Iconnoclasm and Iconophilia in Othello In his book War Against the Idols, Carlos Eire argues that iconoclastic resistance to the Medieval Catholic Church began with the gentle scolding of Erasmus and ended as the "shibboleth" of radical Calvinism.1 The use of images in religious instruction and practice was one of the major points of dispute between Protestant reformers and Catholic counter-reformers. Iconoclasm was certainly not confined to radical Calvinism; Anglican reformers, especially those who had spent time in continental Europe as exiles (like John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury), quickly raised the issue in their country, which had its own unique history of religious reform. The discussions of image and idolatry in Calvin and Jewel represent particular theories of the image that derive from but also revise ancient Platonic theories of the image. Reformation iconoclasm brings up issues of ontology (who or what is God? ), epistemology (by what means are we to know him?
Martin Luther thought that it was necessary to stand up for something he believed to be wrong and needed to be changed. Martin Luther accused the Roman Catholic Church of misrepresenting religion to advance its own gain and not to teach how to live by faith through Jesus Christ. Martin Luther wanted to exercise his freedom of speech and religion; therefore, he launched the Protestant Reformation, which intended to change the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church and effecting revolutions to follow. Since the Protestant Reformation, revolutions have happened throughout history producing major changes. Similar to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, a political protest by American supporter challenging the British authority initiated the American Revolution.
The ones who claim Satan is the hero of the epic, the Satanists, perceive him as the rebellious angel who rises up and defies God’s monarchy and “the tyranny of Heav’n” (174).They choose to focus on Satan’s “nobler qualities, his loyalty in leadership, fortitude in adversity, unflinching courage and splendid recklessness” (Satan/Promo, 3). While these two positions are both valid, this paper will be focusing on a third position; the individuals who believe that Satan is neither the hero nor the villain of the epic. Helen Gardner addresses this notion, claiming how “Satan is, of course, a character in an epic, and he is no sense the hero of the epic as a whole. But he is a figure of heroic magnitude and heroic energy, and he is developed by Milton with dramatic emphasis and dramatic intensity” (Baker/Helen, 208). Satan is without a doubt the antichrist, or “villain” in the biblical scriptures, however one must take into consideration his alternative and more ambiguous portrayal in Paradise Lost.
Spain, the most powerful nation in Western Europe during the late 16th century also tried to interfere in French royal succession when Henry IV, a protestant, was to ascend to the throne. A fact that underscores the role of religion is that fighting between Spain and France continued even after Henry IV converted to Catholicism. Another example of relationships affected by the difference in religion is the strained relationships, which eventually lead to armed conflict, Spain had with England and the Netherland, two protestant nations. Elizabeth who ruled England, herself experienced discord with her Puritan subjects who felt that the differences between the Protestant Anglican Church and the Catholic Church were not distinct enough. This same fanaticism resulted in Elizabeth ordering the execution of Mary Queen of Scotts in order to extinguish Catholic hopes of rule, which her life and position in line to the throne gave Catholics in England.
M.H. Abrams et al. 7th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2000. 1204-1208.
This created fear amongst European countries as England was ruled all under one ruler. The Council of Trent was outwardly Machiavellian by being prepared for the Protestant Reformation and maintaining its political gain. With rewriting the Church doctrine the Council answered the Protestant’s criticism which led to the Vatican having more power of Europe. Overall, Machiavelli had an important impact to the way government was seen in the 16th and 17th century till today where his concepts apply to the modern day government.
Describe the religious policies of England and France from 1603 to 1715. Why do you think rulers feared religious toleration so much? When discussing why the rulers feared religious toleration and how their fears affected what religious policies were enforced, one must first look at what events transpired through the years to get a full understanding of the word “stubbornness.” During the early years, the English church was dividing into a conservative camp that wanted to retain the religious ceremonies and the hierarchy of the church and a radical, Calvinist camp called Puritans who wanted to "purify" the church of everything not contained in the Old and New Testaments. The Puritans demanded that the English church abandon the elaborate ceremonies and flatten the hierarchy of the church into something more closely resembling the voluntary associations of the Calvinist church. King James, however, would have none of the Puritan argument and declared, in 1604, that he was fully in the camp of the religious conservatives.
By the 1580’s, an impending threat loomed over Her Glorious Majesty. Europe had been divided, not for military as such, but by religion. The catalyst for such a divide culminated in the 16th Century, where courageous reformers like Martin Luther and Jean Calvin found the practices of the Roman Catholic Church absolutely corrupt, and sought reformation of such practices. It was arguably one of the first major challenges to the omnipotent control of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps the most significant catalyst to the Protestant Reformation was a publication from Martin Luther himself entitled “The Ninety-Five Theses,” which expounded the most damaging of exploits and subsequently led to the slow beginning of reformation.
The Arguments For and Against the Claim that the Puritans Presented a Challenge in the Elizabethan House of Commons There has long been a debate about Elizabeth’s Puritan threat with J.E.Neale arguing that there was Protestant pressure for reform, from the “Puritan Choir” in the House of Commons, for example the Settlement was far more Protestant than Elizabeth had intended. C.Haigh has put forward a counter argument that it was in fact the Catholic Bishops in the House of Lords who prevented the Settlement from being as Protestant as the Queen would have liked. Either way the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity were passed in 1559 and those two pieces of legislation have become the basis of the Anglican Church for over 440 years. That the Settlement survived does not mean, necessarily, that there were no dangers to the English Protestant Church. In Parliament the Puritans posed such a threat in the legislation that they attempted to pass through with there being two distinct areas.
The English Civil war was partially a religious conflict, which brought Church and State against Parliament. Under the reign of James I, England saw the rise in Protestants dissenters. Groups like Barrowists, Puritans, Fifth Monarchists, Quakers, and many more demanded for more religious reform. They felt that the Church of England’s liturgy was too Catholic for a Protestant church. James VI and I accepted the more moderated Puritans and other dissenters, and he was able to keep his kingdom in peace.