Church of England (was Digest Number 3355)
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/27/03 6:15:51 AM, jana@... writes:
<< He broke the centralized and by that time extremely corrupt power
structure of the Church in England and transformed it so that the
resources were redistributed within country. This is nuts?
"Redistributed"? Given to his friends and cronies. Sold and spent.
That is nuts, yes.
<<And, I don't believe he could have done if the time for change
wasn't ripe with the populace.>>>
Maybe reading again, or more, about that whole period, up through the end of
the reign of James at LEAST would help you see that things were NOT "ripe"
for change. And "...but breaking up the power
of the Catholic church seemed to be a good thing in the long run for
old England and for us by extension..." ?
That didn't create religious freedom in England at all, not whatsoever.
Sandra
<< He broke the centralized and by that time extremely corrupt power
structure of the Church in England and transformed it so that the
resources were redistributed within country. This is nuts?
>>You meant Catholics in England, not Church of England, right?
"Redistributed"? Given to his friends and cronies. Sold and spent.
That is nuts, yes.
<<And, I don't believe he could have done if the time for change
wasn't ripe with the populace.>>>
Maybe reading again, or more, about that whole period, up through the end of
the reign of James at LEAST would help you see that things were NOT "ripe"
for change. And "...but breaking up the power
of the Catholic church seemed to be a good thing in the long run for
old England and for us by extension..." ?
That didn't create religious freedom in England at all, not whatsoever.
Sandra
Peggy
Sandra Dodd wrote:
"schoolteacherish". Perhaps your emphasis was religious and mine was
economic, in my mind they are inextricably intertwined.
And "...but breaking up the power
class. The use of money as how we understand money today, not as it was
in the times when people truly believed that all life was transitory and
simply preparation for life after death. *That* had changed in the minds
of the populace or they wouldn't have let Henry do it.
Peggy
>Yeah, sorry, Catholic...
> << He broke the centralized and by that time extremely corrupt power
> structure of the Church in England and transformed it so that the
> resources were redistributed within country. This is nuts?
> >>
>
> You meant Catholics in England, not Church of England, right?
>It wasn't exactly sitting in the hands of the peasants before that!
> "Redistributed"? Given to his friends and cronies. Sold and spent.
>
> That is nuts, yes.
>Why is is necessary to say things in this insulting way? That is so
> <<And, I don't believe he could have done if the time for change
> wasn't ripe with the populace.>>>
>
> Maybe reading again, or more, about that whole period, up through the end of
> the reign of James at LEAST would help you see that things were NOT "ripe"
> for change.
"schoolteacherish". Perhaps your emphasis was religious and mine was
economic, in my mind they are inextricably intertwined.
And "...but breaking up the power
> of the Catholic church seemed to be a good thing in the long run forNo, it didn't. I meant the economics of it. The rise of the middle
> old England and for us by extension..." ?
>
> That didn't create religious freedom in England at all, not whatsoever.
class. The use of money as how we understand money today, not as it was
in the times when people truly believed that all life was transitory and
simply preparation for life after death. *That* had changed in the minds
of the populace or they wouldn't have let Henry do it.
Peggy
coyote's corner
Hi,
In a message dated 4/27/03 6:15:51 AM, jana@... writes: I didn't write this. That came from someone else.
<< He broke the centralized and by that time extremely corrupt power
structure of the Church in England and transformed it so that the
resources were redistributed within country. This is nuts?
"Redistributed"? Given to his friends and cronies. Sold and spent.
That is nuts, yes.
<<And, I don't believe he could have done if the time for change
wasn't ripe with the populace.>>>
Maybe reading again, or more, about that whole period, up through the end of
the reign of James at LEAST would help you see that things were NOT "ripe"
for change. And "...but breaking up the power
of the Catholic church seemed to be a good thing in the long run for
old England and for us by extension..." ?
That didn't create religious freedom in England at all, not whatsoever.
Sandra
I agree with you Sandra.
Janis
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 4/27/03 6:15:51 AM, jana@... writes: I didn't write this. That came from someone else.
<< He broke the centralized and by that time extremely corrupt power
structure of the Church in England and transformed it so that the
resources were redistributed within country. This is nuts?
>>You meant Catholics in England, not Church of England, right?
"Redistributed"? Given to his friends and cronies. Sold and spent.
That is nuts, yes.
<<And, I don't believe he could have done if the time for change
wasn't ripe with the populace.>>>
Maybe reading again, or more, about that whole period, up through the end of
the reign of James at LEAST would help you see that things were NOT "ripe"
for change. And "...but breaking up the power
of the Catholic church seemed to be a good thing in the long run for
old England and for us by extension..." ?
That didn't create religious freedom in England at all, not whatsoever.
Sandra
I agree with you Sandra.
Janis
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/27/03 1:50:50 PM, durrell@... writes:
<< > "Redistributed"? Given to his friends and cronies. Sold and spent.
It was possible (and common) for people to enter monastic life. Many middle
class families had at least one child become a priest or nun, which saved the
families money and was a contribution to the religion they believed in.
Henry's team closed the monasteries, confiscated the land and buildings and
they became private property.
There were some archbishops who had nice homes and those were transferred to
secular guys' hands.
-=-Why is is necessary to say things in this insulting way? That is so
"schoolteacherish". Perhaps your emphasis was religious and mine was
economic, in my mind they are inextricably intertwined.-=-
You made a claim that isn't borne out by what I've read. <<> <<And, I don't
believe he could have done if the time for change wasn't ripe with the
populace.>>>>>
The populace wasn't consulted. The populace was Catholic, and lots of them
were executed. Their "change" wasn't from Catholicism to Protestantism. It
was that Henry dragged the whole country into excommunication. Nobody was
ripe for excommunication, and few were ripe for martyrdom, but that's what
they got.
<<Why is is necessary to say things in this insulting way? That is so
"schoolteacherish". >>
Which is more insulting, the fair suggestion that maybe you didn't read
enough, or the low blow of calling it "teacherish"?
<No, it didn't. I meant the economics of it. The rise of the middle
class. >>
The rise of the middle class way pre-dates Henry VIII.
<<The use of money as how we understand money today, not as it was
in the times when people truly believed that all life was transitory and
simply preparation for life after death. >>
The people in England were Catholic. What percentage of them do you think
didn't care about their souls and the afterlife?
<<*That* had changed in the minds
of the populace or they wouldn't have let Henry do it.>>
Some tried to stop him. They didn't "let him." He was executing his own
wives. Were others feeling much braver and safer?
I don't want to turn this into a yucky fight, and if we were in person there
would be indications of whether you were really angry or not, but did you
learn this stuff in an economics class or a history class or something? The
idea that England was ripe for change and somehow some critical mass of them
weren't concerned with the afterlife? Because it's like a sci-fi/fantasy
version of the 1500s compared to what I've read of the beliefs and culture of
people in those days, and even for a hundred years later.
There's a really accessible book, kind of anthropological, called The
Elizabethan World Picture, and going by references from all kinds of fields
(religion, ethics, law, language, I don't know what all) they laid out the
cosmology of where people saw themselves in the universe, and how they felt
"fairness" worked. I gave away my last copy a couple of years ago and
haven't picked up another. It's a little paperback. It's worth a glance
through if you see it somewhere.
This conversation has evolved from me quoting an English comedian to
reference a joke.
Sandra
<< > "Redistributed"? Given to his friends and cronies. Sold and spent.
><<It wasn't exactly sitting in the hands of the peasants before that! >>
> That is nuts, yes.
It was possible (and common) for people to enter monastic life. Many middle
class families had at least one child become a priest or nun, which saved the
families money and was a contribution to the religion they believed in.
Henry's team closed the monasteries, confiscated the land and buildings and
they became private property.
There were some archbishops who had nice homes and those were transferred to
secular guys' hands.
-=-Why is is necessary to say things in this insulting way? That is so
"schoolteacherish". Perhaps your emphasis was religious and mine was
economic, in my mind they are inextricably intertwined.-=-
You made a claim that isn't borne out by what I've read. <<> <<And, I don't
believe he could have done if the time for change wasn't ripe with the
populace.>>>>>
The populace wasn't consulted. The populace was Catholic, and lots of them
were executed. Their "change" wasn't from Catholicism to Protestantism. It
was that Henry dragged the whole country into excommunication. Nobody was
ripe for excommunication, and few were ripe for martyrdom, but that's what
they got.
<<Why is is necessary to say things in this insulting way? That is so
"schoolteacherish". >>
Which is more insulting, the fair suggestion that maybe you didn't read
enough, or the low blow of calling it "teacherish"?
<No, it didn't. I meant the economics of it. The rise of the middle
class. >>
The rise of the middle class way pre-dates Henry VIII.
<<The use of money as how we understand money today, not as it was
in the times when people truly believed that all life was transitory and
simply preparation for life after death. >>
The people in England were Catholic. What percentage of them do you think
didn't care about their souls and the afterlife?
<<*That* had changed in the minds
of the populace or they wouldn't have let Henry do it.>>
Some tried to stop him. They didn't "let him." He was executing his own
wives. Were others feeling much braver and safer?
I don't want to turn this into a yucky fight, and if we were in person there
would be indications of whether you were really angry or not, but did you
learn this stuff in an economics class or a history class or something? The
idea that England was ripe for change and somehow some critical mass of them
weren't concerned with the afterlife? Because it's like a sci-fi/fantasy
version of the 1500s compared to what I've read of the beliefs and culture of
people in those days, and even for a hundred years later.
There's a really accessible book, kind of anthropological, called The
Elizabethan World Picture, and going by references from all kinds of fields
(religion, ethics, law, language, I don't know what all) they laid out the
cosmology of where people saw themselves in the universe, and how they felt
"fairness" worked. I gave away my last copy a couple of years ago and
haven't picked up another. It's a little paperback. It's worth a glance
through if you see it somewhere.
This conversation has evolved from me quoting an English comedian to
reference a joke.
Sandra
[email protected]
<< In a message dated 4/27/03 6:15:51 AM, jana@... writes: I
didn't write this. That came from someone else. >>
Sorry. It's an automatic quoting format the mail program does and I forget
to double check if the words came from the post from which I lifted them.
didn't write this. That came from someone else. >>
Sorry. It's an automatic quoting format the mail program does and I forget
to double check if the words came from the post from which I lifted them.
coyote's corner
okay.
I thought it may be something like that, but the historian in me reared it's head......
BTW..great answer.
Thanks,
janis
I thought it may be something like that, but the historian in me reared it's head......
BTW..great answer.
Thanks,
janis
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Church of England (was Digest Number 3355)
<< In a message dated 4/27/03 6:15:51 AM, jana@... writes: I
didn't write this. That came from someone else. >>
Sorry. It's an automatic quoting format the mail program does and I forget
to double check if the words came from the post from which I lifted them.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Peggy
Sandra Dodd wrote:
but I will say that wasn't what I said. It wasn't a simple time and
the forces: economic, religious, and secular, that shaped the
changes were complex. Let's just say the route to the afterlife
wasn't quite so clear cut as it had been in the past and the turmoil
at the highest levels of the Church, in Rome and other "Romes" and
with various popes, had contributed to an atmosphere where
questioning the route to faith was not only possible but extremely
likely. Without that kind of background, I doubt very much that
Henry would have successfully kicked out the papal authority.
No worries,
Peggy
> I don't want to turn this into a yucky fight, and if we were in person thereI don't feel this is the place for an in-depth discussion on this,
> would be indications of whether you were really angry or not, but did you
> learn this stuff in an economics class or a history class or something? The
> idea that England was ripe for change and somehow some critical mass of them
> weren't concerned with the afterlife? Because it's like a sci-fi/fantasy
> version of the 1500s compared to what I've read of the beliefs and culture of
> people in those days, and even for a hundred years later.
but I will say that wasn't what I said. It wasn't a simple time and
the forces: economic, religious, and secular, that shaped the
changes were complex. Let's just say the route to the afterlife
wasn't quite so clear cut as it had been in the past and the turmoil
at the highest levels of the Church, in Rome and other "Romes" and
with various popes, had contributed to an atmosphere where
questioning the route to faith was not only possible but extremely
likely. Without that kind of background, I doubt very much that
Henry would have successfully kicked out the papal authority.
> There's a really accessible book, kind of anthropological, called TheThanks for the suggestion.
> Elizabethan World Picture, and going by references from all kinds of fields
> (religion, ethics, law, language, I don't know what all) they laid out the
> cosmology of where people saw themselves in the universe, and how they felt
> "fairness" worked. I gave away my last copy a couple of years ago and
> haven't picked up another. It's a little paperback. It's worth a glance
> through if you see it somewhere.
No worries,
Peggy