Talk:Thomas Cranmer/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Restore

I just wanted to add that I am not signed in, but I did restore the article from what it was previously. It had a whole lot of odd stuff at the beginning.

--69.230.120.101 05:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Thomas More Fan


[edit] 3 Martyrs

If Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley (martyr) and Hugh Latimer were burnt to death together, how come the date of death are different ? I'm very confused .... -- PFHLai 18:37, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Cranmer was not martyred with Latimer and Ridley. The latter two died in 1555. Cranmer was a prisoner and witnessed those martyrdoms. Ridley's was particularly gruesome. He took over an hour to die, and shortly after he stopped breathing, his torso swung around the stake, revealing that his legs had burned completely to char. Although Cranmer witnessed these martyrdoms, he still fearlessly went to the stake in 1556, dying far more virtuously than he lived.


I think describing Edward's upbringing as "extreme" protestant is probably justified - admittedly, it's my research project, but look at e.g. Latimer and Ridley's sermons at St Pauls' Cross.... Hackloon 02:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the word "extreme" because I don't know what "extreme" means in this situation. Obviously the church in Edward's reign moved towards a more Protestant position than Henry, Mary or perhaps even Elizabeth's reigns but just how Protestant was he personally and how Protestant were his spiritual and temporal advisers? Dabbler 10:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Extreme" is improper. Part of the problem with Cranmer's reforms in the eyes of urban Protestants were the slow pace. There were basically no radical Protestants teaching Edward VI or in the Privy Council ruling England while he was King, and, as far as the populace was concerned, although certain things were eventually banned, there was toleration and (unlike Mary 1 of England, who had so many thinkers killed in her counter-reformation). JoshNarins 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cranmer was justffied in his reconsiliatin of his oath to Mary because he lied in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus57 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Founder or Cofounder of Anglican Theological Thought?

To add some context for the discussion, let's bring some things together.

From Richard Hooker--

Richard Hooker (March 1554 – 1600-11-03) was an influential Anglican theologian. He is arguably the co-founder (with Thomas Cranmer) of Anglican theological thought.

When I edited Cranmer article, I added the following sentence, based in-part that (to over-simplify) Cranmer is best remembered for the BCP and Hooker for the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity--

The foundation laid by Cranmer and Richard Hooker is considered to be the foundation for Anglicanism.

Dabbler changed this to--

The foundation laid by Cranmer and developed later by theologian Richard Hooker is considered to be the basis for Anglicanism.

Is Hooker fundamental to Anglican theological thought? Hooker did define the concept of "scripture, Tradition, and reason," which has become the Anglican watchword, in the Laws of Eccliastical Polity (along with a wonder discussion of discerning God from nature). To remove a reference that places Hooker's work among the theological foundation because it is "disputable and extraneous" is not looking at the entire historical record. Since Hooker did come after Cranmer, Dabbler wasn't wrong to change it to "developed later" (although I think a bit too fussy; to each their own). As a relative newby in editing around here, I may not be getting all the traditional protocol right. But, I am going to be bold and return Dabbler's text to the article. If there is a better way to handle a disagreement like this, I would appreciate a friendly note on the better way to do it. --Bob 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in editing, I added the words "by many" to the sentence to allow for a difference in thought. So it now reads, "The foundation laid by Cranmer and developed later by theologian Richard Hooker is considered by many to be the basis for Anglicanism." --Bob 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom of the Talk page because that is where new stuff usually goes. Discussion on the Talk page is the best way to handle disagreements about the article, but being bold but not too bold by restoring my compromise, rather than insisting on your original form of words, is a good start. For one thing I am unlikely to oppose it! We must remember the article is about Cranmer and his influence, not Anglican thought or thehistory of the Church of England, they have their own articles. So a claim that Cranmer is the one and only font of Anglican theology could be tempered by mentioning Hooker but we should ensure that people don't get the idea that Cranmer and Hooker were collaborating in founding the Church of England. Hope this helps. Dabbler 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was I who removed the reference to Hooker. I did so because while Cranmer's contribution to Anglican liturgy is huge and indisputable, he did not provide us with a defence of Anglicanism - partly because Anglicanism is in fact a later notion - post 1662. Hooker's contribution was of a different order. To suggest that these two founded Anglicanism is to grossly oversimplify. Other names come to mind: Clarendon, Wesley, Newman. It is much to much a POV statement. When writing about Cranmer as a politician, archbishop and liturgist we are on solid ground. At a time when it is less and less clear what Anglicanism is or whether it is a description of more than a short period in the life of the English church, I would have thought it is better left out. Roger Arguile 15.28 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Anglicanism, as a developed entity separate from Roman Catholicism, is not an idea that sprung simply from Cranmer's work. After all, he was appointed ABC by a king who was Defender of the (Roman) Faith. Still, if 'lex orandi, lex credindi' (did I get the Latin right?) holds any validity, then Cranmer's liturgical work is foundational for the later development of Anglicanism. It is in worship that we, the people, develop our theology. Cranmer's contribution to liturgy is the very reason why I thought it important to bring the idea from the Hooker article over that Cranmer helped to lay the foundation. The language of worship guides our theology.

There is also no doubt that there were others that developed Anglican thought later besides Hooker. (Wesley might be pushing it a bit far, I add with a wide smile on my face and tongue in cheek.) Still, I see that later theologians filling in and developing Hooker's thoughts on the issue. For example, is it "scripture, Tradition, and reason," or "scripture, Tradition, reason, and inspiration/revelation"? So, rather than the foundation, people like Newman helped with the infrastructure above the foundation.

We could turn what is supposed to be a encyclopedia article into a commentary on the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity and the (choose your year) BCP. It isn't meet and right so to add everything. Lord have mercy upon us! So, I see this more as a discussion on where to draw the line, while encouraging people to look beyond a single article.

(By the way, why does the Anglicanism template only list Cranmer, Henry VIII, and Hooker under people? Where is Elizabeth I, Claredon, Newman--and maybe Wesley? You might think only those three developed Anglicanism. [still smiling widely])--Bob 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism Template

You can edit the template in the same way as an article go to Template:anglicanism and Be Bold! Dabbler 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Account of his death

Interesting article, thank you. Now I have no desire to demean Cranmer, who undoubtedly died bravely, but is it worth noting that Foxe's Book of Martyrs is a not an eye-witness account, but rather a collection of biographies used for propaganda purposes? Foxe was a zealous anti-Catholic, and his 1563 work is based on a 1549 history of the world by another controversialist, Thomas Cooper. So perhaps more research needs to be done concerning the hand in the fire anecdote.--Gazzster 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair point, but I think that I am inclined to leave it in. MacCulloch (in his Thomas Cranmer) accepts the story as part of his death, mainly because of the witness testimony of "J.A.", an unknown Catholic witness to the events, who includes the story. Also, much of the account of the Marian years in Foxe was subjected to close scrutiny by the Catholic Nicholas Harpsfield, who drew on many contemporary witness reports. That Harpsfield doesn't challenge the account substantially seems to me to be another tacit approval of it as broadly true. While Foxe was undoubtedly a "zealous anti-Catholic", he was also a fine historian of his period - using extensive archival research and collecting eye-witness statements. Hackloon 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Great scholarship there. Cheers, --Gazzster 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Diarmid MacCullough's acount is in his book "Thomas Cranmer", Diarmid McCullough Chapter 13 "Condemned", Yale University Press, 1996 ISBN 0-300-07448-4. Dabbler 11:56, 1 September 2006 (

Actually Foxe was not a "fine historian". He was a propagandist. It is unfortunate that his work is used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.49.31 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Fictional Portrayals

Would someone like to mention his portrayal in the first installment of the BBC series, Elizabeth R? He's seen tending to Edward, then confronting his Catholic counter-part in the Tower of London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.124.173 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Recognition?

Which date is correct; who celebrates the martyrs on which dates; can the details be cited and the article clarified? Right now it says that he is celebrated on this date, but also says he is celebrated with the other Oxford Martyrs in October. I don't know which is right, only that there is an inconsistency.--Brad Patrick 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that although the Church of England officially commemorates Cranmer today, on the anniversary of his death, he may be conflated with Latimer and Ridley in general memorial ceremonies. Dabbler 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 25 June 2007 Changes

I put up cited material on the 10 Articles and I removed this (and why): "Under Henry, Cranmer was able to push through the reforms that led gradually to the reform of the Church of England." This sentence is redundant (reforms/reform) It also is a leap to suggest 1. That Cranmer "pushed" anything through against, over or under King Henry. and a giant leap to suggest 2. that the "reforms" such as they were under Henry VIII "led to the reform of the Church of England"

If either of these is more than speculation, please cite.

Also down (and why): This included writing the 10 Articles, which stated the reforms but also showed a politeness that Cranmer possessed because he didn't want to offend anyone.

Raw speculation. This suggests Cranmer's motivations, it does not state them. If this was so, please, cite it.

Also down (and why): In 1538, he condemned the views of John Lambert when he denied transubstantiation. Lambert was burned at the stake, but Cranmer later came to adopt his views.

This is not correct as such. It was Henry who demanded inforcement on transubstantiation at this point. 1538 was such a complicated year. Much more needs to be added here about this episode.

Also down (and why): "Cranmer also opposed Henry VIII's 6 Articles, which reaffirmed clerical celibacy." SECisek 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I now have a cite for the six articles and I will correct it soon.


Done, cited almost everything and the article touches every major point that it should. What else needs to be done to make this GA? -- SECisek 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mrs Cranmer's Box

I've just noticed no mention of the 'urban legend' of Mrs Cranmer's box: i.e. Thomas Cranmer transported his wife about in a box. According to Diarmaid MacCulloch:"And so in later times, about 58 years later, Roman Catholics of course hated Cranmer, made up this story that he used to carry Mrs Cranmer around in a box". It is a good story. Here is a reference to the story [1] in 'Six Makers of English Religion, 1500-1700' By Ernest Gordon Rupp. 1974.Ayer Publishing.125 pages ISBN 0518101592, if it is thought suitable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. -- SECisek 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry VIII vs. Henry

Hi! I'm with the League of Copyeditors and thought I'd follow up on your request for a copyedit. However, I have a question from the lead section: is it permissible, after referring to Henry VIII (with ordinal/roman numeral) first, then to refer to him as "Henry" in subsequent paragraphs of the same section? My Chicago MOS (my manual of choice) does not have a ruling, but my feeling is that, for clarity, the ordinal should be included with each reference. Thoughts? Galena11 21:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll change it. I Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've made the change. Does it make sense? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
British usage (and this is a British article) is normally to use only the name and not the ordinal after the first time the name is quoted in full so King Henry VIII was King of England. Henry also ruled over Wales. One would normally use the ordinal, though for variety you might use his title "the king", instead of using his name where it was clear which king was being referred to. Dabbler 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll stick to this convention throughout the edit. Thanks! Galena11 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was fixing some of your points and had an edit conflict. Let me know when you are finished and thank you for your time. -- SECisek 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm done for today (through Section 1). Thanks! Galena11 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyeditor's notes in hidden comments

Hi there! I wanted to explain that approach when copyediting to not delete or add anything without first asking for clarification from you, the subject matter experts. The easiest way for me to do that is by inserting hidden comments preceded by COPYEDITOR'S NOTE at the point within the text that is unclear, redundant, or otherwise poses a problem. Feel free to post a reply to any comment by inserting a line (|) after my comment and typing REPLY or RESPONSE and your answer, and I'll insert the fix. Or, add or remove text to fix the issue and then delete the comment. Thanks! Galena11 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in September 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Galena11 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Cricketgirl 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit is complete. Please see hidden comments preceded by COPYEDITOR'S NOTES for suggested heading changes and questions/issues. Let me know if you need further assistance; otherwise, I will submit this for a final proofread from a League member. Thanks! Galena11 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I have added to or amended some of these notes - please look for them in the article and clarify the text. Thanks! Cricketgirl 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A few statements require a citation before I can pass this for GA status, because they have the potential to be challenged:

  1. "Henry resolved to charge the whole English clergy with praemunire (which, according to the 1392 Statute of Praemunire, forbade obedience to the authority of foreign rulers) to secure their agreement to his annulment. " (Failure to secure Henry VIII's annulment) The stuff in the brackets doesn't need to be cited (since people can just click on the link if they want to know) but, the fact that he used it does. Removed. Of questionable relevance to Cranmer.
  2. "On 23 May 1533, Cranmer declared Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon void. On 25 May 1533 – two days later – the secret marriage to Anne Boleyn was declared lawful. Henry and Cranmer had successfully negotiated the impossible in five months."
  3. "The pope responded to the marriage by excommunicating both Henry and Cranmer from the Roman Catholic Church. On 7 September 1533, the new queen gave birth to Henry's second daughter Princess Elizabeth; Cranmer was made her godfather."
  4. "Cranmer benefited by receiving various former church properties, such as the Cluniac nunnery at Arthington." Reworked to something verifiable.
  5. The second paragraph under Royal marriages and executions
  6. "He ordered the guards to remove any objects that she may use to commit suicide. Catherine was executed on 13 February 1542." (Royal marriage and executions)
  7. "Use of the Prayer Book was enforced by an Act of Uniformity 1549 but it served only to antagonise Protestants and Roman Catholics in the realm. Outside of bloody reprisals in Cornwall, the Duke of Somerset and Cranmer did not encourage persecution. They refrained from it, as they feared invasion by Europe's powerful Catholic monarchs, especially Emperor Charles V." (Book of Common Prayer)
  8. "A week before Cranmer's own burning, Bishops Ridley and Latimer were burnt at the stake on 16 October 1555 and Cranmer had been forced to watch the atrocity from a gatehouse. These three Oxford martyrdoms are commemorated by the Victorian Martyrs' Memorial." (Recognition and legacy) With added detail.
  9. "Cranmer is commemorated by the Church of England and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on 21 March. The Episcopal Church in the United States of America commemorates him with the other Oxford martyrs on 16 October." (Recognition and legacy)

On the opposite side of the coin, "Cranmer was a great plagiarist; even the opening of Preface (quoted above) was borrowed." (Book of Common Prayer) has the same citation twice. Did you mean to use one of those citations for the paragraph above, where you quote the preface?

Again, as with the other article, putting the citation templates horizontally instead of vertically would be helpful to the page's editors, but is not a mandatory change for GA status. Otherwise, the article looks great! To allow for these minor changes, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Another excellent job! Cheers, CP 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I will horiz. the cites later! -- SECisek 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, another job well done! I'll be passing it right away! If you're thinking of moving this up to A/FA, my suggestions to start with would be to do the horizontal cites and cite a few small, but unlikely to be challenged, statements in the article. As it stands, however, it's definitely a good article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)