I don’t remember what role, if any, Sir Thomas More may have played in ordering the arrest of William Tyndale, but it’s worth noting that More was actually executed before Tyndale was (July 6, 1535 in More’s case).
Perhaps a personal testimony is in order and not off topic here. I honor the courageous witness of both men, Thomas More the devout, committed Catholic and William Tyndale, the ardent Protestant. And I see no reason why I can’t and shouldn’t honor them both as martyrs, who were equally faithful to Christ and apostolic Christianity (as best they were both given to understand it).
FWIW, personally, next week I will gladly and gratefully remember the ultimate sacrifice made by Reformed bishops Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer, who were burnt at the stake by order of “bloody” Queen Mary on October 15th, 1555. Like Tyndale, they are great heroes of the Protestant cause and worthy of high honor for their deep devotion to Christ and the gospel.
But I also make it a custom, personally, to keep the feast of Thomas More on July 6th. As the classic movie [b]A Man For All Seasons[/b] shows, More was a man of great integrity, who sometimes was forced as royal Chancellor to do some unsavory things by the kind he served. But I don’t think there was a more godly man in England in those tumultuous days, at least not in high places (with all the inevitable compromises that political life and service requires).
IIFC, you’re a Missouri Synod Lutheran, francis. If so, let me add that I gratefully keep the feast of Martin Luther every Feb (18th). Of course, Luther wasn’t actually martyred, but his life was in principle forfeit once he was condemned by both Pope and Holy Roman Emperor, and only the protection of his prince (and God) saved him. But again, FWIW, I also pay similar honors to Philip Melancthon and Andreas Osiander, although their understanding of justification and sacramental theology differed significantly from Luther’s (and both were condemned by Martin Chemnitz and the group of Lutheran divines that issued the Formula of Concord). For that matter, I also pay homage to the life and witness of such Counter-Reformation heroes as Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, and Cardinal Bellarmine, greatest of Tridentine theologians.
I wouldn’t agree 100% theologically with ANY of those men. I certainly don’t endorse the (Swiss, almost Zwinglian) Reformed theology of Latimer and Ridley. Nor am I committed to the papal allegiance like More, or to the full Catholic system of teaching as defined by the Council of Trent like Ignatius and Bellarmine.
But as an Anglican, I feel free to honor the great leaders on BOTH sides of the Greet Divide. Not least the martyrs on both sides, including Tyndale and More.
Your kind words are much appreciated, especially since I’ve had to eat some humble pie the last few days and take back some of the things I impulsively said that proved inaccurate on other threads. So do take what I write with a grain of salt, evan. As you know, my posts are often marred by typo’s and other signs of haste, and I don’t always Google to check my memory’s accuracy before posting comments. And sometimes I read things too hastily too, and thus slip up. So, e.g., I think I mistook francis above for “frances,” who is Lutheran.
But regardless, with your encouragement, evan, I’ll add a little more historical and theological fuel to the fire. Here goes.
Rob Sturdy (#1) is quite right about Tyndale’s dying wish and prayer. Less than 3 years after Tyndale cried out from the stake, “i]Lord, open the King of England’s eyes![/i]” (on October 6, 1536), Henry VIII ordered that a copy of the English Bible (translated however by the more moderate Miles Coverdale) be placed in every parish church in the realm (done in 1539). Praise God that Tyndale’s prayer was answered.
Now I admit that Thomas More did engage in some rather cruel acts as the royal Chancellor in terms of suppressing early Protestant advocates of radical reformation in England. That’s what I was alluding to above, but alas, I was perhaps less clear than I should’ve been (my haste was evident, e.g., in my typo where I said More was often forced to do unsavory things by the “kind” [king of course) he served). But again, note the dates of their deaths. Henry put More to death on July 6, 1535, about 15 months before Tyndale was executed on October 6, 1536; so I don’t think the brave Bible translator’s death can justly be pinned on Thomas More.
However, it must be admitted by all, I think, that More, as a devout layman, was a man of much more integrity than his predecessor as Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey. Sadly, the leading prelate in England came to repent too late of his folly in putting service to his earthly king above service to Christ. Such corruption at the top of the Church hierarchy shows why the Reformation was indeed, as the great historian of doctrine Jaroslav Pelikan aptly put it, “[i]a tragic necessity.[/i]”
Just one more little historical tidbit, for evan’s sake.
Another saint on the Catholic side that I admire from the early days of the English Reformation is +John Fisher. Now I keep June 22nd prmarily as the Feast of St. Alban, the first English martyr (back in Roman times). That’s the official feast for that date in the BCP (1979). But unofficially and privately, I also remember gratefully the witness of +Fisher, who was put to death as a traitor to the crown on that day in 1535 (less than two months before More).
As you may or may not know, even, John Fisher was the most outspoken critic of King Henry VIII’s scandalous plan to divorce Catherine of Aragon in order to try to produce a son who could continue the dynasty. IOW, +Fisher was the bravest and stoutest public defender of the indissolubility of marriage at that time; and he paid the ultimate price for that.
Personally, although Fisher may not have been a perfected soul (none of us are on earth), I find Fisher’s humility quite winsome in that he never sought promotion to a higher post with a better income. He spent his entire episcopate as Bishop of Rochester, back at a time when that diocese was very rural and poorly endowed. For 30 years he was content to serve in that low spot on the hierarchy, when others, like the infamous Cardinal Wolsey, were far more ambitious to climb to the top rung on the ladder.
What I’m getting at, evan (and francis, perhaps), is that, in good Anglican style, I refuse to believe that either the Protestant or the Catholic side had a monopoly on the truth theologically, or on virtue and holiness ethically. Obviously, when evaluating the Reformation (which I think was a very mixed bag myself), everything depends on whether you think of yourself as more of a “liturgical Protestant,” or rather as more of a “biblical catholic.” But there are some of us who prefer to avoid both labels or camps and to see Anglicanism at its best as a hybrid that’s BOTH Protestant nor CAtholic in some ways, but also as being NEITHER Protestant nor Catholic in other ways. Only in my case, I don’t like the familiar Via Media way of reconciling the two stances, as if Protestantism and Catholicism were two extremes to be avoided like Scylla (Geneva) and Charybdis (Rome), as many Anglicans have supposed since the time of Richard Hooker.
No, instead, I propose that we think of Anglicanism (and Christianity as a whole) as being properly “3-D,” i.e., as having three equally valid and important dimensions that I generally call: evangelical, catholic (small c), and charismatic. In my view, the three aspects are complementary and all are necessary to be fully biblical (and patristic). IOW, the three dimensions operate on different planes or reality, and are oriented toward contrasting but not mutually exclusive legitimate values and human needs.
For example, Protestantism instinctively sees the Christian faith and life in primarily individual terms, and so stresses the absolute necessity of personal faith, or as is often said, “a personal relationship with Jesus.” No problem with that, it’s certainly true, as far as it goes. But it’s not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
For Catholicism equally instinctively in inclined to see the Christian faith and life in corporate terms. Catholics of all sorts (whether Roman, Anglo, or Eastern) recognize the complementary truth that a personal relationship with Jesus isn’t enough by itself. For we are also meant to be fully incorporated into the Body of Christ, and the hand or eye or heart can’t live on its own, apart from the rest of the body. And we catholic types, evan, are much more aware than Protestants (or low church Anglicans) tend to be that without the living Tradition of the Church and the heritage of faith being handed down to us from generation to generation, NONE of us could be Christians today.
Similarly, the genius of Protestantism is to accent the SIMPLICITY of the gospel and to insist (rightly) on the need for theological faithfulness to Holy Scripture and for pure doctrine, uncontaminated by the errors of human heresy. OTOH, the genius of Catholicism (including Anglo-catholicism) is to stress the opposite pole, i.e., the equally legitimate value of the FULLNESS or comprehensiveness of the Christian faith. It’s my firm conviction that we somehow need to strive to keep the delicate balance between the simplicity and purity of the true gospel, and its full outworking in the richness of the understanding of the Church throughout all time and in all places. Hence the permanent appeal of the famous principle known as the “Canon” or Rule of St. Vincent of Lerins, a Gallican monk and theologian of the 5th century: the standard of Christian doctrine isn’t simply the unadorned Scriptures, but “[i]what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.[/i]”
Anglicanism at its best at least tries (however imperfectly) to maintain that perilous and difficult balance.
You’re welcome, brother. We all need to stand together and encourage one another in these dark days when the future of Anglicanism hangs in the balance.
Alas, my undue hastiness was again on display for all to see in my long #7 above. I meant that +Fisher was executed less than two WEEKS before Thomas More, not two months. And I meant that the three dimensions of Christianity operate on three separate planes OF reality.
So yes, evan, and all other T19 readers, you should indeed take everything I post here with a grain of salt. This thread appears to have died out or gone inactive now. But before it disappears into the archives, I wanted to set the record straight as to what I was trying to say.
I believe the man’s last words were “O God, open the eyes of the King of England!” Amazing. Thanks for this little reminder.
Is there a narrative that describes the role of Thomas More in this martyrdom??
All the more evidence of reasons to be wary of Popes, Archbishops, and others with princely aspirations.
francis,
I don’t remember what role, if any, Sir Thomas More may have played in ordering the arrest of William Tyndale, but it’s worth noting that More was actually executed before Tyndale was (July 6, 1535 in More’s case).
Perhaps a personal testimony is in order and not off topic here. I honor the courageous witness of both men, Thomas More the devout, committed Catholic and William Tyndale, the ardent Protestant. And I see no reason why I can’t and shouldn’t honor them both as martyrs, who were equally faithful to Christ and apostolic Christianity (as best they were both given to understand it).
FWIW, personally, next week I will gladly and gratefully remember the ultimate sacrifice made by Reformed bishops Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer, who were burnt at the stake by order of “bloody” Queen Mary on October 15th, 1555. Like Tyndale, they are great heroes of the Protestant cause and worthy of high honor for their deep devotion to Christ and the gospel.
But I also make it a custom, personally, to keep the feast of Thomas More on July 6th. As the classic movie [b]A Man For All Seasons[/b] shows, More was a man of great integrity, who sometimes was forced as royal Chancellor to do some unsavory things by the kind he served. But I don’t think there was a more godly man in England in those tumultuous days, at least not in high places (with all the inevitable compromises that political life and service requires).
IIFC, you’re a Missouri Synod Lutheran, francis. If so, let me add that I gratefully keep the feast of Martin Luther every Feb (18th). Of course, Luther wasn’t actually martyred, but his life was in principle forfeit once he was condemned by both Pope and Holy Roman Emperor, and only the protection of his prince (and God) saved him. But again, FWIW, I also pay similar honors to Philip Melancthon and Andreas Osiander, although their understanding of justification and sacramental theology differed significantly from Luther’s (and both were condemned by Martin Chemnitz and the group of Lutheran divines that issued the Formula of Concord). For that matter, I also pay homage to the life and witness of such Counter-Reformation heroes as Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, and Cardinal Bellarmine, greatest of Tridentine theologians.
I wouldn’t agree 100% theologically with ANY of those men. I certainly don’t endorse the (Swiss, almost Zwinglian) Reformed theology of Latimer and Ridley. Nor am I committed to the papal allegiance like More, or to the full Catholic system of teaching as defined by the Council of Trent like Ignatius and Bellarmine.
But as an Anglican, I feel free to honor the great leaders on BOTH sides of the Greet Divide. Not least the martyrs on both sides, including Tyndale and More.
Cordially,
David Handy+
Fr. Handy,
Your comments are always illuminating. They are like sitting in a class on church history, which I love. Keep it up!
Thanks, evan (#5).
Your kind words are much appreciated, especially since I’ve had to eat some humble pie the last few days and take back some of the things I impulsively said that proved inaccurate on other threads. So do take what I write with a grain of salt, evan. As you know, my posts are often marred by typo’s and other signs of haste, and I don’t always Google to check my memory’s accuracy before posting comments. And sometimes I read things too hastily too, and thus slip up. So, e.g., I think I mistook francis above for “frances,” who is Lutheran.
But regardless, with your encouragement, evan, I’ll add a little more historical and theological fuel to the fire. Here goes.
Rob Sturdy (#1) is quite right about Tyndale’s dying wish and prayer. Less than 3 years after Tyndale cried out from the stake, “i]Lord, open the King of England’s eyes![/i]” (on October 6, 1536), Henry VIII ordered that a copy of the English Bible (translated however by the more moderate Miles Coverdale) be placed in every parish church in the realm (done in 1539). Praise God that Tyndale’s prayer was answered.
Now I admit that Thomas More did engage in some rather cruel acts as the royal Chancellor in terms of suppressing early Protestant advocates of radical reformation in England. That’s what I was alluding to above, but alas, I was perhaps less clear than I should’ve been (my haste was evident, e.g., in my typo where I said More was often forced to do unsavory things by the “kind” [king of course) he served). But again, note the dates of their deaths. Henry put More to death on July 6, 1535, about 15 months before Tyndale was executed on October 6, 1536; so I don’t think the brave Bible translator’s death can justly be pinned on Thomas More.
However, it must be admitted by all, I think, that More, as a devout layman, was a man of much more integrity than his predecessor as Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey. Sadly, the leading prelate in England came to repent too late of his folly in putting service to his earthly king above service to Christ. Such corruption at the top of the Church hierarchy shows why the Reformation was indeed, as the great historian of doctrine Jaroslav Pelikan aptly put it, “[i]a tragic necessity.[/i]”
Cordially,
David Handy+
Just one more little historical tidbit, for evan’s sake.
Another saint on the Catholic side that I admire from the early days of the English Reformation is +John Fisher. Now I keep June 22nd prmarily as the Feast of St. Alban, the first English martyr (back in Roman times). That’s the official feast for that date in the BCP (1979). But unofficially and privately, I also remember gratefully the witness of +Fisher, who was put to death as a traitor to the crown on that day in 1535 (less than two months before More).
As you may or may not know, even, John Fisher was the most outspoken critic of King Henry VIII’s scandalous plan to divorce Catherine of Aragon in order to try to produce a son who could continue the dynasty. IOW, +Fisher was the bravest and stoutest public defender of the indissolubility of marriage at that time; and he paid the ultimate price for that.
Personally, although Fisher may not have been a perfected soul (none of us are on earth), I find Fisher’s humility quite winsome in that he never sought promotion to a higher post with a better income. He spent his entire episcopate as Bishop of Rochester, back at a time when that diocese was very rural and poorly endowed. For 30 years he was content to serve in that low spot on the hierarchy, when others, like the infamous Cardinal Wolsey, were far more ambitious to climb to the top rung on the ladder.
What I’m getting at, evan (and francis, perhaps), is that, in good Anglican style, I refuse to believe that either the Protestant or the Catholic side had a monopoly on the truth theologically, or on virtue and holiness ethically. Obviously, when evaluating the Reformation (which I think was a very mixed bag myself), everything depends on whether you think of yourself as more of a “liturgical Protestant,” or rather as more of a “biblical catholic.” But there are some of us who prefer to avoid both labels or camps and to see Anglicanism at its best as a hybrid that’s BOTH Protestant nor CAtholic in some ways, but also as being NEITHER Protestant nor Catholic in other ways. Only in my case, I don’t like the familiar Via Media way of reconciling the two stances, as if Protestantism and Catholicism were two extremes to be avoided like Scylla (Geneva) and Charybdis (Rome), as many Anglicans have supposed since the time of Richard Hooker.
No, instead, I propose that we think of Anglicanism (and Christianity as a whole) as being properly “3-D,” i.e., as having three equally valid and important dimensions that I generally call: evangelical, catholic (small c), and charismatic. In my view, the three aspects are complementary and all are necessary to be fully biblical (and patristic). IOW, the three dimensions operate on different planes or reality, and are oriented toward contrasting but not mutually exclusive legitimate values and human needs.
For example, Protestantism instinctively sees the Christian faith and life in primarily individual terms, and so stresses the absolute necessity of personal faith, or as is often said, “a personal relationship with Jesus.” No problem with that, it’s certainly true, as far as it goes. But it’s not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
For Catholicism equally instinctively in inclined to see the Christian faith and life in corporate terms. Catholics of all sorts (whether Roman, Anglo, or Eastern) recognize the complementary truth that a personal relationship with Jesus isn’t enough by itself. For we are also meant to be fully incorporated into the Body of Christ, and the hand or eye or heart can’t live on its own, apart from the rest of the body. And we catholic types, evan, are much more aware than Protestants (or low church Anglicans) tend to be that without the living Tradition of the Church and the heritage of faith being handed down to us from generation to generation, NONE of us could be Christians today.
Similarly, the genius of Protestantism is to accent the SIMPLICITY of the gospel and to insist (rightly) on the need for theological faithfulness to Holy Scripture and for pure doctrine, uncontaminated by the errors of human heresy. OTOH, the genius of Catholicism (including Anglo-catholicism) is to stress the opposite pole, i.e., the equally legitimate value of the FULLNESS or comprehensiveness of the Christian faith. It’s my firm conviction that we somehow need to strive to keep the delicate balance between the simplicity and purity of the true gospel, and its full outworking in the richness of the understanding of the Church throughout all time and in all places. Hence the permanent appeal of the famous principle known as the “Canon” or Rule of St. Vincent of Lerins, a Gallican monk and theologian of the 5th century: the standard of Christian doctrine isn’t simply the unadorned Scriptures, but “[i]what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.[/i]”
Anglicanism at its best at least tries (however imperfectly) to maintain that perilous and difficult balance.
David Handy+
3-D Christian
Fr. Handy (#7),
Thanks for articulating so well the understanding that I’ve been coming to in my own evolution as a Christian.
Evan,
You’re welcome, brother. We all need to stand together and encourage one another in these dark days when the future of Anglicanism hangs in the balance.
David Handy+
Alas, my undue hastiness was again on display for all to see in my long #7 above. I meant that +Fisher was executed less than two WEEKS before Thomas More, not two months. And I meant that the three dimensions of Christianity operate on three separate planes OF reality.
So yes, evan, and all other T19 readers, you should indeed take everything I post here with a grain of salt. This thread appears to have died out or gone inactive now. But before it disappears into the archives, I wanted to set the record straight as to what I was trying to say.
David Handy+
3-D Anglican