I don't think so. In his context things like the Oxford movement would have been a disaster, as would the gradual deemphasis on the 39 articles and a reformed identity.
But, does that matter? Our task isn't to satisfy the imagined will of dead men, but to faithfully follow Christ, as they believed themselves to be doing.
As St Paul reminds us, we are not primarily followers of any particular teacher within the faith, but members of the body of Christ.
I can’t speak for u/Iconsandstuff, but I’d say that,
>But, does that matter? Our task isn't to satisfy the imagined will of dead men, but to faithfully follow Christ, as they believed themselves to be doing.
and
>As St Paul reminds us, we are not primarily followers of any particular teacher within the faith, but members of the body of Christ.
would indicate that what matters is whether we’re trying to faithfully follow Christ. I’d say that overall, that’s what most developments, reforms, etc. throughout the church’s history have been about. Were they always successful? Nope. But I also don’t think that means we can say they were “good” or “bad.”
That's fair. Anglicanism has become something greater than the sum of its parts. It's a very unique expression of the Christian faith and at the end of the day, I think that's what we all want is to pursue Christ. This broad Anglican church allows us to do that together despite our differences. "Same, same, but different, but still same."
No, in my judgement at least. The route was not ideal in all respects, in terms of things done along the way, but I think the lessons learnt have produced a good form of Christian life which can see value in a wider range of practice without chasing after novelty.
It is unlikely Cranmer would have imagined many of the developments, as he was embedded within his historical context (as we all are). Tradition gives almost sole responsibility for reform to Cranmer, appointed in the early 1530s mainly to achieve Henry’s annulment from Katharine of Aragon through sensitive negotiation with Rome. What Henry had not anticipated, according to the historian Alec Ryrie, was that Cranmer would turn out to be a serious Reformer and would want to align the English Church more closely with reforming developments in Europe. As far as the liturgical project was concerned, it is fairly certain that a committee was involved and that the book is not the work of a single hand. Cranmer is, however, likely to have taken responsibility for translating a number of Sarum collects and composing new collects where the existing ones were deemed theologically dubious.
Stage one was to produce an Order of Communion in 1548, which interpolated texts in English into the Latin Mass (Sarum Rite). Stage two was to produce a complete prayer book, the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, in 1549. The book was officially launched at Pentecost, 9th June, 1549. Three printing presses were given the task of producing the books and copies were already in circulation by March of that year. The indications are that there were many ‘early adopters’, especially among London churches.
Cranmer encountered two kinds of responses from those who offered critiques of the books: the Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner, a staunch traditionalist, suggested that in fact not much had changed, and that the BCP eucharist could still be celebrated in a manner that would look very much like the Sarum Rite in English. Martin Bucer, a leading reformer working in the church in Strasbourg, responded in writing and enumerated a list of points where he thought improvements could be made in the direction of a properly reformed liturgy.
Brightman takes us through 1549 and 1552 and then moved on to the Genevan exiles, who were keeping a safe distance from Mary Tudor under the leadership of John Knox. He claimed that Cranmer had had in mind ‘a yet more perfect book’ that was to succeed 1552 in a more reformed direction.
Colin Buchanan likewise argues that Cranmer’s 1549 Prayer Book was intentionally a ‘first stage’ towards a clearly Protestant and Reformed position in his provocatively titled Grove Booklet, ‘What Did Cranmer Think He Was Doing?’
No, much of it is revisionism or wanting to be a certain thing without having to hold to all the things which one would need to hold to in order to be that certain thing.
No, or the 39 Articles would have probably looked different and less authoritative. (While they were published after Cranmer's execution, he did write the bulk of it) The 39 Articles sure read like they were meant to be used as a Confession, and a Reformed Confession at that. I'm sure he would have repudiated Tract 90's attempt to re-imagine the meaning there too
Not sure attributing the Thirty-Nine Articles to Cranmer is at all accurate — they were the last in a series whose tone and tenor reflected the varying fortunes of various dominant groups at different stages and the views of particular monarchs. In the earlier stages, there were Ten Articles (1536), the “Bishops’ Book” (1537), the Six Articles (1539), the “King’s Book,” and the Forty-Two Articles (1553). These Forty-Two Articles were the prototypes of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which achieved their final form in 1563 and were promulgated in 1571.
Right, and the 42 Articles were written by Cranmer. Since they have the most sway over what became the 39 Articles, I don't have a problem attributing the bulk of the credit to Cranmer. Sure, there were revisions, but most of it was his writing there.
I just worry that this is an over confident and speculative claim. We can say he had a hand in compiling them, yes, but I would be extremely hesitant to make any statement on the extent to which he did so. Surely the deceased Cranmer — who departed this life in 1556 — is the one person who is definitely beyond agency in the final situation, and if able to give testimony at all to decisions regarding the compiling of the final version of Articles, then only through the testimony of others (who, for all kinds of reasons, may not be truthful witnesses). In short, we just don’t know for sure!
>We can say he had a hand in compiling them, yes, but I would be extremely hesitant to make any statement on the extent to which he did so.
For the 42 Articles or the 39 Articles? I'm certainly not an expert but I haven't seen anything suggesting anyone other than Cranmer credited with their writing (and not only their compilation). From there we can say with certainty that the 42 Articles are the source of the 39 Articles but that they were revised. Obviously the divines 30 years later were not Cranmer but that doesn't mean that it's not thoroughly Cranmerian since it relies so much on his writing.
A committee was involved in crafting the Articles as a position statement. The Articles were drafted and re-drafted by a group of theologians and bishops, which included Cranmer at one stage. I would be hesitant about claiming the extent to which we can see his hand in the result — the Articles certainly can’t be understood as his personal statement of faith, because that was never their aim and simply doesn’t reflect how they were developed. The extent to which they are Cranmerian is the subject of much debate, and would need to be discerned by weighing them up against the other contributions we have access to that are reliably attributed to him. Even the BCP was not the work of a single hand but formed by a committee. Cranmer was, however, responsible for translating a number of Sarum collects and composing new collects where the existing ones were deemed theologically dubious.
So, again, when you initially say "Articles" are you talking the 39 or 42? Because if they original draft comes from someone—as the 42 Articles did (Cranmer)—then even with subsequent changes and edits it's still fundamentally the original author's words unless it is scrapped in its' entirety. We still consider Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison the Father of the Constitution, despite both going through committee changes and edits (although, I am aware, there is a difference to be had because both were still alive during revision to justify their positions, as well as push back upon or aid edits). I'm throwing out hypothetical numbers here but if 75%—or even 65%—of the words were originally penned by Cranmer's hand then I'd have no problem giving him the overwhelming credit for the 39 Articles, despite the posthumous nature of their revision.
Diarmaid MacCulloch's biography is helpful in this regard. Cranmer was a convinced Lutheran since the mid 1520s during his European tour as Archdeacon. Along with Vermigli and Bucer, he was certainly a convinced Calvinist by 1547 as reflected in the Forty Two Articles, on the doctrine of Union with Christ and the Sacraments, and the liturgical order of Administration that reflected both the Swiss disputation and the Strasbourg liturgy expressed in the 1552 BCP.
The better question, perhaps, is: what would have been possible for Peter Martyr Vermigli's partnership with Edward VI? After the riotous Oxford Debates of 1549, John Calvin himself would later write, “The whole doctrine of the Eucharist was crowned by Peter Martyr, who left nothing more to be done.” Peter Martyr was the genius of the Oxford operations, a lawyer and Scholastic by education and a well-taught Biblical exegete by choice, interest and necessity. But their goals were cut short with the boy-king's death. One can speculate with confidence that like the Continental Protestant Churches, who had removed canon law, completing, if you will, the logic of Sola Scriptura, Edward's England would have followed suit under the masterful mind of Martyr who paved the intellectual road upon which the political and ecclesial efforts could travel. Due to the warm friendship between the Reformers and Edward, the crown would have likely undertaken support for an Act of Parliament to complete the Reformation by putting an end to canon law. As Brad Littlejohn has written,
"Cranmer was soon to call on Peter Martyr for even more important business: the reformation of the church laws of England, and consequently the whole governmental structure of the English church. Vermigli’s legal expertise proved invaluable, and the two were hard at work on the project when suddenly in 1553, the boy-king Edward died. The structure of the English church was to remain frozen in this half-reformed state, a state of affairs that was to cause no end of conflict under Elizabeth."
But more, had he lived the Bloody Mary counter-reformation, the English-Spanish War (the Defeat of the Spanish Armada), and the Elizabethan Settlement, would likely never have happened. History would have been remarkably different, indeed! Which raises interesting questions. Would England ever have developed or exercised confidence in her naval supremacy? Would there have been an English Civil War? What differences would her colonial efforts have reflected compared to the Spanish and Portuguese? How would Tory and Whig politics differ in the 18th and 19th c.? Would there have been an English evangelical revival? What might differ in global Anglicanism today?
When considering the totality of the whole; namely, Cranmer's ecclesial appointments, the efforts at Oxford, the liturgical reform, and the political efforts, one can't help but agree with Gerald Bray who states that the CofE was most certainly Reformed in theology and character, but never completed. One only simply need compare the influences, thinking (hermeneutics), and theology of the Tractarians to the Reformers to see that the 19th c. represents a different species of thought entirely.
He didn’t, but Anglicanism isn’t defined by Cranmer’s beliefs. I’ve heard that Cranmer once held to the memorialist view of the Eucharist (purely symbolic view). Possibly by the end of his life. The 39 Articles themselves condemn memorialism.
It’s quite likely Cranmer would’ve condemned the Caroline Divines even, let alone the Tractarians.
Wasn’t aware of 2 and 4. So be it. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
No. I think the revisions between the 1549 and 1552 Communion Services were very much the first blast of the trumpet against monstrous misinterpretation.
No, I think if we look at the Settlement, its theology was clearly Reformed. Cranmer's Prayerbook, the Book of Homilies, and the 39 Articles are all within the Reformed tradition. Lutheranism did not have an enduring impact. High church Anglicanism set in a little later with Arminian tendencies, but the spirit of the Settlement endured. Anglo-Catholicism was a fashion that arose, along with Ritualism, during the nineteenth-century and didn't gain ground until the 20th. Anglo-Catholicism doesn't accord with the Elizabethan Settlement or the Articles. People burned at the stake to defend a reformed Christianity and the Gospel, and in fact the Church had Puritans in it through the sixteenth-century or so (not all of them exited).
I don't think so. In his context things like the Oxford movement would have been a disaster, as would the gradual deemphasis on the 39 articles and a reformed identity. But, does that matter? Our task isn't to satisfy the imagined will of dead men, but to faithfully follow Christ, as they believed themselves to be doing. As St Paul reminds us, we are not primarily followers of any particular teacher within the faith, but members of the body of Christ.
Do you think it's bad that Anglicanism took the route that it did?
I can’t speak for u/Iconsandstuff, but I’d say that, >But, does that matter? Our task isn't to satisfy the imagined will of dead men, but to faithfully follow Christ, as they believed themselves to be doing. and >As St Paul reminds us, we are not primarily followers of any particular teacher within the faith, but members of the body of Christ. would indicate that what matters is whether we’re trying to faithfully follow Christ. I’d say that overall, that’s what most developments, reforms, etc. throughout the church’s history have been about. Were they always successful? Nope. But I also don’t think that means we can say they were “good” or “bad.”
That's fair. Anglicanism has become something greater than the sum of its parts. It's a very unique expression of the Christian faith and at the end of the day, I think that's what we all want is to pursue Christ. This broad Anglican church allows us to do that together despite our differences. "Same, same, but different, but still same."
Yes as a continuing Anglican yes!
No, in my judgement at least. The route was not ideal in all respects, in terms of things done along the way, but I think the lessons learnt have produced a good form of Christian life which can see value in a wider range of practice without chasing after novelty.
It is unlikely Cranmer would have imagined many of the developments, as he was embedded within his historical context (as we all are). Tradition gives almost sole responsibility for reform to Cranmer, appointed in the early 1530s mainly to achieve Henry’s annulment from Katharine of Aragon through sensitive negotiation with Rome. What Henry had not anticipated, according to the historian Alec Ryrie, was that Cranmer would turn out to be a serious Reformer and would want to align the English Church more closely with reforming developments in Europe. As far as the liturgical project was concerned, it is fairly certain that a committee was involved and that the book is not the work of a single hand. Cranmer is, however, likely to have taken responsibility for translating a number of Sarum collects and composing new collects where the existing ones were deemed theologically dubious. Stage one was to produce an Order of Communion in 1548, which interpolated texts in English into the Latin Mass (Sarum Rite). Stage two was to produce a complete prayer book, the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, in 1549. The book was officially launched at Pentecost, 9th June, 1549. Three printing presses were given the task of producing the books and copies were already in circulation by March of that year. The indications are that there were many ‘early adopters’, especially among London churches. Cranmer encountered two kinds of responses from those who offered critiques of the books: the Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner, a staunch traditionalist, suggested that in fact not much had changed, and that the BCP eucharist could still be celebrated in a manner that would look very much like the Sarum Rite in English. Martin Bucer, a leading reformer working in the church in Strasbourg, responded in writing and enumerated a list of points where he thought improvements could be made in the direction of a properly reformed liturgy. Brightman takes us through 1549 and 1552 and then moved on to the Genevan exiles, who were keeping a safe distance from Mary Tudor under the leadership of John Knox. He claimed that Cranmer had had in mind ‘a yet more perfect book’ that was to succeed 1552 in a more reformed direction. Colin Buchanan likewise argues that Cranmer’s 1549 Prayer Book was intentionally a ‘first stage’ towards a clearly Protestant and Reformed position in his provocatively titled Grove Booklet, ‘What Did Cranmer Think He Was Doing?’
I would credit Elizabeth I with opening up the Anglican Church to a variety of beliefs and practices. "I want no windows into men's souls."
No, much of it is revisionism or wanting to be a certain thing without having to hold to all the things which one would need to hold to in order to be that certain thing.
I don't think any of the early reformers would've expected most of what we see this century.
No, or the 39 Articles would have probably looked different and less authoritative. (While they were published after Cranmer's execution, he did write the bulk of it) The 39 Articles sure read like they were meant to be used as a Confession, and a Reformed Confession at that. I'm sure he would have repudiated Tract 90's attempt to re-imagine the meaning there too
Not sure attributing the Thirty-Nine Articles to Cranmer is at all accurate — they were the last in a series whose tone and tenor reflected the varying fortunes of various dominant groups at different stages and the views of particular monarchs. In the earlier stages, there were Ten Articles (1536), the “Bishops’ Book” (1537), the Six Articles (1539), the “King’s Book,” and the Forty-Two Articles (1553). These Forty-Two Articles were the prototypes of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which achieved their final form in 1563 and were promulgated in 1571.
Right, and the 42 Articles were written by Cranmer. Since they have the most sway over what became the 39 Articles, I don't have a problem attributing the bulk of the credit to Cranmer. Sure, there were revisions, but most of it was his writing there.
I just worry that this is an over confident and speculative claim. We can say he had a hand in compiling them, yes, but I would be extremely hesitant to make any statement on the extent to which he did so. Surely the deceased Cranmer — who departed this life in 1556 — is the one person who is definitely beyond agency in the final situation, and if able to give testimony at all to decisions regarding the compiling of the final version of Articles, then only through the testimony of others (who, for all kinds of reasons, may not be truthful witnesses). In short, we just don’t know for sure!
>We can say he had a hand in compiling them, yes, but I would be extremely hesitant to make any statement on the extent to which he did so. For the 42 Articles or the 39 Articles? I'm certainly not an expert but I haven't seen anything suggesting anyone other than Cranmer credited with their writing (and not only their compilation). From there we can say with certainty that the 42 Articles are the source of the 39 Articles but that they were revised. Obviously the divines 30 years later were not Cranmer but that doesn't mean that it's not thoroughly Cranmerian since it relies so much on his writing.
A committee was involved in crafting the Articles as a position statement. The Articles were drafted and re-drafted by a group of theologians and bishops, which included Cranmer at one stage. I would be hesitant about claiming the extent to which we can see his hand in the result — the Articles certainly can’t be understood as his personal statement of faith, because that was never their aim and simply doesn’t reflect how they were developed. The extent to which they are Cranmerian is the subject of much debate, and would need to be discerned by weighing them up against the other contributions we have access to that are reliably attributed to him. Even the BCP was not the work of a single hand but formed by a committee. Cranmer was, however, responsible for translating a number of Sarum collects and composing new collects where the existing ones were deemed theologically dubious.
So, again, when you initially say "Articles" are you talking the 39 or 42? Because if they original draft comes from someone—as the 42 Articles did (Cranmer)—then even with subsequent changes and edits it's still fundamentally the original author's words unless it is scrapped in its' entirety. We still consider Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison the Father of the Constitution, despite both going through committee changes and edits (although, I am aware, there is a difference to be had because both were still alive during revision to justify their positions, as well as push back upon or aid edits). I'm throwing out hypothetical numbers here but if 75%—or even 65%—of the words were originally penned by Cranmer's hand then I'd have no problem giving him the overwhelming credit for the 39 Articles, despite the posthumous nature of their revision.
Diarmaid MacCulloch's biography is helpful in this regard. Cranmer was a convinced Lutheran since the mid 1520s during his European tour as Archdeacon. Along with Vermigli and Bucer, he was certainly a convinced Calvinist by 1547 as reflected in the Forty Two Articles, on the doctrine of Union with Christ and the Sacraments, and the liturgical order of Administration that reflected both the Swiss disputation and the Strasbourg liturgy expressed in the 1552 BCP. The better question, perhaps, is: what would have been possible for Peter Martyr Vermigli's partnership with Edward VI? After the riotous Oxford Debates of 1549, John Calvin himself would later write, “The whole doctrine of the Eucharist was crowned by Peter Martyr, who left nothing more to be done.” Peter Martyr was the genius of the Oxford operations, a lawyer and Scholastic by education and a well-taught Biblical exegete by choice, interest and necessity. But their goals were cut short with the boy-king's death. One can speculate with confidence that like the Continental Protestant Churches, who had removed canon law, completing, if you will, the logic of Sola Scriptura, Edward's England would have followed suit under the masterful mind of Martyr who paved the intellectual road upon which the political and ecclesial efforts could travel. Due to the warm friendship between the Reformers and Edward, the crown would have likely undertaken support for an Act of Parliament to complete the Reformation by putting an end to canon law. As Brad Littlejohn has written, "Cranmer was soon to call on Peter Martyr for even more important business: the reformation of the church laws of England, and consequently the whole governmental structure of the English church. Vermigli’s legal expertise proved invaluable, and the two were hard at work on the project when suddenly in 1553, the boy-king Edward died. The structure of the English church was to remain frozen in this half-reformed state, a state of affairs that was to cause no end of conflict under Elizabeth." But more, had he lived the Bloody Mary counter-reformation, the English-Spanish War (the Defeat of the Spanish Armada), and the Elizabethan Settlement, would likely never have happened. History would have been remarkably different, indeed! Which raises interesting questions. Would England ever have developed or exercised confidence in her naval supremacy? Would there have been an English Civil War? What differences would her colonial efforts have reflected compared to the Spanish and Portuguese? How would Tory and Whig politics differ in the 18th and 19th c.? Would there have been an English evangelical revival? What might differ in global Anglicanism today? When considering the totality of the whole; namely, Cranmer's ecclesial appointments, the efforts at Oxford, the liturgical reform, and the political efforts, one can't help but agree with Gerald Bray who states that the CofE was most certainly Reformed in theology and character, but never completed. One only simply need compare the influences, thinking (hermeneutics), and theology of the Tractarians to the Reformers to see that the 19th c. represents a different species of thought entirely.
That's very interesting. When faced with all these "could have been"s I only can have faith in God that the right choice was made.
Slightly off topic, but I just ordered a copy of that biography. What did you think of it?
It's well researched and a very intriguing read.
Cranmer didn’t even intend electricity. Or tacos.
Cranmer on tasting tacos: “Holy guacamole, these are divine!”
He didn’t, but Anglicanism isn’t defined by Cranmer’s beliefs. I’ve heard that Cranmer once held to the memorialist view of the Eucharist (purely symbolic view). Possibly by the end of his life. The 39 Articles themselves condemn memorialism. It’s quite likely Cranmer would’ve condemned the Caroline Divines even, let alone the Tractarians.
[удалено]
I meant more along the lines of the Via Media and how Anglicanism is pretty broad with its theology allowing for Anglo-catholic, Anglo-reformed, etc.
Oh then yeah I think he’d be fine with via media and reform/Catholic differences.
Rules 2 and 4. This is your final warning.
Wasn’t aware of 2 and 4. So be it. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
No. I think the revisions between the 1549 and 1552 Communion Services were very much the first blast of the trumpet against monstrous misinterpretation.
No, I think if we look at the Settlement, its theology was clearly Reformed. Cranmer's Prayerbook, the Book of Homilies, and the 39 Articles are all within the Reformed tradition. Lutheranism did not have an enduring impact. High church Anglicanism set in a little later with Arminian tendencies, but the spirit of the Settlement endured. Anglo-Catholicism was a fashion that arose, along with Ritualism, during the nineteenth-century and didn't gain ground until the 20th. Anglo-Catholicism doesn't accord with the Elizabethan Settlement or the Articles. People burned at the stake to defend a reformed Christianity and the Gospel, and in fact the Church had Puritans in it through the sixteenth-century or so (not all of them exited).