the traditional mass. Attempts to bring about conformity were stymied by the fact that many JP's were themselves of the old faith. This ambiguous state of affairs lasted until Philip of Spain realised he had been duped and when the Papal Bull of 1570 in effect sanctioned Catholic rebellion in England, and also with the rise of extreme Puritanism, most dangerously, as Elizabeth saw it, among the clergy.

Although it is true that 'the Reformation in England was imposed by political power' it is, I think, a mistake to imply that religious belief was not important. Henry Vlll, for example, was undoubtedly driven by deeply-held religious belief (as well as an eye for both plunder and the ladies). Scarisbrick (another Catholic historian) argued that the main reason Wolsey failed to secure Henry's divorce from Catherine, from the Pope, was Henry's insistence that the case must be based on a particular bible verse and no other line of argument.

With regard to the comparison between Elizabeth and Mary, if you just take the first 6 years of Elizabeth's reign (ie the length of Mary's entire reign) which of the two is the 'good queen' tends to be in the eye of the beholder. However, Mary's (and Pole's) campaign of burning Protestants was regarded by Philip ll as a foolish policy; and by any reckoning the execution of Thomas Cranmer (despite his recantation) was a public relations disaster and the first important sign that it wasn't only the Catholics who were prepared to die for their faith.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
gets cross when occasionally Radio 3 replaces Choral Evensong with RC Choral Vespers.
I am not proud of this but I wonder whether I'm the only one in this position.

No. I do too.

I dont know enough about history but I believe Duffy to be right.

I went a book-signing by him and he recounted a medieval church in Bristol where two scouts were up in the tower while the Latin mas was sung. If they saw men on horseback approaching the city, the priest removed his vestments, the candles were removed and the congregation joined in Morning Prayer.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Ced007 - sharing the same Cof E complacency DNA, I have ALWAYS thought 'what sort of a mindset..' even in my non-religious days!

As a young man in A level history lessons, indoctrinated by Elton and Dickens (well, so the tutor thought), I sat with my rebellious non-religious thoughts ruminating on the evil of the people who destroyed so much. One couldn't actually say that at the time of course.

Subsequently, I have assumed that (DNA speak again) such 'types' had the misfortune to have a zealously faulty gene which exhibited itself in such wanton and foolish destruction. Nasty types.

We can see the same I suppose in other religions as well - the destruction of the magnificent Buddhas by the Taliban a few years ago. The combination of religious zealotry with that ghastly gene.

I think I am with Eamon Duffy on that one.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

One of the big mistakes, I think, is to equate pre-Reformation folk Christianity with either Counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism or C19 Anglo-Catholicism. In some ways I suspect it was more like popular Orthodoxy.

What is harder to know, is whether those who clung to the old ways, in the Pilgrimage of Grace etc did so because they had a love for Rome and transubstantiation, or from motives more like those who in the C19 resented the eviction of the bands, or more recently, still prefer everything to be 1662 and with none of that nasty shaking of hands.

I very strongly suspect that from 1588 onwards, by which time also, anyone who had been full grown in 1530 would have been 75+, pre-Reformation England was as good as dead.

We may regret this, but in most societies, most people are Laodicean.

I don't agree with the argument that there is no continuity between the Lollards and the Reformation. The areas where subterranean Lollardy was strongest often turn out to be the same as those where Old Dissent was most prevalent after the Restoration.

C19 and later Anglo-Catholicism never managed to recreate pre-Reformation faith because it was a clerical fantasy. By that time whenever popular Christianity was most fervent, it didn't hunger for pardons and relics, but for revival.

[ 26. March 2013, 18:05: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Elizabeth actually burnt as many people as Mary did, but over a much longer reign. Sure, she worked for a via media but she did not tolerate open Catholicism, priest holes and Margaret Clitheroe attest to this.

Elizabeth didn't burn any Catholics. She hung, drew, and quartered them because they were guilty of treason, not heresy (or crushed them or other methods of secular execution).

(I was about to write that Elizabeth didn't burn anyone, but a group of Anabaptists and some witches were indeed burned at the stake during her reign)

[ 26. March 2013, 20:44: Message edited by: Hawk ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, Hawk, it's already been said further up thread that Elizabeth had Catholics executed not because they were Catholics but because they were a security risk ...

I think it would be fair to say, though, that some of the RC priests that were executed were executed purely because they were priests and not always because they were implicated in plots - although some undoubtedly were. That said, there was a lot of jiggery-pokery going on in order to lure RCs into plots in order to flush them out ...

Walsingham 'that most subtle searcher of secrets' was very good at that.

That said, even to be a priest in England at that time would have been a subversive act. The Pope didn't do the English RCs any favours when he declared that any of her Catholic subjects who tried to depose her were doing something laudable and almost some kind of RC form of 'jihad'.

Most English Catholics wanted to be left alone. Hence the reaction the desperate Gunpowder Plotters received in 1605 when they galloped up and down trying to rouse the RC faithful to rebellion after the Plot had been discovered (very conveniently at the 11th hour) ...

I take the broad point you're making but I don't think it's as simple as:

Elizabeth and the Protestants = goodies.
The Pope and the Catholics = baddies.

As has also been said further upthread, some forms of radical Protestant also received short-shrift - such as the Anabaptists who seem to have had various adherents executed across Protestant Europe as a whole at that time.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Whoops - sorry, I must have mixed your thread up with someone else's, Hawk - it was you who pointed out that Anabaptists had also been executed during Elizabeth's reign ...

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Anyway, back to Duffy. Yes, I've read 'The Voices of Morebath' too and found it more convincing than 'The Stripping Of The Altars' - but I still think that Duffy is over-egging things.

As for those who have helpfully suggested reasons why the Reformation took place, I wasn't actually asking for some (I've studied the period and know some of the background) but what I was trying to say that if you read Duffy and took it all at face value, you'd come away thinking that there was almost no 'popular' push towards a Reformation agenda at all and that it was all something imposed at the government level with no popular support whatsoever.

I think Duffy stops short of that, but it's almost implicit.

Conversely, I think some of the Banner of Truth evangelical types and certain forms of Anglican (not just evangelicals) go just as far in the opposite direction and portray pre-Reformation England as a seething hot-bed of Lollardy and proto-Protestantism ... when the Lollards were, at best, a minority movement.

I don't doubt that popular piety was, by-and-large, very much like popular Orthodoxy - as someone has said upthread - the Orthodox, I've noticed, seem to have a soft-spot for some of the 14th century English mystics like Roger Rolle and Margery Kempe.

That, I suspect, is that despite some differences in emphasis and detail, I suspect that popular Roman Catholicism and popular Orthodoxy are pretty similar - certainly a lot more similar than the cognoscenti on both sides might be happy to acknowledge ...

But then, I also have a theory that popular Pentecostalism also shares more than it might be prepared to admit in common with popular Catholicism ...

But that's material for another thread and for another time.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
But then, I also have a theory that popular Pentecostalism also shares more than it might be prepared to admit in common with popular Catholicism ...

But that's material for another thread and for another time.

There are some hot prot's out there with an equal antipathy to both who would probably agree [Biased]

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Interestingly, Duffy makes the following observation about John Fisher and Reginald Pole:

'...each of these in their own day enjoyed a European celebrity which far outstripped any of their protestant contemporaries and opponents,though history has reversed that order of celebrity, and it is their lesser adversaries - Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer - who are remembered as the greatest of Tudor churchmen.'

And Pole was very nearly Pope and I wish he had been

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Elizabeth actually burnt as many people as Mary did, but over a much longer reign. Sure, she worked for a via media but she did not tolerate open Catholicism, priest holes and Margaret Clitheroe attest to this.
Elizabeth didn't burn any Catholics. She hung, drew, and quartered them because they were guilty of treason, not heresy (or crushed them or other methods of secular execution).

(I was about to write that Elizabeth didn't burn anyone, but a group of Anabaptists and some witches were indeed burned at the stake during her reign)

How was Edmund Campion and many others guilty of treason ?
Elizabeth's role in especially Campion's martyrdom does not not paint the "Virgin Queen" in the rosiest of hues

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't doubt that popular piety was, by-and-large, very much like popular Orthodoxy - as someone has said upthread - the Orthodox, I've noticed, seem to have a soft-spot for some of the 14th century English mystics like Roger Rolle and Margery Kempe.

I wondered how long it'd be before you mentioned the "O" word Gam .....

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

If you look at Europe as a whole, with the countries mapped as mainly Protestant, and mostly Catholic, it looks as though it would have been very odd for Britain to remain Catholic - though the northernness aspect doesn't apply to Ireland. There is a possible original linguistic correlation, as well as simple geography, and I have seen a map of the extent of the Hanseatic League which also correlates. This may indicate a set of links of who was talking to who about what at a level of society which did not originally leave much trace or initially arouse the interest of the government. I think it is probably too narrow to look at each country as an isolated unit with the actions of the rulers as the only process involved. (Despite cuius regio, eius religio.)

When I was being prepared for membership of the Congregational Church, we did some history of it, going back to the Brownists at the time of Elizabeth (not the Lollards), an urban phenomenon as I recall. (Rather too much of why we are not Anglicans, and not enough of why we are Christians, maybe.) (To be compared with why we are not Catholics in the CofE, with occasional bursts of why we are not Jewish.)

Growing up with an East Sussex heritage, and teaching in Dartford, where there is also a martyrs' memorial, I am very much aware that there were people in Tudor times prepared to die in a horrible way in defence of the belief that there is no such thing as transubstantiation. No-one is going to do that because of Henry VIII and his marriages. These were ordinary people of no great status in society. (I taught someone with the same surname as one of the names on the Dartford memorial. I did wonder if they were a relative.)

My point is that this issue was very complex, and involved many strands of society, so there cannot be any simple explanation of the English Reformation.

With regard to those who gained from the Dissolution, the Brownes, mentioned above, a Catholic family, acquired Battle Abbey, which they refused to give up in Mary's reign and also acquired a curse from the abbot. The family was supposed to die out as a result, but are still going - though no longer owning the Abbey. I doubt they were the only ones who were not Protestant who hung onto ex-monastic lands.

Catholics based in London at the time of Elizabeth were able to go to mass at foreign embassies, so there must have been priests in the country as part of foreign missions (of the diplomatic sort).

Catholic priests such as Campion would have been taken to be traitors because of thei allegiance to the Pope being above that to the Crown after the Pope's fatwa against Elizabeth.

We are very lucky not to be living in such times for Christians.

[ 27. March 2013, 09:22: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

And why shouldn't I, ExclamationMark?

I wasn't the first here to use it. Someone suggested that popular medieval and pre-Reformation piety was probably similar to popular Orthodoxy today. I thought that was an illuminating and interesting point and agreed with them.

Hence the piece from my post you've quoted.

There were other observations I made and I notice you didn't pick up on those.

Perhaps I ought to use the term 'Paleo-Orthodox' and then perhaps you wouldn't get so exercised about it ... by which I mean 'that believed everywhere and by all' in the first-millenium Pre-Schism sense ... the kind of position that Rowan Williams would say that he adopts.

But in this case the reference was to the Big O Orthodox - and I agreed that comparisons with popular piety in pre-Reformation Western Europe probably looked very similar to popular piety in Orthodox Eastern Europe today. I don't see why that's so controversial.

Worldwide, the Orthodox make up a considerable chunk of Christendom. They aren't particularly visible here, but that doesn't mean that there aren't an awful lot of them across the globe.

When we think about Christianity we too often think in terms of Roman Catholic and Protestant -but it's much broader than that of course - and there are the beardies to factor in ... the Eastern Orthodox and the various 'Oriental' Orthodoxies - Copts, Syrians, Ethiopians and some of the ancient groups on the Indian Sub-Continent ...

[Biased]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
How was Edmund Campion and many others guilty of treason ? ...

Because, as others have pointed out, the Pope had 'theologically deposed' Elizabeth, said she shouldn't be queen and it was a good Christian's duty to depose her. England was under threat from Spain (remember the Armada?), France, the risk of Scotland going Catholic again, and any foreign power using Ireland as a springboard to invade. Being a Catholic implied that a person was a traitor, in the same way that in the Cold War being a Communist implied that a person was a Russian spy.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I think that Protestant heritage runs deep in the part of the country you're describing, Penny S.

Did the Congies tell you that Browne eventually returned to the Anglican church and became a vicar?

One of the distinguishing features of the early English Independents, of course, was the extent to which they very quickly began to fall out among themselves ... but, as you say, a great deal of courage there too.

Even in later times - without stakes and the threat of execution - it could be a tough thing to be either a 'Popish recusant' or a non-conformist Protestant ... you've only got to read Bunyan's autobiographical writings to see that ...

I think you're right about there being priests in foreign embassies as part of diplomatic missions.

Later, some recusants, like the fabulously wealthy Marquis of Worcester, appear to have had personal Anglican chaplains. His chaplain, Thomas Bayly, recorded the Marquis's 'witty apothegms' and his attempts to convert the King to Catholicism when the defeated Charles I dropped by after Naseby.

Bayly himself appears to have converted to Catholicism during the Interregnum - when he was in exile, I think.

During the reign of Charles I there were concerns about many in the court being attracted to Queen Henrietta Maria's Catholicism - and there were a few noble conversions ... which made Parliament (on those occasions when it was convened) very jumpy.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Having read up on the history of the Lewes activities, with similar things being done at Dartford for a while, I'm not sure that much of the public dissension doesn't go back much deeper than the Oxford Movement, and vicars bringing liturgy in without the agreement of the parish - Mayfield I gather had something of that sort. The martyrs' memorials are Victorian. (And kudos to the Lewes Unitarians, who have a notice up about their support for Catholic Enfranchisement.)

The Dartford memorial was recently restored, having had its inscriptions eroded by industrial smokes. Part of it should have been left untouched I feel. When it was erected, near the site of the burnings, it was also near the new Catholic church, and the fiery processions were also headed in that direction. On the side, there is a quote from Revelation, in which the martyrs demand of God how long they will have to wait for their killers to be punished. Unsuitable, in my view. The RC churches are now elsewhere. The whole business is not much known about. No November stuff.

I can't remember about the detail of Brown (of the Brownists, not the withany one at Battle) - it was a long time ago. (But I've an inherited history of the Congies downstairs. I will check in it.) The Independents were a bit like the Pythons Palestinians, weren't they, for being fissile?

When I joined the Quakers I found out about the way they were treated after the Restoration. There was a boy who died at Colchester, for example. The vicar of Glynde, Firle and related parishes, who has appeared on TV and whose name escapes me temporarily, did a piece about the unpleasant behaviour of the Anglicans at the end of the 17th century. Bunyan was lucky.

(I got some of my information from a history of Catholicism between the Reformation and recently in Dartford library. The religion section has been reduced to a few shelves, mostly Mind and Spirit, and I can't remember the title. I wish I had forgotten to return it - it was older than th ecut off date of 10 years old. It was very interesting, and counter to a lot of what I see people putting forward about the persecutions. Nuns being back during the 17th century, for instance. Local squires building RC churches that look like chapels in the classic style, and then resenting the return of the bishops. Urban RCs meeting in the function rooms of pubs, where they locked the doors - more probably for the same reason that Dover churches locked up for the Watch Night services on New Years Eve, and not to keep the police out. (Along with the nasty stuff of taking children off to be fostered and punitive taxes.) Fascinating.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
How was Edmund Campion and many others guilty of treason ? ...

Because, as others have pointed out, the Pope had 'theologically deposed' Elizabeth, said she shouldn't be queen and it was a good Christian's duty to depose her. England was under threat from Spain (remember the Armada?), France, the risk of Scotland going Catholic again, and any foreign power using Ireland as a springboard to invade. Being a Catholic implied that a person was a traitor, in the same way that in the Cold War being a Communist implied that a person was a Russian spy.

The political was often just a cover for ignorance and hatred of Catholicism
I'm particularly glad that historians are now taking a more "revisionist " look at the hagiography that characterized the person of Elizabeth

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure that's entirely fair, Seraphim, I mean, the smoke of the Fires of Smithfield lingered in the public consciousness for a long time - fuelled by Foxes Acts & Monuments of course ...

But let's face it, some 200 or 300 people were burned at the stake during Bloody Mary's short reign and they weren't all high-profile trouble-makers either ... they were ordinary people a lot of them.

The level of persecution was, in terms of the numbers involved, not that great but the psychological effects were much greater. It'd be like asking the Argentines to forget the disappearances during the time of the military juntas on the grounds that a few thousand disappearances weren't that big a deal in the context of a population of many millions ...

[Roll Eyes]

The population of England was probably only about three or four million during Mary's reign so even 200 or 300 executions was going to have an enormous impact.

Sure, that doesn't exonerate any subsequent regime for persecution of Catholics or non-conformists, but it does explain why a residual anti-Roman Catholicism lasted a long time ...

For my money, I think that earlier Protestant historians over-egged things in one direction but there is an equal danger now of revisionist RC historians over-egging things in another. Somewhere in the middle of the two extremes the reality lies.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Great thread, with some interesting reading recommendations!

As an Ulster Anglican prod I've always been fascinated by England's religious history. Wasn't John (he of the Magna Carta business) actually excommunicated - along with most of the clergy of England - at one point, by the Pope, for refusing to send Peter's Pence or something similar over to Rome?

And virtually every English king thereafter offered some significant two-fingered salute to the Pope, whether it was the refusal to finance crusades, provide armies, permit clergy liberties or collaborate with Rome's views, in the distribution of royal power across Europe. England has always been, it would seem, something of a Prodigal Son to Father Rome!

I've always thought that this was maybe partly down to being an island nation.

Henry VIII's kerfuffle with the Pope who wouldn't annul his marriage to the first Catherine, was of course political. A previous Pope had very obligingly dispensed with the Table of Kindred objections, in order that Henry could marry his brother's widow in the first place. It probably almost seemed incredible to Henry that any successor should therefore hesitate to offer an annulment, when required. European monarchies could not operate effectively without the convenience of papal dispensations and annulments; it was how wealth was gained, kingdoms acquired, and influence maintained. And the Pope was clearly instrumental in this. It was one of his chief sources of power over the royals. Religious scruples didn't come into it. I forget why it wasn't politic for this Pope to give Henry his annulment - some family connection with Aragon - something to do with who was Emperor at the time?

For the Pope in Henry's time, it was just unfortunate that Henry's desire to provide his nation with an heir was greater than his desire to keep in with the Pope. Popes came and went, but for Henry, he was permanently sovereign, until his death. It is possible, Henry would've regarded his split with Rome as being nothing more significant than anything any of predecessors had gone through before him.

He always considered himself a good Catholic prince. He was a capable theologian in his own right - with the help of people like Thomas More. He certainly didn't feel the need for Papal approbation for running his country as he saw fit, or even for managing the religious affairs of his nation. And there was, it seems, much less outrage at the dissolution than might be thought. Many monasteries already had gained bad reputations for not helping the poor, or not offering the traditional welfare help for their communities, as they once had. No doubt there was some suffering, but it would seem to have been mainly the ordinary monk or nun, in having nowhere else to go. The senior clergy often found new positions elsewhere. And the trades and masons guilds which were fast overtaking the Church in providing charitable aid for the poor were, arguably, given a new lease of life. The desecration of buildings and ruin of holy communities, undoubtedly damaged some towns and their way of life, woefully. And the ignorant brutishness of how much of it was done, disgusts us. But there's much to suggest that the dissolution - however selfishly initiated - was a fruit ripe for the picking so far as the ordinary population was concerned.

Ironically, while it may have been sold to Henry as a great way to line his pockets, the actual net gain for him was less than he might've hoped for. Some of the dosh went for educational institutions (though perhaps not that much of it sadly!). But most of it would appear to have gone to his supporters, in permissions to acquire estates, lands, properties etc. Whether this was a deliberate policy to keep them sweet and on his side, or because he financially mismanaged the dissolution, I can't really remember.

The greatest disadvantage, therefore, that seems to have come out of the dissolution was not so much ridding the countryside of some very expensive and burdensome establishments; but in squandering the resources gained from the raid on Henry's Old Boy network. Rather than, say, creating better establishments to serve the communities who no longer had even the abbot and his fellow princes - however corrupt - to work for, and bring in a bit of income to the area.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I forget why it wasn't politic for this Pope to give Henry his annulment - some family connection with Aragon - something to do with who was Emperor at the time?

Catherine of Aragorn was the daughter of the King and Queen of Spain. Their grandson, Catherine's nephew, was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. He happened to sack Rome in 1527 and Henry strangely found it difficult to convince Pope Clement VII to grant the annulment of his marraige to Catherine, while Clement was being held hostage by her nephew.

Of course there were more politics than this. It is unclear whether, if the Pope hadn't been the hostage of Catherine's nephew, he would have annuled the marriage. A Pope could make a dispensation in these matters at will, but he couldn't overturn the dispensation of a previous Pope. This was what tied Clement's hands.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I forget why it wasn't politic for this Pope to give Henry his annulment - some family connection with Aragon - something to do with who was Emperor at the time?
Catherine of Aragorn was the daughter of the King and Queen of Spain. Their grandson, Catherine's nephew, was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. He happened to sack Rome in 1527 and Henry strangely found it difficult to convince Pope Clement VII to grant the annulment of his marraige to Catherine, while Clement was being held hostage by her nephew.

Of course there were more politics than this. It is unclear whether, if the Pope hadn't been the hostage of Catherine's nephew, he would have annuled the marriage. A Pope could make a dispensation in these matters at will, but he couldn't overturn the dispensation of a previous Pope. This was what tied Clement's hands.

Thanks for that. I think I would disagree about that last statement, though. Not that the rule you mention wasn't there about not overturning a previous dispensation; but that that was what was stopping Clement from accommodating the King of England. If it had been of use, and no harm, to the Pope to do so, I have no doubt Henry would've found himself free to re-marry!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

History always makes strange bedfellows. The relationship between the English (and later British) monarchy and the Papacy was often fraught.

I mean, who would have thought that the Pope would have backed William of Orange rather than James II during 1688 and all that - but that's what happened. The Pope had taken a dim view of James's heavy-handed efforts to reintroduce Catholicism and the persecution (and execution) of a number of non-conformists - the last so to be executed for 'heresy' - because he felt, rightly, that it would prove counter-productive. It also suited the Papacy to have a counter-balance against Louis XIV in this part of the world ... the relationship between the French monarchy and the Papacy hadn't always been sweetness and light either.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It also suited the Papacy to have a counter-balance against Louis XIV in this part of the world ... the relationship between the French monarchy and the Papacy hadn't always been sweetness and light either.

The War of the Grand Alliance AKA Nine Year's War had just kicked off. Basically just about everybody against Louis XIV - the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Piedmont, England, Scotland, and the Netherlands all on the same side. From that point of view what we call the Glorious Revolution looks a lot like a Dutch invasion of England to stop James supporting the French assault on the Low Countries and Rhineland.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure that's entirely fair, Seraphim, I mean, the smoke of the Fires of Smithfield lingered in the public consciousness for a long time - fuelled by Foxes Acts & Monuments of course ...

The level of persecution was, in terms of the numbers involved, not that great but the psychological effects were much greater. It'd be like asking the Argentines to forget the disappearances during the time of the military juntas on the grounds that a few thousand disappearances weren't that big a deal in the context of a population of many millions ...

The population of England was probably only about three or four million during Mary's reign so even 200 or 300 executions was going to have an enormous impact.

Sure, that doesn't exonerate any subsequent regime for persecution of Catholics or non-conformists, but it does explain why a residual anti-Roman Catholicism lasted a long time ...

For my money, I think that earlier Protestant historians over-egged things in one direction but there is an equal danger now of revisionist RC historians over-egging things in another. Somewhere in the middle of the two extremes the reality lies.

I agree there is a danger of over-egging but on the other hand, histories by Eamon Duffy and others are way overdue. It will take much longer to get a more balanced version after hundreds of years of the Whig version of history
I do think though that the majority of the English were Catholics (if not at that point , all signed up to the Counter-Reformation project ) with a minority of very active Protestants Who were in positions of power to profit from opportunities and Elizabeth's accession was just once such

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It also suited the Papacy to have a counter-balance against Louis XIV in this part of the world ... the relationship between the French monarchy and the Papacy hadn't always been sweetness and light either.
The War of the Grand Alliance AKA Nine Year's War had just kicked off. Basically just about everybody against Louis XIV - the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Piedmont, England, Scotland, and the Netherlands all on the same side. From that point of view what we call the Glorious Revolution looks a lot like a Dutch invasion of England to stop James supporting the French assault on the Low Countries and Rhineland.

Wouldn't mind if it was, frankly. Still something to be grateful for.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0