Nicholas Heath,
Archbishop of York
under Queen Mary
|
There was a considerable number of other
bishops who had been consecrated without papal approval and after Henry’s final
break, but according to the ancient rites which remained in force until two
years after Henry’s death. Some of these
men were very staunch in Catholic doctrine and had lost their sees because they
would not accede to Archbishop Cranmer’s new rites. Among these were bishops Heath, Day, and
Rugg. There were still others such as
Bishops Goodrich, Aldrich, King, and Chambers who served as Henrician
Catholics, embraced Archbishop Cranmer’s Protestant reforms to keep their sees,
and then willingly returned to Catholic practice under Mary. Perhaps these last are the most difficult to
understand. They seemed to have no
convictions of their own—Catholic or Protestant—but just went along with
whatever they were told to do. John
Bird, Bishop of Chester was ordained under the old rites, was enthusiastic
about Cranmer’s Protestant reforms under Edward, and was deprived of his see under
Mary because he was married. Though a
convinced Protestant, Bird repudiated his wife and was made a suffragen
(auxiliary) bishop of London. Again: what
sort of ambition does it take to wear one’s commitments so lightly?
And of course, there were the
Reformers—Archbishop Cranmer and Bishops Ridley, Hooper, Latimer, and Ferrer. These were all convinced
Protestants. Hooper had refused
consecration as a bishop until he was dispensed from wearing episcopal
garb. Mary could not keep them as
bishops and the key question is why. Was
it that their consecration as bishops was invalid because of the Reformed Rites
under which they were made bishops or was it because they were convinced
Protestants who would not carry out her policy of returning England to Catholic
worship and doctrine? Cranmer had been
ordained according to the old rites and he actually renounced his Protestant
ideas—until he found out that Mary was determined to have him executed
anyway. There will be more about that
later. Latimer was convinced of his
Protestant faith and was executed for heresy as was Ridley. They were burned at the stake at Oxford on
October 16, 1555. Hooper was executed
under the Heresy Acts of 1554. Bishop Miles Coverdale of Exeter was deposed
of his see but permitted to emigrate.
Barlow of Bath and Wells also emigrated rather than give up his
wife. Bush of Bristol resigned his see
and was given a rectory which he held for the rest of his life, ministering as
a priest though not as a bishop. Scory
of Rochester had been consecrated in
reformed rites and was deprived of his
see under Mary, but was permitted to function in the London diocese, though
probably as a priest rather than a bishop.
He later emigrated and returned after Mary’s death. Elizabeth appointed him to Hereford. Harley of Hereford was deprived of his see,
but not arrested. John Taylor, Bishop of
Lincoln walked out of the Mass that commenced Mary’s first parliament but he
died a natural death before Mary could
deprive him of his see. Holgate
of York was deprived of his see and imprisoned for having married but was later
released—though not restored to ministry—and died within months. Basically, Mary restored the bishops
consecrated during the reign of her father according to the old rites even if
they had embraced the reforms of Thomas Cranmer. She had those bishops who were leaders of the
Protestant reform—Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Latimer, and Ferrar—martyred by
being burned at the stake, but permitted the majority of the Edwardine bishops
to function as priests or to emigrate. Mary
had to accept many bishops and priests who had gone along—and some
wholeheartedly—with the reforms of Edward VI.
She had no choice. She had to
work with the talent pool she had. What is
interesting is how many of those who had gone along with the Protestant ideas
under Edward, would refuse to return to Reformed practices under Elizabeth and would give up their
dioceses or parishes rather than do so. In
fact, when we get to Elizabeth and how she treated the Catholics, many readers
will be surprised how leniently the Queen handled her Catholic subjects.
I realize how confusing all this might be—all
these names and under which rite they were made bishops and which dioceses they
held. Is there is theme to look for? I am amazed—and discouraged—by how many of
these men just sort of bowed in whichever way the wind was blowing. I am not so sure that we don’t have bishops
of the same spinelessness today—not that they would be subject to the King or
whoever in the State—but who for their own ambition sing whatever tune those in
power call. John Paul II was notorious for
making loyalty to Roman authority the chief criterion for being a bishop. While I certainly think bishops do need to be
loyal to the larger Church, they also need to be accountable to the local
Church of which they are the shepherd. They
need to know the people entrusted to them and listen to the voice of those
people so that they can accurately gage the consensus
fidelium. This doesn’t have to bring them into conflict with Rome, but Rome
needs to hear, from the bishops, what is in the heart of the faithful and that
means bishops need to be brave enough to speak up. The American bishops have over the last
thirty years or so failed miserably in this.
The careerism, so deplored by Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, allowed
them to give the petty bureaucrats in Rome free run over us whether it was the
harassment of the American Religious women or the imposition of this incredibly
archaic translation in the current Missal.
To the Bishops of Reformation England and to the Bishops today: grow a
pair.
No comments:
Post a Comment