Anne Askew - A Daughter of the Reformation (1520 - 1546)

ReformationSA.Org ^ | Dr. Peter Hammond

[Gamecock]

Ping

[afsnco]

No doubt the demonic left of this world would love to do this to ALL Christians.

[FormerFRLurker]

What’s stopping them?

[super7man]

The parallels in the events of this story to Christ’s death are striking.

[Gamecock]

God?

[Mom MD]

can’t be true. The Roman church handled the reformers with kittens and unicorns and all things fluffy. /s

[oldplayer]

Wow. Reminds me that being a mainstream Christian in America is incredibly easy.

[daniel1212]

In 1545, Anne was examined by church leaders concerning her beliefs. Her answers were full of wisdom and quotes from the Holy Scriptures, and she often out-maneuvered the inquisitors pointing out the contradictions in their own position. This only served to enrage them more. Lord Bonner was determined to see her burned for heresy. After failing to prove any heresy, he resorted to insinuating that she was immoral.

That is the usual trajectory.

On 28 June, she was taken to Guild Hall to be examined again by the council. She was taunted with being a heretic. She responded that she had done nothing for which the Law of God required her death. When asked directly if she denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that the sacrament of the Eucharist was the actual body and blood of Christ, Anne responded: "God is a spirit, not a wafer cake. He is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth" John 4:24 "and not by the impious superstitious homage paid to a wafer converted, by popish jugglery, into a god." That very day, 28 June, the council condemned Anne Askew to be burned to death at the stake.

That response was (in term of effect) worse than killing a sacred cow in India, for while God metaphorically states,

But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee, (Ezekiel 2:8)

Catholicism insisted the she "eat" what they feed her. That of her contrived Catholic Eucharistic theology , in which (only by the words of a Catholic priest) non-existent bread and wine - which according to appearance and material tests is just bread and wine - is "really" the "true body and blood" of Christ. Until that is, the non-existent bread or wine (respectively) begins to manifestly (for here appearance is critical) undergo corruption/decomposition,at which point Christ is also non-existent under that form.

Such is Catholic faith in their church ("by God's grace"), and thus is this source of security so compulsively defended when its lack of clothes is exposed, as if it were God.

[ConservativeMind]

Thank you tor those call outs.

What a sad thing to be burned alive at the stake by heretics for following God and His word.

I did not know about this wonderful young lady.

[ConservativeMind]

Thank you for posting this sad, yet uplifting, bit of history.

The Catholic church has been instrumental in trying to eliminate those who preach God’s Word for practically as long as has been recorded.

[Campion]

Henry VIII formally broke with the Pope and declared himself "Supreme Head of the Church in England" with the Act of Supremacy on 3 November 1534.

Henry VIII died in 1547. (His immediate successor, Edward VI, was more Protestant than Henry had been.)

Anne Askew was executed in July, 1546, more than 11 years after Henry broke with Rome.

How is "the Roman church" implicated in any way?

[Campion]

Anglican church in this case, sorry.

[Campion]

... and we should admit that it was the government, not the (Anglican) church, who prosecuted for heresy in these cases. This was the era in English history when it was possible to be executed for being (a) less Catholic than the King; and also (b) more Catholic than the King.

There were even cases where diehard Catholics and diehard Protestants were taken off to their execution together.

[Al Hitan]

How is "the Roman church" implicated in any way?

Funny how it got quiet in here!

[Elsie]

How is "the Roman church" implicated in any way?

IF one reads the text one finds:

Her enthusiastic witness drew the attention of the priests who warned her husband about her "sedition."

[Campion]

Doesn’t matter in view of the chronology. High-church Anglicans call their ministers “priests” to this day, you know.

[Campion]

Crickets!

[Campion]

Another bit of information: Anne was born in 1521. She married sometime after she turned 15, which would have been in 1536, two years after the Act of Supremacy. The "priests who warned her husband" would have had to have done so sometime after that.

To give you an idea how King Henry treated actual Catholics during this time period, I suggest you read this.

[Elsie]

High-church Anglicans call their ministers “priests” to this day, you know.

Yes; they do.

I found I was in error when I rapidly replied to that statement.

Thanks for pointing this out.