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 ...
“The movement is historically referred to as The Reformation. I will continue to refer to it as objective people do.”
Protestants chose to call it “The Reformation.” Increasingly today, historians are calling it the Protestant Revolution since it toppled governments, caused riots, uprisings, led to the destruction of property on a massive scale, resulted in outright murder, massive changes in attitudes in culture, language, education, art, etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/08_august/21/protestant.shtml
Even prominent Protestants such as Alister McGrath have sometimes chosen to use the more correct and less biased term “Protestant Revolution” - http://www.amazon.com/Christianitys-Dangerous-Idea-Revolution-A-Twenty-First/dp/0061436860
This is by no means new: http://archive.org/details/renaissanceprote00hulmrich
The only reformation that was a reformation was the Catholic Reformation. The Protestant Revolt was exactly what it says it was.
The emperor in Constantinople was embattled, and he called on the Pope for help. The Pope sent it.
What she was is a pillar and bulwark of the connected church officials who were able to live fat lives off the collected taxes/tithes from the people and the various fees that they were able to collect.
The government and the church were competing parasites that had a cozy deal to share the life’s blood of their host.
O.K., so I picked a bad example...
You are right, of course. It is simple. How can one reform something by leaving it?
“Yea. Not so much.”
Actually, very much.
“Have you never studied human nature, perception and choice?”
Yep. Probably more than you have.
“From your posted statements, your worldview is obvious. I just don’t agree with it.”
And again, a thing is true (or it false) whether you agree with it or not.
“I’m certainly not one of them.”
You certainly are one of them: “I’m OK with you living in your world as you perceive it.”
Only a relativist could say that.
I specified the 4th Crusade. The one where the Crusaders sacked and raped Contantinople and set up a Latin kingdom where the Roman Empire still held sway.
I just don’t need to spend my time correcting your errors.
You feel the need to.
Busybody.
“The only reformation that was a reformation was the Catholic Reformation. The Protestant Revolt was exactly what it says it was.”
Yea. Not so much vlad.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nature is beautiful. Catholic art is oftentimes repulsive and causes a negative reaction, such as violence toward the repulsive object.
It is what it is. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind and all of that.
“I’m OK with you living in your world as you perceive it.”
Still true vlad. I don’t believe you can change or see a need for change from within your Roman system. Not up to me to convince you about what you cannot see. So I’m OK with your choice.
Because of the government shutdown, families of veterans who were recently killed will not be flown to their funerals, but in the House, the gym remains open, with its tennis court and heated swimming pool.
Now, there's an unbiased newscast for you!
“The term idolatry describes a bad thing. The Church uses a different magic word, and thus the bad thing goes away. Such is of Satan.”
+1
Christian were forced to LEAVE..... that's the point, they were not roforming anything, they were revolting against legitimate Catholic authority...they, as human beings have every right to do that, but don't mistakenly call it a reformation....they reformed nothing and caused untold destruction including the loss of hundreds of millions of souls.
He wanted a legitimate male heir. And so, to deny him that, the Church was willing to risk his wrath.
And they got it.
“How can one reform something by leaving it?”
Well, sometimes I think I believe things are improved when the rascals leave! I think that actually did happen to a certain extent in the 16th century. Men unable to live up to their vows (men like Zwingli who knocked up his mistress) improved the Church in a sense by leaving it. I would much rather that they had stayed and reformed themselves, however, rather than just rationalizing their lust and greed.
The bad one, yes. There were at least 17 Crusades.
See, there’s your problem. You think the Church should have authority.
I know that Constantine was ok with it, when he used Roman civil authority on the side of the church.
Constantine was pretty strong on “One Empire, One Emperor” but his “One G-d” was pretty obviously a means to an end. The church was ok with Constantine murdering folks if it meant their cushy positions could be well established.
Oh, so the lust, sheer evil, and greed of Henry VIII are the fault of the Church? You’re too much!
“Christian were forced to LEAVE..... that’s the point, they were not roforming anything, they were revolting against legitimate Catholic authority...they, as human beings have every right to do that, but don’t mistakenly call it a reformation....they reformed nothing and caused untold destruction including the loss of hundreds of millions of souls.”
They weren’t revolting against a “legitimate catholic authority”. They tried to reform the system by confronting a corrupt, sinful and entrenched catholic authority that refused to examine its heart.
It was the desire to reform a corrupt church which led to it being called the Reformation. You can call it whatever you want. I will refer to it as the Reformation.
“including the loss of hundreds of millions of souls”
Prove that one TC! ... though I remind you of your previous failure to provide any evidence, facts of proofs for your previous many claims. Until you do, it is just a silly statement.
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.