Richard's religion
Richard's religion
2012-11-10 18:04:50
I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's religion
2012-11-10 18:52:54
The word catholic was used. Richard was not a 'heretic' so he was a catholic?
Marie
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's religion
2012-11-11 00:09:37
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
Carol responds:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt, I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what Richard believed and practiced. And, of course, calling him a (Roman) Catholic distinguishes him from the Anglicans who came into being thanks to Henry VIII. We, perhaps, wouldn't see huge differences (other than the lack of a pope and the services in English instead of Latin) between the two, but evidently, the differences were worth dying for in the Tudor.
We could follow Kendall in calling Richard "a good son of Mother Church," but that would get old quickly.
Carol
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
Carol responds:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt, I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what Richard believed and practiced. And, of course, calling him a (Roman) Catholic distinguishes him from the Anglicans who came into being thanks to Henry VIII. We, perhaps, wouldn't see huge differences (other than the lack of a pope and the services in English instead of Latin) between the two, but evidently, the differences were worth dying for in the Tudor.
We could follow Kendall in calling Richard "a good son of Mother Church," but that would get old quickly.
Carol
Re: Richard's religion
2012-11-11 02:08:31
As far as I know the (Catholic) church in Richard's day was quite different from the one of today. I have often wondered what Richard would have made of Martin Luther, who after all did not set out to start his own church but wanted to reform the existing one. Richard abolished benevolences, and Luther protested against indulgences. On the other hand the origin of the Anglican church is due to the rivalry of two man with too big egos (Henry vs. the Pope).
Dorothea
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's religion
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
Carol responds:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt, I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what Richard believed and practiced. And, of course, calling him a (Roman) Catholic distinguishes him from the Anglicans who came into being thanks to Henry VIII. We, perhaps, wouldn't see huge differences (other than the lack of a pope and the services in English instead of Latin) between the two, but evidently, the differences were worth dying for in the Tudor.
We could follow Kendall in calling Richard "a good son of Mother Church," but that would get old quickly.
Carol
Dorothea
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's religion
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
Carol responds:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt, I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what Richard believed and practiced. And, of course, calling him a (Roman) Catholic distinguishes him from the Anglicans who came into being thanks to Henry VIII. We, perhaps, wouldn't see huge differences (other than the lack of a pope and the services in English instead of Latin) between the two, but evidently, the differences were worth dying for in the Tudor.
We could follow Kendall in calling Richard "a good son of Mother Church," but that would get old quickly.
Carol
Re: Richard's religion
2012-11-11 12:08:43
Hi, Dorothea
There were free-thinkers and dissidents even before Martin Luther, who was German after all (meaning I am not sure how directly Luther influenced developments in England, and of course he was active a bit after Richard's time, having been born in the eventful year of 1483 and commencing his effort for reform in the first half of the 16th. century). I believe Wycliffe was a reformer who nevertheless was still officially within the Catholic Church (and got away with it during his lifetime, although there were others around his time who died as heretics e.g. the Czech reformer Jan Hus, who was inspired by Wycliffe's ideas, I believe). Although Wycliffe was able to escape prosecution for heresy during his lifetime, he was condemned after his death, his body dug up in 1428 and burned, and the ashes were thrown into the river Swift.
Here is the introduction to the Wikipedia entry for Wycliffe, which states btw that he had deep Yorkshire roots:
John Wycliffe (play <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> / <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> È <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> w <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> j <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> k <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> l <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> j <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> f
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> /; also spelt Wyclif, Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, or Wickliffe) (c. 1320 31 December 1384) was an English Scholastic philosopher, theologian, lay preacher,[1] translator, reformer and university teacher at Oxford in England, who was known as an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. His followers were known as Lollards, a somewhat rebellious movement, which preached anticlerical and biblically-centred reforms. The Lollard movement[1] was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation (for this reason, Wycliffe is sometimes called "The Morning Star of the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.[2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common language. He completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382, now known as Wycliffe's Bible.[3] It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament.[4] Wycliffe's Bible appears to have been completed by 1384,[4] with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[5]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-2> Richard, with his appreciation for the Bible in the vernacular and sponsorship (?) of William Caxton may have thought of himself as a good Catholic and still been one of many people in England who were inclined to oppose the Pope's claim of absolute authority in the secular realm. I have always thought that part of the reason for this was England's relative isolation from the Continent, which allowed the for the freer development of nationalist ideals and a spirit of independence.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Loyaulte me lie,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Johanne
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Johanne L. Tournier
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Email - jltournier60@...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> or jltournier@...
<mailto:jltournier60@...> "With God, all things are possible."
<mailto:jltournier@...> - Jesus of Nazareth
<mailto:jltournier@...> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mailto:jltournier@...> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mailto:jltournier@...> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Dorothea Preis
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's religion
<mailto:jltournier@...>
<mailto:> As far as I know the (Catholic) church in Richard's day was quite different from the one of today. I have often wondered what Richard would have made of Martin Luther, who after all did not set out to start his own church but wanted to reform the existing one. Richard abolished benevolences, and Luther protested against indulgences. On the other hand the origin of the Anglican church is due to the rivalry of two man with too big egos (Henry vs. the Pope).
Dorothea
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's religion
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
Carol responds:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt, I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what Richard believed and practiced. And, of course, calling him a (Roman) Catholic distinguishes him from the Anglicans who came into being thanks to Henry VIII. We, perhaps, wouldn't see huge differences (other than the lack of a pope and the services in English instead of Latin) between the two, but evidently, the differences were worth dying for in the Tudor.
We could follow Kendall in calling Richard "a good son of Mother Church," but that would get old quickly.
Carol
<mailto:>
There were free-thinkers and dissidents even before Martin Luther, who was German after all (meaning I am not sure how directly Luther influenced developments in England, and of course he was active a bit after Richard's time, having been born in the eventful year of 1483 and commencing his effort for reform in the first half of the 16th. century). I believe Wycliffe was a reformer who nevertheless was still officially within the Catholic Church (and got away with it during his lifetime, although there were others around his time who died as heretics e.g. the Czech reformer Jan Hus, who was inspired by Wycliffe's ideas, I believe). Although Wycliffe was able to escape prosecution for heresy during his lifetime, he was condemned after his death, his body dug up in 1428 and burned, and the ashes were thrown into the river Swift.
Here is the introduction to the Wikipedia entry for Wycliffe, which states btw that he had deep Yorkshire roots:
John Wycliffe (play <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> / <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> È <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> w <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> j <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> k <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> l <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> j <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> f
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> /; also spelt Wyclif, Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, or Wickliffe) (c. 1320 31 December 1384) was an English Scholastic philosopher, theologian, lay preacher,[1] translator, reformer and university teacher at Oxford in England, who was known as an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. His followers were known as Lollards, a somewhat rebellious movement, which preached anticlerical and biblically-centred reforms. The Lollard movement[1] was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation (for this reason, Wycliffe is sometimes called "The Morning Star of the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.[2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common language. He completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382, now known as Wycliffe's Bible.[3] It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament.[4] Wycliffe's Bible appears to have been completed by 1384,[4] with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[5]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-2> Richard, with his appreciation for the Bible in the vernacular and sponsorship (?) of William Caxton may have thought of himself as a good Catholic and still been one of many people in England who were inclined to oppose the Pope's claim of absolute authority in the secular realm. I have always thought that part of the reason for this was England's relative isolation from the Continent, which allowed the for the freer development of nationalist ideals and a spirit of independence.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Loyaulte me lie,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Johanne
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Johanne L. Tournier
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Email - jltournier60@...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> or jltournier@...
<mailto:jltournier60@...> "With God, all things are possible."
<mailto:jltournier@...> - Jesus of Nazareth
<mailto:jltournier@...> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mailto:jltournier@...> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mailto:jltournier@...> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Dorothea Preis
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's religion
<mailto:jltournier@...>
<mailto:> As far as I know the (Catholic) church in Richard's day was quite different from the one of today. I have often wondered what Richard would have made of Martin Luther, who after all did not set out to start his own church but wanted to reform the existing one. Richard abolished benevolences, and Luther protested against indulgences. On the other hand the origin of the Anglican church is due to the rivalry of two man with too big egos (Henry vs. the Pope).
Dorothea
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's religion
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
Carol responds:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt, I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what Richard believed and practiced. And, of course, calling him a (Roman) Catholic distinguishes him from the Anglicans who came into being thanks to Henry VIII. We, perhaps, wouldn't see huge differences (other than the lack of a pope and the services in English instead of Latin) between the two, but evidently, the differences were worth dying for in the Tudor.
We could follow Kendall in calling Richard "a good son of Mother Church," but that would get old quickly.
Carol
<mailto:>
Re: Richard's religion
2012-11-11 12:46:53
Just to clarify (once again) what was from Wikipedia and what was from me. I also removed what I hope are extraneous links from Wikipedia
Please see below. Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne Tournier
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:09 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Richard's religion
Hi, Dorothea
There were free-thinkers and dissidents even before Martin Luther, who was German after all (meaning I am not sure how directly Luther influenced developments in England, and of course he was active a bit after Richard's time, having been born in the eventful year of 1483 and commencing his effort for reform in the first half of the 16th. century). I believe Wycliffe was a reformer who nevertheless was still officially within the Catholic Church (and got away with it during his lifetime, although there were others around his time who died as heretics e.g. the Czech reformer Jan Hus, who was inspired by Wycliffe's ideas, I believe). Although Wycliffe was able to escape prosecution for heresy during his lifetime, he was condemned after his death, his body dug up in 1428 and burned, and the ashes were thrown into the river Swift.
Here is the introduction to the Wikipedia entry for Wycliffe, which states btw that he had deep Yorkshire roots:
John Wycliffe (play <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> / > /; also spelt Wyclif, Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, or Wickliffe) (c. 1320 31 December 1384) was an English Scholastic philosopher, theologian, lay preacher,[1] translator, reformer and university teacher at Oxford in England, who was known as an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. His followers were known as Lollards, a somewhat rebellious movement, which preached anticlerical and biblically-centred reforms. The Lollard movement[1] was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation (for this reason, Wycliffe is sometimes called "The Morning Star of the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.[2]
Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common language. He completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382, now known as Wycliffe's Bible.[3] It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament.[4] Wycliffe's Bible appears to have been completed by 1384,[4] with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[5]
Me, in conclusion
Richard, with his appreciation for the Bible in the vernacular and sponsorship (?) of William Caxton may have thought of himself as a good Catholic and still been one of many people in England who were inclined to oppose the Pope's claim of absolute authority in the secular realm. I have always thought that part of the reason for this was England's relative isolation from the Continent, which allowed the for the freer development of nationalist ideals and a spirit of independence.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Johanne L. Tournier
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
<mailto:jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > "With God, all things are possible."
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> > - Jesus of Nazareth
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Dorothea Preis
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:09 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's religion
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> >
<mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> > As far as I know the (Catholic) church in Richard's day was quite different from the one of today. I have often wondered what Richard would have made of Martin Luther, who after all did not set out to start his own church but wanted to reform the existing one. Richard abolished benevolences, and Luther protested against indulgences. On the other hand the origin of the Anglican church is due to the rivalry of two man with too big egos (Henry vs. the Pope).
Dorothea
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's religion
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
Carol responds:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt, I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what Richard believed and practiced. And, of course, calling him a (Roman) Catholic distinguishes him from the Anglicans who came into being thanks to Henry VIII. We, perhaps, wouldn't see huge differences (other than the lack of a pope and the services in English instead of Latin) between the two, but evidently, the differences were worth dying for in the Tudor.
We could follow Kendall in calling Richard "a good son of Mother Church," but that would get old quickly.
Carol
<mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Please see below. Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne Tournier
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:09 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Richard's religion
Hi, Dorothea
There were free-thinkers and dissidents even before Martin Luther, who was German after all (meaning I am not sure how directly Luther influenced developments in England, and of course he was active a bit after Richard's time, having been born in the eventful year of 1483 and commencing his effort for reform in the first half of the 16th. century). I believe Wycliffe was a reformer who nevertheless was still officially within the Catholic Church (and got away with it during his lifetime, although there were others around his time who died as heretics e.g. the Czech reformer Jan Hus, who was inspired by Wycliffe's ideas, I believe). Although Wycliffe was able to escape prosecution for heresy during his lifetime, he was condemned after his death, his body dug up in 1428 and burned, and the ashes were thrown into the river Swift.
Here is the introduction to the Wikipedia entry for Wycliffe, which states btw that he had deep Yorkshire roots:
John Wycliffe (play <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> / > /; also spelt Wyclif, Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, or Wickliffe) (c. 1320 31 December 1384) was an English Scholastic philosopher, theologian, lay preacher,[1] translator, reformer and university teacher at Oxford in England, who was known as an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. His followers were known as Lollards, a somewhat rebellious movement, which preached anticlerical and biblically-centred reforms. The Lollard movement[1] was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation (for this reason, Wycliffe is sometimes called "The Morning Star of the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.[2]
Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common language. He completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382, now known as Wycliffe's Bible.[3] It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament.[4] Wycliffe's Bible appears to have been completed by 1384,[4] with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[5]
Me, in conclusion
Richard, with his appreciation for the Bible in the vernacular and sponsorship (?) of William Caxton may have thought of himself as a good Catholic and still been one of many people in England who were inclined to oppose the Pope's claim of absolute authority in the secular realm. I have always thought that part of the reason for this was England's relative isolation from the Continent, which allowed the for the freer development of nationalist ideals and a spirit of independence.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Johanne L. Tournier
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#cite_note-5> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
<mailto:jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > "With God, all things are possible."
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> > - Jesus of Nazareth
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Dorothea Preis
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:09 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's religion
<mailto:jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> >
<mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> > As far as I know the (Catholic) church in Richard's day was quite different from the one of today. I have often wondered what Richard would have made of Martin Luther, who after all did not set out to start his own church but wanted to reform the existing one. Richard abolished benevolences, and Luther protested against indulgences. On the other hand the origin of the Anglican church is due to the rivalry of two man with too big egos (Henry vs. the Pope).
Dorothea
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's religion
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I notice a number of people here calling Richard a Catholic, or a good Catholic.
> May I remind you that in 15th century Europe you were either a Christian or a heretic! The Reformation was a good few years in the future.
> So Richard is believed to have been a devout Christian. OK?
> Paul
Carol responds:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt, I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what Richard believed and practiced. And, of course, calling him a (Roman) Catholic distinguishes him from the Anglicans who came into being thanks to Henry VIII. We, perhaps, wouldn't see huge differences (other than the lack of a pope and the services in English instead of Latin) between the two, but evidently, the differences were worth dying for in the Tudor.
We could follow Kendall in calling Richard "a good son of Mother Church," but that would get old quickly.
Carol
<mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Re: Richard's religion
2012-11-11 14:48:17
Carol earlier:
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox
Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt,I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what
Richard believed and practiced. <snip>
Dorothea Preis responded:
>
> As far as I know the (Catholic) church in Richard's day was quite different from the one of today. I have often wondered what Richard would have made of Martin Luther, who after all did not set out to start his own church but wanted to reform the existing one. Richard abolished benevolences, and Luther protested against indulgences. On the other hand the origin of the Anglican church is due to the rivalry of two man with too big egos (Henry vs. the Pope).Â
Carol responds:
True. In fact, I almost included modern Catholicism in my sentence on the differences between Richard's medieval Catholicism and modern Protestantism, but the sentence was so awkward that I changed it. But my point was that there's nothing wrong with referring to Richard as a Catholic or Roman Catholic. "Christianity" is too broad a term and has too many forms to describe his very specific religion, with its Masses and saints' days and Books of Hours and holy relics--as different from the Christianity of Saint Paul's time as it is from the fundamentalism of today's megachurches (perhaps more familiar to Americans than to Brits, I don't know).
I think that Richard would have approved of Martin Luther, considering that one of his first acts as king was to address the priests and tell them to set a good moral example. But he might have thought that Luther went a little too far. He would have approved of the Counterreformation--the Catholic Church's attempts to reform itself in response to the Reformation, I'm sure.
Carol
Since there were other forms of Christianity, notably Eastern Orthodox
Christians in what had been the Byzantine Empire and Coptic Christians in Egypt,I see nothing wrong with calling him a Catholic (meaning, of course, Roman Catholic). And since the differences between his medieval Catholicism and Protestantism are so marked, I think it's a valid distinction there as well. Christianity encompasses many varieties, many of them quite distinct from what
Richard believed and practiced. <snip>
Dorothea Preis responded:
>
> As far as I know the (Catholic) church in Richard's day was quite different from the one of today. I have often wondered what Richard would have made of Martin Luther, who after all did not set out to start his own church but wanted to reform the existing one. Richard abolished benevolences, and Luther protested against indulgences. On the other hand the origin of the Anglican church is due to the rivalry of two man with too big egos (Henry vs. the Pope).Â
Carol responds:
True. In fact, I almost included modern Catholicism in my sentence on the differences between Richard's medieval Catholicism and modern Protestantism, but the sentence was so awkward that I changed it. But my point was that there's nothing wrong with referring to Richard as a Catholic or Roman Catholic. "Christianity" is too broad a term and has too many forms to describe his very specific religion, with its Masses and saints' days and Books of Hours and holy relics--as different from the Christianity of Saint Paul's time as it is from the fundamentalism of today's megachurches (perhaps more familiar to Americans than to Brits, I don't know).
I think that Richard would have approved of Martin Luther, considering that one of his first acts as king was to address the priests and tell them to set a good moral example. But he might have thought that Luther went a little too far. He would have approved of the Counterreformation--the Catholic Church's attempts to reform itself in response to the Reformation, I'm sure.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.