Foundations of the Anglican Church LXXI

An English Parish Church

the "Wool Church" of

Farrington 

I am sorry that the last few days I did postings but hadn’t included the usual photo.  The photos are, for the most part, only decorative but I do like to add them and sometimes they even illustrate a point.  The problem is that I usually write and post in my office (where I have access to my library)  but most of my photo collection is on my home computer.  So I have added photos for the last two postings—and they illustrate various points that I wrote about—and will try not to let the lapse between the posting proper and the illustration happen again. 

Well back to Cranmer’s 1552 Prayer Book.   Archbishop Cranmer included in his book 42 “Articles of Religion” which set forth and clarified several points of doctrine for the Church of England.  (In later books they were reduced to 39 Articles.)  Many of these articles reaffirm the ancient faith of the Church in the Holy Trinity, in the two natures of Christ, in the Virgin Birth, in the Resurrection of Christ, of Original Sin, and other doctrines on which Catholic and Anglicans were then and still are agreed.  There are articles where at the time there were thought to be differences between the Reformers and Catholics but which have now been, at least to some degree, resolved such as Justification by Faith and the necessity of grace.  However, there were also articles which clearly delineated the newly Reformed faith from the Catholic faith of the centuries previous.   Cranmer denied the doctrines of purgatory and the invocation of the Saints as well as the use of relics and images.  But I want to post three of his articles as they come down to us in the Anglican tradition. 

XXV. Of the sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.


We can see in these articles a very clear break with Catholic belief and practice.  These articles, in a somewhat revised but no less Protestant form, stand today in contemporary Anglicanism and in most Churches of the Anglican Communion, a priest must swear assent to them before ordination.  One priest of whom I read said: “I swear assent to the Articles of Religion as I might swear assent to the Oxford Gas Works.  I am aware of their existence and am not, at the current time, engaged in any activity for their destruction, but that does not mean that I approve of them.”  Such mental gymnastics aside, we can see how Cranmer’s Reform of the Church of England laid the foundation for centuries of division.  Any story of a “hermeneutic of continuity” with the pre-Reformation Church of England in doctrine or practice is obviously a fable. 

Frederic William Maitland, the noted English jurist and historian, satirized his contemporary, William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford and Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, by saying that Stubbs (and other High Churchmen) would have “England as Protestant before the Reformation and Catholic afterward.”  We have seen that prior to the Reformation the Church of England had its own distinct character within the Roman Communion, but it is clear that whatever continuity with its Catholic faith once existed and which might later be repaired, was clearly and cleanly snapped by Archbishop Cranmer.   

Foundations of the Anglican Church, VI

St. Hilda of Whitby

The British historian, William Henry Maitland, (1850-1906-) was known for his sharp tongue and ironic sense of humor which provided several famous quips.  My favorite runs something like this: “High-Church historians are anxious to show that the Church of England was Protestant before the Reformation and Catholic afterwards.”  Maitland was correct in his ironic twist, but nevertheless there is some truth to the alleged claims of Maitland’s high-Church historians.  I am going through this Anglican history to show that the English Church indeed had a great measure of autonomy before the Reformation broke its communion with Rome and that even after the Reformation there were serious efforts to preserve much of its Catholic heritage. Right now we are focusing on that first premise and I want to be very clear that the Ecclesia Anglicana—the Anglican Church—was not something “invented” by Henry VIII but had existed within the Roman Communion for centuries yet with sufficient uniqueness and autonomy to be in its own right a “branch” of the Universal Church.  Indeed the very term, Eccclesia Anglicana, The Anglican Church, can be found as far back as the 13^th century, three centuries  before Henry VIII,  but the concept of an autonomous (which implies a measure of independence but not separateness) English Church can certainly be found in Bede and reflects the heritage which Bede chronicles. 
The North British Church which followed the Irish Celtic traditions it inherited from Iona was in full communion with the Roman Church but differed from it in several important matters of ritual and discipline.  The papacy never made any attempts to bring the North British Church—or its Celtic mother-Church—under Roman control, nor did it feel any need to.  (The Irish Church would eventually be Romanized in the twelfth century through the efforts of its primate, Saint Laurence O’Toole, 1128-1180.)  While there were difference in ritual and canon law, there was a unity of faith.  Of course many of the doctrinal issues which today divide Christianity: notably the Real Presence and the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption—were then non-issues because they did not yet comprise part of the canon of faith. 
One of the crucial differences between the Roman and Celtic/British Churches that is often overlooked is the different approaches to canonical penance.  In the Roman practice a Christian only submitted to Penance for extremely grave faults, most notably apostasy, murder, and adultery.  The first of these sins was not as rare as one might think.  Many Christians in times of persecution gave way to their fears and performed the ritual offering of incense to an image of the Emperor.  There was quite bitter argument in the early Church over whether this sin could be forgiven at all.  The consensus was yes, once.  Thus in the Roman Church one only received penance once in one’s lifetime and only for extremely grave sins as aforementioned.   Penance was public, it was imposed by the bishop, it lasted over a period of time, and the individual could not receive Holy Communion until it was completed.  Penitents were not even allowed to be present for the Eucharist, but like the catechumens had to leave the assembly after the homily and then devote themselves to prayer and penitential practices while the community proceeded with the Eucharist. 
The Irish had a different practice for penance.  The Irish Church was not organized into dioceses like the Church in the old Roman Empire.  The clan provided the basis for religious organization.  The clergy were all monastics and the leading ecclesiastic of the clan served as the abbot or abbess who did not have the sacramental powers of a bishop but exercise the episcopal jurisdiction over the clan members, religious and lay.  One of the monks would be an ordained bishop and the sacramental responsibilities fell to him, but not the jurisdiction.  And we know in several instances, such as that of Brigid of Kildare, that women sometimes held this jurisdiction.  (Incidentally, it was not rare on the Continent for Abbesses to hold ordinary jurisdiction over local churches either.  More on that in other entries, but as late as the eighteenth century there were over a hundred surviving abbesses nullius.)  To refocus on our topic of penance in the Irish/Celtic Church, monks and nuns would “confess” their faults (not only their sins) to the abbot or to a wise older religious designated by the abbot or abbess to be ones anam cara, or soul friend.  The Irish developed an elaborate system of penitentials, books containing advice and suitable penances for every fault and sin.  Some of these were quite harsh.  Indeed Celtic Christianity tended to be more puritanical and harsh than Mediterranean Christianity.  The sacrament of penance in the form we know it owes more to the Irish practice than the Roman, not in its severity but rather in the practice of more frequent confession and confession of minor (venial) sins, as well as it being a private arrangement between penitent and confessor.  On the other hand, limiting the role of confessor to an ordained person acting in the name of the bishop is a survival of the Roman tradition.  The synod held by King Oswig at Saint Hilda’s Abbey of Whitby in 664 marked the abandonment of Celtic customs for Roman, but at least in terms of the reconciliation of penitents, the Celtic custom won out.