To some ears “Protestant Saints” might sound oxymoronic[1]. However, Anglicans and “high-church” Protestants during the 16th and 17th centuries often continued the medieval cults but in a ‘reformed’ manner. It should be remembered during the first generation of reform categories like “protestant” and “roman catholic” weren’t so neat and tidy. The term ‘protestant’ didn’t even exist until nine years following Luther’s 95 Theses. Until then, Swiss and English divines might interchangeably be called “Lutherans”. Many reformers, like Martin Bucer, and certainly Luther himself, initially received their religious education either as Augustinian monks or discovered the New Learning while serving as prebends, deans, professors, or in other Roman Catholic minor orders akin to academic chapters. In the early years of reform, 1520-1545, the anticipation a free general council [2] between Northern Protestant churches and Rome bred a kind of theological hesitancy if not purposed conservatism, especially in England and in Germany, where the hope of reconciliation drove policies of accommodation and continuity to certain medieval practices. Despite the Roman abuse of the medieval saint-cult, the mentioning saints in church prayers has primitive origin, dating to the second century.
Modest Reform: English divinity continued this older religious practice on the condition it was not contrary to scripture. The earlier Roman Catholic cult was distinguished by a vast and messy array of superstitions, not to mention devotional practices promoted by the Papacy that reinforced Rome’s merit theology. An alternative to abolishing the entire cultus was pruning away exagerations. English Reformers accomplished this several ways [3]. In 1538 reverencing of images by decking or prayer were banned in both public and private worship [4]. The 1536 Ten Articles rebuked those vain superstitions, “as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us sooner than another or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same” (Formularies, p. 30). In 1548 Anglicans started reform of the Salisbury mass, finishing an overhaul of the missal and its related Christian calendar which eliminated many legendary saints. In 1544 the “litany of saints” was also revised, where the heavenly saints were reduced to a single stanza while living members of the church gained the greater focus of the litany. Until 1549 this single stanza continued from the Cranmer’s 1544 litany where an invocation of heavenly saints remained[5]:
“Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of our Savior Jesus Christ. Pray for us All holy Aungels and Archaungels and all holye orders of blessed spirites. Praye for us. All holy patriarkes, and Prophetes, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, & Virgins, and all the blessed company of heaven: Praye for us.”
A Commemorative Form: The next prayer book published in 1549 collated together the 1544 and 1536 reforms. But the single invocation quoted above was removed. This omission represented a final shift away in devotions from the orderly host in heaven towards Christ’s commonwealth on earth; e.g., “God save the King”, et al. This liturgical development in the prayer book basically translated the sacred order in heaven to the emerging order in the national church. As Laud’s book said, “Everlasting God, which hast ordained and constituted the services of all Angels and men in a wonderful order”. The wonderful order of men on earth was recalled with every state prayer found in the BCP and royal primers of the period, reminding men of their common parentage(s) yet hierarchic loyalties to church, council, and Crown[6]. The 1547 Homily on Obedience parallels the earthly to heavenly order, “Almighty God hath created and appointed all things in heaven, earth and waters, in a most excellent and perfect order. In heaven he hath appointed distinct and several orders and states of Archangels and Angels. In earth he hath assigned and appointed Kings, Princes, with other Governors under them, in all good and necessary order.” (Prayer Book and Homily, p. 73) The emphasis on the terrestrial was evident in the BCP’s litany as well as prayer for whole church. In both, the top of the earthly hierarchy was the Crown, followed by royal seed, then bishops, nobles, and people. By 1552 the focus from the heavenly saints to the terrestrial Kingdom was complete. For instance, the Whole Church Prayer in 1549 earlier read, “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s church”, but in 1552 and later editions the phrase “militant here in earth” was added. The litany followed the same course of reform.
Before it was removed, the 1549 Whole Church prayer was similar to the 1544 litany, only briefly mentioning the heavenly procession:
“And here we do geve unto thee moste high praise, and heartie thankes, for the wonderfull grace and vertue, declared in all thy sainctes, from the begynning of the worlde: And chiefly in the glorious and moste blessed virgin Mary, mother of thy sonne Jesu Christe our Lorde and God, and in the holy Patriarches, Prophetes, Apostles and Martyrs, whose examples (O Lorde) and stedfastnes in thy fayth, and kepyng thy holy commaundementes, graunt us to folowe”
But notice the 1549 saint-prayer above was commemorative rather than intercessory, so even at this early Edwardian date England had acquired a format that would define future reformed catholic petitions. Following the 1562 homily on prayer, we are instructed that only the Father has the attributes to answer those who call upon him. Meanwhile, only the Son has the favor to advocate our behalf. Thus prayers could neither be addressed to nor requested of saints without tarnishing the Triune God’s glory[7]. Yet the virtues demonstrated in mortal lives could indeed be remembered, even asked for. So, the homilist says, “not that we should put any religion in worshipping of them, or praying unto them; but that we should honor them by following their virtuous and godly life” (Prayer Book and Homily, p. 223). The 1536 Ten Articles said the same, “there may be representers of virtue and good example, and that they also be by occasion the kindlers and stirrers of men’s minds, and make men oft to remember and lament their sins and offences, especially images of Christ and our Lady” (Formularies, p. 28).
Principally written by Melancthon in 1536, the Wittenburg Concord, by which the English Ten Articles were a reply and closely framed, likewise said, “We do not reject the remembrance of saints and the celebration of their days, but for the following reasons consider that it is beneficial and Christian to keep their remembrance” (art. 16). The Concord then provided three causes: 1. “God wanted to set before Christendom examples in whom he might show that he pleases to be gracious”; 2. “to hold before the people examples of faith and of other virtues, so that we may follow after them, each one his own calling”; 3. “we should thank God that he gave these gifts to the saints, and they should be praised for having really used God’s gifts and resisted the desire of the flesh to squander”. Melanchthon ended the article quoting fathers,
“This veneration of the saints we permit in the sense only St. Basil and St. Jerome speak of it, for Basil speaks thus in his sermon concerning the martyr Gordius: “The saints do not need our praises for their salvation, but we need to remember them in order to follow their example.” In another sermons he says: ‘To praise and bless the martyrs is the same thing as to admonish the Church to follow their examples and their virtues”. (Bray, p. 159)
Martin Bucer, agreeing with Melanchthon’s commendation said,
“we teach that the blessed saints who lie in the presence of or Lord Christ and of whose lives we have biblical or other trustworthy accounts, ought to be commemorated in such a way, that the congregation is shown what graces and gifts their God and Father and ours conferred upon them through our common Saviour and that we should give thanks to God for them, and rejoice with them as members of the one body over those graces and gifts, so that we may be strongly provoked to palce greater confidence in the grace of God for ourselves, and to follow the example of their faith.”
By 1549 common prayer already had a regular form for commemorating saints, exemplified not only in the prayer book but in the collect for All Saints Day:
“O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord; Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys which thou hast prepared for those who unfeignedly love thee; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen[8]“
A similar one emphasizing the examples of saints can be read in the 1928 BCP’s Whole Church prayer:
“And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service, and to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom.”
A favorite, more embellished style is the prayer of commemoration found within the Society of King Charles Martyr’s Liturgical Manual (see graphic above) where the collect for Jan. 30th reads,
“Blessed Lord, in whose sigh the death of thy Saints is precious: We magnify thy Name for thine abundant grace bestowed upon thy servant, King Charles of England, by which he was enabled so cheerfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Savior, in a constant meek suffering of all barbarous indignities, and at last resisting unto blood, and even then, according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us, that we may follow the example of his courage and constancy, his meekness and patience, and great charity; and all for Jesus Christ’s sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.”
Red Letter Saints: English divines followed the criteria of Cranmer and Bucer, eliminating ‘legendary saints’ and dividing the remainder into biblical and historic kinds. However, Anglican theology retained a hesitancy regarding the dearly departed. Greater saints remained. The Ten Articles said, “they be thus to be honored, because they be known the elect persons of Christ, because they be passed in godly life out of this transitory world, because they already do reign in glory with Christ” (Formularies, p. 29). But in the morning prayer liturgy, the Te Deum reads, “We believe that thou shalt come to be our judge. We therefore pray thee, help thy servants, whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood. Make them to be numbered with thy saints, in glory everlasting. O Lord, save thy people, and bless thine heritage. Govern them, and lift them up forever” (1928 BCP, p. 10-11). The biblical saints were those disciples & apostles found in scripture; otherwise known as ‘red-letter saints’, designated by red type in the prayer book which indicated their ‘festive’ significance. Whereas the historical saints not mentioned in scripture (the ‘churchy” ones), often british kings and ancient doctors, went by the moniker as ‘black-letter’. But these were downplayed with no necessary festivity attached. Legendary saints or events (e.g, the Assumption of Mary) and those martyrs who battled for papacy (like Thomas Becket) were promptly eliminated. Black-letter saints pertaining to England’s history and the primitive church slowly gained ground, starting in 1552 with Clement and Lawrence. Others made gradual comebacks, appearing first in Tudor primers and then in the 1662 prayer book[9]. The 1662 is notable for adding new saints and days of commemoration unique to Anglican history, namely, King Charles I martyr (who was beheaded by army millenarians January 30th,1649) and the 1660 Restoration the Crown, Charles II.
Black-letter saints usually had no collects and propers [10]. More often lesser saints were given secular or mneumetic functions with such times/places for bill collection, street names, college chapters, almonries, hospitals, etc.. Black and some red-letter saints might have local observances depending upon the indulgence of the King and/or bishops, “And likewise we must keep holydays unto God, in memory of him and his saints, upon such days as the church hath ordained their memories to be celebrated; except they be mitigated and moderated by the assent and commandment of us, the supreme head and the ordinaries” (Formularies, p. 30). But Edward and Elizabeth actually restrained the increase of black-letter days partly because too many holy days, rather than promoting godliness encouraged idleness while discouraging charity, “that it shall profit more their soul’s health, if they do bestow that on the poor and needy, which they would have bestowed upon the said images or relics” (Bray, p. 176). Injunctions against veneration of saints were probably more pastoral than dogmatic. The1539 Abrogation of Holy Days was similar in this regard about the vice of idleness, Cromwell’s Goodly Primer reading:
“First, that the feast of dedication of the Church shall in all places throughout this realm be celebrated and kept on the first Sunday of the month of October for ever, and upon none other day. Item, that the feast of the patron of every Church within this realm, called commonly the Church holyday, shall not from henceforth be kept or observed as a holy day as heretofore hath been used, but that it shall be lawful to all and singular persons, resident or dwelling within this realm, to go to their work, occupation, or mystery, and the same truly to exercise and occupy upon the said feast, as upon any other workday, except the said feast of the Church holyday such as else universally observed as a holyday by this ordinance following…it may be lawful for every man to go to his work or occupation upon the same, as upon any other workday, except always the feasts of the Apostles, of our blessed Lady, and of St. George, and thus the four Evangelists, and Mary Magdalene.” (Three Primers, p.331-2)
Calendar saint days solemnize both locality and “ethnos”. Though many shrines and reliquaries were demolished and outlawed during the reformation, the ‘reformed catholic’ keeping of biblical and trustworthy historical saints continued the memory of sacred people and land. With every wave of conquest arriving upon Britain (e.g., the Anglo-Saxon, then Norman races), so too followed their saints, stratified and collected into the BCP calendar. While the first prayer book was rather barebone, both black and red-letter saint days increased. When James I introduced prayer books adapted for Ireland and Scotland their calendars were edited to incorporate saints peculiar to the celtic ethnos. Inside these 17th century editions can be found men of holy memory like Columba and Patrick. A personal favorite is the 1637 Scottish prayer book where numerous Northumbrian saints appear–Kings Edwin & Oswald, Bede, Aidan, Colmán of Lindisfarne, et al.– hearkening back to a period when tribal kings ruled lesser realms like Mercia, Sussex, Kent. Prayer books from continuing churches contain feast days of local significance for Tudor and Carolinian divines like Thomas Cranmer, Matthew Parker, William Laud, Lancelot Andrewes, and William Law. More recent doctors remembered in the calendar might include William Muhlenberg, John Hobart, and the White & Seabury consecrations.
A reformed catholic treatment of saints seems preconditional to understanding the even more sticky subject of Protestant prayers for the departed. I hope to look at how kingship might be reconstructed within magisterial protestantism through the field of certain liturgical customs. Sainthood was one way to memorialize the deceased. In many ways, magisterial protestantism never broke from catholicism but continued it with varying degrees of non-dogmatic prohibitions (thus accounting for national differences between, say, German and English). The English treatment probably was more conservative, eliminating only those saints either caked in fabulous legend or serving as props for Papacy. Anglican liturgy, therefore, is simplified with a modest saint-cultus that allows history and time sacralised through the Calendar. Saints were often signs or focal points for locality.
Next: A Protestant Dirge
Footnotes:
[1.] Perhaps ‘reformed catholic or ‘protestant catholic’ are likewise oxymoronic. However, these terms represent the center of what might be also called “northern catholic”. The Northern Catholic is best represented by the German and English churches of the 16th century. The German churches, like the later British ones, would undergo successive royal marriages/treaties, culminating in the Prussian Union Church of Frederick William III, which joined Lutheran and Reformed congregations in Germany under a system of state-elected superintendents. The confession and liturgy of the Prussian church was close to the German Reformed (“Altered”). “Altered” means those later confessions modified or somehow part of a formal dialogue with the Augsburg 1530.
[2.] German princes first called for free general at the Diet of Speyer 1526, invoking the older national principle used at the Council of Constance in 1415. Pope and Emperor later confirmed the German demand for synod in 1535. After a false start at Mantura in 1537, coupled with some interesting preliminary hearings at Ratisbon in 1541, the Western Council was finally held at Trent in 1545. But Roman packing of legates compounded by a Lutheran military upset with treaty at Passau interrupted the Council’s first session. Possibilities for future reconciliation between Germans and Romans further deteriorated and finally dried up after the death of Pope Julius III. His successor, Pius IV, was extremely anti-protestant. Therefore a surprising difference existed between early and late-Tridentine convocations. By1562 any optimistic outcome with Trent came to an end, and whatever promises Trent might have held to satisfy Lutherans was hollowed out by Papacy.
[3.] another reform not mentioned here was the earlier division of christian dead for saints vs. souls. This amounted to removing all references to purgatory and props thereof. In the calendar “All Souls” (Nov. 2) was omitted while “All Saints” (Nov. 1st) continued, becoming a general memorial day for all christian departed. Theologically, what both the living and the departed shared was the expectation for the consummation of all things– namely the bodily resurrection of those faithful and last judgement.
[4.]the 1536 injunction (c.4) stated, “to the intent that all superstition and hypocrisy, crept into divers men’s hearts, may vanish away, they shall not set forth or extol any images, relics or miracles for any superstition or lucre, nor allure the people by any enticements ot the pilgrimage of any saint, otherwise than is permitted in the Articles…as though it were proper or peculiar to that saint to give this commodity or that, seeing all goodness, health, and grace ought to be both asked an looked for only of God” (Bray, p. 176) These injunctions carried forward into the 1538 and 1547 canons. The 1559 injunctions (C.23) added, “Also that they shall take away, utterly extinct and destroy all shrines, covering of shrines, all tables and candlesticks, trundles or rolls of ware, pictures, paintings and all other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry and superstition, so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glasses, windows or elsewhere within their churches or houses. And they shall exhort all their parishioners to do the like within their several houses.” (p. 340-1). Not only shrines, but the 1559 injunctions C.35 forbade veneration of saints in private homes.
[5]. A discussion of heavenly saints are deserving. The BCP’s Morning Prayer provides the Apostle’s Creed which confesses a belief in the “communion of saints”. The canticle, Benedicite omnia opera Domini (1928 BCP, p. 12-13), says, “O ye Servants of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify Him for ever. O ye Spirits and Souls of the Righteous, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him forever”. This doxology resembles the prayer of whole church, beginning with “Israel” and ending with “holy and humble Men”, as if bookends. The order of heaven does not exclude a similar kind on earth. It is too bad greater heavenly saints per 1544 version have not made their way back into the litany or whole church prayer as they indeed part of Israel, God’s Kingdom on earth as in heaven yet commemorative according to the Form discussed above.
[6.] this can be further studied in noteable expositions on the fifth commandment as well the the Anglcian Homily on Obedience. Martin Luther’s commentary on the Fifth Commandment (which he enumerates as the Fourth Commandment) in his Large Catechism. He states, “among us there must necessarily be such inequality and ordered difference, and therefore God commands it to be observed, that you obey me as your father, and that I have the supremacy.” This natural inequality among men is an outworking of fidelity to the Fifth Commandment. Supremacy is also the term used by the English Crown to describe his rule in the Church.
[7.] “The sum is this, that we must come to call upon God the Father, resting upon affiance of the promises made to us by Christ, and trusting upon his intercession, leaving all respect of our own worthiness, and framing our prayers, as it were, out of the mouth of Christ; which doing, as it is most agreeable to the truth of scriptures, so is it most far from the faults of arrogance and persumption” (Nowell’s Catechism, p.89)
[8.] The 1928 catholic revision of the prayer book, that restored some Henrician practices, gives two generic formats for saints:
“Almighty and everlasting God, who dost enkindle the flame of thy love in the hearts of the Saints; Grant to us, they humble servants, the same faith and power of love; that, as we rejoice in their triumphs, we may profit by their examples; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Or this: O Almighty God, who hast called us to faith in thee, and hast compassed us about with so great a cloud of witnesses; Grant that we, encouraged by the good examples of thy Saints, and especially of thy servant [Saint —-], may persevere in running the race that is set before us, until at length, through thy mercy, we, with them, attain to thine eternal joy; through him who is the author and finisher of our faith, thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
[9.] the prayer book of 1662 was that liturgy restored from 1643, after the English civil war 1642-51 whereupon Charles II, in order to save the church from disestablishment, was asked by presbyterians to return to the Throne. The 1662 was the first prayer book published with respective uniformity acts for each British kingdom. Nonetheless, variations in the Calendar for Scottish and Irish saints were made to better suit national and local customs.
[10.] Collects are short, fixed prayers said throughout daily liturgy (e.g., matins, the litany, communion, etc.). Propers are specific to communion, found at the beginning of the canon. Between the two kinds a saint might be commemorated four or five times in a single day. Thus, the common liturgical difference between biblical and historical saints is quite significant. Local usages may be enjoyed given bishopric approval/discretion.
Bibliography:
Gerald Lewis Bray, Documents of the English Reformation, James Clarke & Co. 1994
Various, Formularies of Faith put forth by Authority during the reign of Henry VIII, Oxford. 1825
Various, Three Primers put forth in the Reign of Henry VIII. Oxford. 1890
Prayer Book and Homily Society, Sermons or Homilies Appointed to be Read in the Churches, London. 1986
Charles Bartlett lives and works in Northern California. He is a member-at-large in the UECNA, worshiping in the REC by bishopric dispensation. His blog, Anglican Rose, explores the nature of adiaphora in England’s Church beginning with late-Henrician standards.
River Thames Beach Party 
A fascinating and well-written essay, Charles.
One thing in the last line, though: sacrilized or sacralized?
(In Commonwealth English one would probably opt for sacralised. I don’t mean to be pedantic, even the OED accepts s or z in most such cases, but I’ve never come across sacr_i_lized before; is it American usage?)
Thank you Pastor Mark! It’s fixed. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible with those texts appointed by Royal Seal and historic variants thereof. I really enjoy your writings at Lutheran Catholicity and hope to speak more with you regarding Lutheran high-church.
Good article, Charles
It seems that while the English Church purged its saint cultus from invocations, pilgrimages and superstitious veneration, it retained a rather robust liturgical acknowledgement of the communion of saints, especially at the end of “The Prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church” and during the “Sursum corda.”
But how do you account for the fact that belief in “the royal touch” continued among English churchmen, during the Reformation and post-Reformation periods? Is this a gigantic anomaly, or is it better to see it as a logical outcome, arising from the confluence of sacral kingship and the attitudes of Protestants who held to a reformed saint-cultus?
Hi Mark,
I’m no expert, but the fact it continued as an occasional rite in the BCP is significant. Occasional rites are usually left to Ordinary discretion. Another occasional rite between Elizabeth to Queen Anne was the consecration of church buildings. So these things certainly existed and fall within England’s conservation of catholic custom. Frere also talks about a ‘rule of analogy’, meaning establishing the orthodoxy of a ceremony once all standards are compared. Of course there are two or three principle standards we think of when referring to the reception of catholic thought in England, namely, the prayer book, 39 articles, and royal injunctions. Moreover, the Crown reserved the right to amend the above. However, there are actually about a dozen texts that were appointed for official use in churches having the special, combined dignity of royal seal, convocation/episcopal authorship, and parliamentary approval. So, we can also talk about certain ranks of documents and sermons that greatly describe the mind of the ‘Settlement’ Church, 1535-1716. Of course, this doesn’t exclude other sermons, expositions, customs, or popular practices, but such ought to stand together with the above. Thus, it’s not impossible to reasonably ‘define’ Anglicanism or have a sense of what is meant by “two canons, four councils, five centuries”. Our divines did not neglect an exposition of the above.
Interestingly, I’ve also found both the ceremony for the King’s Evil and consecration of church buildings in Scottish 1637 Prayer Book! While James I attempted to liturgically return the Scottish church to the mid-16th century at his Aberdeeen and Perth assemblies, St. Charles I was too aggressive, and it cost him his head.
Lately, I’ve been reading some sermons in memory of the King Martyr. Often the restoration of the episcopate is attributed to the Carolinians, but this really occurred under James I, and therefore is part of an earlier date. Death Bredon is right about the 17th century as a ‘recalibration’ of Anglicanism. But people often miss that Anglican reassertion began in the latter half of Elizabeth’s reign after 1585, and, interestingly, Jewel’s life is indicative of the shift. Evidently, Jewel was somewhat disillusioned with the heady controversies calvinism stirred, writing against it in the later part of his life. It is therefore significant that the author of the second book of homilies also had his lifetime Works w/ Apology published and appointed for use in the Churches. And didn’t Andrewes both study under and then succeed Jewel? This is just one example.
Again, I’d say the King’s Evil was demonstrative, first, of the conservative nature of the English Reformation. But, secondly, I think an interesting point is brought up by speculating the preservation of the King’s cultus might have been something especially important to Protestants. I firmly agree with Andrew, at Unpopular Opinions, that Rome’s monarchy gives it a special durability that protestants lost with the retreat of the Crown in affairs of state and, effectively, church.
Catholic churches require prelates. Unfortunately, when the British Crown abducted its divine role as head of England’s Church militant, Canterbury did not fill the gap. Instead, liberal catholicism tried to negotiate a peace based on minimal/universal standards of ‘fellowship’– or creed and eucharist. This basically evaporated the particular church, and what we’re left with is a local option on nearly everything while the classical standards have become ‘historical documents’ by which no doctrine ought to be made.
In my mind, the only way out of this mess, and still remain Anglican, is too restore the cultus of sacred monarchy, recognizing the special status those documents with royal seal drawn by convocation ought to have. However, the cultus can be revived around any prelate. This is one reason I tried writing something on the reversal of desuetude. I recommend people go back and read the 1662 (or earlier) litany and whole church prayers. Here you see a ranking of church authority. When one power abducts, or are in their infancy, etc., the next one steps in acting as ‘regent’. This goes all the way down until an ‘appeal to the faithful’ is made. This is proper church order, and I believe Keble outlines something very similar in his sermon on Catholic subscription. Anyway, true or ‘original’ Protestants, whom I’d rather call ‘northern catholics’, have a special interest in continuing the dignity of their princes, and it is sad the honor given to Kings has been replaced by a Republican attitude which is essentially Presbyterian, impacting our visible unity.
Interesting thoughts.
What would reviving the cultus of sacred monarchy around a prelate entail? Any number of orthodox Anglican bishops might serve as the locus for this revival, but how many of them actually set store by those documents having the royal seal? How many have more than a casual acquaintance with them? It is an easy thing to think of Catholic bishops wthin the ACNA and Continuum, but do they concretize their catholicism in a way that would be recognizable to Jewel, Hooker, Laud, Andrewes, Cosin et al ( iow, and speaking now in a purely theological vein, not the vaguely liberal “creed & eucharist” variety of catholicism, nor a catholicism informed by RC and EO standards, but one constructed from the bricks and mortar of Scripture, Creeds, General councils, early patristic consensus, Prayer Book, Ordinal, Articles of Religion, Books of Homilies and Anglican divinity) ? Mind you, I am not saying that there aren’t any, but I’ll wager that within the greater sphere of orthodox Anglicanism there number is small.
Of course, once a qualified bishop assumes the mantle, you have the potential to mold the life of an entire diocese along classically Anglican lines. A good example of this can be found in the Anglican parishes of Petite Riviere, Nova Scotia (the late Rev. Dr. Crouse was a priest in this jurisdiction). Their whole life is modeled after a recognizably Anglican ethos, according to Canadian church’s Solemn Declaration of 1896. I rather doubt that their bishop is responsible for this; it is probably due to the principle of one power taking regency when another “abducts”. In any case, a perusal of their website indicates that this community lives a uniquely Anglican existence, because it is fueled by an unmistakably Anglican body of sermons, catechetical material and studies from the hands of their priests and lay-theologians.
Dear Mark,
I think we’re asking how the ‘rule of analogy’ might work in order to recognize orthodox Anglican teaching and practice, and if a royal cultus might help?
First, if we were to list the most authoritative standards, 1535-1716, it turns out they typically have the stamp of episcopal authorship, royal seal, and parliamentary enactment before they are appointed for use in churches. This by no way excludes others, but it gives us an idea where widest agreement happened and a means to relatively rank such. If we must ignored one of the three institutions, parliament is the least important. But often missed is the significance of christian monarch, who in the old framework, was no mere ‘secular executive’ but an arch-episcopal in his own right. In the christian commonwealth the sacred king is indispensable part of polity, above politics and vice-regent of God. So, not only is it right to restore the King’s cultus, but it happens to be an extremely convenient way to navigate through the present confusion of standards. Also, it is an answer that offers liturgical, sacramental, and antique elements, often preferable over confessionalism for AC’s.
Second, I tend to think the attraction to Rome is mostly psychological. In the Anglo-West, Rome is probably as liberal as TEC, so I am not sure what Tiber-bound AC’s believe they are escaping from. Anyway, the visible unity provided in the sign of Papacy seems to offer people a lot of mental security and is a definite cohesive force if not advantage for Rome. Also, the Papacy’s supremacy allows him to settle doctrine. Meanwhile, I wonder what happened to Anglicana’s head of church militant? We seem to have had a rough equivalent of Papal authority in both doctrine and ceremony by virtue of Supremacy at least until the death of Queen Anne (1707). By the 1830’s the Crown finally abducted from direct rule in government and church, and this was an enormous blow.
I’m not talking about the current monarch (i.e., Windsors), but simply restoring an honorable name to orthodox royals, namely, Henry VIII thru Anne. I think Benjamin Guyer is thinking along the same lines. It might be pointed out to fellow AC’s not only have standards like the Prayer Book, homilies, KJV, or 39 Articles been used by men such as Cosin and Andrewes, but especially these same texts had the stamp of the sacred Kingship. This places them in realm of authority apart from modern ‘statements of belief’, and this ought to impress the english-catholic mind in a way not unlike the Papacy does for Romans. The royal seal should be significant for us.
But the fundamental problem is we’ve desacralised the memory of western monarchs, in particular the British kings (in any number of ways, some so lewd I will refrain from speaking). Probably the best example of restoring the dignity to an English King is SKCM’s work. But this needs to be multiplied for a number of royals. Another avenue might be reviving more of ancient Kings like Alfred or Edwin. Perhaps a liturgical manual for a half dozen or so of these esteemed monarchs w/ collects, hymns, introits, etc.., not limited to Charles I or II but James I, Elizabeth, Anne, Alfred, et al.? While there are any number of ways to induce a royal culture (certainly in worship we approach the King of Kings), there remains the order for due authority designated by the litany and whole church prayers. If we follow that ‘earthly’ chain of command, we normally should expect our bishops and other clergy to fill the gap, but….
What to do in absence of an orthodox bishop or clergy capable of advancing a genuine (ancient) Anglicanism? How (who) to reverse deseutude? A: Keep going down the chain, and pray for better times. As Newman pointed out, in the very last instance is the appeal to the faithful. This has been done before & not with sorry results. There is the example of the Oxford and Methodist movements. Both started with small study-prayer groups. Both started as societies of the faithful, meeting in private households who vowed to cling to catholic faith as historically received by convocation and sacred kings in England. We might have to wait for a better day, but we can always start with our private homes, turning such into oratories and little Giddings for frequent epistle and active hospitality, connecting similarly-minded laymen and priests together, enshrining and sharing that “Anglican body of sermons, catechetical material and studies from the hands of their priests and lay-theologians.” And, restoring a sense of Abbacy to family. This is preconditional.
I also think, despite my railings, liberal catholicism needn’t be an enemy. The trick is to appropriate the orthodox elements within, for example, distilling Gore from Temple. Liberal catholicism also is not something that will disappear any time soon. It has deeply etched itself into Anglican identity and practices. But what did it initially desire upon inception? Basically it sought to strengthen Creedalism and renew certain sacramental/ceremonial rites. There’s no reason why this must fundamentally oppose royal Settlement. Perhaps this is also why Henry’s high-churchmanship deserves a second look (and why cut-off points at 1543 make no sense). It is also gives cause to stick with the 1928 books, fixing a few unnecessary omissions with text of the 1662 (like the marriage rite). Nonetheless, the irony is the very devotional movements which contributed to the present disorder might prove the same keys to turn fortunes around…so perhaps the way pass liberal catholicism is thru it? Ourselves becoming liberal catholics in a sense.
Thank you, Mark, for your enduring love of the Anglican faith. I need to get back on SABCL! BTW. Why not SABCL promote a ‘proposed BCP’ or similar ‘anglican primer’? It could bind together many supplementary materials. It might be portions of the 1928 and 1662 together with a number of key Jacobean sermons regarding the divine right of both the episcopate and kings. Or, it could be a volume of expositional material, as well as some helpful material on self-examination, etc.. Anyway, I find it funny AC’s will have much to say in defense of the episcopacy and very little about kingship. It seems the two naturally go together, and when one is neglected, the other suffers.
Well, I do agree with you that our business now is to hope and pray for “better times”. In the meantime, the establishment of oratories, modern “Little Giddings”, if you will, along with promulgation of the magisterial standards (circa 1535-1716) and unjustifiably neglected 19-century divines like Sadler (his is a text book example of a pre -Lux Mundi Anglican, championing the cause of creedalism, high sacramentalism and settlement standards, sans the liberal-catholic tendency to make peace with 19th-century higher criticism), will undoubtedly help as an concerted effort of the faithful who step up to the plate, in the face of royal and, to a lesser extent, Episcopal abduction.
The Anglican parishes of Petit Riviere provide something of a case in point. They are but nine parishes in the Canadian diocese of Nova Scotia (odd’s are against their bishop having much sympathy for their theological and ecclesial convictions, but I simply can’t say); they are not in close proximity to each other, if the map on their web site is any indication; and none of them are large.
They have nevertheless forged a genuine “abbacy”; a spiritual community, where each parish manages to live an authentically Anglican existence, didactically, sacramentally and fraternally, in union with the others, based on the foundation of the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book and Solemn Declaration. You get the feeling that they have created a haven of orthodox Anglican praxis, within a jurisdiction that undoubtedly has suffered deep compromise. Furthermore, by publishing sermons, Bible studies, essays, catechetical material and commentary from writers of a classically Anglican worldview (i.e., their own doctrinal fare), they are simultaneously maintaining the riches of our tradition and making them known to the world (Is it any wonder that Lectionary Central is their brain-child)?
Your’e preaching to the choir, when you suggest memorializing the lives of orthodox English Monarchs, including Charles I, by making their feast days part of the liturgical calendar. Perhaps a joint project along with a “proposed BCP” might be a book of lesser feasts and fasts, revised along these lines?
I guess the common thread between the Petit Riviere churches was the Rev. Dr. Crouse? I am surprised that this could happen in such a relatively ‘concentrated’ manner in a single diocese. It’s usually much more scattered. I suppose Petit Riviere is an example that it can be done, but Dr. Crouse,, and I imagine others, were vigorous writers. Talking about orthodox bishops, don’t you think the TX REC episcopate– e.g., Sutton and Grote– are the sort who would promote and keep Settlement standards? Here’s a TX parish that looks very secure in its Anglicanism. I’m just trying to augment the list of what what exists. We are still not at that desperate point where laity are without clergy or bishops? Yet this is still not a time for complacency, and SABCL is calling.
Well, the fact is, Dr. Crouse lived most of his life in the Nova Scotia community where he grew up. Besides his priestly duties, he also taught Classics at Dalhousie University; a Nova Scotia injstitution. Blessed is the diocese which has a priest and theologian known as “the Conscience of the Canadian Church”.
Yes, all the REC bishops would enthusiastically support settlement standards. Something similar to the Petite Riviere situation exists among the Houston REC parishes. Sharing a common life in the traditions of Prayer Book Anglicanism-I speak of things things like joint evensongs, moving mid-week lenten services with different teachers for each week, etc.,-is typical of these parishes. And having a seminary like Cranmer Theological House doesn’t hurt.
[…] to overthrow the English Reformation. Anglo-catholics admirably avoided this trouble with their comprecation prayers for saints, so maybe a ‘right use’ for sacramentals remains possible. Perhaps […]
Petite Rivière sounds a bit like ‘Presbyterian’ conventicles without the Disciplinarianism.
A digested form of the homily regarding the same question of saints:
http://protestantassociation.org/2014/02/02/the-books-of-homilies-teaching-on-praying-to-saints/