Was The Naming of Thomas More and John Fisher, Saints In The Anglican Communion, Hypocritical?

Question

I would like some serious answers here, so if you're an atheist, I don't want to read any insults or other jabs at those who have faith. I get it, you don't believe in God. Whatever. Other people do. Ok? Answer if you want, but I respectfully request that you keep it to the context of the question and be respectful of the fact that others will think differently than you may.

The question is open to everyone, but please keep it to the context of the question. That means on topic and free from insults.


In 1980, the martyrs Thomas More and John Fisher, were both names saints in the Anglican Communion. I ask was this not hypocritical for these two reasons ;

1) that Anglicanism do not believe in saints
2) that both of these men were martyred for their opposition to King Henry VIII and his formation of the Anglican schism (read below)

Henry had both men martyred for their opposition, and this was before it was "Reformed" and became Protestant. Thomas More and Jon Fisher not only clung to the ideals of The Catholic Church, which Anglicanism rejects, but these men also rejected the "First Period Anglican Schism" which is something the Anglican Church of today also rejects. Let’s not forget their stance on Protestantism, which they too rejected.


Article 22 of the "39 Articles of Faith" rejects the notion of saints. Yet, not only does the Anglican Church accept all pre-schism Catholic saints, it named two more. Taken from the long list of Catholics who died for their faith, at the hands of Anglicans.

Does this adding of Thomas More and John Fisher to the Anglican calendar of Saints seem not only unnecessary but also hypocritical?

Bruce · Accepted Answer

One could read these canonizations as hypocritical (since they will murdered by the leader of the church) or as an act of repentance.

Cheers,
Bruce

Anonymous · Answer

1. Your diatribe at the beginning regarding atheists was unnecessary and detracts from your alleged desire to have civil discourse.

2.  I assume that Anglicanism does not support sainthood. This alone would constitute hypocrisy IMHO. How could you canonize a person if you publicly and dogmatically deny sainthood except for the accepted Catholic;ic saints?

3. I am no historian, however, you imply that More nad Fisher were martyred in opposition  to Anglicanism (if I read correctly) and Protestantism. This is a radical analogy, but wouldn't this be like the Catholic Church canonizing Mohamed?

Bolide ⌡shinning bacon of hope...⌠ · Answer

Reason 1) is not valid, the Anglican Communion is not Calvinist, it does recognize Post-Constantinian Canonization.

Reason 2) is interesting;  Were these men martyrs of Christianity, or misguided men who died supporting a heretical form of Christianity?

I am greatly troubled by the fact that More was the architect of the Regnal murder of Tyndall, who was killed not for publishing an English Language Bible, but for opposing More's plan of seeking Papal approval for the dissolution of Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

garsh · Answer

a million John 5:sixteen for sure instruments forth the Catholic doctrine that no longer all sin is the comparable. John for sure says at verse 17 " All wrongdoing is sin, yet there is sin which isn't mortal." for this reason, sin whichis no longer mortal the Church calls venial. yet i do no longer see this actual passage as supprtive of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. i'm uncertain the kind you do until you suspect in living saints. The word comunnion of saints to meimplies people who've been decalred saints by the Church and as a result latest until now God in Heaven. There are different passages that help prayer with the Saints and likewise praying for the souls of the lifeless.

Trending News

Was The Naming of Thomas More and John Fisher, Saints In The Anglican Communion, Hypocritical?

4 Answers