England's Unwanted Reformation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 дек 2020
- Most English people initially saw the Reformation as an unexpected catastrophe, wrenching their religious lives out of shape, and stripping their communities of resources they had naively believed belonged to them.
This lecture looks at how this dramatic change was pushed through despite formidable opposition; how most English people eventually reconciled themselves to the new reality; and how England’s persistent Catholic minority reinvented itself for a new age.
A lecture by Alec Ryrie
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: www.gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
This guy is my favorite RUclips lecturer on history.
Even if it’s an unknown to you agenda.
Yes he is a brilliant teacher.
You need to watch Ronald Hutton’s
The destruction of cultural relics at Cromwell's order was and is absolutely despicable.
Here here!
I'm not saying sins of the father, but man, these Cromwells...
@@antigonemerlin there were a few generations between **Thomas and Oliver and they were not directly related either. The actions of Thomas had no bearing on the actions of Oliver. There was well over 100 yrs between them. Their ideals were different too.
***“Oliver Cromwell was descended from a junior branch of the Cromwell family, distantly related from (as great, great grand-uncle) Thomas Cromwell”*
Love it. So blessed to be in the Catholic Church. Born and brought up in the Anglican Church.. I have lived Northeastern Pa for the last 51 yrs. meet so many beautiful people of the Catholic Church.
Thank you so much.
No kidding. I am also in Northeastern, PA. I only exclusively attend the ancient Latin Mass, however, so I have to drive quite a distance.
I'm blessed to never be a Catholic and never will be one.
I was born and raised in the Roman Catholic church. I am glad I found the episcopal church - which is still in the apostolic succession - and am free of the RC dogmatism!
He draws one in with a deliciously compelling voice, and thus history is made palpable and above all, enjoyable! One just needs to lock the door, switch the phone off but your feet up to the fire, get the popcorn out, and ENJOY!!!!
“...a little less homicidal.” Brilliant!
His writing is terrific. He might consider writing a novel or a script for a movie/television show on his (ever fascinating) subject matter.
Women's work
Already done : read the Shardlake novels by Sansom.
Brilliant - turns history into gripping drama
Excellent. Fond memories of a prof I had back at my American university in the mid 1970s. Three quarters of British history with the terrific Prof Lacey Baldwin Smith. Even his final exams each qtr were fun!
Stunningly authentic insight into the reality of the English Reformation
The best and most accurate history available on the web today!
Can't get enough Professor . . thank you.
First class scholarship - taking in a form of G R Elton on Cromwell, Duffy on English parish life and showing the popularity of Mary Tudor. A G Dickens' idiosyncratic views are relegated out. What is left unclear is the divide between pre Reformation Catholicism and the Tridentine version which emerged as a result of it. The support for the northern earls in 1569 was not Tridentine.
An excellent lecture and in many ways definitive.
Such difficult times of persecution and confusion for those poor people...may we never have to live through such terrible circumstances. Thank you for sharing these wonderful lectures! You relate them in such vivid details and it is so very interesting!
I hope I would gladly suffer and die for Our Lord.
No mentions of the persecutions and executions when Mary was queen though.
@@kiwitrainguy Negligible in comparison.
Believe it or not, traditional Catholics are being persecuted today, by what is allegedly their own Church, for holding to the authentic faith and the ancient true worship of our ancestors. We are all being corraled, too, into the Society of St Pius X and anticipate being excommunicated a few years from now. The Church based in Rome has become an anti-Church of apostacy eclipsing the true one, just as has been prophesied many times in the Latter Days. Things will only get worse from here, so those of us who hold fast to the faith of our ancestors have been preparing themselves for possible martyrdom eventually. It can definitely happen again.
@@lilyw.719 I'm sure it wasn't negligible for the people receiving that treatment. To dismiss their fate so casually does them an injustice. Irrespective of the numbers involved a crime is still a crime.
Most interesting. Its beyond dispute that the Henry's actions were unpopular, it was an imposed process. The rebellions in his time were large and were focused on the religious changes. But it's also clear that beyond the property snatches and brutal power something else must have been going on, people must have been won over to a considerable degree. How can we know that? Well his son's position was much weaker in economic and military terms, yet it could push harder at religious changes without Henry's brutality. When a brutal ruler gives way to a less brutal one, that usually leads in an unpopular regime falling, yet when rebellion came in 1549 it was a confusing mix of religion and protest about economic woes. Was it perhaps that most people hated losing the trappings of the old religion, but actually found they rather liked the English bible and some of the new ideas. It's a common way with most people to change, fierce resistance followed by rapid adaptation, to the point of believing they always believed it. Its clear enough that beyond the core, Mary's restoration didn't stick, there was no immediate uprising against Elizabeth, a protestant, the daughter of an unpopular queen who had been convicted as an incestuous adulteress and witch.
Mary was popular in her accession as the rightfull heir, the daughter of a popular and wronged queen, as Northumberland had not been. She suffered no popular rebellion, and its reasonable to assume the populous were happy enough to go along with the changes. Though I don't see that the efforts on Church decoration prove popular support for Mary's changes, they prove in each instance someone was willing to toe the new legal reality just as others had under Henry.
Fascinating. So much back and forth it is surprising that England survived.
Well done! Well done indeed! You pointed out something I had never considered, namely, that the male citizenry were required to swear an oath regarding the supremacy. Why require it on this particular issue? As you say, any monarch has only to issue a decree for it to be obeyed. On this particular issue, one both spiritual and political, an oath is demanded.
Its getting to be that way with policies on Covid !!!
Having sworn to acknowledge the legitimacy of AB one year, did everybody have to swear to deny it the next?
@@cliveholloway1259 Your skill with a shoehorn is quite impressive.
Fascinating lecture. Greetings from the US.
Excellent presentation. Well done!
Golly that was an amazing lecture. Thanks for uploading it
What I want to know is, to what extent was the overtly protestantising drive during the reign of Edward VI motivated by theology as opposed to the desire to hang on to the loot acquired during the previous reign.
That's a very 21st century question! In fact the whole lecture and comments are basically viewing history through the prism of our new "moral" standards. One can look at historical events, relate what happened, in fact, and explain the background to those events. You cannot judge the morality of that time by referring to our, modern, view of morals and proper practice.
Of course you can judge the morality of the time by our modern standards, regardless of how they were perceived by those living at the time.
Very interesting lecture. I should state that I have no expertise whatsoever in this area, but as an avid reader of Evelyn Waugh, I would recommend his truly marvellous biography of Edmund Campion.
Agree!
A wonderful book!
Wow! Such a succinct and well presented lecture on a subject which on a shallow judgement may seem anachronistic.
wonderful and SO informative especially about Arundel
These lectures are so interesting. Thank you Gresham College.
Excellent lecture. Really enjoyed it!
Excellent lecture - thank you.
Another excellent, informative lecture. Thank you!
By the time of the Gunpowder Plot Roman Catholics were less than 2% of the English population, so seems pretty successful.
Catholics...
@@Denis.Collins it was a survey done by the same people who said Hillary Clinton was 97% certain to win
@@Denis.Collins Unlike the Inquisition???
@@FiveLiver Clinton did win the popular vote.
@Rosten Boss what was the gunpowder plot designed to divert attention from?
What an excellent presentation
Yay!! Another lecture, excited..
A belter, as always
Cromwell hoped that transferring a third of England to the Crown would provide a permanent source of revenue independent of parliament but Henry kept giving the land away in the old feudal style.
Cromwell (an ancestor of the other Cromwell) died a catholic.
So he claimed. But the English church was excommunicated and he died convicted as a Lutheran plotter.
Oliver Cromwell?
@@jdlc903 - Thomas.
Great video.
Highly informative lecture that is well delivered.
Awesome!
Speechless
Gosh, Hungary too, amongst other countries. Another most interesting lecture.
Brilliant analysis and so useful at times like these when we are also being compelled down a road of selfish godlessness
A wall or fence sometimes enables coexistence and closeness (not disable it, as it is often said), if doors can open and if give a feeling of freedom, of will, of acknowledgement.
That is a very interesting and unexpected conclusion and I do like the way he calls it ENgland's Deformation!
Great at stuff really easy voice to listen to
So very sad.
From an American, wow great talk, what a gas.
This means my ancestors were forced to apostatise. It saddens me deeply. You know once a status quo is maintained those that remember die and those born think the abnormal normal. It's is Orwellian. Islam did the same thing through persecution, violence and social disadvantaging of Christians.
Are you catholic? St John Fisher (martyr bishop), pray for us!
Christians did the same thing to the old polytheists, so you absolutely do NOT have the moral high ground. Not so much fun when you're on the receiving end of what you did to others, is it? Because of what Christians did to the Pagans, they don't get any sympathy from me. This Catholic vs. Protestant, i.e. Christian vs. Christian, is eyeroll-inducing circus. Just one more stain on the history and already horrible reputation of Christianity.
Very interesting talk. Catholic persecution diminished only very slowly, fear of Catholicism was one of the drivers of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which cost King James II his throne, and Catholics continued to be subject to restrictions for many years after that. A Catholic still may not come to the British Throne, although there are, I think, no other restrictions..
Wasn't that changed a few years ago?
Or be prime minister
@@Basaljet though Boris is a not so secret catholic. All his children from the various relationships go to private Catholic schools.
@@edcarson3113 lots of Arabs have their kids at private Catholic schools does that make make them “Catholic”?
As late as World War 2, Prime Minister Churchill should not be seen in public events with the Catholic bishop of Westminister. This even though he liked him and dislike the archbishop of Canterbury.
.... 😁👌.. excellent .. crystalline clarity ..👍... will download ..😊....!!!!..
Just as a matter of history, the engraving showing the “Arch Prelate of St Andrews reading the new service book’, was made in 1637 and shows John Spottiswoode, the Archbishop of St Andrews from 1615 to 1638, well after the Catholic religion was replaced by Protestantism in Scotland. The engraving shows people who opposed a liturgy which had originated in England from Charles I and therefore has nothing to do with the Reformation. It was part of an inter-Protestrant conflict.
i'd love to hear/know the story of the other end of things.. how/why etc. catholicism becomes allowed again, in the nineteenth century?
.. meant to also say how interesting and enjoyable have found all these talks, thankyou for doing them.
Wellington was Irish-born and had an an appreciation of the Catholic soldiery who helped him win. When PM he enabled Daniel o'Connell in his efforts to legalise Catholics e.g. to be in Parliament. The 1829 Emancipation Act is worth reading
At the time of the reformation, the English people had been Catholic for nearly a millenium. And now they were told that the belief of their forefathers had been wrong. It is no wonder they couldn't understand it.
Exactly what did the Protestants reform?
The Roman Catholic Church was imposed by the Roman's after their conquest of Britain and the edict of Constantine the Great in the 6th century.
However, the earlier Celtic Church beginning sometime in the 1st century would have been far more like the Church advocated by John Wycliffe in the 14th century. Therefore the true church in Britain predates Catholicism by many centuries.
@@johnbrereton5229 Seeing as the pagan Romans finished their British conquest about 80 AD they could hardly have imposed their version of Christianity on a pre-existent Celtic Christianity.
Well imagine how all the South American civilisations felt, when the Spanish changed their beliefs, on pain of death!
@@johnbrereton5229 definitely false. The Celtic Church wasn’t even brought into line with Rome until the 1100’s. It was Orthodox which is nothing like Protestantism and different from Catholicism.
What can never be truly ascertained is the relative strengths/numbers of ‘extemist new believers’, ‘moderate new believers’ and ‘old believers’ at any one point. But the lecturer gives the distinct impression that it can - without providing any proof because none can be found. And he only focuses on the established church, in which he implies there was uniformity. The efforts of Archbishop Laud in the 1630’s to impose uniformity would surely suggest otherwise. It is all conjecture and wishful thinking. All that can be truly said is that as of the Reformation England became split in terms of religion and has remained so ever since.
to endure & to obey. what's new.
Rock , interpreted as Vicar?
Rock... foundation.
Vicar... representative.
The Reformation didn't start in the 16th century with Henry VIII and his Act of Supremacy of 1534, it started much earlier in the 14th century with John Wycliffe and his followers the Lollards.
Wycliffe was born in Yorkshire in 1324 and became know as the Morning Star of the Reformation and his writing were read throughout Europe. Long before Martin Luther in Germany, in fact Wycliffe would have considered Luther a catholic because he still remained tied to catholic ideology until he died. Where as Wycliffe believed the catholic church was totally corrupt and the Pope was the antichrist and the whole Roman Catholic church and its rituals were anti Christian. All Henry did was to cynicaly practise some of what Wycliffe had been preaching 200yrs previously in order to get his divorce.
I don’t think so.
What are you talking about? Luther was an antichrist and in no way close to Catholic theology. For starters, he rejected the Mass as the sacrifice of Calvary and turned it into the Lord's Supper. And he rejected the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. He then forced people to receive the hosts in their grubby hands instead of on the tongue, so that they were no longer treating it as something sacred and lost their belief.
@@lilyw.719
John Wycliffe considered the Pope to be the antichrist. Luther remained far closer to catholic teachings than Wycliffe, who considered them all anti Christian.
@@lilyw.719from one catholic to another, please educate yourself before you criticise other denominations. You gravely misrepresented Martin Luther. He never rejected doctrine of real presence, only questioned catholic aristotelian view about "mechanism" of real presence - transubstantiation. Lutheran churches until today still profess belief in real presence and sacramental character of baptism and eucharist. Also communion on tongue was adopted by church only in late middle ages, early renaissance, Luther in matter of communion in the hands was actually tradionalist. You can easly google "communion in the hands - history" and see that custom of recieving communion on tongue only began in 9th century, and became popularised much later (14-15th century) to be finally acknowledged as official practice in 16th century.
53:03 transcript "(indistinct)" = deus ex machina
Why do academics overlook the prime cause of the English Reformation - admittedly badly needed from a practical and theological perspective? Catherine of Aragon was Spanish - obviously. This meant that her nephew was Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain at the time - Charles V. Any pope who awarded an annulment would have faced his wrath, which would have been highly uncomfortable, if not fatal. No annulment faced Henry with the prospect of no male heir. Like most monarchs of the time, his dynasty was much more important than a bishop of questionable provenance. Reformation was the answer, and a redistribution of monastic estates was it's best guarantee.
An example organized minority will always triumph over a disorganized minority. Lessons for us today, and always.
👍👍👍👍👍
😍 🙏
What neck! - Henry’s.
22.30 Surely the biggest single major transfer of land and wealth in English history was post 1066 not post 1536?
Cromwell, of course, a suitable fate met
When I was young I spat on his grave in Westminster. It was very edifying.
Who were the Jesuits of the 1590s? Some stuck around after 1530s? Or did some new group get created and insinuated itself into Church hierarchy? A mix of both?
HOW MANY THOMASES ARE THERE!!!
a whole bunch, Seymour, Cromwell, Cranmer, More, Boylen, etc.
Let’s go Catholic!!!
Spellbinding.
I thought Arundel Castle was the residence of the Duke of Norfolk, not the Earl of Arundel. I know Earl of Arundel is the title for the Duke's heir, but this wasn't the case in the time of the Tudors. Incidentally, Elizabeth I executes her relative (through both her maternal and paternal lines - Edward I being the first common ancestor) the Duke of Norfolk, I think for treason.
Wasn't the (then) Duke of Norfolk killed at Bosworth Field on 22nd August, 1485, fighting for King Richard III against the Welsh usurper Henry Tydor? As a result of which the Fitzalan Howards were demoted from Dukes to Earls, only to be promoted following the decisive English victory over the Scots at Flodden?
@@KempSimon Yes, the first Duke of the third creation was demoted and his successor restored in 1514. At the time of the Reformation (1533 onwards) they were already restored. The residence for the two dukes hadn't changed, so Arundel Castle was still the seat to the Duke of Norfolk. Anyway, it is 'Duke' because there can only be one duke.
She executed St Philip Howard. The Duke of Norfolk remains the premier lay Catholic in England - his hereditary role is to organise the Coronation as the Earl Marshall of England
@@FiveLiver The Duke of Norfolk is the most senior aristocrat and Earl Marshal (as well as a couple of other positions) because of that, rather than being the most senior lay Catholic (I doubt he is the most senior member of the Catholic laity, but I don't know enough about the Catholic Church to say whether or not he is or is not).
You're right about the modern role of Earl Marshal, but the office was originally a domestic and military position.
In the hierarchy of the Great Officers of State, Earl Marshal is lower than Lord High Steward (Vacant), Lord Hight Chancellor (Secretary of State for Justice), Lord High Treasurer (Chancellor of the Exchequer), Lord President of the Council (Leader of the House of Commons), Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal (Leader of the House of Lords), Lord Great Chamberlain (Marquess of Cholmondeley), Lord High Constable, Earl Marshal and Lord High Admiral (currently Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh)...
The Duke of Norfolk is also head of the College of Arms...
Find Wolsley Bay, Nöelville, by the the 19th century, the Legal document in"Deeds", went the new and legal Victory fresh first nation legal whole agreed upon and formed language
The English reformation : the beginning of the end.
The end of what ?
@@lawrencejames8011 The end of Catholic England. The downfall was the narcissistic Henry Tudor and not being able to control his lusts.
@@lawrencejames8011 The end of charity and practical help for the poor and vulnerable. The 800 monasteries and religious houses through the nation provided the social services such as: feeding the hungry, hospitality, healthcare, hospitals, care for the elderly, feeble, injured, sick, widows and orphans and education for girls which all ended at the Reformation. The situation became dire with destitute people wandering the countryside. Eventually the Poor Laws had to be introduced.
@@viviennedunbar3374 :
Right!
And after a week they realised they were better off :-)
The saddest epoch in English history. The fullness of the faith thrown aside to satisfy the carnal cravings of a man who became increasingly maniacal.
Except the Catholic Church was as corrupt as the Devil himself. The reformation had nothing to do with Henry the 8th. He just jumped on the Lutherian band wagon so he could get his leg over.
Without the reformation we would still be living in the dark ages of Superstition and Ignorance.
@@marcussparticus8380 utter bull💩
My blood boils when I heard of the persecutions against a religion that was destroyed by a tyrant and his even more tyranical daughter.
Meanwhile, back at the Spanish inquisition.
@@rpm1796 Learn the true history instead of repeating Protestant propaganda.
The Reformation was the greatest event in England's long and proud history. We unshackled the chains of physical and spiritual Roman tyranny and enslavement, once and for all. This freedom of thought and deed led to the Enlightenment, which brought civilisation to the world. The days of bowing to corrupt Rome are long gone, and blessedly so.
I think that it is part of a progression: Magna Carta > Reformation > Enlightenment > American Revolution.
Oh, yes, the Protestant ideals of European revolutions and the Enlightenment have brought about such a wonderful modern society. . Western Society has completely fallen, thanks to all of the ideals you cherish. We're ripping apart at the seams, committing cultural suicide, and will annihilate ourselves within the next decade or two.
The fundamentalist shitholes the Protestants founded with the reformation - England included - seem to be horrible places to live in
This lecture is frustratingly partisan. The emotive lexicon used to denigrate one side and prompt pity for the other is not a scholarly sound way to issue a correction to a perceived sleight of hand in the 'reformation history' we all wrangle with. The selection and presentation of sources, personalities and events is what the hotter sort of puritans would call 'sophistic', bulldozing over subtleties or contradictions to present an over-simplified but emotionally powerful narrative.
I’m wondering, Why is religious freedom such a hard concept to hit upon? I’m thinking as a safety valve if nothing else. And that’s not some particularly stunning insight.
Rome had it for a while with the Edict of Milan of 313.
Please look it up. It even restored property which had been taken from Christians. And this middle path lasted for three or four generations. It wasn’t until 391 that pagan temples were closed to public access. So, seventy-eight years later. And even though the pagan closure had lax enforcement, it essentially elevated Christianity to a state religion.
Maybe it’s just too big a plum for civic authorities?
Of course a ruler with uncertainty legitimacy wants to align himself or herself with the most popular religion. And/or maybe it’s viewed as a way to stop religious strife. And for the religion itself - unless it’s been to this rodeo on a couple of prior occasions! - it’s viewed as just too big a bonus getting official recognition and all.
I also understand that Transylvania for a relatively brief period in the (?) 1600s also had religious freedom. 🌈 😊 🦋
organised religion is the use of traditions, main life events and superstition to bolster up political control.
religion = power. So, yes.
Since when was the Roman Catholic church about liberty?
No more oppressive religious system on earth.
It seems impossible at this remove to distinguish between "Roman Catholic = Pro-Papacy" and "Roman Catholic = Pro Time-Honoured Doctrines".
If there's a distinction to be made, they're not so time-hounourd, are they?
Tudor England and Hapsburg Spain seem to have a lot in common until Henry felt the need for a son.
@@JRobbySh Can't blame him - a son would prevent a second towton - just because elizabeth's reign proved his fears baseless, does not mean he was foolish to assume that another dynastic war would be the result of an unclear succession
england's reformation was catholic, protestant against rome but catholic in doctrine
Under Henry VIII I think that formulation works but under Edward VI and to a lesser extent Elizabeth I (or at least her advisors) were closer to mainstream European Protestantism than Catholicism.
Schismatic against Rome.Lutheran more or less in liturgy, but not Catholic nor Lutheran nor Calvinist in doctrine. Cranmer corresponded with Calvin, I think, so that was his bent.
The English Reformation described here sounds a bit like Lenin’s “vanguard” imposing communism on all Russia.
"... the king did not require the permission of his subjects..." could that be the genesis of the idea of 'we the people' enshrined as the cornerstone of the US...?
Possibly. It's worth noting that early into the American Revolution the idea of freedom of religion was a priority. George Washington himself publicly defended the rights of Catholics and Jews to worship freely in the new country he was fighting for.
@@jamestown8398 , most certainly... so, can it be argued that such ideas were the result of the Reformation, which promulgated the questioning of authority i.e. the Roman church /pope with its dogma and kings hitherto not possible... being that these men were products of English settlers and England being the first outside of Germany to embraced these ideas of Reformation, did not believe in an instituted state religion because 'the people' should be free to believe as they wish?
I think that it is part of a progression: Magna Carta > Reformation > English Civil War > American Revolution.
@@kiwitrainguy most certainly... strongly agree... and it’s most recent form is the current world order we inhabit today.
Moore and Fisher were beheaded; Cranmer was burnt at the stake - that ought to tell you something right there.
Protestant s were burnt at the stake while Cranmer was archbishop.
Hispanic America unwanted independence .
Well, Mexico has not had decent government since the 1790s.
This was the great apostasy that followed the appearance of the man of lawlessness, Martin Luther.
@Nick Bointon
No. He introduced a judgemental spirit that condemned better people than him, leading immediately to state persecution of Catholics - formerly the only type of Christian in Germany - so that they were slaughtered, families separated, and those becoming protestants became wealthy by stealing Catholics' wealth.
Luther was an antichrist but not the Antichrist. That one is coming very soon.
@@lilyw.719 The man of lawlessness is not the antichrist. Luther taught that there is no law any more. That's the doctrine of lawlessness.
The antichrist is the false prophet muhammad.
satan, the dragon, that serpent of old, is the allah whose devotees are the muslims, the beast.
The little horn (Aramaic "qeren") is the qur'an, having the eyes of the man muhammad, but being given a mouth to blaspheme every time a muslim recites it, and having 6,666 verses.
The four horns dividing from the little horn are muhammad's first four califs and the four branches of islamic jurisprudence, and the four empires that comprise the islamic empire: those of the Arabs, the Persians, the Mongolians and the Turks.
Gog is yet someone else. The first Gog was Gyges King of Lydia, considered in his day to be a descendant of Herakles. The next Gog from Magog was Genghis Khan of Mongolia. There is still a Gog to come.
Luther is the man of lawlessness who misused the epistles of Paul as a license for lawlessness, being unstable and untaught, one of those whom the LORD casts away at the judgement despite saying LORD LORD, I did it all for YOU. The great falling away (apostasia) that followed his appearance was the exodus of protestants from the Catholic Church.
Amen
And shall Trelawny live?
Or shall Trelawny die?
Here's twenty thousand Cornish men
Will know the reason why!
At least the Catholics were not forced to convert to being Lutherans! It is my understanding that Angelical heretics are pretty much Catholic without the Vicar of Christianity. Religion is not the root of all evil. It is when politics corrupts religion that is the root of all evil. Or at the very least in England.😇😎💒
The point is, at least Luther wasn't the King of Germany.
Pretty much heretics with a wrecking ball to trash everything that was Catholicism, at least there wasn't anything 'at least' to be said about it. Heretics do not attain heaven.
Really?
An unrepentant heretic after their second admonition is to be delivered over to the authorities to be exterminated
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
This law is still on the books of the Roman Catholic church.
Jacob Rees mogg wouldn't be out of place in these times politically and socially 😂
Excellent piece of comedy. Catholics really are funny.
He's an Anglican
@@FiveLiver Modern Anglicans are Catholics.
@@carbonicoyster5907 :
Impossible.
You can't be Anglican and Catholic!
@@alhilford2345 you need to catch up.
@@edcarson3113 :
I reiterate.
You can't be Anglican and Catholic! ! ! !
I don't buy his argument that protestantism was foisted upon Britain in a way unlike 'geunine popular uprisings' in the german states, Switzerland, or the Netherlands.
Painful listening. Evil proviked the reformation
Lol okay
"Painful ,but true ,especially inIreland ,still paying for it today.
It sounds like a battle within the hierarchy of the state that, for the vast majority of the populace, did not cause much distress.
A war where the aristocrats only cared and died.
"did not cause much distress" there were big uprisings in the West and North. We don't know what the ordinary people thought because they weren't asked but WERE fined and punished if they didn't do as told by the King and the new church.
Protestantism was a great awakening of human moral freedom!
It was the beginning of the death of the west
@@elcidcampeador9629 It was the beginning of the west's rise to global power.
Licentiousness isn’t freedom
@@user-uu5zv9qw1y It was Catholic licentiousness that inspired the Reformation.
@@3506Dodge And it was protestant licentiousness that got us to where we are today. Any objective observer can see that immorality exploded after the protestant revolt, to a level that far exceeded the misdeeds of clergyman and and kings before.
Vicar of Christ? Where in the Bible?
See Matthew 16:18
See Page 94.
@@nancylucas7897 wrong rock. Read Deuteronomy again.
The current occupant of the Throne of St Peter (can't bring myself to refer to him as "holy" or "father") disavows that title.
@@avantibev5814 Honestly, I am not a fan either. Regardless, he is not the first bad pope.
My but this is unashamedly biased
And outright lies in most cases. Romanists aren’t interested in the truth, only in expanding their jurisdiction and authority. If it involves defaming one of England’s greatest and best-loved monarchs, Elizabeth, so be it. The ends justify the means.
Biased against what?
DV... exactly what part of this is a lie?
@@danielvoce2212 He is an Anglican.
@@FiveLiver the truth
It's a great lecture but basically sounds like a REALLY salty Catholic wrote it. To perceive Protestant excess, but not to perceive Catholic abuses for a Millennium is a little too much for the argument to bear.
Do you find anything here that is not true?
Why do you bother making videos?
A typical non-Christian viewpoint on a return to the Bible away from the superstition and ignorance of Roan Catholicism.
Bible way? You mean neo-Papism? It’s why Protestantism has over 37k different flavors. The Bible was meant to be read, studied, and understood in tradition and never alone. It took the Church almost 400 years to even decide on the 27 books in the NT🤦🏻♂️
Also a lot of what you call as ignorance, and superstition was in fact handed down from the Apostles and early Church Fathers. The Church has never been faith alone nor scripture alone. That was created 500 years ago by Luther and those like him. I’m Orthodox. Our Church is pretty much the same now as it was in AD 400.
The Catholic mass is largely made up of Scripture.
He keeps mispronouncing the word 'deformation' to sound like 'defamation', which rather ruins the point of using the term.
obviously a Catholic stooge this not so subtle lecturer
Ridiculous catholic sentimental rubbish - only Oxford effetes indulge in such dribble! And I am not even English!
Only real historians try to examine History impartially. It's extremely hard to do, as you have illustrated it so well in your comment.
And I'm sure you're a very nice person really, even if you're not English.
Alec Ryrie is a protestant.
Search: THE EXTREME OATH OF THE JESUITS