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 ...
“No. There was no idolatry and such a practice has always been abhorrent to the Church and absolutely forbidden.
“Not supporting either side doesn’t mean you have to get the facts wrong. Your “facts” are wrong.
.............................
As it turns out, I disagree with both of your statements because I believe you are wrong.
Based on your postings, I don’t think you are able to see it without bias, because you are part of the system. I’m OK with you living in your world as you perceive it.
It is too small a world.
Henry had taken strong positions against Luther, and had been granted a title “Defender of the Faith”.
Again, the government and the church were strongly conflated in those days. Henry thought the church should have recognized his desires for an anullment, and granted the annullement.
I got a dispensation when I was first married. My best point of argument was that if not given it, I would simply marry outside the Church. Well, Henry had the same option as I, but even better!
“The Church was indeed part of the government.”
No, it wasn’t.
“They punished whole contries to keep other parts of the government in line.”
No. Whole countries were - rarely - punished in order to cause the population to demand correction on the part of their monarchs. That showed the Church ran exactly zero of those governments. If the Church did run those governments no interdict would ever be needed.
““Interdict” was one of their tools of government.”
No. Interdict was one of their tools of ecclesiastical authority in regard to the sacraments. In itself it didn’t effect government in the least. It effected sacramental practice.
““Crusade” was another.”
Again, false. If a crusade was needed, then clearly the Church did not control whoever was crusaded against. Also, how many state governments were crusaded against? Seriously, how many? The Albigensians were not a state government, for instance.
““Excommunication” was a third.”
Again, false. Excommunication was an ecclesiastical penalty. It was not a governmental policy or civil punishment. It was against and individual or a series of individual. It was not a tool against states for being states and even if it were that would only prove the Church did not run the state.
You don’t seem to understand that you’re undermining your own claims.
Oddly Richard I of England didn’t die from wounds gotten in the Crusades, but only after he returned to his lands in France.
That peace of G-d didn’t keep him from being captured and held for ransom.
NEVER refer to the revolution as a reformation....you reform from within....the protestants revolted and destroyed material objects which did not belong to then nor affected their revolution....don't like a particular church building...fine, build your own.
You don’t seem to understand that the Church’s pretension to the authority to correct monarchs meant they saw themselves as a branch of government over other governments.
“As it turns out, I disagree with both of your statements because I believe you are wrong.”
It doesn’t matter what you believe because you are clearly in the wrong.
“Based on your postings, I don’t think you are able to see it without bias, because you are part of the system.”
What system? How do you not see the bias of that statement you just made?
“I’m OK with you living in your world as you perceive it.”
I live in the world as it actually exists. This has nothing to do with my perceptions. You’re sounding like a relativist.
“It is too small a world.”
No, the world is plenty big. Unfortunately it is filled with people who actually believe relativism makes sense.
I love art and am an artist who has not taken the nude drawing 2 class since I can draw someone with clothes on and not need to know about their bodies, just like I don’t need to know what is under the ground or under tree bark. That said, I think the Reformation came after the Renaissance (what I call the DARK going off the narrow path and getting into soft porn era). I often wonder what the time between His birth and His return will be called. The time of the Martyrs?
If God had wanted the art and books preserved, He very well could have done so with one command. I do fear for today’s art, but not the pagan stuff, and during the construction of the Temple, God was very explicit about what He wanted in our places of worship. No images. That is so we can concentrate on Him alone. I love beautiful cathedrals. Absolutely love the art, but when I pray I close my eyes and cover my head. I don’t think I should have to close my eyes.
it's none of the second man's business.
Jesus smiled at that one.
TC,
“NEVER refer to the revolution as a reformation....you reform from within....the protestants revolted and destroyed material objects which did not belong to then nor affected their revolution....don’t like a particular church building...fine, build your own. “
The movement is historically referred to as The Reformation. I will continue to refer to it as objective people do.
Christians were forced to leave when the Roman Church refused to have an honest conversation about their failings and change.
Obviously, I don’t support the failures of either movement.
“You don’t seem to understand that the Church’s pretension to the authority to correct monarchs meant they saw themselves as a branch of government over other governments.”
No, you don’t seem to understand that the Church saw herself as what she is - the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). It was committed to the Church ALONE to have authority over sacraments, churches, monasteries, liturgies, etc. The state should have minded its own business building bridges, forts, fielding armies, imposing taxes to support the kingdom, etc.
“It doesn’t matter what you believe because you are clearly in the wrong.”
Yea. Not so much.
“I live in the world as it actually exists. This has nothing to do with my perceptions.”
Have you never studied human nature, perception and choice? From your posted statements, your worldview is obvious. I just don’t agree with it.
“Unfortunately it is filled with people who actually believe relativism makes sense.”
I’m certainly not one of them.
There is a spiritual authority and a temporal, yes.
back to your history book...the Crusaders were attempting to reclaim territory siezed by moslem hoardes....you'd better thank themfor the progress that they did make.
No. I didn’t say that it did. But, Europe was a far more peaceful place in 1100 than it was 100 years earlier after the dissolution of the Carolingian empire. The 12th century was the era of monasteries, countless monasteries, who served God and their local communities in a hundred different ways. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
1.Iconoclasm condemned the making of any lifeless image (e.g., painting or statue) that was intended to represent Jesus or one of the saints. The "Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum" (Synod of Hiereia) held in 754 declared:
Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters.. If anyone ventures to represent the divine image of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!
If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema!
2.For iconoclasts, the only real religious image must be an exact likeness of the prototype—of the same substance—which they considered impossible, seeing wood and paint as empty of spirit and life. Thus for iconoclasts the only true (and permitted) "icon" of Jesus was the Eucharist, which was believed to be his body and blood.
3.Any true image of Jesus must be able to represent both his divine nature (which is impossible because it cannot be seen nor encompassed) as well his human nature. But by making an icon of Jesus, one is separating his human and divine natures, since only the human can be depicted (separating the natures was considered nestorianism), or else confusing the human and divine natures, considering them one (union of the human and divine natures was considered monophysitism).
4.Icon use for religious purposes was viewed as an innovation in the Church, a Satanic misleading of Christians to return to pagan practice. Satan misled men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Law of Moses and the Prophets cooperated to remove this ruin. But the previously mentioned demiurge of evil gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity.
It was also seen as a departure from ancient church tradition, of which there was a written record opposing religious images.
Good gravy.
The Muslims and their “god” Satan find all this Christian fratricide delectable.
By all means, keep the pissing contest going.
Meanwhile, we have a country falling apart, a world going to Hell and Muslim jihadists planning your beheading and the subjugation of your families to the blood-soaked death cult.
How many Muslim hordes were in Constantinople in the 12th Century?
Zero. Null. None. Nada.
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.