The Archbishop of Canterbury to apologize for violence during the Reformation

[felixthecar]

www.christiantoday.com/article/archbishop.of.canterbury.to.express.remorse.over.reformation.violence/103903.htm

I don't understand the point of this at all. As an Anglican, I don't feel the Pope should apologize for the Inquisition, or the Marian burnings at the stake. After all, it was 500 years ago, what difference does an apology make?

I think it's an absurd and empty gesture, unless he was alive 500 years ago and participated in the violence which is obviously not the case.

Bonkers - like you said it's 500 years ago and everyone involved is long since dead!

There's probably some things he could apologise for that are far more relevant.

Bizarre I don't get this current trend for apologising for ancient history! It's meaningless and achieves nothing.

What is he actually apologising for? What is the Anglican church specifically supposed to have done that needs to be apologised for?

Modern absurdity. I married in the CofE but I really despair of the leadership.

I don't this. He didn't do it, the people who did probably wouldn't think they have anything to apologise for, so it's pointless.

I guess maybe torturing and burning all those heretics Harriet. Or several hundred years of female oppression? Supporting slavery? Justifying the annexation of land and peoples at the time of empire on religious grounds?

So, once you start apologising for historical events, where do you stop. And what difference does it make?

I guess maybe torturing and burning all those heretics Harriet.

BarbarianMum, how many heretics did the Church of England torture and burn?

The apology is specifically related to the Reformation, not the other issues you mention.

It seems like a meaningless gesture, given that anyone involved in any violence around the Reformation died centuries ago.

Utterly bogus.

The morals of 500 years ago are different to today. What is more, back then, the King had absolute power, unlike today.

Anglicanism, or Protestantism, comes from Italy, where some worshippers wanted a "pared down church" or "protest" church. King Henry the Eighth pinched the idea to suit his own ends, his absolute power over people. That he wanted a divorce was just a handy excuse, and anyway, some historians theorise that he never truly gave up Catholicism in his heart at all. He was merely a control freak tyrant.

So crack on Archbishop, apologise for the violence that founded the reason you are in Lambeth Palace today. Utterly bizarre.

I guess maybe torturing and burning all those heretics Harriet.

There was shed loads of burning and torture on both sides. Sometimes they were even lashing protestants and Catholics a burning them in the same pyre for opposite beliefs.

It was - as often is the case - politics masquerading as religion.

There was shed loads of burning and torture on both sides.

Very few 'heretics' were burned under the authority of the Church of England. Not none, but very few, compared with other places and other denominations.

Others were executed under criminal law, usually because they'd also been found guilty of treason (rightly or wrongly), but that was law passed by Parliament, and the Archbishop doesn't speak for Parliament.

Henry VIII burnt, exeuted (by other means) and tortured a goodly number of people in the name of the Church of England. V difficult to remain within the church's teaching when your spiritual father keeps changing his mind. And later the persecution of Catholics under James II (I think, one after Elizabeth I).

Mary burned a fair few too.

Surely if he was really sorry for the reformation he would just return the CofE to the authority of Rome?

James II was a Catholic, Barbarianmum, think you mean James I...

I don't think the Archbishop will be apologising for the deaths due to treason or will he?!

Nothing would surprise nowadays.