minervacasterly

[minervacasterly]

On Saturday June the 19th 1566, James VI of Scotland and I of England was born on Edinburgh Castle to Mary, Queen of Scots and Henry Stewart aka Lord Darnley.

Mary was assisted by her women and her midwives. The Earl of Mar became the Prince's guardian the following year. After his mother's forced abdication, he had various regents and tutors who made sure he grew to be the opposite of his mother and molded him into the King they wished him to be. His parents marriage made Elizabeth I incredibly angry since she had planned to marry Mary Stewart to her favorite, Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester. However some historians believe that she didn't mean it and she was just doing it to stall Mary's marriage plans. Elizabeth never named an heir and Mary, Queen of Scots had often sent her envoys to try and convince Elizabeth that she was a better candidate than the others, including the Grey sisters; but Elizabeth always gave vague answers saying neither yes or no. Mary's marriage to Henry was off to a bad start. Henry's mother was a cunning and ambitious woman, and also deeply devoted to her eldest son. Out of all the Tudor girls, perhaps it was Margaret Douglas who took the most after their great ancestress, Margaret Beaufort Countess of Richmond. Mary as Queen Regnant did not want to give too much power to Lord Darnley and she was right in doing this since she was the one wearing the crown. She gave him the title of King Consort, and as such he became the most powerful man in Scotland but he was not above the Queen. This upset him immensely. Their son's birth was supposed to make things better but it sadly did not.

After Elizabeth I's death, James became King of England, on his joint coronation with his wife, Anne of Denmark, he united both Crowns of England and Scotland.

For further reading I recommend Tudors vs Stewarts: The Fatal Inheritance of Mary, Queen of Scots by Linda Porter, Tudor by Leanda de Lisle, and Mary, Queen of Scots by Antonia Fraser.

[minervacasterly]

16 – 20 June 1522: On June 16th, the terms of the treaty between Spain, the Holy Roman Empire and England were published. Three days later on the 19th, the two monarchs signed another treaty at Windsor.

“This one was to remain secret” Patrick William writes in his biography on Katherine of Aragon, “for it committed them to the marriage of Charles to Princess Mary within eight years.” This treaty Linda Porter also explains in her respective biography on Mary I, was one that stipulated that if this marriage ever came to be –and if Henry and Katherine had no sons- then the young couple’s eldest son would inherit Henry VIII’s crowns, thus becoming King of England and King of France (in theory). Secondly, since he and Mary were related in the second degree of affinity, her father and betrothed would seek a special dispensation from the pope. And lastly her dowry and Charles’ promise that he would not marry anyone else while he waited for Mary to become twelve. The day after on the twentieth, Wolsey convened a legatine court and asked the two monarchs to reaffirm their agreements of the secret treaty they had signed the day before. The event had many important witnesses, among them Henry Count of Nassau, Imperial Chancellor Gattinara, Bishop of Palencia Pedro Ruiz de la Mota, Bishop of Durhma Thomas Ruthall, the Earls of Shrewsbury and Worcester –George Talbot and Charles Percy-, the Bishop of London Cuthbert Tunstall, and Sir Thomas Boleyn.

Of course we know how this thing turned out. Though Mary was also his first cousin, Charles married the beautiful Isabella of Portugal instead because she was from the Iberian Peninsula, she knew more about Spain than Charles did when he inherited the crowns of Aragon and Castile on his grandfather (Ferdinand II’s) death and his mother’s continuing house-arrest. Mary, despite pop so called historians who love to portray her as the Spanish Tudor, was English. No English monarch had such thing as “pure Englishness”. That is a myth boosted by good old nationalism by the Victorians and keeps being perpetuated in films and English/American TV. Mary as her father had mixed ancestry and though she knew Spanish “the princess” writes Porter “does not seem to have spoken it well and she did not use it in public”. In fact, when she married her cousin’s son many decades later, it was noted that she could understand it very well but she did not speak it so well. Mary excelled in dance, at age four she “could play the virginals and she later learned the lute and the regal” and she also excelled at the school room. She showed these skills to Charles when the two of them met and danced for him and his entourage, also impressing them with her musical skills.

With this mind, it is clearer why Charles chose Isabella over beauty. It wasn’t just the matter over dowry or age (though they certainly influenced Charles’ decision) but the fact that Charles needed a bride that could please his country. Mary was English through and through. Isabella was Portuguese that is true, but being from the same Peninsula, she was more familiar with Spanish customs and that really helped Charles whom people still saw as foreign. So much that when he was absent he left Isabella in charge, and she became very loved by her adoptive country, and their son Philip, Prince of Asturias, future Philip II, became very loved and accepted as her mother when he became King.

It is hard to know what Mary thought when she found out that her cousin had chosen someone else. Probably she thought nothing about it since she was a very precocious girl who caught on quickly. But as she got older she might have regretted not having a successful engagement, since her father would never let her marry, even after he finally had his golden boy, because to him –even if she had been ‘good’ to him, or his ministers, or the Protestant faction, or whoever was on his side- she would always be a threat because of who her mother had been.

[minervacasterly]

Henry VII of England. The First Monarch of the Tudor Dynasty (r.1485-1509). Henry Tudor used the red dragon of Cadwalldr as his insignia when he returned to England to fight for the English crown. Upon becoming King he married Elizabeth of York and their union created a new symbol by which the Tudor Dynasty is still known for: The Tudor Rose. A white rose at the center of a red rose symbolizing the union of Lancaster and York and an end to the dynastic conflict known as the wars of the roses.

Henry was the first King of England to be fully featured in a golden coin. The Golden Sovereign as it became known has Henry enthroned, holding the scepter in his right hand and a ball on his left hand with the words King of England around. This was done to emphasize Henry's position as rightful sovereign. The Tudors were no strangers to propaganda, the dynasty that preceded them had used a lot of symbolism themselves to justify their actions but the Tudors went a step further since they were fairly new and there were many other families with arguably more royal blood than they (and who felt had more right to wear the Crown).

Henry died on the 21st of April 1509. He was buried weeks later in the Lady Chapel, next to his wife, the beloved Elizabeth of York.

In the Shadow of the Tower (1971) he was played by James Maxwell and in the recent White Queen (20113) he was played by Michael Marcus.

[minervacasterly]

Hace mucho que no posteo. Tengo que admitir que a pesar de que no soy super fan de como se adaptaron varias cosas de la historia en la serie de Showtime "The Tudors", si me gusto bastante el vestuario. Este tipo de vestuario se debio haber visto en series de fantasia como "The Wheel of Time", "Game of Thrones", "House of the Dragon", entre otras. No me gusto "Rings of Power", pero nadie puede discutir que tuvo una estetica hermosa y con un vestuario majestuoso.

Es mas! Las operas espaciales tambien deberian tener un vestuario asi.

Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn The Tudors (2007-2010)

[minervacasterly]

2 November 1470: Elizabeth Wydeville gave birth to Prince Edward while at sanctuary in the Abbot’s House at Westminster Abbey. She and her mother and daughters had been forced to flee her chambers at the Tower of London which had been prepared for her confinement the month before when they learned that Warwick’s forces were advancing. She ordered the lord mayor and aldermen to secure the city but they encountered Warwick’s forces, they surrendered and Elizabeth accepted this, telling them it was better they did so and advising the rest not to oppose their new rulers.  Overnight, Elizabeth Wydeville who had not been a popular choice of Queen among the nobles and some of the commons, because of her low birth (though her mother belonged to one of the most prominent houses in Europe), was now praised for the humility she had shown to the citizens of London in contrast with her predecessor Marguerite of Anjou who had been very close to invading the capital when the Queen’s mother and other ladies pleaded with her not to. Elizabeth’s actions also endeared her with the city officials who didn’t have to fear her murderous wrath.  Edward, Thomas More describes, was born ‘with no more ceremony than if he had been a poor man’s son.’ His mother had been at the mercy of bakers and butchers who had offered them meat and bread, and the Abbot who never stopped watching over them (as Westminster wasn’t a sanctuary reserved for royals, he made sure that no burglars or other shady characters disturbed the royal family).  Elizabeth was assisted by the midwives that Henry VI and Warwick sent to her and days after his birth, her son was baptized at the chapel with the abbot and Lady Scrope standing as his godparents. In spite the negative way that the Lancasters are portrayed in TV and literature, no attempt was made against the boy’s life or his mother; the real threat was his father not his family. When Edward learned of his son’s birth, this no doubt motivated him and less than a year later he landed on Ravenspur (the exact same spot that the first Lancastrian king had landed when the took the throne from Richard II) claiming that he was coming to take back what was his -his dukedom, and nothing else. Very few believed him but not happy with the way things had turned out, and that Warwick had not kept some of his promises, many joined him but although he and his brothers defeated Warwick’s forces at the battle of Barnet, they encountered greater opposition when they faced Queen Margaret and her son’s at May 4, but the end result was the same. Bad weather and confusion in battle, earned the Yorkists victory and the end of the Lancastrian line for good, all except one, Henry Tudor who like Prince Edward’s father, was now forced to flee the country with his uncle. Edward IV wasted no time investing his son as Prince of Wales. When Edward was considered old enough to have his own establishment, he was sent to Ludlow Castle in the Welsh Marshes where a council was established for him, to help him rule. The Queen’s brother, Anthony Woodville, Lord Rivers was appointed the prince’s governor. He would’ve become the second king of the Yorkist dynasty but Richard’s actions in the summer of 1483 made this impossible and he was later joined by his younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury that summer and later was not seen or heard from again.

[minervacasterly]

Elizabeth gives birth to Edward V while in sanctuary:

On All Souls’ Day, November 2nd, 1470, Elizabeth Wydeville gave birth to Prince Edward while she was still at sanctuary in the Abbot’s House at Westminster Abbey. She was expected to give birth amidst splendor in the Tower of London, but when the odds turned against her husband, she was forced to flee the comforts of her chambers with her mother and daughter to Westminster Abbey. In spite of Richard Neville [Earl of Warwick] animosity with the Woodvilles, he wasn’t cruel to Elizabeth and upon learning she was going to give birth, he and Henry VI sent Lady Scrope and others to assist her in her delivery three days earlier, in addition to paying for their fees.

In great contrast with her predecessor, the last Lancastrian Queen [Margaret of Anjou], Elizabeth didn’t ask the people of London to fight for her. When she learned that Warwick’s forces were approaching two months before, she ordered the lord mayor and the aldermen to secure the city of London, but when they told her that they couldn’t hold any longer, she accepted this and told them it was better for them to submit to the new regime. Overnight, Elizabeth had become very popular with the people. This humble act demonstrated that she was a Queen who lived up to the ideals expected of a wife and Consort. She and her family subsisted thanks to the Abbot’s and the commons’ charity.

Thomas More, writing nearly a century later describes the boy’s birth, as being born “with no more ceremony than if he had been a poor man’s son.” This is not entirely inaccurate, since his father and uncles were still at Burgundy, planning for the right moment to strike, and with Henry VI back on the throne, it was unclear what the boy’s role would be (if any) if his father never got to reclaim it. The boy also received a humble christening. Instead of the traditional royal relatives, or stand-ins for foreign royals, his godparents were the Abbot Thomas Milling, the prior John Eastney and Lady Scrope.

No doubt, learning of his son’s birth, made Edward IV more determined. Less than a year after that, he returned to England, slaying the Earl of Warwick at the Battle of Barnet, and less than a month after that, his rival’s son (also named Edward) at the battle of Tewkesbury, and not long afterwards his rival himself.

Edward IV wasted no time investing his son as Prince of Wales and set up his household. Among the people elected to rule his son’s household were many of his wife’s relatives, including herself and her brother, Anthony Woodville, the Earl of Rivers.

Although he is commonly referred to as Prince Edward or Edward V, it should be noted that he was never officially crowned. After his father died, a crisis emerged between his maternal relatives and his uncle, including the nobles supporting him (because of their resentment against the Wydevilles), as to who would be his Regent. Since none of them trusted each other, and they both believed themselves better to handle the job; Richard made the first move, imprisoning Edward’s favorite uncle (Anthony) and Hastings. And he forced Jane Shore (Edward IV’s mistress) to walk a walk of penance to atone for her sins. After his brother’s marriage to Elizabeth was declared null and void, his nephews and nieces were declared bastards and barred from the line of succession, making him the only one eligible to be King.

After the summer of 1483, months after Edward had been put in the Tower of London before he was joined by his younger brother Richard, he was never seen or heard from again. Doctor Argentine on his last visit, said that while Richard looked more optimistic because he was younger, Edward did not and it was as if he knew that his days were numbered.

Sources:

The Woodvilles: The Wars of the Roses and England’s Most Infamous Family by Susan Higginbotham

Elizabeth of York: A Tudor Queen and her World by Alison Weir

Elizabeth of York: The Forgotten Tudor Queen by Amy Licence

Elizabeth Woodville: The mother of the Princes in the Tower by David Baldwin

[minervacasterly]

[minervacasterly]

The Six Wives and the many mistresses of Henry VIII by Amy Licence finally arrived! yay! and next to my halloween guardians (Mwahahah) the *It* clown and *loki*

[minervacasterly]

Since we are in the Halloween month. In pagan times Halloween, and I don’t just mean for Western Europe, but in every politheistic culture the end of the harvest and the coming of winter was seen as the end of the year or new year and also a time for celebration and for reunion. I can go on about the beauty of the pagan gods and what they meant to my ancestors; but in this case I will go the theme of witchcraft in Christianity. Most of the women condemned were not witches and were just as god-fearing as everyone else but this was a superstitious age and the image you see above is not from the middle ages but belongs in the Elizabethan era. Elizabeth reinforced the witchcraft laws and women had it just as hard as in any other Western European country. We can say ‘how could people believe this stuff?’ Doesn’t matter. They did, they believed that god and the devil were real and that women were susceptible to Satan’s influence. Scary time if you were suspected of being a witch. This was just one of the many punishments.

[minervacasterly]

Every Simpsons Ever marathon of Halloween episodes.

“You’re possessed by the devil.” Marge: “I will call to tell you can’t work”

Homer : “Wohoo! Hehe suckers!”

And Bart and Lisa as Watson and Holmes lol and Kang and Kodos steampunk.

[minervacasterly]

Happy Halloween from some of the Best Witches from TV & Film!

[minervacasterly]

Sabrina the Teenage Witch – 1.05: A Halloween Story

[minervacasterly]

Preface of the translation of the New Testament by English Reformist and Humanist, William Tyndale:

“Forasmuch as this epistle is the principal and most excellent part of the new Testament and most pure evangelion, that is to say glad tidings, and that we call gospel, and also is a light and a way unto the whole scripture; I think it meet that every christian man not only know it, by rote and without the book, but also exercise himself therein evermore continually, as with the daily bread of the soul. No man verily can read it too oft, or study it too well; for the more it is studied, the easier it is; the more it is chewed, the pleasanter it is; and the more groundly it is searched, the preciouser things are found in it, so great treasure of spiritual things lieth hid therein. I will therefore bestow my labor and diligence, through this little preface or prologue, to prepare a way in thereunto, so far forth as God shall give me grace, that it may be the better understood of every man: for it hath been hitherto evil darkened with glosses and wonderful dreams of sophisters, that no man could spy out the intent and meaning of it; which nevertheless of itself is a bright light, and sufficient to give light unto all the scripture.”

William Tyndale was later found guilty of heresy and burned at the stake, he was a great influence on all the major figures of English reformation, including two of Henry’s Queens 

[minervacasterly]

First Protestant King of England, Henry VIII or Edward VI? (And why Edward VI’s reign was no less important than his father’s)

It is important to dispell myths about the most popular English dynasty, so I decided to briefly take on this topic. A common misconception until recent decades is that Henry VIII was the first Protestant King. In reality, it was his son who was the first true Protestant King of England. I’ve written about this before on my blog, building upon the research by great scholars like Chris Skidmore, Loach, and the short introduction to his reign by Kyra Cornelius Kramer. Besides taking after his father in intellect, Edward VI was fairly concerned with the state of the church of England but unlike his old man, he thought that the time had come to make it into the first true Protestant church of England, agreeing to the issuing of the book of common prayer and a revision of it two years later. Edward VI also frowned upon improper clothing. He loved to dance and watch sports, but didn’t think t0 was a good idea to indulge in these frivolities since the Evangelicals believed that this was a gateway to moral decay. (Don’t you just love those who interpret the will of god so good, that they conveniently forget about the passages where their savior rails against the rich and so on?) Edward’s actions had consequences and these, like the contributions of his reign, are often brushed aside in favor of his more famous father and sisters. One of them, was a rebellion in the North and his half-sister’s resistance to his new laws that forbade people to hear the Mass and forced the new English service on everyone. Long story short … lots of people hung, punished and lots of enemies that his councilors (who as always since people couldn’t point fingers at the king unless they had a sick death wish of some sort) were blamed and were punished for during his half-sister’s reign. Some of you might be pointing out that since Henry VIII was excommunicated and labeled a heretic by most of Christendom, that technically he was a Protestant king but no, seriously, he wasn’t. Henry was, despite these labels, still a practicing Catholic. He agreed to Gardiner’s articles of faith that criticized the church and validated his claim as supreme head of the Anglican Church, and God’s representative on Earth, and surrounded himself by obvious Reformists, but other than that, he forcefully kept everyone in line. Catholics who practiced the Mass or adhered to his new rules while still being loyal to their beliefs were tolerated, but if they pulled a ‘Thomas More’ where they denied the king’s supremacy or insulted one of his beloved wives (before he got tired of them, that is) then yes, off to the block with them!

As for Protestants … Ever heard of Anne Askew? She defended Henry’s actions, she thought he was some kind of Moses as his last wife -Kathryn Parr whom she was closely associated with- would paint him as in her two books (primarily in ‘Lamentations of a Sinner’) and then she defied her husband and Henry’s establishment, pushing for a more Evangelist agenda, and what happened? Oh nothing big … she just got tortured and then burned. As long as you played Henry’s sycophant you were fine. There is also a spiritual aspect that ties into his megalomania. As Henry became more obsessed with securing his dynasty, his focus on spiritual matters also grew. By the end of his reign, nobody could predict what the king would say or how he would act so everyone walked a fine line when they discussed important subjects. Kathryn Parr is one of them who learned this lesson early on during their marriage. If it weren’t for gentleness, and the friendship she established among prominent ladies in her household, her accusers would’ve succeeded in convincing Henry VIII that she was a heretic. She would’ve had a sham trial like Anne Boleyn and then beheaded or worse, burned like Anne Aske. Luckily for Kathryn Parr, she was one step ahead of them. Humbling herself before her lord and husband, she told him that she never intended to change his religious views but just challenged him as people did at the beginning of his reign, so he could stir her towards the right path since she was a woman and these things were too complicated for her to fathom, let alone choose on her own. She lived and continued to be a major influence on future Protestant leaders, such as Jane Grey, Elizabeth I and of course, Edward VI.

Edward VI was greatly influenced by his beloved stepmother’s religiosity and mourned her deeply. He referred to her as his mother. Kathryn encouraged his passion for books and aided his Protestant tutors in stirring him towards their faith, ensuring that he’d become the king they’d all be waiting for, that would transform England into a fully Protestant nation.

It was Edward who began to force religious codes on his people in a way that hadn’t been done before. His father cracked on religious houses on the basis of cleansing them from corruption and because of their disloyalty, and open defiance against his supremacy; but Edward made things worse. The monasteries that were sold to his father’s noblemen left many people begging on the streets while forcing others to adapt to their new environment. When people could no longer handle it, they rose up in open rebellion and like in his father’s time, these were brutally squashed. But here is where it gets interesting … Whereas Henry VIII is blamed for all the evils of his reign, Edward VI is not and the reason for this? He was a kid, don’t be so mean. Leave the poor tot alone. Fact: Edward VI died at the age of fifteen and by renaissance standards, he was not a little boy anymore. Even if he hadn’t come of age, he was not an innocent boy anymore who was oblivious to the world around him. In fact. When Edward VI found out that his uncle had been executed, he was like ‘meh … okay’. And sure, Thomas Seymour was a brash individual who thought he could get away with everything but even after he tried to kidnap his nephew, to act in such a manner and for an uncle who was married to your favorite stepmother and someone you claimed to be your favorite relative, that’s pretty cold. But it gets better. After Edward VI finally got rid of his tedious uncle and his irritating set of rules, Edward wrote in his diary (showing no emotion at all) that the former lord Protector died and that was that. Getting rid of Edward Seymour probably made the little critter sigh in relief because out of all his uncles, the Lord Protector was the one who always reminded him of his duties and responsibilities, not to mention all those rules and not letting him be king! How unfair! And then there was also that issue about the rebellions. Edward VI saw these people as traitors and agreed with Northumberland that they should be dealt with immediately but his uncle didn’t think that was wise, which was why people called him the ‘good Duke’ because they saw him as a friend of the people. Now that he was out of the way, his kingdom would not have to suffer any more dissenting voices, nor any threats of isolation or future skirmishes with Scotland. Edward VI was fully committed to the Protestant cause but convinced by Northumberland, he realized that he would not go far if he did not have any allies. And the whole campaign in Scotland had gone awfully wrong and with Mary, Queen of Scots in France, the only way to neutralize that threat was making an alliance with that country, betrothing him to Henri II and Catherine de Medici’s daughter, Elizabeth Valois. Sadly, Edward VI did not live to marry her or do more for the Evangelicals. He died and before he did, he wrote a paper called “my device for the succession” which became the basis to disinherit his sisters in favor of their cousin, Jane Grey. That opened a can of worms that could have easily escalated into another civil war like the wars of the roses but thankfully for everyone involved it didn’t and his sister won her crown fair and square. But as with every Tudor, once her sister became Queen, she began to make good use of the propaganda machine to portray her sibling as a puppet of Northumberland and other evil lords who had corrupted him and turned him against her. Why was this done? Same reason why people who rebelled against their kings often pointed their fingers at their councilors -because doing so against an anointed king meant that they were upsetting the natural order. It was only in extreme cases, when someone had enough support and belonged to a different dynasty, that they would point it directly at them. Edward belonged to the same dynasty as Mary, and a dynasty divided was bad business for everyone, especially for the first Queen Regnant of England who had inherited a divided country.

Mary I also did something else and that was appropriating some of Edward VI’s religious achievements in an effort to make Catholicism appealing to those who were still unsure whether or not they wanted to return to the church or side with the various groups within the Protestant movement. Sections from the book of the common prayer were added to a new set of prayers in Latin and English, and adapted in a way that didn’t contradict church doctrine. During his reign, Edward encouraged many poets and artists to express themselves. These would reenact passages from the bible, or create allegorical paintings that depicted Edward as England’s messiah, and all those who followed him as true Christians as opposed to the decadent Catholics who were portrayed as heathens.

Edward’s religious reformation became the basis for Elizabeth I’s reign who continued with many of these reforms. Although she did not go as far as Edward or his chosen heiress, Jane Grey, would have liked. Elizabeth I was far more pragmatic, recognizing that if she wanted to rule over a divided country she had to maintain some of the older traditions or else, she’d risk losing everything she had. Unlike her siblings, Elizabeth I wasn’t thought of as legitimate by many of her Christian peers. Ideological purity was a luxury that she couldn’t afford and in any case, she did not want because many Evangelicals didn’t like the idea of the supremacy of kings (or queens). Nevertheless, Elizabeth I built her religious establishment upon her brother’s by issuing a new revision of the book of common prayer and encouraging artists and poets to create works that extolled the Anglican Church and the Tudor Dynasty.

[minervacasterly]

One of the greatest misconceptions of the Protestant Reformation is that Martin Luther, being the face of this movement, supported every Protestant movement across Christendom. Nothing can be further from the truth. In his book, Eric Metaxas, leaves it clear how Martin Luther’s intention was never to lead the flock astray from the Church that Saint Peter built but rather return it to its pre-Council of Nicea origins. He truly believed, as many have for nearly two thousand years, that he was the rock upon which his church will be built. This comes directly from scripture:

“Upon this rock, I will build my church.” (Matthew 16: 13-19)

Regardless of which translation you use, or to which Christian denomination you belong to, what Jesus says here to Peter is clear as day. However, some have argued that it is not meant to be taken literally. Like many things in the bible, it is open to interpretation.

With this being stated, where else did Luther differ from other Protestants? If I were to give you a full list, it would comprise a full book. Even doing a 101 would mean doing a VERY LONG post. So I will keep it short by giving the easiest (yet popularly unknown) example:

Anabaptists.

That is all you need to know. If you are still baffled as to why Luther would be against them of all people, you have to remember what Luther believed, before AND after he broke away from his religious schism. The more the Catholic Church pushed back against him, the more disenchanted he became until he was pushed into a corner and he realized the only way to survive was to surround himself was aligning with the interests of his wealthy sponsors. Some of the German Princes who supported Luther did believe in his cause but there was also an ulterior motive as to why they supported him. His writings meant that they’d no longer be in bondage to the higher echelons in the Church. They would be free to tax and have free reign over terrestrial and spiritual domains.

But some Protestants did not like this concept. They thought that they needed to go further. Some of these splinter groups did not (initially) spoke out against Luther. They simply wanted to go their own way but Luther felt that the only way for his movement to be safe was to have a united front. Dissention (aka disagreement) was out of the question. So what did he do? He persecuted them. Their response: Just like Luther had been pushed into a corner, they pushed back and called him no better than the Catholic Bishops he rebelled against. The final outcome was an even more violent pushback against them where Luther spoke out IN FAVOR of Catholic persecution of these groups. Of all of them, the ones he hated the most were the Anabaptists. They were called as such because they did not believe in infant baptism. The argument behind this is that to fully accept the covenant with Christ, you have to be fully aware and within your mental capabilities. Infants cannot decide for themselves, therefore, they have to be older when they decide they want to be part of his flock. If an infant were to die BEFORE the age of consent, then he or she is automatically sent to heaven. They often quoted from the New Testament, from the four main gospels, where Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven is closely tied to children. Till this day, there are other Christian denominations (among them the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, Pentecostals, Revivalists, Seventh Day Adventists, Evangelical Free Churches, and Jehova’s Witnesses) that do not practice infant baptism.

With this being stated, you’d think a man who wanted to return to simpler times and was against the suppression of godly choice, would let Anabaptists live and let live, or be an open mind regarding their view on baptism. But you thought wrong. Luther went a full 180 on them. From being the oppressed, he and his followers became full oppressors. Just like the Council of Nicea and the Catholic Church over a thousand years prior, he wanted a form of Christianity that stood for national and spiritual unity. Anything that stood in the way of this progress had to be stamped out.

[minervacasterly]

“It was Rome’s mystifying inflexibility that drove Luther to bolder and bolder public positions, eventually putting him beyond rapprochement and setting him along a path that will forever be debated either as heretical and ignominious or as orthodox and glorious. But for good and for ill, Martin Luther was the midwife of the irrevocably divided world in which we now live.”

—

Eric Metaxas from Martin Luther: The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World

[minervacasterly]

“Since Luther’s day, many Protestant groups have thoroughly ridiculed the idea of purgatory and have even gone so far as to say the Catholic Church made the whole thing up. But although the word purgatory—a Latin word meaning to cleanse or purge—is most definitely not in Scripture, there is biblical mention of just such a place. The Bible did indeed often speak of an in-between or limbo realm where the saints “sleep.” This place has been referred to by its Hebrew name of Sheol. The original Greek of the New Testament used the Greek word for Sheol, which is Hades, to describe the same exact place. The same realm has also come through translation as “paradise,” or even “Abraham’s Bosom.” It can be confusing to have such pleasant-sounding names as “paradise” and “Abraham’s Bosom” for a place Catholic’s called purgatory. Also of confusion is the use of the Greek word “Hades,” which most people probably associate with the Western concept of hell, but hell and Hades are two different concepts. While hell is defined as a place of torment, Hades is simply the underworld abode of the dead. The actual Greek term for a place of torment akin to our common notion of hell is the word “Tartarus.” In the Greek translation of the New Testament, the word “Tartarus” only appears one time when the Apostle Peter is describing the final destination of the fallen angels who disobeyed God. The choice of this word is interesting because, in Greek mythology, Tartarus is the place where the Titans were imprisoned. If you read up on Greek myths and compare them with the biblical stories of the fallen angels/watchers/Nephilim, the parallels are rather stunning. It makes one wonder, was the word “Tartarus” chosen out of convenience, or was it indeed referring to the same exact place? Did the Apostle Peter see some sort of similarity between the popular Greek tales of the Titans and the fallen angels? At any rate, as it pertains to Sheol, Hades, paradise, and Abraham’s Bosom—all these realms spoken of in the Bible, regardless of what they are called, fulfill the same purpose of the Catholic purgatory. They are neither Heaven nor hell, but merely a place where transitory souls are temporarily holed up. These concepts are complex, and save for theologians who spend years studying them in- depth, most Christians probably do not know much about them. But, as strange as they may sound to the casual observer, these concepts are based on Scripture. Early Christians believed that before Jesus came to Earth and died on the cross, all the Old Testament saints (such as Abraham) were denied access to Heaven, yet God certainly wasn’t going to send them to hell, so instead, they were kept in an in-between plane of existence—hence Abraham’s bosom, paradise, purgatory, Sheol, or whatever you wish to call it. According to this notion, Jesus himself, after being crucified, descended down into this netherworld to “set the captives free.” Today, preachers are more likely to use this as an allegory to deliver a feel-good message to the masses about how Jesus liberates those in bondage to things such as alcohol or some other vice. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but the expression has a literal interpretation, as well. The three days between Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection is a dramatic part of New Testament Scripture that is often overlooked, but according to the Bible, he wasn’t idle. Scripture tells us that immediately after being killed on the cross, Jesus went straight to paradise/purgatory and quite literally “led captivity captive” by rescuing the Old Testament saints who were being held in Sheol. It was only after this mission was complete that Jesus Christ was physically resurrected from the dead and emerged from the tomb—back from the dead and back from that underworld realm of purgatory called Sheol/Hades. According to the Bible, in the three days prior to his resurrection, Jesus was on a spiritual mission to set souls who had long been stuck in a purgatory limbo free. He did not enter Heaven until his physical resurrection and eventual ascension in what Christians refer to as his “glorified” or “immortal/incorruptible” body—a state of being that Christians believe they, too, will be transformed into in the “twinkling of an eye” when the “last trumpet sounds.” The idea that Jesus went to paradise first, before resurrection and ascension, is also supported by a remark Jesus made to the thief on the cross: “This day you will be with me in paradise.” He didn’t say Heaven but specifically said “paradise,” which is another word for Sheol/Abraham’s Bosom/Hades—you get the point. This is a lot to unpack, but understanding such things is essential to understanding why Catholics spoke of an in-between realm called purgatory. Despite misinformation and the insinuation that purgatory is simply nonsense someone made up, the concept of purgatory is one that is grounded in Scripture. At any rate, Catholics greatly expanded upon all of this and eventually came to believe that one could lessen the time spent in purgatory by paying indulgences to priests—or even help dead relatives believed to be in purgatory by paying on their behalf. As for Martin Luther, it is said that he would later drop much of his previous belief in purgatory, but at the time he nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door, he wasn’t so much against the notion of purgatory itself as the idea that one could pay their way out of it. As corrupt as such a bargain might seem at first glance, the act of paying money or “alms” on behalf of a deceased loved one wasn’t simply a scheme hatched by the Catholic Church. Just like purgatory, it was derived from Scripture. The concept of indulgences stems from Maccabees—a book which, coincidentally enough, is excluded from most Protestant Bibles. The concept of paying a sacrificial amount of money for the souls of the departed comes from an account of Judas Maccabeus advising his followers to pay alms for some of his warriors who had perished in battle. These warriors were found to have amulets around their necks that were considered profane and in reverence to pagan gods. It was for the atonement of the acts of these dead men that Judas requested all his followers to offer up alms. Or, as 2 Maccabees 42-45 tells us, “The noble Judas called on the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened to the fallen because of their sin. He levied a contribution from each man and sent the total of two thousand silver drachmas to Jerusalem for a sin offering—a fit and proper act in which he took due account of the resurrection. For if he had not been expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been foolish and superfluous to pray for the dead. But since he had in view the wonderful reward reserved for those who die a godly death, his purpose was a holy and pious one. And this was why he offered an atoning sacrifice to free the dead from their sin.” Maccabees clearly gives an example of praying for the dead and paying alms (an indulgence) for them in the hopes that this atoning sacrifice would “free the dead from their sin.” Protestant Bibles would choose not to include the Book of Maccabees. Roman Catholic priests however, could readily point to this one Scripture as part of their reasoning behind allowing indulgences to be made for those offering alms for the dearly departed. As it pertains to Martin Luther’s reasons for nailing his Ninety-five Theses to the church doors on October 31, 1517, he was primarily critical of what he saw as blatant abuses of the practice. Luther was particularly irked by priests who had used the sales of indulgences to fund building projects. In Luther’s day, the acquisition of indulgences had become so thoroughly commercialized that, at one point, a Dominican friar by the name of Johan Tetzel had created his own advertising jingle to get proceeds. The crafty friar was allegedly fond of proclaiming, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory to heaven springs!” Luther believed that such malfeasance was corrupting to the clergy just as much as it was to the congregation since it made the public think they could avoid true repentance and simply pay their way into Heaven instead.”

— Captivating History: The Reformation