The Church of England (Henry VII Church) declared Thomas Moore a saint, I could be wrong but if Thomas Moore was involved in Burning of heretics as suggested they wouldn't have done.
I LOVE how Thomas More is portrayed in this series - good, honest, faithful, with amazing integrity (and I love how he predicts that Cromwell will also fall out of favor)
kkarls1: Cromwell was not a Lutheran. He was a noble who stood to benefit monetarily from the Reformation. Just as happened across Europe, a small number of greedy nobles used the "Reformation" to steal Church lands, shut down welfare programs, and enrich themselves personally. Cromwell was born a Catholic and died worshiping money and power.
I always enjoyed scenes between More and Cromwell, it was always an interesting chess match of words. Both are highly intelligent and dedicated to their respective causes; one man is a Catholic who burns Lutherans for heresy while the other man is a Lutheran who is determined to take down the Catholic church. It's interesting, bc while Cromwell played a part in More's sentence, More would have had Cromwell burned for heresy if he ever caught him preaching Lutheranism; both could go to extremes.
Good comment. However, do you have any evidence that Moore ever supported the burning of unrepentant heretics/political revolutionaries? If so, I would like to see it.
Doing some digging, looks like he did have a hand in the burning of some revolutionaries who were looking to overthrow the king. This was settled and investigated in the criminal courts, not in any doctrinal/religious setting.
Some of the burned did profess the doctrines of Luther, but seemed to be tried as traitors, not as heretics.
@uglyduckling89 He did not have the authority to burn heretics. He questioned them and tried to get them to recant. If they would not, he handed them over to the authorities. However, heresy in the 16th century was considered a crime punishable by death and he did remark to Erasmus that the heretics were 'well and worthily burned.'
@Tillyvalle The show actually has a scene of a burning overseen by thomas more, and I think it was henry who was surprised to hear from him that he had actually burned someone on charge of heresy. however I understand the show may have made an assumption so i did my own search to confirm and according to 3 sources he not only approved of them, but also during his chancellorship (when the anti-protestant campaign was spearheaded) he oversaw 6 particular burnings.
@melikab As I said before More did not have the authority to burn anyone but if a heretic refused to recant he did believe that they should be burned. This opinion was shared by many but not everyone approved. As far as More was concerned heresy was a worse crime than murder as it killed the soul.
@Tillyvalle part I) As Lord Chancellor he was carrier of 1 of 3 seals of state. he carried the great seal.. his duty also included administration of civil laws in secular courts, and as wolsey who oversaw some 9000 cases, he would also have heard cases that Henry himself did not want to oversee -heresy being one. heresy charges started with an inquisition and publica fama at ecclesiastical courts but once guilt was established, the guilty were referred to secular courts for punishment...
@Tillyvalle part II) More, as a judge of a lower court in his earlier years, was a proponent of secular punishment of heresy by burning since he saw heresy as a national threat, not simply a religious one and also because as in the case of Bilney, he had noticed the leniency of ecclesiastical courts in dealing with their clergy peers. so he did oversee the burnings and in his position had the highest authority after the king himself in judging these matters as well as sitting parliament for him
@Tillyvalle part III) lastly i want to bring up James Bainham`s public speech prior to his burning where he explicitly states that the judge and accuser in his case was none other than Sir Thomas More. and then he goes on to renounce a lot of things.
@melikab Also been doing some digging. Thomas More was "personally involved" in prosecuting only three out of the six cases of heresy in all of England that led to burning during the three years of his chancellorship. When he declared that those convicted of heresy were "well and worthily burned" he was showing a judge's grim approval of the well-deserved punishment of a criminal who has committed what More called the worst of crimes - leading other souls to eternal perdition.
Indeed, but to suggest that More wasn't responsible for the burning of heretics would be like a hand-washing worthy of Pontius Pilate. About the best that can be said is that More took no joy in such burnings (or other tortures he approved of) and that they were relatively infrequent in England. These were different times, when even a saintly "humanist" could justify the burning of heretics. What was one man's flesh compared to the countless eternal souls threatened by heresy?
@Tillyvalle First of all, I'm admiror and devout of St. Thomas More. But historical data says, according to a couple sources I've read, that he orderer the burning of around 6 (six) people, of course he was deeply troubled about that; but you have to remember that you cannot judge the facts of the past under the values and principles of the present, it's not that simle...
@Tillyvalle I am afraid to say that he did. He authorised the burning of many people simply for reading the Bible in English. This depiction of him, like that in Robert Bolt's 'A Man for All Seasons' is romanticised.
@Makashi11 As I said before Thomas More had no authority to order executions. He questioned heretics and if he could not get them to recant he handed them over to the religious authorities. Yes he approved of the burning of heretics and I am aware that this side of him is not depicted in AMFAS. However the film does depict his attempts to stay true to his beliefs in the face of increased hostility from a king who once shared those beliefs but whose desire for an heir became more important .
Some sources say that Moore did support them (like my history textbook, but it sucks so don't count on that) and others say he may or may not have. Honestly, I was just going from the show's perspective rather than the actual men; in the show, Moore does indeed burn heretics, as for real life, I don't know, I don't even know if Moore and Cromwell had any interaction in real life. But on the show, the two men are very similar and their chemistry together is undeniable.
This is a well documented historical fact. More burned about 6-7 heretics, and tortured others, during his time as Chancellor. Its` recorded in several places.
@jswranch peter ackroyd and marius, tho marius does refer back to ackroyd, have written in their books on more that he explicitly approved of burning. as i wrote for tillyvalle, he oversaw 6 during his chancellorship, when he tried to contain protestant movements. this number should be taken in the context of 36 other heresy related burnings in england during the century prior to more`s chancellorship. burning was considered a form of purification of the soul so its not unsusal that he approved.
@melikab in his `the supplication of souls` which is a response to Simon Fish`s earlier pamphlet by a similar name, More also approves of the `punishment of heretics` (which would have been burning) calling it a just one. then he refers to and approves of John Badley`s burning on charge of heresy for claiming the church took good lands while the people starved. more states Badleys accusations resulted in an `ill-informed bill` being placed before parliament.
@jswranch anyway, there are a number of references in More`s religious works concerning hersy and punishment.He didnt torture, so thats some relief, at least.
"There really is no difference between us except that I shall die today...and you tomorrow." DAYM! I bet he saw Cromwell's fall coming!
dizzy365 6 months ago 3
The Church of England (Henry VII Church) declared Thomas Moore a saint, I could be wrong but if Thomas Moore was involved in Burning of heretics as suggested they wouldn't have done.
100percentbabeLOL 9 months ago
Comment removed
mckfrr 1 year ago
I LOVE how Thomas More is portrayed in this series - good, honest, faithful, with amazing integrity (and I love how he predicts that Cromwell will also fall out of favor)
uofc57 1 year ago
kkarls1: Cromwell was not a Lutheran. He was a noble who stood to benefit monetarily from the Reformation. Just as happened across Europe, a small number of greedy nobles used the "Reformation" to steal Church lands, shut down welfare programs, and enrich themselves personally. Cromwell was born a Catholic and died worshiping money and power.
amicuspublilius 2 years ago 3
Ha! Cromwell gets his later! I LOVE Thomas More. Jeremey Northam did an excellent job in this role.
DiVittorioRoses 2 years ago 3
Actually Henry liked More too... ...
ChoiFungWa 2 years ago
I always enjoyed scenes between More and Cromwell, it was always an interesting chess match of words. Both are highly intelligent and dedicated to their respective causes; one man is a Catholic who burns Lutherans for heresy while the other man is a Lutheran who is determined to take down the Catholic church. It's interesting, bc while Cromwell played a part in More's sentence, More would have had Cromwell burned for heresy if he ever caught him preaching Lutheranism; both could go to extremes.
kkarls1 2 years ago
Good comment. However, do you have any evidence that Moore ever supported the burning of unrepentant heretics/political revolutionaries? If so, I would like to see it.
jswranch 2 years ago 6
Thomas More questioned heretics, he did not burn them.
Tillyvalle 2 years ago 14
Doing some digging, looks like he did have a hand in the burning of some revolutionaries who were looking to overthrow the king. This was settled and investigated in the criminal courts, not in any doctrinal/religious setting.
Some of the burned did profess the doctrines of Luther, but seemed to be tried as traitors, not as heretics.
jswranch 2 years ago
@Tillyvalle no, history suggests that he did burn them.
uglyduckling89 1 year ago
@uglyduckling89 He did not have the authority to burn heretics. He questioned them and tried to get them to recant. If they would not, he handed them over to the authorities. However, heresy in the 16th century was considered a crime punishable by death and he did remark to Erasmus that the heretics were 'well and worthily burned.'
Tillyvalle 1 year ago
@Tillyvalle but in the serie they show him burn heretics ;>
Takeo1813 1 year ago
@Takeo1813 The series shows a lot of things that were not factual.
Tillyvalle 1 year ago
@Tillyvalle The show actually has a scene of a burning overseen by thomas more, and I think it was henry who was surprised to hear from him that he had actually burned someone on charge of heresy. however I understand the show may have made an assumption so i did my own search to confirm and according to 3 sources he not only approved of them, but also during his chancellorship (when the anti-protestant campaign was spearheaded) he oversaw 6 particular burnings.
melikab 1 year ago
@melikab As I said before More did not have the authority to burn anyone but if a heretic refused to recant he did believe that they should be burned. This opinion was shared by many but not everyone approved. As far as More was concerned heresy was a worse crime than murder as it killed the soul.
Tillyvalle 1 year ago
@Tillyvalle part I) As Lord Chancellor he was carrier of 1 of 3 seals of state. he carried the great seal.. his duty also included administration of civil laws in secular courts, and as wolsey who oversaw some 9000 cases, he would also have heard cases that Henry himself did not want to oversee -heresy being one. heresy charges started with an inquisition and publica fama at ecclesiastical courts but once guilt was established, the guilty were referred to secular courts for punishment...
melikab 1 year ago
@Tillyvalle part II) More, as a judge of a lower court in his earlier years, was a proponent of secular punishment of heresy by burning since he saw heresy as a national threat, not simply a religious one and also because as in the case of Bilney, he had noticed the leniency of ecclesiastical courts in dealing with their clergy peers. so he did oversee the burnings and in his position had the highest authority after the king himself in judging these matters as well as sitting parliament for him
melikab 1 year ago
@Tillyvalle part III) lastly i want to bring up James Bainham`s public speech prior to his burning where he explicitly states that the judge and accuser in his case was none other than Sir Thomas More. and then he goes on to renounce a lot of things.
melikab 1 year ago
@melikab Also been doing some digging. Thomas More was "personally involved" in prosecuting only three out of the six cases of heresy in all of England that led to burning during the three years of his chancellorship. When he declared that those convicted of heresy were "well and worthily burned" he was showing a judge's grim approval of the well-deserved punishment of a criminal who has committed what More called the worst of crimes - leading other souls to eternal perdition.
Tillyvalle 1 year ago
@Tillyvalle
Indeed, but to suggest that More wasn't responsible for the burning of heretics would be like a hand-washing worthy of Pontius Pilate. About the best that can be said is that More took no joy in such burnings (or other tortures he approved of) and that they were relatively infrequent in England. These were different times, when even a saintly "humanist" could justify the burning of heretics. What was one man's flesh compared to the countless eternal souls threatened by heresy?
hazydavey 1 year ago
@hazydavey I'm sorry but I'm not really sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me!
bairns123 1 year ago
@Tillyvalle First of all, I'm admiror and devout of St. Thomas More. But historical data says, according to a couple sources I've read, that he orderer the burning of around 6 (six) people, of course he was deeply troubled about that; but you have to remember that you cannot judge the facts of the past under the values and principles of the present, it's not that simle...
OscarsanchezIII 1 year ago
@Tillyvalle I am afraid to say that he did. He authorised the burning of many people simply for reading the Bible in English. This depiction of him, like that in Robert Bolt's 'A Man for All Seasons' is romanticised.
Makashi11 1 year ago
@Makashi11 As I said before Thomas More had no authority to order executions. He questioned heretics and if he could not get them to recant he handed them over to the religious authorities. Yes he approved of the burning of heretics and I am aware that this side of him is not depicted in AMFAS. However the film does depict his attempts to stay true to his beliefs in the face of increased hostility from a king who once shared those beliefs but whose desire for an heir became more important .
Tillyvalle 1 year ago
Some sources say that Moore did support them (like my history textbook, but it sucks so don't count on that) and others say he may or may not have. Honestly, I was just going from the show's perspective rather than the actual men; in the show, Moore does indeed burn heretics, as for real life, I don't know, I don't even know if Moore and Cromwell had any interaction in real life. But on the show, the two men are very similar and their chemistry together is undeniable.
kkarls1 2 years ago
This is a well documented historical fact. More burned about 6-7 heretics, and tortured others, during his time as Chancellor. Its` recorded in several places.
BTW, Thomas Cromwell FTW!
Elliemental09 2 years ago
@jswranch peter ackroyd and marius, tho marius does refer back to ackroyd, have written in their books on more that he explicitly approved of burning. as i wrote for tillyvalle, he oversaw 6 during his chancellorship, when he tried to contain protestant movements. this number should be taken in the context of 36 other heresy related burnings in england during the century prior to more`s chancellorship. burning was considered a form of purification of the soul so its not unsusal that he approved.
melikab 1 year ago
@melikab in his `the supplication of souls` which is a response to Simon Fish`s earlier pamphlet by a similar name, More also approves of the `punishment of heretics` (which would have been burning) calling it a just one. then he refers to and approves of John Badley`s burning on charge of heresy for claiming the church took good lands while the people starved. more states Badleys accusations resulted in an `ill-informed bill` being placed before parliament.
melikab 1 year ago
@jswranch anyway, there are a number of references in More`s religious works concerning hersy and punishment.He didnt torture, so thats some relief, at least.
melikab 1 year ago
Thank you so much!
JPNfan 2 years ago