Location: The Tudors Rebellion Timeline

Discussion: religionReported This is a featured thread

Showing 1 - 17 of 17  |  Show  posts at a time

euge1
religion
Apr 22 2009, 4:49 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 22 2009, 4:49 PM EDT
I think Henry was right to create the Church of England and seperate from rome. Those clergy were all rich as croses and hid it. Sure as Aske sais they took care rhe common folk, but they gave back like 1% of what they took in, the consumate fund raisers. I readf that he profiteedd somewhere around 70 million pounds 300 million dollars. . or which is a ton of money back then, shit it's a ton of money now.Living lives of abject poverty by choice, yeah right 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: None
Idella
Idella
1. RE: religion
Apr 22 2009, 11:34 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 22 2009, 11:34 PM EDT
You can find corruption in any religion. No offence to anyone who is religious, it's no reflection on you. Do you find this valuable?    

LadyJane1961
2. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 1:14 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 1:14 AM EDT
"I think Henry was right to create the Church of England and seperate from rome. Those clergy were all rich as croses and hid it. Sure as Aske sais they took care rhe common folk, but they gave back like 1% of what they took in, the consumate fund raisers. I readf that he profiteedd somewhere around 70 million pounds 300 million dollars. . or which is a ton of money back then, shit it's a ton of money now.Living lives of abject poverty by choice, yeah right"
DONT GO THERE. THIS SITE DONT DEBATE RELIGION AND IF THIS SITE DO CONTINUE THIS THREAD I WILL DEFEND MY RELIGION.
0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

Reggie19
3. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 1:25 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 1:25 AM EDT
"I think Henry was right to create the Church of England and seperate from rome. Those clergy were all rich as croses and hid it. Sure as Aske sais they took care rhe common folk, but they gave back like 1% of what they took in, the consumate fund raisers. I readf that he profiteedd somewhere around 70 million pounds 300 million dollars. . or which is a ton of money back then, shit it's a ton of money now.Living lives of abject poverty by choice, yeah right"
I'll agree with LJ here and say religion is a very touchy subject, so if you're going to post a thread, do it on something else hun, i'm not trying to tell you not to voice your opinions, if you want you could ask, 'Do you think the Reformation was for the best, or could we have done without it?', don't ask questions about corrupt catholic and protestant priests!
Do you find this valuable?    
Jes89
Jes89
4. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 2:14 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 2:14 AM EDT
"You can find corruption in any religion."
couldn't agree more.
Do you find this valuable?    
scooter&buster
scooter&buster
5. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 4:54 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 4:54 AM EDT
No offense to anyone here...BUT, is this a forum of *free* expression or not?! Are we allowed to only talk about the politically correct stuff...or what? As long as people are not being rude to others, like name calling or trying to gang up on others, I see no reason to not post whatever you want. It seems people defend certain folks yet let others get trashed. I come to the Wiki 'cause I like the discussion...for the most part. But, at times, it seems like there are too many chiefs and not enough indians :)

This should be a forum that supports FREEDOM of speech...polite, but open to all view points, not just the ones the majority agree with.
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
6. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 5:10 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 5:10 AM EDT
It is true that this site is an open discussion forum however there are guidelines which can be found here : http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/The+Tudors+Wiki+Guide

One of the guidelines states : Discussions about Religion & Politics should be in the appropriate context of the series and not for you to advance a personal agenda.

The only reason for that is that things can degenerate pretty quickly when people start to get personal.

So in the context of the series, as has been stated by some good posts on this thread.....there are always two sides to a story. Things are rarely black and white....good vs. bad..... when many people are involved.
Do you find this valuable?    
scooter&buster
scooter&buster
7. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 6:02 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 6:02 AM EDT
As far as I could tell, the OP's post is in the context of the series. I agree that it would be wrong to post a thread that is anti/pro one religion or political view just for the sake of promoting that religion or politic. But, still, this series, though rather soapish at times, is about Henry VIII's rule, and as such, envokes many a strong opinion on all sides of numerous issues...religion being just one.

While it may not be the wisest thing to start a religious thread, it is certainly in the context of the series and can be quite thought provoking and help us to understand why these people did the things they did...and why we are who we are today.

If only we could get past our emotions and just try and stay objective. Not an easy thing to do, I know.
Do you find this valuable?    
CarolineZ
CarolineZ
8. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 6:21 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 6:21 AM EDT
"I think Henry was right to create the Church of England and seperate from rome. Those clergy were all rich as croses and hid it. Sure as Aske sais they took care rhe common folk, but they gave back like 1% of what they took in, the consumate fund raisers. I readf that he profiteedd somewhere around 70 million pounds 300 million dollars. . or which is a ton of money back then, shit it's a ton of money now.Living lives of abject poverty by choice, yeah right"
But Henry didn't give the confiscated funds to the poor, did he? No, he took it for himself and his cronies.
Do you find this valuable?    

Reggie19
9. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 6:51 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 6:51 AM EDT
"As far as I could tell, the OP's post is in the context of the series. I agree that it would be wrong to post a thread that is anti/pro one religion or political view just for the sake of promoting that religion or politic. But, still, this series, though rather soapish at times, is about Henry VIII's rule, and as such, envokes many a strong opinion on all sides of numerous issues...religion being just one.

While it may not be the wisest thing to start a religious thread, it is certainly in the context of the series and can be quite thought provoking and help us to understand why these people did the things they did...and why we are who we are today.

If only we could get past our emotions and just try and stay objective. Not an easy thing to do, I know. "
IMO, the post seems to be directed at the corruption of the CATHOLIC Church, i think we forget that there are problems in every religion, not just a few minorities, that was the problem i had with the post, there have been some threads about the topic of religion that have gotten out of control, i don't know about you, but i have been upset by these threads, and don't really want to get into the subject of religion because it always gets too personal, and taken too far out of context as well!
Do you find this valuable?    
HeroineAddict
HeroineAddict
10. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 6:57 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 6:58 AM EDT
"IMO, the post seems to be directed at the corruption of the CATHOLIC Church, i think we forget that there are problems in every religion, not just a few minorities, that was the problem i had with the post, there have been some threads about the topic of religion that have gotten out of control, i don't know about you, but i have been upset by these threads, and don't really want to get into the subject of religion because it always gets too personal, and taken too far out of context as well!"
This is the problem. While freedom of discussion is healthy and should be encouraged, I think topics such as this are inevitably going to become personal, because the issues surrounding them are so sensitive and intimate to people's lives. A topic that is posited with an inflammatory tone is destined to create tension. Like Reggie, I found the various threads about religion that have already surfaced to be rather upsetting, because people's feelings take over and. thus, get hurt. It's best to steer clear of a direct attack on anything of this nature, which is kind of what the OP was tending towards.
Do you find this valuable?    

LadyJane1961
11. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 7:10 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 7:10 AM EDT
thats what i meant some threads here were anti catholic and it realy bothered me and i responded i dont want that to happen again. and i know this thread will eventually come to that. people have the right to free speech because i know how it feels when people try to silence me and personally attack me. so if this thread becomes anti catholic i will defend the cattholic religion because i think its the new fad nowadays. all religions has it faults including catholicism but if we knock any other religion this thread will be on fire. so i just tried to knick it in the bud. 0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
12. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 8:08 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 8:09 AM EDT
well ladies, its up to all of us to keep the tone.....non-personal....right? The opening post was an opinion about the historical period (not today) and the fact that the poster felt that the king was justified. Others can put their opinions about how it wasn't justified and try and not take it personally. An open discussion about religion and politics can be conducted without it degenerating into disrespect...don't you think? Do you find this valuable?    

Reggie19
13. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 8:55 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 8:55 AM EDT
"well ladies, its up to all of us to keep the tone.....non-personal....right? The opening post was an opinion about the historical period (not today) and the fact that the poster felt that the king was justified. Others can put their opinions about how it wasn't justified and try and not take it personally. An open discussion about religion and politics can be conducted without it degenerating into disrespect...don't you think?"
It can, but judging by some of the other religious threads, it has proven to be very difficult!
Do you find this valuable?    
angelosdaughter
angelosdaughter
14. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 10:16 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 10:16 AM EDT
"I think Henry was right to create the Church of England and seperate from rome. Those clergy were all rich as croses and hid it. Sure as Aske sais they took care rhe common folk, but they gave back like 1% of what they took in, the consumate fund raisers. I readf that he profiteedd somewhere around 70 million pounds 300 million dollars. . or which is a ton of money back then, shit it's a ton of money now.Living lives of abject poverty by choice, yeah right"
In the context of the period, Henry would have said he did not change the religion of England; he only changed the leadership. Henry VIII considered himself a good Catholic to the end of his life, just a good ENGLISH Catholic. You cannot really even call him Anglican Catholic, because a beginning on institutionalizing Anglican Catholicism was not made until Edward VI and continued by Elizabeth. Henry's assumption of leadership was based solely on getting what he wanted, which was a divorce, not on religion. He changed none of the outward forms of worship and belief, except the one that gave headship of the Church to the Pope.
Queen Anne Boleyn had urged Henry and Cromwell to use the proceeds from the suppression and plundering of the the monasteries to aid the poor, instead of which the retrieved monies ended up in Henry's treasury. Religion was secondary to Henry's will and greed.
The monasteries had to be self-supporting, so they did make money from rents, farming, crafts, etc. Of course they had money, and yes, some became corrupt. When Henry closed the monasteries, and evicted the monks and nuns, he destroyed an economic system without finding a purpose and work for the clergy he had displaced; they became beggars wandering the roads of England. He merely created another problem for a populace already overburdened by his taxes.
Do you find this valuable?    
karenofbethany
karenofbethany
15. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 11:52 AM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2009, 12:07 PM EDT
As Angelo's daughter has said, Henry VIII did not set out to reform the Catholic Church. On the advice of Cromwell (and Anne Boleyn), Henry removed the church from under the leadership of The Holy See - The Pope. It was a personal and political decision. It was a giant step to take considering that many european countries were Catholic. Henry kept every single other part of the church intact - including the doctrine of transubstantiation which states that the communion is really changed into the body and blood of Christ; he maintained the liturgy (which Cromwell carps about in Season 3/3, he kept sacramentals such as holy water fonts, ciboriums, vestments, etc., and interestingly to me he allowed himself to keep them but stole them from other churches and monasteries...

Certainly there were abuses within the church system, including monks and nuns who did not keep their rule. But it seems likely that he could have reined these in without killing people, stealing precious sacred objects, setting fires to churches and monasteries and desecrating statues. Protestants, (and even Moslems) honor the Blessed Virgin Mary because she is the mother of Jesus. It's amazing that Henry was such a
"devout" theologian and even was proclaimed Defender of the Faith for it - pre-Anne. And while attending church regularly and participating in all of it's positive aspects, he allowed such terrible abuses to occur.

IMO there will always be controversy over the power of The Holy See/The Pope, who, according to Catholic belief, has been appointed by the Will of God since Jesus named Peter as "The Rock" - the head of his church. And there have been corrupt (thoroughly human) Popes. What Henry maintained was that, as King of England, he was "Divine" by succession, while denying that the Pope had an even more important divinity. And it certainly is true that power corrupts.
Do you find this valuable?    
scooter&buster
scooter&buster
16. RE: religion
Apr 23 2009, 2:23 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 24 2009, 4:48 AM EDT
Yes, much to Cromwell's dismay, Henry really only made his kingdom Pope-less...not Protestant. But, still, I think he and Cromwell did 'start' what would later become the Anglican church. As a Protestant, I must say, even the Anglican church seems very Catholic to me.

As for the poor, I'm reading Schofield's book on Cromwell, and he writes of a revolutionary bill that Cromwell had drawn up to help the poor. It was based on having the able bodied poor doing public works for pay...and it also allowed for monetary support for those who were unable to work due to health or other issues beyond their control. The bill was shot down by parliment (sp?) and Henry. It's unfortunate, as the way it reads, it seems very modern and may have been a great way to get things done in the kingdom and find honest work for the unemployed at the same time.

Also, because the Bible was now to be printed in the language of the people, I think it promoted education. If nothing else, it must have been quite a wonderful thing for believers to finally be able to read the Book that their Faith was based on.

In Schofield's book it is also suggested, and he does give sources and letters, that at first Cromwell was not for the dissolution of the monestaries totally. His first approach was to plant Reformers in the ranks of the monks and have them preach Protestant ideas to them...hoping to change their views. In the beginning, it was many of the nobles that were more for the dissolution of the monasteries (Suffolk and Norfolk, to name a few) because they were receiving many of the spoils, as was a very pleased king.

The one thing that seems to hold true, is that when ever there is a revolutionary change, no matter if it is good or not, people suffer. But, in the long run, I do think the Reformation brought about many good things..
Do you find this valuable?