Talk:English Reformation

Section on religion before Reformation

It seemed to me that the article jumped into the events of Henry's reign without providing any context for the reader. I sought to fix this with this edit in which I added a section on late medieval religion. It summarized Catholic beliefs and practices in England, introducing early on concepts such as sacraments, the church's hierarchy and issues such as indulgences and purgatory. @Rjensen: reverted on the grounds that it was not needed and that it was "all theology and does not discuss role of saints, Mary, Latin & other key issues of Reformation." Ok, I can agree that the section could have discussed all that other stuff, but why is it it a bad thing to discuss theology in an article that is to a great extent about theology? Ltwin (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

the background theology section is not needed--medieval theology has its own articles that explain the issues much better than a couple too-short paragraphs can do. This article is for readers interested in the Reformation, but it does not focus on the medieval practices that were central to the Reformers. The role of the pope, how & who appoints bishops, of saints & Mary, good works vs faith, Bible reading & English issue (very few people could read a Latin bible). etc etc Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree that a background theology section is not needed, but I agree that the section deleted was not helpful, as it did not explain what was unacceptable to the reformers. Most of the first 4 paragraphs in the 'Theological radicalism' section would be better as a background section. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so unsympathetic - the role of the pope is sort-of covered, & while many of the issues Rjensen mentions were useful for propaganda purposes, ultimately the reformers were driven by harder theological issues. I don't think the first 4 paragraphs in the 'Theological radicalism' section would be better - that describes the early reformists (fairly few in number), whereas what is I think needed here is some summary of the character of the Catholicism of the day. It would be good to have a short agreed section here. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the information on Lollardy could be included in this section since it is background to the actual Reformation and illustrates earlier critiques of Catholicism. @Dudley Miles:, I was trying to create a section that described what was eventually being changed and the 7 sacraments, transusbstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the beliefs connected to purgatory were all things that the Reformation changed. We could make it more explicit that these beliefs came under attack during the Reformation. And we could of course cover the topics Rjensen mentioned. Ltwin (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and Ltwin, you should have used British spelling. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Oversight on my part. Ltwin (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I would emphasize divisive issues: salvation by grace vs good works, theology of Purgatory, the issue of $$ for indulgences & prayers for the dead, the role of pope as beholden to non-English powers, lack of Bible reading and esp prayers to saints and to Mary as key grievances that animated the grass roots. Lollardy fits in there Rjensen (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We're talking about England here, not Germany. The grass roots weren't much agitated; this was very much a top-down thing. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

--the hatreds of the Reformation years lasted well into the 19th century in terms of anti-Catholicism. In 16th century Iconoclasm was quite popular and energized people who did not necessarily debate theological niceties. see Margaret Aston, England's Iconoclasts: Volume I: Laws Against Images (1988) Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The "hatreds" essentially emerged after the Reformation. As in Germany, the evidence suggests iconoclasm was unpopular with more people than liked it, depending on the degree, but Calvinists liked it, and it was mandated from above, as the book no doubt shows. The most drastic English iconoclasm took place a century later, in the Civil War and under the Commonwealth. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism was a political mainstay and indeed got worse and worse in 17th and 18th centuries until the stunning crisis in Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. In his seminal study Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" and the Elect Nation (1963), William Haller asserted that anti-Catholicism was a "functional tool" in Elizabethan state formation. Anne McLaren agrees with Haller, (in American Historical Review June 2002, pp 739-767) & shows how Elizabeth used it to delegitimize Mary Q of Scots among the public. Lots of Catholic plots were stressed in 16th century-- some of them real. Add in iconoclasm & I see lots of evidence of popular Reformation activity--it started out at top and leaders made great efforts to spread it down. Rjensen (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so all after the English Reformation, which was essentially complete by 1559, as per the article & normal usage of the term. Using "popular" and "the public" is tricky, as a large part of the Reformation was a successful effort to subdue and marginalize those who did not accept it, many of whom lived in the sticks anyway. And the turning-point for anti-Catholicism was the French Revolution, when the Establishment found a new bogey-man, and refugee or martyred French priests etc became objects of general sympathy with remarkable rapidity. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Notes/References/Further reading

All these end sections have been in a mess for years. "Further reading" was wrongly placed first after the notes/citations section, & the proper distinctions between sources used and those not have not been observed. There are now notes like "84 MacCulloch, p. 384ff", when there are 4 works by Diarmaid MacCulloch in "Further reading" but none in the oddly-named sections where other works like Haigh are gathered. In this case it seems likely from the page numbers that his "Cramner" is meant. There are similar problems with "Duffy" refs, and others. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Johnbod. Also, there are several footnotes that simply make unsupported statements, like #22, "After prolonged debate in the House of Commons...", and #26, " Cranmer, in a letter, describes it as a divorce...", without actually citing a reliable source. I will try to improve citations if I own the work mentioned. Ltwin (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Another problematic reference I just noticed is currently at number 81: "Aston 1993; Loach 1999, p. 187; Hearn 1995, pp. 75–76". Ltwin (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Elizabethan Settlement section

According to Wikipedia:Summary style, we should be summarizing topics that have their own articles. In the case of the Elizabethan Settlement, we have Elizabethan Religious Settlement which is now a fully developed article that was just promoted to Good Article status. If there are no objections, I will work to summarize this section based on that article. This will help reduce the size of this article and could improve overall quality since the current section has some issues. Ltwin (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CE

Removed ref=harv from References, redundant now, auto edded, cite scanned, no reference found for cite 283 (Bremer 2009). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Appears to be Bremer, Francis J. (2009). Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974087-1.. Edit: nevermind, already fixed. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm surprised that a book on Puritanism is a slim volume, it should be a weighty tome. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Well, it is advertised as a very short introduction... :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence

• ...the Church of England broke away from the authority of the papals in the Holy See.

This seems a strange way of referring to the pope. I'd change it, but it might have a special meaning I'm not aware of. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! Just say "the papacy" or something. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorted - this idiot. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Westminster-Abbey.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)