Comments on: King Charles the Martyr http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=king-charles-the-martyr Catholic Faith and Anglican Patrimony Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:32:52 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Mark A. Wuonola, Ph.D. http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-3997 Mark A. Wuonola, Ph.D. Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:32:54 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-3997 The Society has certain specific Objects, getting 30 Jan. inserted in the calendars of Anglican bodies, erecting votive shrines, increasing knowledge of his contribution to our Anglican identity (some would say, 'existence'), but overall, we exist to unite those who venerate him as a saint, beatus, passion bearer, or worthy. These, some of whom are members of S.K.C.M. are diverse in their ecclesiastical affiliation (including non-Anglican), their reasons for considering him among their patron saints, and whether they view him, technically, as a saint by virtue of the RC church's process of the recent several centuries. In the S.K.C.M., we feel that it is unseemly and does not well serve the Cause of our Patron, King Charles the Martyr, to engage in disputation of this nature. Having a rôle in the Society, I do not choose to associate my own views with the Society's. Such arguments tend to become political; these, in order best to preserve our focus, are thus best avoided. (Not that one is not tempted.) For example, in the earliest years of our Society, there was a distinct tendency toward Jacobitism. Today, some members are monarchists but that is not the Society's position. For one thing, King Charles I and his situation are complex enough without further complicating matters. Adding other controversial issues makes it even harder to advocate our position on a subject where people already are polarized. So, we 'remember' the words of our Foundress, Ermengarda Greville-Nugent, "The Society is emphatically non-political." Secondly, it is difficult even for those scholars who have no axe to grind truly to understand the viewpoints of another age. For example some of the most revered Caroline Divines held shockingly vituperative positions on the RC Church and the mass. One reason was the intertwining of the C of E and the State, just as the RC Church exercised both spiritual and temporal power. Some of each side's ecclesiastics used their positions as cover for espionage, or were used thus by their governments, to whom the practice was unexceptional. Even knowing these things, some of those divines' statements are repulsive when we read them today, A century after Lord Halifax and many decades after the first, fraternal ARCIC meetings, few churchfolk reading Lancelot Andrewes would realize that 'Antichrist' and 'Whore of Babylon' were being used in reference to the Roman Pontiff. At the same time, King Charles was in correspondence with the Pope. Abp. Laud in a prayer for unity prayed "that all who confess Thy holy Name may be reunited, as at the beginning" and asked God "to remove . . . all suspicions and prejudices and endue us with such love towards Thee and towards one another that we may be one in Thee." Mark A. Wuonola The Society has certain specific Objects, getting 30 Jan. inserted in the calendars of Anglican bodies, erecting votive shrines, increasing knowledge of his contribution to our Anglican identity (some would say, 'existence'), but overall, we exist to unite those who venerate him as a saint, beatus, passion bearer, or worthy. These, some of whom are members of S.K.C.M. are diverse in their ecclesiastical affiliation (including non-Anglican), their reasons for considering him among their patron saints, and whether they view him, technically, as a saint by virtue of the RC church's process of the recent several centuries.
In the S.K.C.M., we feel that it is unseemly and does not well serve the Cause of our Patron, King Charles the Martyr, to engage in disputation of this nature. Having a rôle in the Society, I do not choose to associate my own views with the Society's. Such arguments tend to become political; these, in order best to preserve our focus, are thus best avoided. (Not that one is not tempted.)
For example, in the earliest years of our Society, there was a distinct tendency toward Jacobitism. Today, some members are monarchists but that is not the Society's position. For one thing, King Charles I and his situation are complex enough without further complicating matters. Adding other controversial issues makes it even harder to advocate our position on a subject where people already are polarized. So, we 'remember' the words of our Foundress, Ermengarda Greville-Nugent, "The Society is emphatically non-political."
Secondly, it is difficult even for those scholars who have no axe to grind truly to understand the viewpoints of another age. For example some of the most revered Caroline Divines held shockingly vituperative positions on the RC Church and the mass. One reason was the intertwining of the C of E and the State, just as the RC Church exercised both spiritual and temporal power. Some of each side's ecclesiastics used their positions as cover for espionage, or were used thus by their governments, to whom the practice was unexceptional. Even knowing these things, some of those divines' statements are repulsive when we read them today, A century after Lord Halifax and many decades after the first, fraternal ARCIC meetings, few churchfolk reading Lancelot Andrewes would realize that 'Antichrist' and 'Whore of Babylon' were being used in reference to the Roman Pontiff.
At the same time, King Charles was in correspondence with the Pope. Abp. Laud in a prayer for unity prayed "that all who confess Thy holy Name may be reunited, as at the beginning" and asked God "to remove . . . all suspicions and prejudices and endue us with such love towards Thee and towards one another that we may be one in Thee."
Mark A. Wuonola

]]> By: Mark A. Wuonola, Ph.D. http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-3973 Mark A. Wuonola, Ph.D. Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:31:17 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-3973 Presently Publications Editor of the American Region of the Society of King Charles the Martyr, may I comment on #2 by Robert Andrews, speculating on an "underground cult". Since its founding in London in 1894 and its establishment in the Americas, specifically New York, in the same year, the Society has been very public, to the best of my knowledge lacking any elements of secrecy. I might add that I am in the midst of research for a history of the American Branch and would appreciate any information on the Society's witness in the U.S. and Canada, esp. 1900-1950, a period on which we have hardly any information. As for the Royal Martyr's sainthood, it is the case that there are many seeming contradictions and obstacles from our limited perspective. Similarly, it is beyond our human capabilities to envision how we all might be one, as our Lord and the Father are one. Nonetheless, we should pray for such unity, as our Lord commanded (or suggested). Taking our Lord at His Word, King Charles and Abp. Laud corresponded with the Pope and with the Ecumenical and other Patriarchs. Their bold initiatives, in response to our Lord's Words to His Apostles, can only be described as Ecumenically Prophetic or . . . naïve. For decades, widely ridiculed prayers for Russia's delivery from 'Godless Communism' seemed naïve, too. Mark A. Wuonola, Ph.D. Publications Editor, S.K.C.M., American Region Sometime American Representative (1988-2009) Presently Publications Editor of the American Region of the Society of King Charles the Martyr, may I comment on #2 by Robert Andrews, speculating on an "underground cult". Since its founding in London in 1894 and its establishment in the Americas, specifically New York, in the same year, the Society has been very public, to the best of my knowledge lacking any elements of secrecy.
I might add that I am in the midst of research for a history of the American Branch and would appreciate any information on the Society's witness in the U.S. and Canada, esp. 1900-1950, a period on which we have hardly any information.
As for the Royal Martyr's sainthood, it is the case that there are many seeming contradictions and obstacles from our limited perspective. Similarly, it is beyond our human capabilities to envision how we all might be one, as our Lord and the Father are one. Nonetheless, we should pray for such unity, as our Lord commanded (or suggested). Taking our Lord at His Word, King Charles and Abp. Laud corresponded with the Pope and with the Ecumenical and other Patriarchs. Their bold initiatives, in response to our Lord's Words to His Apostles, can only be described as Ecumenically Prophetic or . . . naïve. For decades, widely ridiculed prayers for Russia's delivery from 'Godless Communism' seemed naïve, too.
Mark A. Wuonola, Ph.D.
Publications Editor, S.K.C.M., American Region
Sometime American Representative (1988-2009)

]]> By: Peter Karl T. Perkins http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-2074 Peter Karl T. Perkins Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:06:46 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-2074 I also recall Charles I's wonderful words when he was dragged before a Puritan judge: "I see that I am before a power." What a wonderful way to say, in effect: you have no jurisdiction. P.K.T.P. I also recall Charles I's wonderful words when he was dragged before a Puritan judge:

"I see that I am before a power."

What a wonderful way to say, in effect: you have no jurisdiction.

P.K.T.P.

]]> By: Joshua http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-2062 Joshua Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:42:22 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-2062 Recall what Charles II said when a wag at court said of him "He never said a foolish thing, / Nor ever did a wise one" - "Yes, it is true, for my words are my own, while my actions are those of my ministers." The doctrine that the monarch reigns but does not rule, in a nutshell. Recall what Charles II said when a wag at court said of him "He never said a foolish thing, / Nor ever did a wise one" – "Yes, it is true, for my words are my own, while my actions are those of my ministers."

The doctrine that the monarch reigns but does not rule, in a nutshell.

]]> By: Peter Karl T. Perkins http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-2044 Peter Karl T. Perkins Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:14:19 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-2044 Joshua does have a point here, of course. While, as a passionate Royalist, I honour King Charles I, as a Catholic, I cannot count him as a saint. Since 1649 was long after the process of canonisation came into force, he would have to be judged a saint by the Church. Moreover, I should think it to be unprecedented to honour or venerate as a saint one who was not in Communion with Rome. It would be a first (although theoretically not impossible). We do have three English Royal saints already and, arguably a foruth in Henry VI (and a fifth if we count St. Oswald, King of Northumbria). Let's just call him 'good King Charles I' for now. Notice how there are no saint-presidents? (Moreno of Ecuador might become the first.) I can think of a dozen royal saints immediately! As for prime-ministers, they are all scoundrels! P.K.T.P. Joshua does have a point here, of course. While, as a passionate Royalist, I honour King Charles I, as a Catholic, I cannot count him as a saint. Since 1649 was long after the process of canonisation came into force, he would have to be judged a saint by the Church. Moreover, I should think it to be unprecedented to honour or venerate as a saint one who was not in Communion with Rome. It would be a first (although theoretically not impossible).

We do have three English Royal saints already and, arguably a foruth in Henry VI (and a fifth if we count St. Oswald, King of Northumbria).

Let's just call him 'good King Charles I' for now.

Notice how there are no saint-presidents? (Moreno of Ecuador might become the first.) I can think of a dozen royal saints immediately!

As for prime-ministers, they are all scoundrels!

P.K.T.P.

]]> By: Joshua http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-2027 Joshua Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:00:00 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-2027 Pending the judgement of the Universal Church, we will have for the moment to disagree. The Catholic Church was still in England, but suffering dire persecution - as in the case of St Ambrose Barlow, a prematurely aged priest half-paralysed by a stroke, who refused his parishioners' pleas to flee when Charles issued a proclamation expelling all Catholic priests from the realm on pain of death, and was arrested while saying Mass, tried and gruesomely executed. The Patrimony does need to be sympathetically but fairly vetted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would say again that, for English Catholics in particular, venerating the memory of their recusant ancestors and especially the Forty Martyrs and hundreds of blessed martyrs of the penal times, to pay veneration to King Charles I is quite scandalous - the very monarch who actually signed the death warrants of the saints! Pending the judgement of the Universal Church, we will have for the moment to disagree.

The Catholic Church was still in England, but suffering dire persecution – as in the case of St Ambrose Barlow, a prematurely aged priest half-paralysed by a stroke, who refused his parishioners' pleas to flee when Charles issued a proclamation expelling all Catholic priests from the realm on pain of death, and was arrested while saying Mass, tried and gruesomely executed.

The Patrimony does need to be sympathetically but fairly vetted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I would say again that, for English Catholics in particular, venerating the memory of their recusant ancestors and especially the Forty Martyrs and hundreds of blessed martyrs of the penal times, to pay veneration to King Charles I is quite scandalous – the very monarch who actually signed the death warrants of the saints!

]]> By: Christian Campbell http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-2021 Christian Campbell Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:14:02 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-2021 Joshua, While some Catholics may have reservations about this peculiar devotion, the <em>cultus</em> of King Charles the Martyr is part of our Anglican Patrimony. As Mr. Andrews observed above, Charles I indeed died for the Established Church -- but a church which he, and those of his party, understood to be the Catholic Church in England. And he resisted those who would have eradicated forever episcopacy, the sacraments, and all other remnants of "popery" in the Church. While the Anglicanism of Charles I and Archbishop Laud may have been very different from ours, it is doubtful that there would have ever been a Catholic revival in the Anglican Church without them. And for that, without indulging in false history or any other pretensions, we honor him on this day. Joshua,

While some Catholics may have reservations about this peculiar devotion, the cultus of King Charles the Martyr is part of our Anglican Patrimony. As Mr. Andrews observed above, Charles I indeed died for the Established Church — but a church which he, and those of his party, understood to be the Catholic Church in England. And he resisted those who would have eradicated forever episcopacy, the sacraments, and all other remnants of "popery" in the Church. While the Anglicanism of Charles I and Archbishop Laud may have been very different from ours, it is doubtful that there would have ever been a Catholic revival in the Anglican Church without them. And for that, without indulging in false history or any other pretensions, we honor him on this day.

]]> By: Joshua http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-2014 Joshua Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:09:44 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-2014 I do think we need to get some perspective here... forgive me, but to an outsider, looking forward very much to the outcome of present reunification talks, the cult of Charles I does seem to combine some of the worst features of self-satisfied Anglicanism: fawning over the royal power, and indulging in false history (pretending the Anglicanism of Charles' day to have been Anglo-Catholicism, even Anglo-Papalism, which it wasn't). At the same time that poor Charles went to the block, many Catholic priests had been, were being, and would continue to be hung, drawn and quartered in Britain, for the "crime" of being priests in communion with Rome, as had happened since 1535 and would continue to happen until 1679. (To say Mass was only legalized in 1772 or thereabouts.) They were undoubted martyrs, dying for the Faith. While they prayed heartily for their king, they rank high above him in glory. It seems perverse to indulge one's sentimentality in a questionable cult when there are plenty of uncontroversial saints to venerate. I do think we need to get some perspective here… forgive me, but to an outsider, looking forward very much to the outcome of present reunification talks, the cult of Charles I does seem to combine some of the worst features of self-satisfied Anglicanism: fawning over the royal power, and indulging in false history (pretending the Anglicanism of Charles' day to have been Anglo-Catholicism, even Anglo-Papalism, which it wasn't).

At the same time that poor Charles went to the block, many Catholic priests had been, were being, and would continue to be hung, drawn and quartered in Britain, for the "crime" of being priests in communion with Rome, as had happened since 1535 and would continue to happen until 1679. (To say Mass was only legalized in 1772 or thereabouts.) They were undoubted martyrs, dying for the Faith. While they prayed heartily for their king, they rank high above him in glory.

It seems perverse to indulge one's sentimentality in a questionable cult when there are plenty of uncontroversial saints to venerate.

]]> By: Peter Karl T. Perkins http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-2006 Peter Karl T. Perkins Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:07:20 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-2006 Joshua: There is also King St. Edmund of East Anglia. In the Late Midde ages, some Englishmen would proudly tell the French of their 'three royal saints (Edmund of East Anglia, Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor) as against only one for France (Louis IX). Some English mss. show the three together in a miniature. Henry VI was added by general acclaim before canonisations became the only accepted means of such recognition. I would say, therefore, that it is correct to call him 'St. Henry VI'. I note that at least one TAC parish mentions him in its title, so the matter is relevant here. If they are allowed to keep him for thirty continuous years, under the current Code ... !!! In accordance with traditional Catholic usage, Charles I could be a saint but not a martyr in the strict sense. There has been some misusage lately about martyrs. Many modern Catholics are calling St. Maximilian Kolbe a martyr. He was not. Being killed owing to some specifically Christian action, like volunteering your life to save another, will likely make you a saint but is not sufficient for martyrdom. To be a martyr, you must suffer death rather than renoune the Catholic Faith. Since a saint is merely someone who is declared to present in Heaven, and since all Anglicans are able to go to Heaven (well, except for the Schorri Woman), it is not impossible that King Charles I will one day be canonised as King St. Charles I, but not as St. Charles the Martyr (although he may have been a martyr in the more general sense in which that term is used). Traditionally, the purpose of canonisation is merely to propose a particular saint as a model of behaviour and for veneration. Its purpose is not to identify everyone who qualifies as a saint (much as the practice in the last pontificate may make one wonder). Could the Catholic Church ever venerate a man who did not embrace the Catholic Church specifically? I think she could in theory but taht this would be unpecedented. Incidentally, there are also 'white martyrs": those who suffered so much for the Faith that their intent was identical to that of martyrs, and in parallel circumstances of persecution. They survived only by divine intervention, or they died of their physical wounds but not immediately. Pope St. Anicetus comes to mind. I am fascinated by this category of 'passion-bearers' used by the Orthodox. I am wondering if it is also used by Eastern Catholics. Does anyone here know? P.K.T.P. Joshua:

There is also King St. Edmund of East Anglia. In the Late Midde ages, some Englishmen would proudly tell the French of their 'three royal saints (Edmund of East Anglia, Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor) as against only one for France (Louis IX). Some English mss. show the three together in a miniature. Henry VI was added by general acclaim before canonisations became the only accepted means of such recognition. I would say, therefore, that it is correct to call him 'St. Henry VI'. I note that at least one TAC parish mentions him in its title, so the matter is relevant here. If they are allowed to keep him for thirty continuous years, under the current Code … !!!

In accordance with traditional Catholic usage, Charles I could be a saint but not a martyr in the strict sense. There has been some misusage lately about martyrs. Many modern Catholics are calling St. Maximilian Kolbe a martyr. He was not. Being killed owing to some specifically Christian action, like volunteering your life to save another, will likely make you a saint but is not sufficient for martyrdom. To be a martyr, you must suffer death rather than renoune the Catholic Faith.

Since a saint is merely someone who is declared to present in Heaven, and since all Anglicans are able to go to Heaven (well, except for the Schorri Woman), it is not impossible that King Charles I will one day be canonised as King St. Charles I, but not as St. Charles the Martyr (although he may have been a martyr in the more general sense in which that term is used).

Traditionally, the purpose of canonisation is merely to propose a particular saint as a model of behaviour and for veneration. Its purpose is not to identify everyone who qualifies as a saint (much as the practice in the last pontificate may make one wonder). Could the Catholic Church ever venerate a man who did not embrace the Catholic Church specifically? I think she could in theory but taht this would be unpecedented.

Incidentally, there are also 'white martyrs": those who suffered so much for the Faith that their intent was identical to that of martyrs, and in parallel circumstances of persecution. They survived only by divine intervention, or they died of their physical wounds but not immediately. Pope St. Anicetus comes to mind.

I am fascinated by this category of 'passion-bearers' used by the Orthodox. I am wondering if it is also used by Eastern Catholics. Does anyone here know?

P.K.T.P.

]]> By: Joshua http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-1994 Joshua Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:04:15 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-1994 After all, what of the great St Edward the Confessor? There's a true English king we all can pray to. Then there's his predecessor on the throne, St Edward the Martyr (d. 978) as well. Further back, St Oswald, King and Martyr... Is Alfred the Great regarded as a saint? After all, what of the great St Edward the Confessor? There's a true English king we all can pray to.

Then there's his predecessor on the throne, St Edward the Martyr (d. 978) as well.

Further back, St Oswald, King and Martyr…

Is Alfred the Great regarded as a saint?

]]> By: Joshua http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-1993 Joshua Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:46:35 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-1993 Have you seen, BTW, Fr Longenecker's highly amusing parody of a certain nemesis? http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/01/sacred-hart.html I'm sure he won't mind me quoting it here, to lighten the mood a little: "I keep getting emails from someone calling himself 'Robert Hart'. Who is this person? I did a search and found that there is someone by that name who has set up a little church in Kentucky. I think it is called the Celtic Anglican Orthodox Catholic Church of Mid Northeastern United States (Septimus Strand of the 1932 Prayer Book draft revision liturgy) I only did a quick check, but I think his bishop had valid ordination through the Jacobean line of the Czech declension co validated through the Swedish Lutheran branch and reconnoitered with the Old Florsheim Church of Lithuania (twice removed) and the Syro-Malocclusion patriarchate of Eastern Tennessee. "Bishop Hart meets with the faithful in Sacred Hart Cathedral (which is temporarily located in the spare bedroom of their modest rancher home) Mrs. Hart is head altar server. If you wish to join them for solemn high Mass on Sundays at ten please bring your own folding chair. After Mass there will be a book study of Duane Mandible's classic, Guns and Knives Will Save Your Children's Lives." Have you seen, BTW, Fr Longenecker's highly amusing parody of a certain nemesis?

http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/01/sacred-hart.html

I'm sure he won't mind me quoting it here, to lighten the mood a little:

"I keep getting emails from someone calling himself 'Robert Hart'. Who is this person? I did a search and found that there is someone by that name who has set up a little church in Kentucky. I think it is called the Celtic Anglican Orthodox Catholic Church of Mid Northeastern United States (Septimus Strand of the 1932 Prayer Book draft revision liturgy) I only did a quick check, but I think his bishop had valid ordination through the Jacobean line of the Czech declension co validated through the Swedish Lutheran branch and reconnoitered with the Old Florsheim Church of Lithuania (twice removed) and the Syro-Malocclusion patriarchate of Eastern Tennessee.

"Bishop Hart meets with the faithful in Sacred Hart Cathedral (which is temporarily located in the spare bedroom of their modest rancher home) Mrs. Hart is head altar server. If you wish to join them for solemn high Mass on Sundays at ten please bring your own folding chair. After Mass there will be a book study of Duane Mandible's classic, Guns and Knives Will Save Your Children's Lives."

]]> By: Joshua http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-1992 Joshua Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:43:48 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-1992 Yes, Charles was striving to hold his throne, and first tried compromise and appeasement as power slipped away from him - which is hardly the exercise of heroic virtue that is expected of a saint. His later activities after his capture at the end of the First Civil War (intriguing with the Scots, agreeing to introduce Presbyterianism into England as the price of their aid) is hardly saintly nor edifying. Let's not wear rose-coloured glasses. Yes, Charles was striving to hold his throne, and first tried compromise and appeasement as power slipped away from him – which is hardly the exercise of heroic virtue that is expected of a saint. His later activities after his capture at the end of the First Civil War (intriguing with the Scots, agreeing to introduce Presbyterianism into England as the price of their aid) is hardly saintly nor edifying.

Let's not wear rose-coloured glasses.

]]> By: Robert Andrews http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-1990 Robert Andrews Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:30:01 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-1990 Interstingly, the majority of these martyrdoms took place from 1640s onwards. My understanding is the the Puritan-dominant Long Parliament came into power once again from this time and a lot of these martyrdoms were due to this (I could be wrong). It was my impression that prior to this there was only Edmund Arrowsmith (perhaps one other???). Anyway, this is not my era so I defer to the experts. Interstingly, the majority of these martyrdoms took place from 1640s onwards. My understanding is the the Puritan-dominant Long Parliament came into power once again from this time and a lot of these martyrdoms were due to this (I could be wrong). It was my impression that prior to this there was only Edmund Arrowsmith (perhaps one other???). Anyway, this is not my era so I defer to the experts.

]]> By: Robert Andrews http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-1988 Robert Andrews Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:24:08 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-1988 Perhaps, Father, you would be the first victim? :-) Perhaps, Father, you would be the first victim? :-)

]]> By: Fr. Anthony Chadwick http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/king-charles-the-martyr/comment-page-1/#comment-1984 Fr. Anthony Chadwick Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:36:50 +0000 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/?p=2843#comment-1984 I'm sure "classical Anglican" Rev Hart and cronies over at the <em>Discontinuum </em>would make good use of the gutting and quartering block on TAC clergy if they got half a chance! ;-) I'm sure "classical Anglican" Rev Hart and cronies over at the Discontinuum would make good use of the gutting and quartering block on TAC clergy if they got half a chance! ;-)

]]>