Foxes book of Martyrs

[thessalonian]

I am reading Foxe's book of Martyrs. I have the links from the ref section and have done a search on this board. I am keeping track of what newadvent says about the various "martyrs". Does anyone else have any other articles on the book? I will also be on vaction next week and plan on spending an afternoon at the Library at the local Catholic University (St. Thomas) so if anyone knows any books on Foxes book of bull, that would be great as well.

Thanks

Thess

Edited June 28, 2006 by thessalonian

[phatcatholic]

thess, notice that several of the links i sent u also mention popular replies that were written to his work. maybe u could find those! that would be sweet.

[thessalonian]

Didn't make it to the U over my vacation. I will try to get there soon and look that stuff up. Just about finished with the book and will comment on it in the coming weeks. It's an interesting read actually. Confirms much of what I thought went on.

[N/A Gone]

book of bull?

thess, give us the low-down. Someone gave me the book, I just havent read it yet.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1021194' date='Jul 10 2006, 12:40 PM']
book of bull?

thess, give us the low-down. Someone gave me the book, I just havent read it yet.
[/quote]


Briefly here are some of my observations.

1) Foxe records events in which the Catholic government did in fact put people to death for heresy. Mostly in England. I think he has it pretty right that the events happened but takes great liberty in the cause of the events, i.e. why John Hus or William Tyndale were put to death. Foxe ignores Roman's 13 and the right of Governments to keep order and puts a religous spin on all of the events.

2) Foxe displays a heavy dose of anti-catholic biggotry in his book. There is liberal use of the words papists, romish, romish pope, etc. etc. which were written in a derogatory sense. There was certainly no love for Catholics in Foxe's heart. All the Catholics of his time were evil and he writes very glowingly of the Protestant Martyr's, saying Luther should be canonized a saint (I'm not kidding) because of the miracle that he withstood and prevailed against the Pope. Tyndale and others were the most gentle people you ever want to meet. Not a mean bone in them supposedly. Not what I have read from other sources about Luther and Tyndale in particular.

3) Foxe always says that Catholic arguements for Catholic doctrine were insignificant but presents none of them. He presents the protestant "martyr's" as in favor of the Gospel and Christ, while Catholics throughout his book are painted as having no knowledge of scripture, or Christ, and saying things that indicate they are not in favor of the Gospel being preached.

4) There are some interesting contradictions in the book. For instance in one place Foxe quotes on of the "martyrs", I believe it was latimer, as saying that calling of names would bring judgement upon men. Of course Catholics were always calling names in the book. Funny thing is that Foxe has all kinds of names for Catholics and derogatory remarks about them. Another of the Martyrs pooh pooh's a priests arguements that having the Bible in the vernacular will cause all kinds of divisions and misinterpretations, saying that such an arguement is ridiculous. It's kind of funny in hindsight. The priest had it quite right. Foxe does alot of handwaving about the unbiblical nature of Catholic doctrine which makes one wonder if he ever heard the arguements. He continuously paints the Catholic Church as being opposed to the Bible. Quite ridiculous if you have a true knowledge of Catholic history. He or his sources also like to write about thoughts and emotions of Catholics around his "martyrs" that they couldn't have no. The "martyr's" always silence those they are debating and put "fear" in to them. The arguements of those who oppose the "martyrs" are always not worth mentioning.

5) It is interesting that Foxe provides much detail about the persecutions of Queen Mary (known by him as "bloody Mary". What is interesting is that Foxe knew Queen Elizabeth personally, who followed Queen Mary. She was just as bloody in persecution of Catholics. Though the reasons are clearly religious in her case as she made it a crime to say Mass. I need to do some research but in Henry Graham's "Where We Got the Bible" he says Mary was concerned about attempts to dethrone her. At any rate, I have read that Foxe did ask Elizabeth to end the persecutions but he never condemned her for them. I have more study to do in this area. Foxe makes no mention of any Protestant persecution of Catholics which was intense in England during the reign of Henry VIII, Edward, and Elizabeth.

In summary, the book is interesting for it's historical events but as to it's interpretations of them, the anti-catholic bias of Foxe cannot be missed except by one who holds it themselves. The FACT is that the times back then were very different than today. Heresy was considered murder of the soul by BOTH Protestants and Catholics and was punishable by death in BOTH Protestant and Catholic countries by the Governments who saw protecting the truth as their duty in Romans 13. At the time the people were ignorant and could not read. They were easily swayed by men who came in with much "learning". It should also be noted that those who were "persecuted" were Catholic clergy, claiming to be Catholic, yet teaching contrary to Catholicism. This is of course very problematic. In all cases the Church condemned the individual and handed them over to the state to be punished according to the law. Sometimes patience was exhibited by the state and sometimes not.

The book would be hard to stomach for a Protestant of course and I can see where it is likely responsible for the prejudice among protestants of Catholics and Catholicism. It would and has certainly hardened the hearts of many Protestants, who have a distorted view of history and scripture, toward the Catholic faith. I can see where the book could weaken the faith of a Catholic who has a rodney king (can't we all just get along) image of God and Catholicism. The fact is that the Bible is quite harsh toward heresy if you read 1 Cor 5, Romans 13, In John's letter where it says "if anyone comes to your door not teaching these things don't even welcome him" and in Jude ("they must be silenced"), scripture has great concern for those teaching and acting contrary to their faith, who claim to be Christian. Personally it stengthened my faith because it confirmed what I thought about the time period and why things happened as they did.

There is my initial thoughts on the book. I have about 30 pages left and don't expect much to change. Generally you get a history interpreted with a heavy dose of bias by a clearly prejudiced man. I plan to do much more study of the matter and look up other refutations of the work. A book I have called "Salvation at Stake" written by a Protestant (with a much less bias view who tries to look at all sides of the issue) discusses Foxe's bias as well. This book has had a heavy influence on protestant thought about Catholics and Catholicism.

Blessings

Edited July 10, 2006 by thessalonian

[Laudate_Dominum]

thess,

could you write a tract about it when you're done for the reference section? I have one in there, but I spent about 5 minutes on it so it isn't that good. and I lost interest in protestant anti-catholicism years ago so I doubt I have the motivation to do anything with it.

cheers

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1021554' date='Jul 11 2006, 05:24 AM']
thess,

could you write a tract about it when you're done for the reference section? I have one in there, but I spent about 5 minutes on it so it isn't that good. and I lost interest in protestant anti-catholicism years ago so I doubt I have the motivation to do anything with it.

cheers
[/quote]

yes. That is one of my goals in doing this.

One thing I find a bit bothersome is the lack of Catholic Apologetics on this book on the net seeing as how it is still quite heavily read by Protestants.

I will add a couple more items to my thoughts.

1) Some Catholics, perhaps many in my view did behave badly. We need to be open to this and admit to it. I need to do further study on the St. Bart's massacre.

2) However we also need to realize that Sir. Thomas Moore and Robert Fischer were involved in many of these "persecutions" as representatives of the Government. Foxe callse Moore hateful, but considering the Church canonized him a saint it is my view that they must have seen him as doing his duty in line with Romans 13 which I think is key to the consideration of the book. Christ himself submitted to human authority to his death.

[thessalonian]

This is well worth reading:




[url="http://www.exclassics.com/protref/prot1.htm"]http://www.exclassics.com/protref/prot1.htm[/url]


Foxe names many "saintly" "martyrs". Two for instance were Ridley and Latimer. This is what the above site has to say about them.

[url="http://www.exclassics.com/protref/prot8.htm"]http://www.exclassics.com/protref/prot8.htm[/url]
LATIMER began his career, not only as a Catholic priest, but as a most furious assailant of the Reformation religion. By this he obtained from Henry VIII. the Bishopric of Worcester. He next changed his opinions; but he did not give up his Catholic Bishopric! Being suspected, he made abjuration of Protestantism; he thus kept his Bishopric for twenty years, while he inwardly reprobated the principles of the Church, and which Bishopric he held in virtue of an oath to oppose, to the utmost of his power, all dissenters from the Catholic Church; in the reigns of Henry and Edward he sent to the stake Catholics and Protestants for holding opinions, which he himself had before held openly, or that he held secretly at the time of his so sending them. Lastly, he was a chief both in the hands of the tyrannical Protector SOMERSET in that black and unnatural act of bringing his brother Lord THOMAS SOMERSET, to the block, RIDLEY had been a Catholic bishop in the reign of Henry VIII., when he sent to the stake Catholics who denied the King's supremacy, and Protestants, who denied transubstantiation. In Edward's reign he was a Protestant bishop, and denied transubstantiation himself; and then he sent to the stake Protestants who differed from the creed of CRANMER. He, in Edward's reign, got the Bishopric of London by a most roguish agreement to transfer the greater part of its possessions to the rapacious ministers and courtiers of that day. Lastly, he was guilty of high treason against the Queen, in openly (as we have seen in paragraph 220 ), and from the pulpit, exhorting the people to stand by the usurper Lady JANE; and thus endeavouring to produce civil war and the death of his sovereign, in order that he might, by treason, be enabled to keep that bishopric which he had obtained by simony, including perjury.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1021554' date='Jul 11 2006, 06:24 AM']
thess,

could you write a tract about it when you're done for the reference section? I have one in there, but I spent about 5 minutes on it so it isn't that good. and I lost interest in protestant anti-catholicism years ago so I doubt I have the motivation to do anything with it.

cheers
[/quote]
it looks like he already wrote one in post #5!! good work thess, ur my dawg <-------obligatory wink of approval

[thessalonian]

I would have some work to do on that one so don't put it in yet. It's a start.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1022971' date='Jul 12 2006, 11:24 AM']
it looks like he already wrote one in post #5!! good work thess, ur my dawg <-------obligatory wink of approval
[/quote]
true that. I agree. I just had the impression that thess was just getting warmed up.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1023018' date='Jul 12 2006, 01:56 PM']
true that. I agree. I just had the impression that thess was just getting warmed up.
[/quote]


Edited July 12, 2006 by thessalonian

[phatcatholic]

this entry will help to balance out the Book of Martyrs:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/341"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/341[/url]

there's blood on the hands of protestantism too.....

[thessalonian]

Letter from prot pastor:

Gerald:

I am glad to hear that you are reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs. It has been an endless source of blessing to countless numbers of people down through the centuries. I trust that it will be the same to you.

As you are reading on this subject, I am sure that you will find helpful Light From Old Times by J. C. Ryle (Charles Nolan, publisher). This will help you in understanding what were the doctrinal issues behind the burning of the martyrs during Bloody Mary's reign.

Gerald, I hope the real issue in all this will not be lost, which is namely this: How can a holy God receive defiled sinners to Himself with His full acceptance? Or to pose the critical question another way: How can sinful man be right with an infinitely holy God who cannot look upon sin with approval? What must I do to be saved?

Of course, this - and this alone - is the heart of the issue, regardless of how and why the martyrs were burned. The Bible is abundantly clear in its answer, an answer that is at great variance with the Roman Catholic Church. At the root of all this conflict is: What is the Gospel? What must one do to have complete forgiveness of sins forever? Behind all the conflict discussed in Foxe's Book of Martyrs was this all-important question. The answer of the Bible is: Salvation is: (1) by grace alone (2)through faith alone (3) in Christ alone. Sad to say, Rome has added to each of these three-grace, faith and Christ-and, thus, corrupted the purity of the only saving Gospel. This is the issue of all issues - the truth of salvation and eternal life.

So, as you search out Foxe's Book of Martyrs, be sure to, more importantly, read your Bible regarding God's provision of salvation and what is required of man to be saved.

The heart of the Gospel (meaning the good news of God's salvation of lost, undeserving sinners) is that Christ has died for sinners, bearing their sins, and offers salvation to all. This offer of salvation must be received by faith alone apart from any good works, church membership, mass, indulgences, hail Marys, last rites, etc. Again, salvation has been purchased as a free gift by Christ through His death and can be received exclusively by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Herein is the long controversy behind the conflict: What must I do to be saved?

My question for you is: Are you saved? Are you fully forgiven of all your sins forever? Are you absolutely sure that you are going to heaven when you die? I urge you, believe upon Christ alone and you will be saved.

If I can be of help in pointing you to the truth, please let me know.

My reply:


Steve,

Thanks for writing and also for your concern for my salvation. It is appreciated. I may get to the book you suggested but am well aware of the doctrinal issues of the time.

I do agree that salvation is the bottom line in all of this. What is the true Gospel? But when David raised the question: "What do Catholics have to say about all of this" and you responded that they will either ignore it or say they deserved it that raised another issue. The show was about Foxe's Book of Martyr's and the issue I am trying to raise is were these men really martyrs? Even if the protestant Gospel (whatever that is because there are versions and variations in it within the umbrella of Protestantism, from Armenians to Once Saved Always Saved) is what you believe, were these men truly saved Christians, i.e true martyrs? The book has the shock factor for Protestant of "they killed them for their religious beliefs. Those wicked Popes and Bishops. This proves their Gospel wrong and validates ours". But if Ridley and Latimer for instance were intimately involved in the slaying of Catholics, then those who believe it is wrong to kill someone for their religious beliefs have to take a look at these men also and say, Foxe is using men who weren't really martyr's for dubious purposes. Further, Foxe himself knew personally "good Queen Bess" who happened to have as a favorite method of execution, the ripping out of the bowls of Catholics and then leaving them to die. It is said to be a worse way to go then burning at the stake. Now perhaps there are some in the protestant camp who say "well they had it coming". I don't know. But where is Foxe's condemnation of "good queen bess"? That's a good question I think. He seems to like to do the finger pointing at Catholics, calling Thomas More a "hateful man". The fact is in Thomas More's Apology he tells of how grieved he was at having to Martyr heretics, but felt that it was a duty of a government official to uphold the laws of England. Laws that Foxe never protested when they were in favor of the Protestants. How do Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 play in all of this? What is the right understanding of those passages? Do they mean that if someone did not have the right Gospel and tried to spread it, they were doing evil and could be persecuted by the Government?

No, I think there is much more to be discussed about this book that you and David raised and some things you seem to refuse to consider. Was Foxe simply displaying and venting prejudice? Does the book create undue prejudice and friction toward Catholics, causing wars such as what has been going on in Ireland between Protestant's and Catholics. Does it truly represent what went on and Catholic beliefs or twist them to an advantage? The book is strengthening my faith but not in the manner that you would like it to.

In general it and my other studies show me two things, heresy was taken very seriously by BOTH protestants and Catholics of that time and the book is simply a red herring. Were those in it true martyrs? Only God knows I suppose but even if your Gospel is the right one, they may not have been different than the "martyr's" who flew a building in to the twin towers if they were not right with God themselves. I guess some Moslems get a lift out of them. Perhaps someone will right a book on them but it won't do much for me.

As for the Gospel, yes that is the most important thing in all of this and I find the books contention that the Catholic Church did not want the Gospel to be known and did all in their power to hide the scriptures and keep them from the people to be ridiculous and a gross oversimplification of the reasons why the Bible was not translated in to the English language in England, though it had been translated in to many other languages throughout Europe, including German (contrary to Martin Luther's contention), French, Italian, Spanish, etc. etc. If Rome was so against people having the Bible in the vernacular it seems odd that there were 3500 copies of the Bible in German before the printing press. These were hand copied versions in both high and low German. You would think the powerful, blood thirsty Vatican would have cut off the hands of those monks copying it in the vulgar tongue.

As for salvation, the Catholic Gospel is one of grace alone through faith in Christ. I know that if I set my eyes on him and take up my cross and follow him, allowing his grace to work in and through me (eph 3:20) all the days of my life, that I will be saved. I will keep my eyes fixed on him all the days of my life. That is not in opposition in the slightest to living out my Catholic faith. I have a relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and I read the Bible daily. That is what my Catholic faith teaches me. I've read the protestant pamphlets and heard the sermons. ( I attended a non-denominational and Baptist Church with my wife for a few years). I've heard the old "do you think your a good person" and "do you know that you are saved" routines many times. The first has it's point the second cannot explain to me how someone can "fall from grace" (gal 5) if they were never in grace. How one can be "severed from Christ" (gal 5) but never have been a part of him. How one can be "cut off" (Rom 11) when he was never attached? Coupled with the great multiplication of denominations, teaching contradictory things (blown about by every wind of doctrine) that has occurred since the deformation. (reformation). Men thinking they knew better than 1500 years of Church teaching. I found one part Foxe's book rather amusing where one of the martyr's (might have been Ridley) pooh poohed the idea that someone might think that they should stop using leaven in bread because of a particular passage in the Gospels. Well in fact the way I see it the Catholic priest he was debating had it right. There is in fact all kinds of beliefs in the Protestant Sola Scriptura system. I even know someone who believes (and her Church teaches) that there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth in heaven. I can't tell you how many variations of beliefs I run in to on the internet every week. Everyone pride fully speaks their "interpretation". It's sad really. I haven't found anyone yet who does not put leaven in bread but I wouldn't be surprised at all if I find some protestant Church that does preach that. It's not much more wacky than the Church of Christ saying that musical instruments are wrong or the house Church movement (some of whom I have dialogued with) saying buildings are idols and we should not worship in them because the Bible never talks about worshipping in a building.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply. If you think you have something I haven't heard that I need to by all means feel free. Be sure and read that link I sent you in the last email so that you get some balance on Foxe's book. I am going to do an article myself eventually to be posted on a friends website. There is allot for Catholics and Protestants to discuss with this book. But in not looking at all sides of the matter I fear what the book is really accomplishing is destroying communication between us, causing prejudice. It is my hope that the dialogue between Catholics will some day be more open, fair, and honest. By the way I am not one of those ignorant sort of Catholics who does not know why he believes what he does apart from the Bible.

God bless

[Justified Saint]

Sounds like your pastor friend's understanding of history is your basic cookie-cutter Protestant version. Nice response!