Over on the Envoy Forums, someone said Reformer Thomas Cranmer "...died a martyr, burned at the stake for heresy by Bloody Mary after England was restored to the R. Catholic Church. Accounts say that he put his right hand into the fire first since it was by this "offending" hand that he had written renunciations of his Protestant faith, which renunciations he again rennounced prior to being executed."
Likewise, in the same discussion, Catholic apologist Art Sippo took a stab (so to speak) at describing Thomas Cranmer:
"Cranmer was a smarmy four-flusher who had married the niece of the first Lutheran 'heretic' Osiander when he was studying in Germany. he never told Henry VIII and the poor woman lived in semi-seclusion. His views were heterodox long before he was the Archbishop of Canterbury. All one needs to do is read his views on the Eucharist immediately after Henry's death to see that he was not a functional Catholic."
"He was duly convicted of heresy, schism, and apostasy by a Church court, turned over to the secular arm and executed as a criminal. There is absolutely no doubt that he was guilty as charged and in fact guilty of far more than that of which he was convicted. Heresy, schism, and apostasy were captial crimes. He knew that. He committed them openly and with contempt for the Church. He knew the penalties and he still persisted in his course of action. He got what deserved. A Catholic cannot be a 'martyr' to a false religion to which he has apostatized."
"In the words of that great western philosopher Barretta: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Don't do it!" Cranmer knew what the penalty was and he still broke the law openly and willngly. Sorry. No sympathy from me. Besides, he presided over the torture deaths of numerous Catholics who refused to go along with his heterodoxy. This included not only the 83 Canonized Martyrs, but the many monks and nuns, lay people, and victims of the repression of the Western Rebellion. The total goes into the thousands. This was a case of the chickens coming home to roost.Cranmer was guilty. He was convicted. The appropriate sentence was carried out according to the law. End of story. Sic semper tyrannus"
Source: Envoy Forums
I tell you what, if the Roman Catholic Church ever needed a new inquisitor.... I know who should send a resume.
Posts
8 comments:
And if the Protestant world ever needed a new Geneva...
I like how after exulting in Cramner's violent death the RCC apologist adds "Sic semper tyrannus." Yea, verily, let it be done so always to tyrants including (and especially) the pope.
This is truly amazing. When a topic comes up such as Luther and the peasants revolt or Calvin and Servetus, Roman Catholics are quick to rail against the supposed injustice of it all. What a double standard Mr. Sippo has set up for himself. I wonder how many of the Catholics who frequent this blog agree with Mr. Sippo's diatribe?
In any case I find the following quotes from Art's very own blog to highlight his hypocrisy:
"Another example is John Calvin's claim that all human beings are "totally depraved". In reality, we all have our faults, but "total depravity" overstates the condition of mankind. But go back and check out how M. Calvin treated his opponents (e.g., Bolsec, Servetus, and Castellio)." Art of Attack, Thursday, June 7, 2007, "Sippo Lays Down the Law"
"The Nazi's LOVED Martin Luther. He was to them a great German hero who resisted the corrupting influence of non-Germanic outsiders like the Pope and the Southern European non-Aryan masses. Catholicism was to them an effeminate religion. Luther with his boldness and his support of unrestricted force (including rape, torture, mutilation, and execution) by the German Princes against the peasantry was their kind of guy. Luther was also a vituperate anti-Semite and recommended putting Jews to the sword in some of his writings. From a Nazi perspective, what's not to love?" Art of Attack, Tuesday, July 3, 2007, "Springtime for Luther and Germany"
Now compare the preceding quotes with Mr. Sippo's most current words:
"He was duly convicted of heresy, schism, and apostasy by a Church court, turned over to the secular arm and executed as a criminal . . ."
"He got what deserved . . ."
Yes, I noticed that too. So, it's okay for Sippo to criticize Calvin's execution of Servetus, but Cranmer's execution is altogether different.
Machaira,
I'm glad you filled in the blanks, and noted the double standard. I always assume Sippo's words convey the problem without me stating it overtly.
What I'm going to do, is post your evaluation in the blog post itself (of course, linking to you and your blog).
Blessings!
James
like mother like daughter, machaira.
Thanks James. Glad I could help.
What frustrates me is that Protestant bloggers talk about Sippo as if he is representative of Catholics, but you know very well that he is not. You know about the great scholarship of Jared Wicks, John O'Malley, Eamon Duffy, Carlos Eire, etc., etc., etc.
Look, as a Catholic, I am so pleased that you all are taking on these hacks, posing as the great defenders of the Catholic faith. But please, PLEASE, don't fail to recognize that serious Catholic scholars don't take these guys seriously at all.
Post a Comment