|
|
 |
Reply
| | | From: Sleepy Elf (Original Message) | Sent: 11/21/2002 12:37 PM |
| I have been re-reading a book I have about Charles II and I would like to know the groups views on whether you think his supposed conversion ever took place. I must admit, Im still a doubter about this, seeing as the people present at the time had their own reasons for wanting the conversion to take place (Louise de Keroualle as it was her "job" off Louis and James for his concern for his brothers soul). Its said he did refuse the sacrament of the Church of England, but after 4 days of fever I think religeous people wouldnt know what they were doing, let alone Charles who was never into the Church anyway. Unless he thought it better to keep his promise to Louis and convert on his deathbed..but in such deliarium would he have been able to make such a decision? |
|
 First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
well, I am of the opinion that no deathbed conversion was necessary b/c CII was always a RC; all the Stuarts in England paid lip-service to the Church of England; JI was raised in Scotland & his mother, MQoS was certainly RC -- much to the shock & dismay of John Calvin; CI was certainly RC as was his wife, a French RC, who took the children to France; CII & JII were both RC; so from the death of EI to the reign of W&M, England was ruled by RCs; especially CI -- who would you choose if your choice was the pope or the Puritans? & yes, JI endorsed the translation of the Bible which still bears his name, but his personal faith was RC; remember HVIII always referred to himself as the Supreme Head of the Church IN England, not OF; & HVIII was given the title, Defender of the Faith, still claimed by the British monarchs, for his writings against Martin Luther (one of my personal heroes); the Reformation for HVIII was political not religious; |
|
Reply
| |
Scholastica
I agree that the Reformation was definatley political and not religeous (Henry was Catholic through and through and all the doctrines of the C of E at that time were identical to the Catholic church..except for who was the head of the Church, we know Henry didnt really understand protestantism...but it used a purpose for him,). I know Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic yet didnt have much influence on James as he was brought up by presbytarians and if the rumour about James being a Catholic as Anne was..then he wasnt the most popular guy amongst Catholics as his refusal to much ease the pressure on Catholics led in part to the Gunpowder Plot., Charles I was, as was Henrietta Maria..yet the irony is..although Charles II may have given in, James II himself upset his mother greatly by sticking faithful to the C of E whilst in France....whod have thought the trouble hed cause himself in future by changing that view?
On a personal note in response to your question about whether Id prefer the Pope or Puritans..Id stick with Rome....I didnt like the Methodist church (which I was forced to on a Sunday), preferring the C of E (I went to C of E schools) and now I prefer the Catholic faith..its personal choice..but Im not fanatical..In fact I think out of all people Erasmus talked most sense!!! Prebytariansim does nothing for me. I dont go to church though..and I think that most of the trouble in the past, as most of the trouble today use religon as an excuse.......
|
|
Reply
| | | From: karrie | Sent: 11/22/2002 3:36 PM |
Perhaps if the established church had listened to Erasmus in the first place when he described the clergy as "braying donkeys" (I think it was Erasmus but the meanings the same) then things may have been very different. Unfortunately it buried its head in the sand and by the time they realised that they had to do something at the Council of Trent and provide a Counter-Reformation and actually reform the church of Rome from within, it was way too late. Karrie
|
|
Reply
| |
Charles II had to sign & agree to uphold the Covenant before the Scots would accept him as their king or lift a finger to assist him in regaining the English throne, but the general feeling was that it was a political expediency & certainly not out of any desire to embrace Presbyterianism. I think Charles was simply quietly agnostic & didn't care one way or the other about the religious question except if it affected his kingship; hence the anti-Catholic legislation which deprived James II of office. |
|
Reply
| |
all good points; I think the Stuarts did what they had to about religion, except for CI; JI action against the conspirators of the Gunpowder Plot is justified/understandable b/c attempting to blow up Parliament & the king are acts of treason -- a political issue; plus JI had only come down from Scotland 2 years before; he was trying to be accepted by the people of England, there was an attempt on his life, he had to act strongly; & yeah, JII is a bit tricky (what is it w/the James?) though I think we are in agreement that he was RC by 1685 when he ascended the throne . . . though he tried to keep it hidden but did not do a good job; & as Karrie points out, a lot of this could have been avoided if Rome had listened to Martin Luther (& others before him); the whole idea, as we all know, was to reform the church, not create a new church; & the church certainly needed reform; & Sleepy Elf, in response to your personal remarks, I am a very lapsed RC (13years of RC schools); I gave Lutheranism a try but still too RC for me; I wrote a paper in grad school about the effect of Methodism on the social calendar of the common people; now, I believe we all come from a source & we all return to that source; one lives one's life as environment & people affect one; one tries one's . . . that is all anyone can do; if one finds solace in organised religion, go for it; rather wishy-washy, but it works for me; |
|
Reply
| |
I agree if the Church had reformed even slightly, a lot of this could have been avoided, if they allowed a divorce in Henrys case, the Church of England may never have been. The people of England though didn’t turn from Catholicism as they didn’t like or agree with it anymore…but from fear of persecution if they didn’t�?to turn the vast majority of people in this country from staunch Catholics led by a staunch Catholic into staunch Protestants in a generation was pretty good going anyone must admit…�?
James I, I think was in a bit of a pickle. Like Scholastica says he had just come into England from Scotland after surviving numerous assassination attempts there and was trying to win over the people here. The Queen was a secret Catholic..and whether of not James was, as he didn’t give the Catholics more power the Gunpowder Plot occurred..if he had, chances are an even bigger Gunpowder Plot would have occurred!!! I suppose he had to make the best of a bad job. The big difference though between James I and Charles II and Charles I, and James II is that although they all believed in The Divine Right of Kings, James I and Charles II were shrewd enough not to impose unpopular wills on the people, whereas Charles I and James II did push through or tried to push through what they believed in regardless of the peoples views because “THEY WERE THE KING AND THEREFORE MUST BE OBEYED”�?.OK in Edward I’s reign…but they couldn’t get away with it in more modern times…�?BR>Scholastica..I think years in schools of any denomination are enough to drive you away from church. Kids and Churches as a rule don’t mix..I hated going, it was so boring. I preferred going to the C of E church with school rather than the Methodist church with my grandparents, but I must admit, that was more due to the fact that the church was 800 years old and I loved the atmosphere and history of the place and love to hear of the saints..rather than any great interest in what the vicar was saying! :)
|
|
Reply
| |
Sleepy Elf, totally agree w/your points about Divine Rights of Kings & how different monarchs dealt w/the idea; I think the idea gets more push from RC than from Protestants; CI & JII just didn't get it; silly boys; |
|
|
First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to The Stuarts
