Once again the reader who uses the name Canon Tallis has made a comment that I want to highlight.
It really is a fairly simple thing. Those Englishmen who were devoted to the Papacy fled England after the accession of Elizabeth I and founded schools for the training of priests on the continent. Their purpose was the reconversion of England to the Roman faith.1 After their ordination they would sneak back into England to help maintain the faith of English recusants 2 but also to provide intelligence for the King of Spain and other European powers who might aid in returning the English to the papal faith by force of arms. They frequently ended up in conspiracies to murder Elizabeth and put her cousin, Mary of Scotland, on the English throne. There were a couple of occasions when some authorities believe they betrayed one or more of their own to the English authorities for the purpose of being able to portray those caught in a plot against the throne and the state as religious martyrs, when from a purely secular point of view they were no more than traitors and potential murderers. Many of those so executed are buried in the churchyard of St Giles in the Fields in London. Frequently they were very attractive people as individuals, but their activity can hardly be squared with the teaching of St Paul or the behaviour of Christians under Pagan Rome.
Elizabeth, on the other hand, employed some of the greatest of those of the Roman faith, Tallis and Tavener among them to say nothing of the duke of Norfolk, only requiring them to obey the laws of the kingdom for the safety of all Englishmen. After all it was not her intention to break with the papacy but merely to reform the Church in England. Instead it was a very ill advised pope who excommunicated Elizabeth when even French cardinals were convinced that it was the example of the English Church which should be followed. But as one of the writers at the time noted of the Council of Trent, the Holy Spirit had a practice of arriving in the diplomatic boxes of the Spanish ambassador. And it was the interests of the Kingdom and Empire of Spain that were ultimately being served, not those of the Kingdom of God.
Certain things that went on in the 16th century provide fuel for modern people who choose to honor their martyrs as if making an argument in the process. In fact, the whole question of martyrs, as such, under Henry and Elizabeth, and of martyrs under Mary, is fairly complicated. But, under Elizabeth no one was executed as a heretic for loyalty to Rome. Under Mary, Protestants had been executed strictly for their religious beliefs.
In the previous generation Thomas More was executed for his belief that Henry had wrongly taken to himself power that belonged rightly to the papacy. Rome canonized Sir Thomas More, and to this day calls him a martyr. Maybe he was a saint and martyr by the time of his death; but if so, a martyr of conscience only; that is, he died for a cause that was not true beyond his conscience. And, if he was judicially murdered his death may have been half martyrdom, and half (to use the words of John Lennon) "instant karma." Thomas More was executed by a judicial murder, for the sake of his conscience; and so he suffered the same fate he had helped to inflict on another man for the sake of that man's conscience; and that was every bit as much of a judicial murder. For, only a few years earlier More had hounded William Tyndale to his death, the first man to translate the Bible into English directly from Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale said, "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!" Perhaps, and so we may hope, Thomas More really had become a saint by the time of his death, and perhaps, if so, aided by the prayers of the martyred Tyndale himself.
We may honor the courage and faith of those who died for the sake of conscience, including the papists who thought it their duty to overthrow Queen Elizabeth (which would have meant her death) without giving undue weight to their erroneous opinions. In all charity, we hope that their faith in Christ guided them Home through all the darkness and confusion of that era. We hope this equally for all who were killed for conscience sake, whether they were Papist or Protestant, and in consideration of the partial blindness that often disables men who have only the best of intentions.
However, about that troubled century, these facts are often forgotten, or rather, glossed over.
1. The Papacy had been subjugated to the Spanish crown during the reign of Charles V, and years later while Phillip II ruled, the lesson of a pope jailed by a king of Spain (however briefly and symbolically) was not forgotten.
2. Spain saw England as its most serious rival.
3. Spain even sent the Armada to attack England during the reign of Elizabeth.
4. If we have any indication as to whose prayer was heard, and to whom God granted deliverance, it may be contained in words from the Bible: "Even the winds and the sea obey Him."
The one time we see in that history an indisputable Act of God, at least in legal terms that even insurers would recognize, it was an act that defeated the Spanish side, and with it sunk the prospects of forcibly subjecting the religion of England to Rome. "He blew with His winds, and they were scattered." So runs the famous quotation on the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, a joyful expression of thanksgiving that was minted on English coins. This kind of deliverance, when the people did not need to fight, reminds of us of very important battles recorded in Scripture, especially when Judah was attacked by the children of Ammon and Moab and mount Seir. The prophet said, "Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the LORD with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed." (II Chron. 20)
_________________________________________
1. "The Roman Faith" was the expression used by Queen Mary as she was dying.
2. Recusancy was a term used to describe the statutory offense of not complying with and conforming to the established Church of England.
It really is a fairly simple thing. Those Englishmen who were devoted to the Papacy fled England after the accession of Elizabeth I and founded schools for the training of priests on the continent. Their purpose was the reconversion of England to the Roman faith.1 After their ordination they would sneak back into England to help maintain the faith of English recusants 2 but also to provide intelligence for the King of Spain and other European powers who might aid in returning the English to the papal faith by force of arms. They frequently ended up in conspiracies to murder Elizabeth and put her cousin, Mary of Scotland, on the English throne. There were a couple of occasions when some authorities believe they betrayed one or more of their own to the English authorities for the purpose of being able to portray those caught in a plot against the throne and the state as religious martyrs, when from a purely secular point of view they were no more than traitors and potential murderers. Many of those so executed are buried in the churchyard of St Giles in the Fields in London. Frequently they were very attractive people as individuals, but their activity can hardly be squared with the teaching of St Paul or the behaviour of Christians under Pagan Rome.
Elizabeth, on the other hand, employed some of the greatest of those of the Roman faith, Tallis and Tavener among them to say nothing of the duke of Norfolk, only requiring them to obey the laws of the kingdom for the safety of all Englishmen. After all it was not her intention to break with the papacy but merely to reform the Church in England. Instead it was a very ill advised pope who excommunicated Elizabeth when even French cardinals were convinced that it was the example of the English Church which should be followed. But as one of the writers at the time noted of the Council of Trent, the Holy Spirit had a practice of arriving in the diplomatic boxes of the Spanish ambassador. And it was the interests of the Kingdom and Empire of Spain that were ultimately being served, not those of the Kingdom of God.
Certain things that went on in the 16th century provide fuel for modern people who choose to honor their martyrs as if making an argument in the process. In fact, the whole question of martyrs, as such, under Henry and Elizabeth, and of martyrs under Mary, is fairly complicated. But, under Elizabeth no one was executed as a heretic for loyalty to Rome. Under Mary, Protestants had been executed strictly for their religious beliefs.
In the previous generation Thomas More was executed for his belief that Henry had wrongly taken to himself power that belonged rightly to the papacy. Rome canonized Sir Thomas More, and to this day calls him a martyr. Maybe he was a saint and martyr by the time of his death; but if so, a martyr of conscience only; that is, he died for a cause that was not true beyond his conscience. And, if he was judicially murdered his death may have been half martyrdom, and half (to use the words of John Lennon) "instant karma." Thomas More was executed by a judicial murder, for the sake of his conscience; and so he suffered the same fate he had helped to inflict on another man for the sake of that man's conscience; and that was every bit as much of a judicial murder. For, only a few years earlier More had hounded William Tyndale to his death, the first man to translate the Bible into English directly from Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale said, "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!" Perhaps, and so we may hope, Thomas More really had become a saint by the time of his death, and perhaps, if so, aided by the prayers of the martyred Tyndale himself.
We may honor the courage and faith of those who died for the sake of conscience, including the papists who thought it their duty to overthrow Queen Elizabeth (which would have meant her death) without giving undue weight to their erroneous opinions. In all charity, we hope that their faith in Christ guided them Home through all the darkness and confusion of that era. We hope this equally for all who were killed for conscience sake, whether they were Papist or Protestant, and in consideration of the partial blindness that often disables men who have only the best of intentions.
However, about that troubled century, these facts are often forgotten, or rather, glossed over.
1. The Papacy had been subjugated to the Spanish crown during the reign of Charles V, and years later while Phillip II ruled, the lesson of a pope jailed by a king of Spain (however briefly and symbolically) was not forgotten.
2. Spain saw England as its most serious rival.
3. Spain even sent the Armada to attack England during the reign of Elizabeth.
4. If we have any indication as to whose prayer was heard, and to whom God granted deliverance, it may be contained in words from the Bible: "Even the winds and the sea obey Him."
The one time we see in that history an indisputable Act of God, at least in legal terms that even insurers would recognize, it was an act that defeated the Spanish side, and with it sunk the prospects of forcibly subjecting the religion of England to Rome. "He blew with His winds, and they were scattered." So runs the famous quotation on the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, a joyful expression of thanksgiving that was minted on English coins. This kind of deliverance, when the people did not need to fight, reminds of us of very important battles recorded in Scripture, especially when Judah was attacked by the children of Ammon and Moab and mount Seir. The prophet said, "Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the LORD with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed." (II Chron. 20)
_________________________________________
1. "The Roman Faith" was the expression used by Queen Mary as she was dying.
2. Recusancy was a term used to describe the statutory offense of not complying with and conforming to the established Church of England.
17 comments:
Thank you for a balanced treatment of a horribly confused period of history. I am quite convinced that there were saints and villains on all sides of the various conflicts. I'm thinking of More and Cranmer and Ridley, (three more dofferent men whoul be hard to find), of Laud and Charles 1, of the various Jesuit martyrs in England, earlier of Tyndale and Wycliffe, and Becket, amd later of Pusey and Newman, and on and on. Good men, serving God to the best of their knowledge and ability, and every one of them deficient in understanding in one way or another. Some of them, in fact, responsible for each other's deaths, and yet, I hope to meet them all at the heavenly Throne, and firmly believe I do meet them all at Mass today.
Historically based polemics are almost always plain foolish, as the facts do not say merely one thing.
ed
Excellent post!
Being a fan of "Good Queen Bess", I always point out that she wished to avoid bloodshed if at all possible. The Elizabethan Settlement, establishing the via media, saved bloody wars and Englishmen killing Englishmen over religion. This is true, even if you look at it only from a political viewpoint.
But if you look deeper, Elizabeth I was a woman of deep faith - just read some of the prayers that she wrote if someone doubts this. Her prayers are beautiful and deeply spiritual. She was probably "the" original Anglo-Catholic. Most importantly, I admire her for her knowledge of church history and theology. She knew well the missionary works of St. Joseph of Arimathea, and his efforts in the early establishment of Christianity in England. She had a grasp of theology that is remarkable for someone not educated to the clergy.
I think it can truly be said that Elizabeth I restored the faith of the primitive catholic church in England. She was not a Reformer of the faith, but, in my opinion, she was a restorer of the primitive catholic faith. I think she is simply a remarkable person from Anglican Church history, English history and world history.
As a prayerbook catholic, I feel we owe her a great deal of gratitude for her careful establishment of Anglicanism.
BCP Catholic
Ed,
A bit of clarification. In what areas do you find Pusey deficient? (and I don't mean that in a combative way; I'm simply curious).
Well, I don't mean to be combattive either. I haven't studied him enough to speak with any kind of authority, and though there are a few things like his fascination with German theologians that have given me pause, I don't really know of particulars, and would probably consider him the most reliable of the lot I listed. However, my point is that there has never been a man who was not, in one way or another, deficient in understanding. I take that as a matter of faith. It is thus that I have no problem recognizing saints from opposite sides of the various divides. Saints are fallible.
ed
My experience of Pusey was that his interest in the Germans arose from a perception of the dangers that they posed. Once again, I recommend The Prophet Daniel. (And if I'm lucky I might even get a response from Fr Wells, if he's out there.)
My goodness! I just have to post this one, because the veriword is 'train'. Is it a first? A real veriword?
Sandra:
You can ignore the veriwords-the blogger is set to let in all four of us.
And it appears to be set to make me do the word at least two times and sometimes three. Is there no justice?
However, I am happy to again have occasion to thank Father Hart for emphasizing and expanding on something which I had written. I, too, am a great fan of Elizabeth who took a small country from poverty to wealth in the course of her reign even if she did wear out three archbishops of Canterbury in the doing of it. And her support of that rogue Shakespeare has made him the bane of English students everywhere.
I got through on the first try! Who has been fiddling with the veriword? Someone must investigate immediately.
I got through on the first try! Who has been fiddling with the veriword? Someone must investigate immediately.
They may have to fire somebody.
Yes, I am bothered by Thomas More's active role in the cruelty practised towards those who were regarded as heretics under Henry VIII - as I am bothered by Thomas Cranmer's active involvement in Henry's cruel treatment of Catherine of Aragon and her daughter. It is depressing how easily "Christians" of all periods are able to gloss over "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." While Mary's own cruelty was inexcusable, her animosity against self-styled Protestants, in view of the humiliation that she and her mother had suffered at their hands, is not surprising. So much of 16th century English history provides graphic demonstrations of the Good Soldier Svejk's astute observation: "One bomb leads to another, and so the good work proceeds."
But if God had joined Harry and Catherine together, why did it require a papal dispensation for their marriage? And considering the laws of God against marrying your brother's wife, why was the 'pope' so quick to provide it? Again the fact that the crown of Spain had come to own the papacy. Katherine may have been given a second chance to be the queen of England, but in the power politics of that time she failed entirely to provide the one thing which Henry and England so desparately believed they needed, i.e., a male heir to insure that the civil wars over the English crown were not re-ignited.
And Mary, in her turn, would never have had that crown except for Elizabeth's warning that stopped her from riding into the Lord Protector's trap after Edward had died so that Lady Jane Grey could be made queen. And how in her turn did she treat Elizabeth? I think we all know.
And yet Elizabeth emerged from that treatment relatively unscathed and comparatively whole as a human being, a comparative rarity for a royal personage in that time. And why? I believe, having read the corpus of her writings over her lifetime it was because of personal faith in God that came from her life long practice of reading a chapter of the Old Testament in Hebrew daily as well as a chapter of the New in Greek as well as her daily attendance at the offices when she was well. A good deal of her character could also be read from her reaction to the desecration of her private chapel while she was on her first progress. She came back to find the crucifix broken and the vestments destroyed. She staged a royal temper tantrum that none of them ever forgot, restored the ornaments and worship of her chapel, but had none of those responsible killed for the offense which she might easily have done.
Elizabeth in one sense was an original, but in another not quite. There had been saintly English queens before who founded convents and built churches, but none on the scale in which she rebuilt the faith of the English Church on precisely that foundation which she proclaimed to the emperor Frederick in that famous letter which he forwarded to the Vatican where it remains, i.e. Holy Scripture as interpreted by the earliest fathers and bishops.
I am glad to see that the veriword has been fixed. The last entry required my normal two attempts. Good show!
Canon T.
Though I accept your analysis for the most part, I do feel it necessary to point out that historical issues, especially as they relate to theology, are seldom as clearvut as we'd like them to be. You said:
But if God had joined Harry and Catherine together, why did it require a papal dispensation for their marriage?
Well, if doubt was perceived in the issue, didn't it require an authoritative judgment from someone? A dispensation (at least formally) is not a changing of the law nor a setting aside of it, but a judgment as to what the law actually is. I'm not sure the Pope was the proper person to be making such a judgment for a local church, but that is another matter.
And considering the laws of God against marrying your brother's wife, why was the 'pope' so quick to provide it?
Is that clearly the law of God? There is an often remarked disconnect between OT levirate marriage (not condemned by Our Lord Himself) and the discipline developed by the Church. Henry may have been sincere in the qualms he later developed. Was the pope necessarily wrong in that judgment?
Again the fact that the crown of Spain had come to own the papacy. Katherine may have been given a second chance to be the queen of England, but in the power politics of that time she failed entirely to provide the one thing which Henry and England so desparately believed they needed, i.e., a male heir to insure that the civil wars over the English crown were not re-ignited.
And, yes, all theological considerations aside, you are probably correct that the major issue here was political.
ed
Ed wrote:
I'm not sure the Pope was the proper person to be making such a judgment for a local church, but that is another matter.
.
In a strictly legal sense, that became the argument. It does not excuse Henry's sins, but neither can we decide the matter (looking back at history) simplistically. And, what the pope had granted to the king of France was, substantially, no different from what Henry wanted. Only, the King of Spain did not care in the case of France.
In all of this political mess, it was very hard for even saintly men to avoid contamination from the sins of the powerful.
Sad to say that saints from all camps have continued to kill (whether literally or at least metaphorically) each other during the last five hundred years, and probably will never stop.
What's especially sad - and ironic - as an Anglican, is to see how the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic camps within the Anglican tradition sometimes treat each other more much worse than contemporary Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics do - and often over much lesser issues. (I'm thinking of the civil wars that still erupt in some parishes over comparatively small differences in churchmanship!)
Now, I do believe that these divisions to not reach to heaven, and - Lord have mercy - I do have faith that even many Christians who killed each other on the battlefield are not fully reconciled with each other. I'm even sure (following what C.S. Lewis wrote somewhere) that such enemies might find it rather funny... one minute they were killing each other, the next they were distracted by a blaze of glory that eclipsed everything. (The sort of thing that made St. Thomas Aquinas see all of his theology as "straw" in comparison.)
And yet... if there were only a way of coming to terms with some of this before heaven, surely there are some other things that God might have us do with each other besides argue? (Evangelize, perhaps? Corporal and spiritual acts of mercy? Anything?)
That said...
We believe that God is capable of working through the most foolish and ridiculous people - and also the most tragic events. God continues to work through the passionate spirituality of flawed human beings who often catch each other in "friendly fire".
Hopefully this is merely a childish squabble, and our second millenium only what parents of toddlers refer to as the "terrible twos".
Michael
Amen!
One thing I know is that whatever it is that God may have done through me is ample proof "that God is capable of working through the most foolish and ridiculous people".
ed
Post a Comment