Posted on 10/08/2013 5:24:17 PM PDT by marshmallow
A new exhibition at Tate Britain highlights the scale of destruction to artworks in the Tudor period – a staggering amount of books and music were also destroyed
The slashed and broken medieval images displayed in the new Art Under Attack exhibition at the Tate are a reminder of what we lost in the hundred and fifty years after the Reformation. Even now there is denial about the scale of the erasing of our medieval past. The Tate estimates we lost 90% of our religious art. It was probably even more than that. The destruction was on a scale that far outstrips the modern efforts of Islamist extremists. And it was not only art we lost, but also books and music.
We think of Henry VIII and the destruction of the monasteries, but that was not the end of the destruction, it marked the beginning. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, hailed the reign of his son, the boy king Edward VI, as that of a new Josiah, destroyer of idols. After his coronation an orgy of iconoclasm was launched. In churches rood screens, tombs with their prayers for the dead, and stain glass windows, were smashed. The Elizabethan antiquarian John Stow complained, some of this Christian Taliban “judged every image to be an idol”, so that not only religious art, but even the secular thirteenth century carvings of kings in Ludgate were broken.
Books too were burned on a vast scale. Earlier this year Melvyn Bragg was on TV telling us about William Tyndale during the reign of Henry VIII, and the forces of Catholic conservatism blocking publication of his English bible with its attached Lutheran commentaries. But conservatives were not alone in wishing to suppress books that contained ideas they did not agree with. When the monasteries were suppressed.....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
First “feudalism” is a modern invention, a concept unknown to the people of the middle ages. If the Church blessed anything it was system of mutual obligation based not on force or blood ties but something like compact and even law. Remember that common law begins with Henry II, and that it owed much to the Church canon law as well as to the civil law. Magna carta did not come from nowhere but on the Church insistence that law came from the moral order of things, hat the Church was the proper judge of it but that all the social orders were bound to it, King, church, nobles and commons. That commons already include the self-ruling towns as well as the knights and squires.
Common law easily goes back to the code of Justinian.
Henry V used common law that dated back to the Salic Law to contest for the throne of France.
feu·dal·ism (fydl-zm)
n.
1. A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.
2. A political, economic, or social order resembling this medieval system.
feudalism was no modern invention, though the word as a convenient shorthand for what was a complex web of relationships is more modern, say 1830-1840.
But in reality this over generalizes. Europe was divided into more than 10,000 estates, and the relationshop between lord and servant varied greatly from place to place and from time to time. How much could a Sicilian peasant have in common with one in Scotland, and a Norman landowner of the 11ith Century have with a Scottish laird in the time of the real MacBeth? A lot and not much.
Common law was a mixture of many elements, some going back to national law, and a great many facts on the ground with which lawyers had to contend. Church law provided a modal for many jurists. Nothing new in this. The first written law in England after Roman times was in Latin, around the year 600. Canon law itself owed much to the Justinian code, as well as the ancient Roman tradition of committing rules to law. St. Benedict’s Rule illustrates the habits of the Latin mind.
It generalizes, but whether it over generalizes depends on specifics.
The system of obligations is common, but the details did in fact vary.
The word ‘feudalism’ was coined because it was in many cases a useful generalization.
of course He did...His life was given up for the salvation of mankind.
Jesus did, indeed, create a specific Church....He named her first leader, gave her the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and promised her that He would be with her until the end of time....also declared her Infallible in matters of faith and morals....sounds like a true church to me!!!
the eastern schism is just that...both Rites still are true Catholics...just differ on internal things, heretical groups and protesting groups broke away from the true church and did things their own way....wrong way!
Or they did it correctly despite the error of the Catholic branded Church sect.
I don’t choose between them. I merely note their differences.
The Western Roman Empire was under the strong influence of the Arians, particularly during the time of Odoacer, Theodosius, and other Germanic kings.
That was a pope that declared himself infallable.
Jesus was not answering his mail by that time.
LOL...around a billion people across 500 years of protestantism disagree with the truths of Christianity itself, against the truth of the Eucharist, against the truth of Infallibility, against the truth of sacramental Penance(confession), against the truth of Sacramental matrimony (if you want to divorce and remarry, go for it), against the truth of Papal authority...etc. etc..I could go on for an hour but my mind boggles at your erroneous contention...
that's fewer than the Catholic population ALIVE TODAY !!!
nope, it was Jesus Himself....whatsoever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven....whatsoever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heavenn.....it doesn't allow ANY room for error....if the Pope issues an official declaration...it is infallible because it is bound in Heaven....see?
My "contention" is that those people exist, and have existed.
And yes - they disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
That actually, really do that, and consider themselves Christians.
Shocking, isn't it?
Thanks for playing.
that's fewer than the Catholic population ALIVE TODAY !!!
Well then, those billion people must be insignificant!
Catholic logic - razor sharp as always.
Except it isn’t.
Even if such a power was given to Peter, it wasn’t necessarily given to any who came after him in the pretended succession of the Catholic church.
Such a power may have been given to all who believe, to all who realize “Peter’s Confession”.
It was many years before the Roman position of Pontifex Maximus was given to any Christian. Peter never had it.
Come on now, those Italian banking/trading families can’t be wrong ! lol.
Oh, and, making your 12-year-old grandson a cardinal... well, that’s just what Peter would have done !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.