It bears none of the hallmarks of Trump's style. It's pronouncing on an event that happened in another far away country and long before the USA ever existed and outside the US government's jurisdiction now, yet alone then. There's never been any indication hitherto that Trump has been interested in either the issues involved or history yet alone have heard of either Becket or Henry II - though I have to admit the text is simplistic twaddle. It has clearly been written by someone who knows much about either what actually happened or what the issues were.
Neither Henry II nor Becket (nor for that matter the knights) would have understood, yet alone been interested in either "the right to free exercise of religion" or "America’s .... glorious Constitution".
[*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.[/list]
A huge difference between east and west. In the east, very often the laity will start venerating someone, create an icon and appropriate hymns (troparion and kontakion) and eventually the bishops catch up and the person is declared a saint. Then again we have no Bollandists and no Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
Actually even in the Roman Catholic Church today the views of the people are important in Saint hood. It has been reported that John Henry Newman's saint hood was held up because the English did not esteem him highly enough. Once that hurdle was crossed the international estimation was a for gone result. So local veneration plays a part in the declaration of a saint within the Western as well as the Eastern tradition.
[*] Why is the opinion of the laity important? The church isn't a democracy, and the twelfth/thirteenth century church was even less so. No one runs for saint. It's not an elected position.[/list]
A huge difference between east and west. In the east, very often the laity will start venerating someone, create an icon and appropriate hymns (troparion and kontakion) and eventually the bishops catch up and the person is declared a saint. Then again we have no Bollandists and no Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
Wonder if the Eastern Orthodox have ever weighed in on Thomas Becket?
We don't presume to consecrate people who weren't Orthodox.
Or to clarify, would they have sided with the King over the Archbishop, am thinking particularly of the view by the west, that the Orthodox would believe the clergy to be subject to the authority of the emperor?
We swing all over the place on that. One of the Patriarchs of Moscow forcibly deposed by Ivan the great was made a saint. However Ivan had the power to depose him. Looking at the Byzantine court, things get even funner. But yeah, if the Tom B. thing took place in an Orthodox country, the church would probably saintify him.
We believe that
Christ gives his Church a government
distinct from the government of the state.
In things that affect obedience to God
the Church is not subordinate to the state,
but must serve the Lord Jesus Christ,
its only Ruler and Head.
Civil authorities are called
to serve God’s will of justice and peace for all humankind,
and to respect the rights of conscience and belief.
The relationship between church authority and secular authority is a complex one. Several denominations within the United Kingdom including the CoE and CoS have judicial proceedings. However, few Reformed churches would be happy to accept the secular rule of law in all cases. We would simply point to the Confessing Church in Germany.
Going back to the OP, @Anglican Brat notes that Thomas's martyrdom was essentially political. I agree. And for that reason, Charles I should not be a saint, either. In his second point, he notes that low Anglicans would abjure the intercession of saints; but the Apostles' Creed acknowledges the communion of saints, and low Anglicans do recite the AC, which leaves me wondering what is entailed in this "communion".
As to the dynamic of mediaeval sainthood in the West, it was often not so different from what @Mousethief describes amongst the Orthodoxen. Frequently the Church in Rome was left playing catch-up and acknowledged a local saint not only as a way of generating a new income stream but also as a way of controlling popular piety. While, as @Crroesus notes, the 12thC Church was no democracy, the Church recognised the expediences of easily assimilating what could be extirpated only with much greater difficulty. Up until about Innocent III, the saints were pretty loosey-goosey. Even after the bureaucratisation of sainthood, the Church was not completely closed off to popular piety, depending on the various circumstances on the ground.
I got a good chuckle, reading the The White House's proclamation. I couldn't imagine Trump reading it, let alone writing it. I like the image of some intern enjoying him/herself immensely, thinking that it was just like that senior undergrad seminar they loved - at last, to put their well-read piety into action. But I didn't understand something: it proclaimed the anniversary, but the anniversary (calendar difficulties notwithstanding) exists regardless. It proclaimed nothing more. A strange barely-a-gesture.
And it's not at all surprising that a proclamation like this would be in a style other than that of DJT. These sorts of things are often written by interns, speechwriters, what have you, and slapped down on the desk for the signature(Trump's pardon of Conrad Black included laudatory reference to the history books he's written, none of which I'm sure Trump has read). Like I say, my guess is the White House has some conservative religious staffer who's up on Catholic history.
And that the story is clearly being spun out of all recognition for a contemporary audience isn't surprising either. Ideologues often tend to view the past through the lens of current issues that had no bearing in the relevant time period.
The relationship between church authority and secular authority is a complex one. Several denominations within the United Kingdom including the CoE and CoS have judicial proceedings. However, few Reformed churches would be happy to accept the secular rule of law in all cases. We would simply point to the Confessing Church in Germany.
However, a cleric subject to proceedings in the Church of England may still face charges in a secular court: there is no protection from the criminal (or civil) law. Where a charge is sufficiently serious, church proceedings would be halted until the criminal process had been completed so as not to prejudice the case. In any case, to argue the separation of Church and State in England, where the Monarch is Supreme Governor of the C of E and the Church Commissioners report to Parliament, is probably pointless.
I'm sorry to disappoint @Pangolin Guerre and @stetson but your mythical intern demonstrates that he or she doesn't know much more about history than his or her master. I stand by everything I said about the proclamation including the words "simplistic twaddle".
Curiously, Start the Week, a talking heads sort of programme on the BBC (Radio 4) discussed Becket only this week. I don't know whether you'll be able to hear it if you're outside the UK, but for those that can access it, this should link to it. It's also got some interesting reflections on laïcite and modern French politics as well.
I'm sorry to disappoint @Pangolin Guerre and @stetson but your mythical intern demonstrates that he or she doesn't know much more about history than his or her master. I stand by everything I said about the proclamation including the words "simplistic twaddle".
Well, I'm not sure why you think I'd be "disappointed" by what you wrote above. I wasn't asserting that the proclamation was a brilliant piece of historical writing. I was just arguing, contra your speculation that it might be a spoof, that it does indeed seem to have been issued by the White House, and that it's variance from Trump's own style probably indicates that it was written by a staffer.
And that staffer may not know MUCH more about Becket than Trump, but they at least know enough to have been aware of the anniversary of his martyrdom, and have a basic knowledge of who was involved and what happened. That's almost certainly more than Trump knows, which I would guess is at about zero.
@Enoch, as with @Stetson, I didn't claim that the "mythical intern" (Is that like a unicorn?) had any great insight, just great enthusiasm, and as stetson says, what they knew would be more than their master, as they were in this instance their master's voice. Perhaps I should have put some sort of scare quotes around "well-read piety" so you wouldn't have to adjust your sarcasm detector.
One of the three knights who murdered Becket eventually retired to a village near here, according to legend. They were apparently sentenced to 20 years fighting in the Holy Land as penance for the murder, and when they came back, they'd pretty much been forgotten about.
As a former resident of the diocese of Canterbury I do have a soft spot for him. The knights also feature in the history of my parents' village.
It bears none of the hallmarks of Trump's style. It's pronouncing on an event that happened in another far away country and long before the USA ever existed and outside the US government's jurisdiction now, yet alone then. There's never been any indication hitherto that Trump has been interested in either the issues involved or history yet alone have heard of either Becket or Henry II - though I have to admit the text is simplistic twaddle. It has clearly been written by someone who knows much about either what actually happened or what the issues were.
Neither Henry II nor Becket (nor for that matter the knights) would have understood, yet alone been interested in either "the right to free exercise of religion" or "America’s .... glorious Constitution".
AIUI the Religious Right aren't interested in what the US constitution actually says or means by religious freedom. What they want is the right to put their own religious rules above the law of the land, e.g. the obligation to provide contraception as part of health insurance - and this does seem to me comparable to what Thomas Becket wanted.
The date given is in the Julian calendar. If the Gregorian calendar had existed at the time, Becket's death (however classified) would have fallen on 5 January 1171. Calendar reform makes such a mess of concepts like "anniversaries".
Looking at your date I presume you've allowed for the fact that the Julian calendar hadn't drifted quite as far off the equinoxes in Becket's time as it had by the time the Gregorian calendar was actually introduced?
That's correct. For example, 29 December 2020 in the Julian calendar would translate to 11 January 2021 in the Gregorian calendar (+13 days), whereas the Julian 29 December 1170 translates to pseudo-Gregorian 5 January 1171 (+7 days).
I should have thought that by 1170 there would have been plenty of time for Christians to murder other Christians, with a canonisation or two (even if unofficial) along the way quite likely.
I should have thought that by 1170 there would have been plenty of time for Christians to murder other Christians, with a canonisation or two (even if unofficial) along the way quite likely.
Harold of Gloucester was killed two years before Becket. Although his death at the time was blamed on Jewish ritual murder this was almost certainly false. Balance of probabilities says his murderer was most likely a Christian. Ditto the even earlier William of Norwich.
There's also a question about orthodoxy or not. I would be surprised if no saints were martyred at the hands of Arians or Donatists (passing swiftly over Arians killed by the Catholic Visigoths in Spain).
The Emperor Maximus (Macsen Wledig) executed Priscillian and five of his colleagues towards the end of the fourth century - despite the protests of, among others, St. Ambrose - I believe that he was the first to kill other Christians over doctrinal differences. (Technically, the Priscillianists were done in for witchcraft, which was a time honoured Roman tradition.)
As regards doctrinal differences, I wonder how many of the early Hereticks (such as Marcionites, Bogomils etc. etc.) - who would self-identify as Christian - were slain?
Maybe some of them could be (or are) counted as martyrs?
As regards doctrinal differences, I wonder how many of the early Hereticks (such as Marcionites, Bogomils etc. etc.) - who would self-identify as Christian - were slain?
Maybe some of them could be (or are) counted as martyrs?
Not to mention Jan Hus, Michael Servetus and Anne Askew....
As regards doctrinal differences, I wonder how many of the early Hereticks (such as Marcionites, Bogomils etc. etc.) - who would self-identify as Christian - were slain?
Maybe some of them could be (or are) counted as martyrs?
Not to mention Jan Hus, Michael Servetus and Anne Askew....
Fair crack of the whip, mate, this is almost 2021. The martyrdom of Hus( 1415) was not all that long after Becket.
Just wondering: are any of those 3 (Hus, Askew and Servetus) in any Reformed canon of saints?
Not to mention Jeanne d'Arc: burned as a witch for entirely political reasons and canonised 500 years later for reasons which remain obscure to me, a pre-V2 Roman...
Fair crack of the whip, mate, this is almost 2021. The martyrdom of Hus( 1415) was not all that long after Becket.
Just wondering: are any of those 3 (Hus, Askew and Servetus) in any Reformed canon of saints?
Not to mention Jeanne d'Arc: burned as a witch for entirely political reasons and canonised 500 years later for reasons which remain obscure to me, a pre-V2 Roman...
But I think the original question was whether Becket was the first martyr to be killed by other Christians.
Fair crack of the whip, mate, this is almost 2021. The martyrdom of Hus( 1415) was not all that long after Becket.
Just wondering: are any of those 3 (Hus, Askew and Servetus) in any Reformed canon of saints?
Not to mention Jeanne d'Arc: burned as a witch for entirely political reasons and canonised 500 years later for reasons which remain obscure to me, a pre-V2 Roman...
But I think the original question was whether Becket was the first martyr to be killed by other Christians.
I think the Byzantine iconoclast brouhaha produced any number of those.
Do the Reformed have a canon of saints? That seems inimical to their understanding of the faith.
I don't think the Kirk does. Even the CofE fudges the issue with a calendar of Holy Days that never actually confers the title "Saint" on any of those listed. The Kirk does retain "Saint" in the names of some churches, however, and not just pre-reformation ones.
As regards doctrinal differences, I wonder how many of the early Hereticks (such as Marcionites, Bogomils etc. etc.) - who would self-identify as Christian - were slain?
Maybe some of them could be (or are) counted as martyrs?
Do any of their communities survive? My hunch is that they have died out .... though undoubtedly their -ologies live on.
This thread poses a number of interesting questions. Each of us will have our own interpretations of what the word 'saint' means.
Many Christians believe that we are all called in this life to be 'saints', achieving one day eternal felicity in God's presence. This is certainly the official belief of the Catholic Church and the constant prayers of the liturgy of the Church.
The Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, proposes certain baptised members of its community to the veneration of its faithful, giving these people the formal title of 'Saint',
yet not denying that there are countless numbers of others who have been equally 'holy'.
The Church appellation 'Saint' does not mean that one has led an exemplary life since the moment of birth, but rather that one has at some time done 'something beautiful for God'
,which might mean, amongst other things ,dying for the sake of Christ.
The thread raises also the question about the relationship between Christ and 'the Church' and I do not propose to discuss this topic except to say that there are many examples of those who have died defending the Church, as they saw it, against the State as they saw it, or even against other forms of Christianity, as they saw them - St Thomas More and St Josaphat Kuncevic are two good examples of those whose Christianity is admired by some and reviled by others.
However I really wished to give an example to Stetson,I think, who asked the question as to whether Becket was the first martyr to be killed by other Christians - that is assuming that the four knights, the King or even Becket himself were indeed 'Christians'.
Just find out about St Lambert of Maastricht born in the middle of the seventh century.
He became Bishop of Maastricht(Netherlands),then was banished by the royal court ,returned to the diocese when Pippin became ruler, spent some decades building up the diocese and then got into a quarrel with someone who had stolen church goods. This someone was presumably a 'Christian' He had Lambert murdered. Soon a cult grew up around Lambert, his remains being translated mainly to Liege(Belgium) though some of the remains are in the cathedral of Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany).He is designated by the RC Church as a martyr and his feast day is 17th September.
Fair crack of the whip, mate, this is almost 2021. The martyrdom of Hus( 1415) was not all that long after Becket.
Just wondering: are any of those 3 (Hus, Askew and Servetus) in any Reformed canon of saints?
Not to mention Jeanne d'Arc: burned as a witch for entirely political reasons and canonised 500 years later for reasons which remain obscure to me, a pre-V2 Roman...
But I think the original question was whether Becket was the first martyr to be killed by other Christians.
To clarify .... was he the first to be killed by other christians and to be officially canonised and included in the Calendar of saints?
What all these examples suggest is that canonisation, if that's the correct term, is often a function of ecclesiastical and secular politics, rather than, well, sanctity.
Quite so. Some of the more dodgy recent canonisations ( Josemaria Escriva, Faustina Kowalska, Gianna Molla etc ) spring to mind....
Now it helps immeasurably if the candidate comes from a wealthy country or religious order. Better stil .... be a pope!
I would add John Paul II to the list of those regrettably canonised.
Do the Reformed have a canon of saints? That seems inimical to their understanding of the faith.
A “canon” of saints as such? No, I know of no Reformed group with such a canon. A calendar of commemorations, on the other hand, while not exactly traditional, isn’t necessarily inimical to the Reformed tradition. The 2018 edition of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Book of Common Worship includes such a calendar—it’s the first edition of the BCW to do so, though the calendar has been available for a few decades at least. It includes saints—in a very broad use of the term—from most if not all (Nicene) Christian traditions.
Just wondering: are any of those 3 (Hus, Askew and Servetus) in any Reformed canon of saints?
Jan Hus and Michael Servetus are both included in the PC(USA)’s calendar of commemorations. Anne Askew is not, at least not on the date of her death—I didn’t scan the whole thing to see if for some reason she might be commemorated on a different day.
With regard to Servetus, given his views (as I understand them) on Christology and the Trinity, I suspect that his inclusion in the calendar may have less to do with his own “saintliness,” as it were, and more to do with acknowledgement of Calvin’s role and the role of the Genevan church in his execution.
Do the Reformed have a canon of saints? That seems inimical to their understanding of the faith.
A “canon” of saints as such? No, I know of no Reformed group with such a canon. A calendar of commemorations, on the other hand, while not exactly traditional, isn’t necessarily inimical to the Reformed tradition. The 2018 edition of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Book of Common Worship includes such a calendar—it’s the first edition of the BCW to do so, though the calendar has been available for a few decades at least. It includes saints—in a very broad use of the term—from most if not all (Nicene) Christian traditions.
Would you say that's official or unofficial? Who decides who gets on the calendar and who doesn't?
Do the Reformed have a canon of saints? That seems inimical to their understanding of the faith.
A “canon” of saints as such? No, I know of no Reformed group with such a canon. A calendar of commemorations, on the other hand, while not exactly traditional, isn’t necessarily inimical to the Reformed tradition. The 2018 edition of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Book of Common Worship includes such a calendar—it’s the first edition of the BCW to do so, though the calendar has been available for a few decades at least. It includes saints—in a very broad use of the term—from most if not all (Nicene) Christian traditions.
Just wondering: are any of those 3 (Hus, Askew and Servetus) in any Reformed canon of saints?
Jan Hus and Michael Servetus are both included in the PC(USA)’s calendar of commemorations. Anne Askew is not, at least not on the date of her death—I didn’t scan the whole thing to see if for some reason she might be commemorated on a different day.
With regard to Servetus, given his views (as I understand them) on Christology and the Trinity, I suspect that his inclusion in the calendar may have less to do with his own “saintliness,” as it were, and more to do with acknowledgement of Calvin’s role and the role of the Genevan church in his execution.
Servetus is still widely admired within Unitarianism. While there are probably still some members who subscribe to his Christology, my understanding is that he's mostly now honoured as a martyr for freedom of conscience.
Do the Reformed have a canon of saints? That seems inimical to their understanding of the faith.
A “canon” of saints as such? No, I know of no Reformed group with such a canon. A calendar of commemorations, on the other hand, while not exactly traditional, isn’t necessarily inimical to the Reformed tradition. The 2018 edition of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Book of Common Worship includes such a calendar—it’s the first edition of the BCW to do so, though the calendar has been available for a few decades at least. It includes saints—in a very broad use of the term—from most if not all (Nicene) Christian traditions.
Would you say that's official or unofficial? Who decides who gets on the calendar and who doesn't?
Unofficial, except in the sense that it’s published by the denomination. As with all liturgical books and hymnals in my tribe—save the Directory for Worship*, which has the force of our version of canon law—use of it is voluntary. Whether to follow, to whatever extent, or ignore the calendar in congregational life would be a decision for the pastor and Session of a congregation. Of course, an individual may choose to use it in personal prayer as well.
The PC(USA)’s Office of Theology and Worship prepared the calendar. FWIW, the introduction to the calendar includes this: “This calendar is, of course, incomplete; users of this calendar are encouraged to use the spaces provided . . . to add names of other persons and events that are significant to the life of the church in certain regions or congregations.”
* On this topic, the Directory, in a section on “time” (Lord’s Day, liturgical year, etc.) says: “We mark other occasions in worship, reflecting the cycles of civic and agricultural life, cultural and family celebrations, the commemoration of significant persons and events . . . .” So the Directory does contemplate the sort of commemoration facilitated by a calendar.
Jan Hus is very big in the Czech Republic for obvious reasons. Interestingly, the fact that he took his inspiration from Wycliffe means that (at least IME) Wycliffe has a higher profile there than in England.
As regards doctrinal differences, I wonder how many of the early Hereticks (such as Marcionites, Bogomils etc. etc.) - who would self-identify as Christian - were slain?
Maybe some of them could be (or are) counted as martyrs?
Do any of their communities survive? My hunch is that they have died out .... though undoubtedly their -ologies live on.
I think there is some disputed evidence that the Bogomils might have survived in Bosnia as late as the Ottoman period, but otherwise no.
Pointless fact of the day: the English word 'bugger' is ultimately derived from 'Bulgarian', and is a slur against the Bogomils. Source.
Jan Hus is very big in the Czech Republic for obvious reasons. Interestingly, the fact that he took his inspiration from Wycliffe means that (at least IME) Wycliffe has a higher profile there than in England.
Wycliffe, btw, is on the calendar of commemorations for today, having died on Dec. 31, 1384, as the result of a stroke.
I would have said Wycliffe does have quite a high profile in England. The Lollards are well known. There's quite strong recent research that Lollardy was still going strong in England in the years leading up to Henry VIII's break with Rome and had a significant influence at popular level on what happened from 1530 onwards. That's over 100 years after Wycliffe and required transmission half the way in a pre-printing society.
This may not suit the theological predilections of some Shipmates but, just as others are named after Ridley and Cramner, one of the CofE theological colleges (seminaries in US terms) is named after Wycliffe. The Lutterworth Press, which published Christian literature takes its name from the place where Wycliffe was vicar - though non-resident for much of his career.
Comments
It bears none of the hallmarks of Trump's style. It's pronouncing on an event that happened in another far away country and long before the USA ever existed and outside the US government's jurisdiction now, yet alone then. There's never been any indication hitherto that Trump has been interested in either the issues involved or history yet alone have heard of either Becket or Henry II - though I have to admit the text is simplistic twaddle. It has clearly been written by someone who knows much about either what actually happened or what the issues were.
Neither Henry II nor Becket (nor for that matter the knights) would have understood, yet alone been interested in either "the right to free exercise of religion" or "America’s .... glorious Constitution".
Actually even in the Roman Catholic Church today the views of the people are important in Saint hood. It has been reported that John Henry Newman's saint hood was held up because the English did not esteem him highly enough. Once that hurdle was crossed the international estimation was a for gone result. So local veneration plays a part in the declaration of a saint within the Western as well as the Eastern tradition.
We swing all over the place on that. One of the Patriarchs of Moscow forcibly deposed by Ivan the great was made a saint. However Ivan had the power to depose him. Looking at the Byzantine court, things get even funner. But yeah, if the Tom B. thing took place in an Orthodox country, the church would probably saintify him.
The relationship between church authority and secular authority is a complex one. Several denominations within the United Kingdom including the CoE and CoS have judicial proceedings. However, few Reformed churches would be happy to accept the secular rule of law in all cases. We would simply point to the Confessing Church in Germany.
As to the dynamic of mediaeval sainthood in the West, it was often not so different from what @Mousethief describes amongst the Orthodoxen. Frequently the Church in Rome was left playing catch-up and acknowledged a local saint not only as a way of generating a new income stream but also as a way of controlling popular piety. While, as @Crroesus notes, the 12thC Church was no democracy, the Church recognised the expediences of easily assimilating what could be extirpated only with much greater difficulty. Up until about Innocent III, the saints were pretty loosey-goosey. Even after the bureaucratisation of sainthood, the Church was not completely closed off to popular piety, depending on the various circumstances on the ground.
I got a good chuckle, reading the The White House's proclamation. I couldn't imagine Trump reading it, let alone writing it. I like the image of some intern enjoying him/herself immensely, thinking that it was just like that senior undergrad seminar they loved - at last, to put their well-read piety into action. But I didn't understand something: it proclaimed the anniversary, but the anniversary (calendar difficulties notwithstanding) exists regardless. It proclaimed nothing more. A strange barely-a-gesture.
Unless this whole website is a spoof, yes, it would appear to be real.
And it's not at all surprising that a proclamation like this would be in a style other than that of DJT. These sorts of things are often written by interns, speechwriters, what have you, and slapped down on the desk for the signature(Trump's pardon of Conrad Black included laudatory reference to the history books he's written, none of which I'm sure Trump has read). Like I say, my guess is the White House has some conservative religious staffer who's up on Catholic history.
And that the story is clearly being spun out of all recognition for a contemporary audience isn't surprising either. Ideologues often tend to view the past through the lens of current issues that had no bearing in the relevant time period.
However, a cleric subject to proceedings in the Church of England may still face charges in a secular court: there is no protection from the criminal (or civil) law. Where a charge is sufficiently serious, church proceedings would be halted until the criminal process had been completed so as not to prejudice the case. In any case, to argue the separation of Church and State in England, where the Monarch is Supreme Governor of the C of E and the Church Commissioners report to Parliament, is probably pointless.
Curiously, Start the Week, a talking heads sort of programme on the BBC (Radio 4) discussed Becket only this week. I don't know whether you'll be able to hear it if you're outside the UK, but for those that can access it, this should link to it. It's also got some interesting reflections on laïcite and modern French politics as well.
Well, I'm not sure why you think I'd be "disappointed" by what you wrote above. I wasn't asserting that the proclamation was a brilliant piece of historical writing. I was just arguing, contra your speculation that it might be a spoof, that it does indeed seem to have been issued by the White House, and that it's variance from Trump's own style probably indicates that it was written by a staffer.
And that staffer may not know MUCH more about Becket than Trump, but they at least know enough to have been aware of the anniversary of his martyrdom, and have a basic knowledge of who was involved and what happened. That's almost certainly more than Trump knows, which I would guess is at about zero.
As a former resident of the diocese of Canterbury I do have a soft spot for him. The knights also feature in the history of my parents' village.
AIUI the Religious Right aren't interested in what the US constitution actually says or means by religious freedom. What they want is the right to put their own religious rules above the law of the land, e.g. the obligation to provide contraception as part of health insurance - and this does seem to me comparable to what Thomas Becket wanted.
That's correct. For example, 29 December 2020 in the Julian calendar would translate to 11 January 2021 in the Gregorian calendar (+13 days), whereas the Julian 29 December 1170 translates to pseudo-Gregorian 5 January 1171 (+7 days).
Nice one!
The only problem would be trying to stop Johnny Foreigner from taking back those days as well, but what Larks we could have with the calendar...
Why, they now owe us almost a good honest English fortnight!
I should have thought that by 1170 there would have been plenty of time for Christians to murder other Christians, with a canonisation or two (even if unofficial) along the way quite likely.
Harold of Gloucester was killed two years before Becket. Although his death at the time was blamed on Jewish ritual murder this was almost certainly false. Balance of probabilities says his murderer was most likely a Christian. Ditto the even earlier William of Norwich.
Then there's the killing of Olaf II in battle. Whether this saint was killed by a fellow Christian or not depends on how thoroughly Christianized Norway was at the time, something that Olaf II himself is credited with achieving.
Do you mean that witchcraft, or the persecution of witches, was a time-honoured tradition in Rome?
Maybe some of them could be (or are) counted as martyrs?
Thx.
Not to mention Jan Hus, Michael Servetus and Anne Askew....
Just wondering: are any of those 3 (Hus, Askew and Servetus) in any Reformed canon of saints?
Not to mention Jeanne d'Arc: burned as a witch for entirely political reasons and canonised 500 years later for reasons which remain obscure to me, a pre-V2 Roman...
But I think the original question was whether Becket was the first martyr to be killed by other Christians.
I think the Byzantine iconoclast brouhaha produced any number of those.
I don't think the Kirk does. Even the CofE fudges the issue with a calendar of Holy Days that never actually confers the title "Saint" on any of those listed. The Kirk does retain "Saint" in the names of some churches, however, and not just pre-reformation ones.
Do any of their communities survive? My hunch is that they have died out .... though undoubtedly their -ologies live on.
Many Christians believe that we are all called in this life to be 'saints', achieving one day eternal felicity in God's presence. This is certainly the official belief of the Catholic Church and the constant prayers of the liturgy of the Church.
The Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, proposes certain baptised members of its community to the veneration of its faithful, giving these people the formal title of 'Saint',
yet not denying that there are countless numbers of others who have been equally 'holy'.
The Church appellation 'Saint' does not mean that one has led an exemplary life since the moment of birth, but rather that one has at some time done 'something beautiful for God'
,which might mean, amongst other things ,dying for the sake of Christ.
The thread raises also the question about the relationship between Christ and 'the Church' and I do not propose to discuss this topic except to say that there are many examples of those who have died defending the Church, as they saw it, against the State as they saw it, or even against other forms of Christianity, as they saw them - St Thomas More and St Josaphat Kuncevic are two good examples of those whose Christianity is admired by some and reviled by others.
However I really wished to give an example to Stetson,I think, who asked the question as to whether Becket was the first martyr to be killed by other Christians - that is assuming that the four knights, the King or even Becket himself were indeed 'Christians'.
Just find out about St Lambert of Maastricht born in the middle of the seventh century.
He became Bishop of Maastricht(Netherlands),then was banished by the royal court ,returned to the diocese when Pippin became ruler, spent some decades building up the diocese and then got into a quarrel with someone who had stolen church goods. This someone was presumably a 'Christian' He had Lambert murdered. Soon a cult grew up around Lambert, his remains being translated mainly to Liege(Belgium) though some of the remains are in the cathedral of Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany).He is designated by the RC Church as a martyr and his feast day is 17th September.
To clarify .... was he the first to be killed by other christians and to be officially canonised and included in the Calendar of saints?
Now it helps immeasurably if the candidate comes from a wealthy country or religious order. Better stil .... be a pope!
I would add John Paul II to the list of those regrettably canonised.
Jan Hus and Michael Servetus are both included in the PC(USA)’s calendar of commemorations. Anne Askew is not, at least not on the date of her death—I didn’t scan the whole thing to see if for some reason she might be commemorated on a different day.
With regard to Servetus, given his views (as I understand them) on Christology and the Trinity, I suspect that his inclusion in the calendar may have less to do with his own “saintliness,” as it were, and more to do with acknowledgement of Calvin’s role and the role of the Genevan church in his execution.
Would you say that's official or unofficial? Who decides who gets on the calendar and who doesn't?
Servetus is still widely admired within Unitarianism. While there are probably still some members who subscribe to his Christology, my understanding is that he's mostly now honoured as a martyr for freedom of conscience.
The PC(USA)’s Office of Theology and Worship prepared the calendar. FWIW, the introduction to the calendar includes this: “This calendar is, of course, incomplete; users of this calendar are encouraged to use the spaces provided . . . to add names of other persons and events that are significant to the life of the church in certain regions or congregations.”
* On this topic, the Directory, in a section on “time” (Lord’s Day, liturgical year, etc.) says: “We mark other occasions in worship, reflecting the cycles of civic and agricultural life, cultural and family celebrations, the commemoration of significant persons and events . . . .” So the Directory does contemplate the sort of commemoration facilitated by a calendar.
I think there is some disputed evidence that the Bogomils might have survived in Bosnia as late as the Ottoman period, but otherwise no.
Pointless fact of the day: the English word 'bugger' is ultimately derived from 'Bulgarian', and is a slur against the Bogomils. Source.
This may not suit the theological predilections of some Shipmates but, just as others are named after Ridley and Cramner, one of the CofE theological colleges (seminaries in US terms) is named after Wycliffe. The Lutterworth Press, which published Christian literature takes its name from the place where Wycliffe was vicar - though non-resident for much of his career.