Thursday, April 27, 2006

Cranmer and Andrewes: Zwinglian and Catholic?

I have recently returned to reading Dix' work The Shape of the Liturgy. As I sit here in the postgraduate study room, I can not but help to think that my thesis concerning Andrewes' critique of the XVI century liturgical and doctrinal views of the Eucharist is indeed what his sermons and writings are; a critique of the English Reformation! From Eucharistic theology to the ecclesiology of the Church, Cranmer and Andrewes had significant differences. I have no idea what possessed Cranmer to do 1552 BCP. It's simply lacking in so may ways. Thankfully it didn't stay around very long. In Dix' work on The Shape of the Liturgy he speaks of the theology behind Cranmer's changes from 1549. Which, by the way, was not acceptable by the majority of the nation when it came about but nonetheless people such as Gardner could use it provided the sense in which the Church has understood the language used by Cranmer was the intent. Cranmer did not like Gardner's opinion of `49 so set out to change it and adjusted the shape of the liturgy to match is theology of the Eucharist. Dix writes,
What had largly assisted the general misunderstanding of 1549 was its retention of the traditional Shape of the Liturgy. Cranmer realised that this was a mistake if he wanted to the new belief to be adopted; and in 1552 he made radical changes in this in order to bring out the doctrinal implications of 1549. But the wording of the prayers of 1549 needed no such drastic treatment. Rearranged in their new order they served with remarkably few changes to express teh full Zwinglian doctrine -- in itself a reasonable vindication of Cranmer's claim that this had been their most obvious meaning all along.
When one examines his Defense in light of Andrewes' work, it will not be difficult to see the undeniable difference between Cranmer and Andrewes. T.S. Eliot is right that Andrewes is the first of the Great English Catholics.


Blogger lexorandi2 said...


I think your title sets up a false dichotomy. There are other options between Zwinglian and Catholic. Also, Dix is hardly a credible evaluator of Cranmer's position. His work on many levels is contrived and heavily biased. Personally, I think *SOTL* is grossly overrated.

I recommend that you read Basil Hall's article in *Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar*, edited by Avis and Selwyn for a much different evaluation of Cranmer's work. Hall's article revolutionized my own approach to Cranmer, and also (IMO) Hall was the only one to challenge successfully and show the glaring weakenesses of PN Brooks' rather old and worn-out work on Cranmer.

It probably won't convince YOU that Cranmer was "catholic," but it may help you appreciate the nuances of difference that divided the main players in the English Reformation, and why Andrewes' views really should be viewed as a development from the BCP tradition (of which Cranmer was the primary architect) rather than a departure from it. Andrewes' theology did not develop in a vacuum, nor did Zurich, or Geneva for that matter, ever experience a "Catholic renaissance" (for want of a better term). There is a reason why Anglicanism has always had a strong, demonstrable catholic vein running through her historical development. Lex orandi, lex credendi.


5:56 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed Dan; and I put this title up there because I knew YOU would respond!! ;-) I actually couldn't wait to put it up. How does one get passed the evidence provided by Dix in the rubrics and the Defense that he quotes so heavily in the last chapter? How does one get passed the exhortation that clearly defines Cranmer's view of Eucharistic sacrifice? What about use? No second consecration if there is not enough wine, because the people have already heard the words? I understand the historical development but, there was also a bit of historical retreat in Cranmer. That was his problem, IMHO. Anyway, a guest just walked in the door, I'll be back later!


6:40 pm  
Anonymous William Tighe said...

Probably you guys know this already, but Diarmaid MacCulloch's biography of Cranmer tends to support Dix's view of Cranmer's eucharistic theology (although Dix's book gets never a mention in MacCulloch), with this one qualification: that MacC sees Cranmer's theology as identical in substance, although a bit different in forumulation, with that of Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli's successor in Zurich; and he leaves open the question of whether and, if so, to what extent Bullinger's theology is different from Zwingli's. MacC references for this Bruce Gerrish's essay in Calvin and bullinger in his collection of essays *The Old Protestantism and the New* but when I brought to MacC's attention about three years ago a work that I found more clear and cogent than Gerrish's essay he wrote back to me some time later to agree. That work is:

*Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord's Supper* by Paul Rorem. This was originally published in two parts in two successive issues of *Lutheran Quarterly* in 1988, and then published in booklet form by Grove Books (Nottingham, UK) in 1989. I would recommend it to you strongly (although I could find no copies listed at www.abebooks.com just a fw minutes ago).

That said, I would draw your attention to another work: *Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist* by Cyril C. Richardson. This was originally presented as a lecture in 1949 under the title of "Cranmer Dixit Et Contradixit." Richardson comes to the conclusion that Dix was right, in that Cranmer's eucharistic theology was Zwinglian, but wrong, in that Cranmer's sacramental theology was inconsistently so, and that his baptismal theology was not Zwinglian, nor compatible with Zwingli's general sacramental theology. This item, too, I would strongly recommend -- and in this case I have just found that there are two copies listed at www.abebooks.com, both of them priced at around $20.00 US and both of them from English booksellers. If you can afford it, it is well worth the getting.

7:54 pm  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

With all due respect to MacCulloch, he is better biographer than he is a theologian. That is apparent in his caricature of Cranmer as a high predestinarian (Cranmer was indeed Augustinian, but he was no proto-Bezan.) With all due respect to Dix (I don't give him much, btw), he wouldn't have known a Zwinglian if one had come up and bit him in the arse. Dix's quotes are selective, and he never accounted for the political realities that forced Cranmer to mask his instrumentalist leanings during the more radical Northumberland regime. What is interesting is that Cranmer's later commentators (until the late 20th century) typically blamed the "Zwinglian" features of the 2nd BCP on undue pressure from foreigners like Martyr and Laski, not to mention Hooper, the leader of the Zuricher party which was in favor during the Northumberland years.

Cranmer's views were much closer to those of Calvin and Bucer. The latter was maligned by the English Zuricher party for being a "Lutheropapist" (they were also concerned about how much influence he might have on Cranmer).

But despite the affinity, Cranmer was much more catholic than Calvin and Bucer in at least two respects: (1) Cranmer retained the western catholic understanding of consecration via the Words of Institution PRAYED over the elements, rather than RECITED to the people. (Go ahead and look what Calvin did to the Eucharistic liturgy! And Calvin got his ideas from Bucer.) (2) Cranmer retained the language of sacrifice in the Eucharistic prayers of both rites. Not even Luther had done that.

Sure, it has been suggested (a al Dix) that Cranmer deliberately moved the oblationary language to the post-communion position in 1552 in order to protect against a concept of eucharistic sacrifice (making our oblation a response to reception). But there is one small detail that blows that theory out of the water, and that is that Cranmer, rather uncharacteristically, provided an OPTION: i.e., the OPTION of praying the oblationary prayer OR the prayer of thanksgiving. Why, if he wanted to avoid sacrifice altogether didn't he just remove the oblationary prayer altogether? Seems to me that the oblationary prayer served as an optional thanksgiving prayer which looked back on the eucharistic action. Moving it to its post-reception position was simply a hazard of Cranmer's attempt to move what he saw as the central eucharistic action (reception) as close to the Words of Institution as possible. IMO it was a liturgical experiement that was wrongheaded and confusing, but nevertheless shouldn't be interpreted to suggest the absurdity that Dix proposes.

I could go on and on...but I find the suggestion incredulous that the one who equated the effects and efficacy of Baptism and Holy Communion as frequently as he did in Defence/Answer, and RETAINED the instrumentalist language of the former in both the 2nd book and the Articles was a Zwinglian. This is the same who wrote in 1549 that we receive the body and blood "in these holy mysteries," a phrase that Hooper could not pray in good conscience. Why did he remove that very phrase in 1552? Simple: he moved the prayer to the pre-narrative position BEFORE the conseration of the elements. Plus taking the offensive words out of the prayer had the added advantage of soothing the tender consciences of those who were lobbying for a more Zwinglian friendly liturgy. Quite a sleight of hand.

BTW Jeff -- Supplemental consecration of the elements is an Anglican innovation, unknown in the Western Church prior to Cranmer's Order of the Communion (1548), and then only appointed for the wine (not the bread). For that reason alone it was disliked by Protestant and Catholic alike.

Excuse any grammatical mistakes. I wrote in a hurry and I'm in a hurry to get dinner on the table.

Take care,

3:06 am  
Anonymous Jason Loh said...


I am interested in coming over to Durham to pursue postgrad (M.Phil) studies at the Theology and Religion Dept. From the website, I find Durham to be eminently suitable for Anglican studies because of the following (not so exhaustive) reasons ...

1) " The University supports a well-stocked library, with strong holdings in theology and religion. The University and Cathedral also hold considerable historical archives. (For rarer items and manuscripts, Durham is on the main line between London and Edinburgh , which enables quick travel to the British Library and the National Library of Scotland; the John Rylands Library in Manchester is also within easy reach.)

The Department is located on a world-heritage site, right next door to the magnificent Durham Cathedral, with its links back to St. Cuthbert and the Venerable Bede. What more inspiration could a theological student want? "

2) The "Who's Who" in the staff directory

3) The nearby Cranmer Hall and one Anglo-Catholic college (St. Chad?) as well (with the respective resources and specialists in e.g. 17th cent. predestination of one Dr. Stephen something - I found out from trawling through your archives).

I am particlarly interested in researching the Caroline Divines maybe in the area of soteriology.

My question is, can you please advise on funding assistance? I e-mailed the dept. some time ago and Ms Ellen Middleton has replied. I hope I can get the ball rolling soon.

If there's anyone reading this, please chime in if you have suggestions.


Penang, Malaysia

3:29 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thanks for coming by. It would be wonderful to have you here in Durham. I would especially be interested in your work on soteriology of the Caroline Divines and especially on the atonement and how it relates to their understanding of sacramental theology. As far as finances are concerned, that is always a tough one. There are not many scholarships "in house" but there are a few. I have received a few since I have been here and they have helped out on the tuition.

We need another student here like yourself as there is next to no one doing work in our area here. There may be one other but he is doing more Hebrew work than historical or sacramental theology.

For all of the reasons you mentioned coming to Durham are very similar to mine. Let me know how things get on and I will pray that the Lord provides for you to come study.

all the very best wishes,


6:18 pm  
Anonymous Jason Loh said...


Thank you for your encouraging words. I have a strong passion in pursuing postgrad studies. I really miss the UK.

It's not that I cannot to adapt to life in Malaysia, but the one "essential" aspect of my life which I discovered when I first came to the UK, i.e. the ecclesiastical-theological life is simply wanting. The environment of like-minded people, wealth of resources (e.g. books), bookshops, churches etc. you just don't get them in places like Malaysia. It's a different culture, put it in another way.

On the other note, at the end of the day, apart from personal development in terms of theological formation, another tangible notch in one's own quest for life-long learning, enrichment, contribution to the life and witness of the church, I'd love to take up lecturing -- God-willing. Then again ...

Is there anyone I could get in touch with about finances?

Thanks again.


10:28 am  
Blogger wyclif said...

You know, I wasn't going to say anything initially, but comments #1 and 4 are probably the most interesting blog comments I've ever seen on this issue.

Just last week I was talking to a wizened Episcopal priest who, in the midst of a discussion of the supposed "fourfold action" suddenly turned to me and said, "The Shape of the Liturgy is THE book that killed the Episcopal Church."

The scholarship of Dix has, in fact, been discredited on many counts and this is not exactly news in most quarters; what is remarkable is how uncritically his work was used as a basis for modern Anglican liturgies. Some problems: the four actions were not equally ultimate, Dix relied on sources that were highly questionable as to existence, and he placed little stress on the interpretive words of consecration. Also, Dix was criticised for setting up the false dichotomy of the Eucharist as "eschatalogical" vs. the Daily Offices as "personal." Comments?

My University library in town has a copy of the Avis and Selwyn volume referenced...up until very recently I had not read Hall's work but was rather surprised to discover him eating Brooks' lunch, so to speak.

Another thing: I seem to recall, in the not so distant past, as small Anglican seminary in the deep south hosting at least one seminar with Brooks. It might be interesting to discover the result of his interaction with the faculty of said institution on this subject, if possible.


11:39 am  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

Those who endured those dark purgatorial days in the deep south will tell you that the faculty of said seminary were not free to discuss openly their honest differences with Brooks Almighty. They were to be on their best behavior, for, as a general rule, any attempt to express honest academic dissent, especially that which threatened to reveal the deep fissures in the foundation of the institution, would surely reflect poorly on "the powers that were." After all, Brooks Almighty was billed as the "Greatest Anglican theologian in the world."

4:48 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say, fine as regards to the Brooks debate and whether or not he is the best interpreter of Cranmer. The question still remaining for us to answer is two-fold. One, when Cranmer speaks of presence what does he mean (consecration?) and secondly, what does one make of his view of presence that denied an objective presence?

In regards to those two questions, the issue then of sacrifice is still an issue for Cranmer. He was willing to have one of laud, praise and thanksgiving but not for the forgiveness of sins. He denied any sense of propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist or any applying of the forgiveness of sins when receiving the Eucharistic Body and Blood.

Now, that is much different than an Andrewes, Laud, Thorndike, Johnson, Montague, etc. This also begs the questions concerning what the doctors of the Church taught and what was an abuse of what they taught. Did Transubstantiation teach a 'natural' presence of Christ on the altar? According to St. Thomas Transubstantiation did not teach that. Was this something that was interepreted by Calvin and advanced by Zwingli and later Bullinger? Did Cranmer accept the 'logical' conclusions as the true position of what was taught by the Church?

These are all serious questions that I put forward not to be hostile to Cranmer or the BCP, save 1552. But lex orandi lex credendi does apply and it applies for Cranmer's writing of the 1552 as an interpretive correction to 1549 and what Gardner was willing to make of the 1549 that Cranmer wanted to make sure that it was known that he didn't mean that by it. Lots of stuff here I know. But interesting nonetheless.

6:47 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is Cranmer in his Defense that I read on EEBO:

Nowe forasmuch as it is plainly declared and manifestly proued, Note in marg: Chap. 13 that Christe called bread his body, Note in marg: Answer to the auctorittes and argumentes of the Papistes. and wyne his bloud, and that these sentences be figuratiue speeches, and that Christe, as concernyng his humanitee and bodily presence, is ascended into heuen with his whole fleshe and bloudde, and is not here vpon earthe, and that the substance of breade and wyne doo remayne styll, and be receaued in the sacrament, and that although they remayne, yet they haue changed theyr names, so that the bread is called Christes bodye, and the wyne his bloudde, and that the cause why theyr names bee chaunged is this· that we should lyft vp our hartes and myndes frome the thynges, whyche we se, vnto the thinges, whyche we beleue and be aboue in heauen, (wherof the bread and wyne haue the names, althoughe they bee not the very same thynges in dede.) These thynges well considered and waied, all the auctoritees and argumentes, whyche the Papistes fayne to serue for theyr purpose, be cleane wyped awaie.

For whether the authors (which they alledge) say that we doo eate Christes fleshe and drynke his bloudde, Note in marg: One br fe answere to all. or that the bread and wyne is conuerted into the substance of his fleshe and bloud, or that we bee tourned into his fleshe, or that in the Lordes supper we do receaue his very fleshe and bloudde, or that in the breadde and wyne is receaued that whyche dydde hange vppon the Crosse, or that Christe hathe lefte his fleshe with vs, or that Christe is in vs, and wee in hym, or that he is whole here and whole in heauen, or that the same thynge is in the Chalice, wyche flowed oute of his syde, or that the same thynge is receaued with our mouthe, whyche is beleued with our faythe, or that the breade and wyne after the Consecration, bee the body and bloudde of CHRISTE, or that we bee nouryshed with the body and bloude of Christ, or that Christe is bothe gone hence, and is styll here, or that Christe at his laste supper, bare hym selfe in his owne handes.

6:54 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is some more from Cranmer that I find interesting.

And whereas you reherse out of my wordes in an other place, that as [ 9] hoat and burning yron is yron still, & yet hath the force of fyre, so the bread and wine be tourned into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud: you neyther report my words truly nor vnderstand them truely. For I declare in my booke, vertue to be in them, that godly receaue bread and wine, and not in the bread and wine. And I take vertue there to signifie might and strength, or force, as I name it, (which in the greeke is called [...], after which sence we say, that there is vertue in herbs, in words and in stones) and not to signify vertue in holynes (which in greek is called [...], wher of a person is called vertuous, whose fayth and conuersation is godly. But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word vertue to an other signification then I ment, to approue by my words your own vayne error, that bread should be vertuous & holy, making in your argument a fallax or craft, called equiuocation.

*For where my meaning is, that the death of Christ and the effusion of his bloud haue effect and strength in them that truely receaue the sacrament of his flesh and bloud, you turne the matter quite, as though I should say, that the bread were godly and vertuous, which is very frantick and vngodly opinion, and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of yron.**

But this is the mother of many errors, both in interpretation of scriptures, and also in vnderstandyng of old auncient writers when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered. But the similitude is applied vnto other matters then the meaning was. Which fault may be iustly noted in you here, when you reason by the similitude of hoat burning yron, that bread may conceiue such vertue as it may be called vertuous and holy. For my onely purpose was by that similitude to teach, that yron remayning in his proper nature & substance by conceauing of fire may work an other thing then is the nature of yron. And so likewise bread remaynyng in is proper nature and substaunce in the ministration of the sacrament, hath an other vse, then to feed the body.

**For it is a memoriall of Christes death, that [by exercise of our fayth], our soules may receaue the more heauenly food.**

But this is a strange maner of spech (which neither scripture nor approued author euer vsed before you) to cal the sacrametal bread vertuous as you doe. But into such absurdities men do commonly fall, when they will of purpose impugne the euident truth. [ 10]

8:29 pm  
Anonymous William Tighe said...

Well, about Dix using "nonexistent sources" and all that, I have heard such allegations for nearly 30 years, and my only reply to tham, for a very long time, has been "put up or shut up" and to date nobody has "put up." Is there anything to put up?

It's not as though nothing has been written about Dix in all those years. There was the judicious assessment of Dix in *Gregory Dix -- 25 Years On* by Kenneth Stevenson (now Bishop of Portsmouth in the CofE) published by Grove Books in 1977. Last July Continuum brought out a new edition of *The Shape of the Liturgy* with an introduction and assessment by Simon Jones of Merton College. There is the interesting, if only semi-scholarly, book *A Tactful God: Gregory Dix as Priest, Monk and Scholar* by the late Simon Bailey (Gracewing, 1995). None of these makes any mention of "nonexistent sources." Since Dix was a bogeyman that some Anglican Evangelicals loved, and perhaps still love, to hate (I have vivid recollections of a vehement outburst of the late Bishop Stephen Neill when I happened to mention Dix's name at a little dinner party that some of us laid on for Neill in late 1977 or early 1978 when he was spending a year at Yale Divinity School; and it wasn't until some years later, when I happened to tell Eric Mascall about Neill's ourburst and summary presentation of the "facts" about Dix's career, that Mascall told me that Neill simply had all those "facts" wrong).

And as far as Dix not knowing a Zwinglian "if one bit him in the arse" I would pass over such a silly statement it it had not been delivered in such a ex cathredra style, and I will simply recommend to Jeff that he read the three controversial pieces that ensued after the publication of *The Shape of the Liturgy* and come to his own conclusions: (1) "Dixit Cranmer" by G. B. Timms, which appeared in two successive issues of the *Church Quarterly Review* in 1946 and subsequently as a pamphlet published by The Alcuin Club; (2) "Dixit Cranmer Et Non Timuit* by Dom Gregory Dix, which appeared in two successive issues of the *Church Quarterly Review* in 1947 and subsequently as a pamphlet published by Dacre Press; and (3) *Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist* by Cyril C. Richardson, which was published by Seabury-Western Seminary in 1949, after it had been given as a lecture there under the title "Cranmer Dixit Et Contradixit."

3:18 am  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...


With regard to your Cranmer quotes, especially the first paragraph of the first quote: show us where he differs with Calvin or Melanchthon. Unless you want to assert that they too were Zwinglians, then these quotes don't establish Dix's point.

As for me, I would never argue that Cranmer held to an objective presence of Christ in the elements. Never would and never have. His close association of baptism and holy communion is enough to establish that. After all (Cranmer would argue) even the papists do not hold that water is transubstantiated into Holy Spirit in baptism, or that the Spirit is substantially present in the font. So if one is able to hold that the Spirit of Christ is received via baptism without the water being changed in substance (which all catholics do), then why (he would ask) is it a necessity for Christ to reside in the elements of bread and wine in order to receive the Christ who is being offered in the bread and wine? Is not the whole Christ offered AND RECEIVED in both Sacraments? (One of his classic arguments, btw). So why does one sacrament require more (i.e. the doctrine of transubstantiation) than the other to make it efficacious?

(These are Cranmer's positions not mine. You know that I'm actually a Non-Juror at heart. I'm just articulating them in defense of the change of Zwinglianism that you raised with the false dichotomy of the title of this thread.)

My final point is one I made in an earlier thread, and that is that if you look at the arguments of contemporary opponents it is obvious that what Cranmer is arguing AGAINST is not the erudite Thomistic explication of transubstantiation that you seem to assume was the position of his opponents, but rather he was addressing the crass physicalism that actually WAS the position of many, if not most, if not all, of his polemical opponents. Philosophical nominalism may have given birth to Reformation ideas, but it did so in the context of a Medieval church already rotten to the core with it.

Take care, and get some work done on your thesis already!!! ;-)


8:35 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, I do not claim to be an expert on Cranmer. Though I do see the strand of receptionism running through his theology. The difference that I wanted to show was between Cranmer and Andrewes. I just found this quotation from Andrewes in his Responsio to Bellarmine.

"At et nos praepositionem ibi trans non negamus: et transmutari elementa damus. Substantialem vero quaerimus, nec repereimus usquam."

He is saying that we do not deny trans ; we attribute a change in the elements. But we inquire into the Substance [ie, change] and do not find anything.

Of course Andrewes was against Transubstantiation and that is no secret. But he was saying a lot more than Cranmer about what happens to the elements and that James I, like Lombard and Augustine, adores Christ in the Sacrament but not the earthly part of the Sacrament.

Here is Andrewes: 'Of the Sacrament, that is, of Christ in the Sacrament' Surely, Christ Himself, the reality (res) of the Sacrament, in and with the Sacrament, outside and without the Sacrament, wherever He is, is to be adored. Now the King’s laid down that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and is really to be adored, that is, the reality (rem) of the Sacrament, but not the Sacrament, that is, the ' earthly part,' as Irenaeus says,3 "St Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV. xviii. 5, quoted on vol. i. p. 35, supra. the 'visible,' We also, like Ambrose, 'adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries.

My point was that one does not need to say, 'Transubstantion' to have devotion of Christ in the Eucharist. But, Cranmer said that it was ungodly to give the elements any sort of virtue. One interesting question for me would be in the area of how much Cranmer's 'views' of justification by faith alone were shaping his theology of the Eucharist and Shape of the Liturgy. Is reading a more Catholic view of Eucharistic theology into the BCP remaining true to Cranmer's theology of the Eucharist seen in his shape of the liturgy and is it consistent with what Cranmer sought to communicate with reference to C16 English Sacramental theology? You have done much more work in that area than myself since that was your dissertation work. There is a remarkable difference in Andrewes and Cranmer in many ways and I find that interesting. Or, maybe even puzzled by it! In haste!

11:04 pm  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

Of course justification by faith "only" (not alone) shaped Cranmer's theology of the eucharist. How could it not? It shaped Luther's as well. But don't take this where Dix took this, or where Packer and the neo-Puritans take this. It is clear that Cranmer embraced Melanchthon's sola fide doctrine, but NOT necessarily his imputation doctrine. For Cranmer justification was grounded in the believer's union with Christ via baptism and involved a continual growth which included the forgiveness of sins throughout one's life, nourished by the eucharist.

But to answer your question from another angle, liturgically speaking Cranmer was guided by a fundamental conservatism which meant of course keeping as much of the old regimen as possible, but also in seeking precedence in the fathers for any changes that he did make. In addition to this he had to balance the concerns of those who pushed for a more radical reform, especially later in Edward's reign.

At the end of the day what I think you have with Cranmer's 2nd liturgy is something deliberately comprehensive of a spectrum of views that run from the strong instrumentalist (sans transubstan.) to a reluctant accommodation of the Zurichers. Cranmer did not have the luxury of someone like Calvin to craft a liturgy in the image of his own theology to the exclusion of all others. Rather he crafted a liturgy that was comprehensive of the range of acceptable positions inclusive of his own.


3:59 pm  
Anonymous William Tighe said...

Actually, the first oparagraph (at least) of Dan/lex orandi's most recent comment, and especially the last sentence thereof, is very close indeed to what Richardson asserts about Cranmer's baptismal theology; but Richardson sees Cranmer's baptismal theology and his eucharistic theology as at odds with each other.

12:20 am  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

A constant theme of Cranmer's writing on the sacraments is how the efficacy of baptism informs right belief on the efficacy of the eucharist, and vice versa. For instance, here's a passage from Cranmer's Defence:

"And for this cause Christ ordained baptism in water, that as surely as we see, feel, and touch water with our bodies, and be washed with water so assuredly ought we to believe, when we be baptized, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by him we be newly born again spiritually, and washed from our sins, and grafted in the stock of Christ's own body, and be apparelled, clothed, and harnassed with him...So that the washing in water of baptism is, as it were, a showing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him, to the confirmation of the inward faith which we have in him.

"And in like manner Christ ordained the sacrament of his body and blood in bread and wine, to preach unto us, that as our bodies be fed, nourished, and preserved with meat and drink, so (as touching our spiritual life towards God) we be fed, nourished, and preserved by the body and blood of our Savior Christ...Thus our Savior Christ knowing us to be in this world, as it were, but babes and weaklings in faith, hath ordained sensible signs and tokens, whereby to allure and draw us to more strength and more constant faith in him."

2:09 am  
Anonymous Mark said...


I hope you and Dan will indulge a theological dilletante interjecting his opinions here. Anyone who denies that Andrewes helped guide the CoE into a trajectory that was more explicitly catholic than the Cramerian paradigm is fooling himself. Indeed, with regard to the objective presence of Christ in the sacramental species, eucharistic sacrifice, eucharistic adoratiuon, et al, Andrewes was considerably in advance of Cranmer, and, thus, his contribution to Anglicanism cannot be minimized. Notwithstanding this, I also happen to find not a little overlap between the two great men. In fact, I would opine that the eucharistic theology of Lancelot Andrewes, while superior in every respect to Cranmer's, is inexplicable without the latent implications contained in the Cranmerian theology-even upon such points as sacramental transmutation and the eucharistic sacrifice. Would Cranmer have approved of Andrewes views? Perhaps not; but that is beside the point. The fact is that the Catholic developments of the 17th-century found a solid, if flawed ground of precedece- lex orandi est lex credendi-in the English Reformation and Elizabethan settlement.

This is precisely why I find Dix and Newman-Brooks so frustrating. The problem with the Zwinglian Cranmer proposed by Dix the Catholic and an Evangelical churchman like Brooks ( I say "like Brooks", for he is one of those rare Evangelicals who doesn't abure everything the Laudians and, to a certain extent, the early Tractarians, stood for ) is that it winds up making the post-Reformation history of Anglicanism into a novum, rather than a development.This creates enormous apologetic problems for Catholic Anglicanism; for unless you can draw a compelling depiction of the advance of catholicity in the CoE as a phenomenom that organically buds,develops and flourishes within the sub-strata of the English Reformation- even as you acknowledge its eventual expansion beyond the paradigms that were unique to the 16th-century-you aren't going to convince anyone that Anglicanism is a valid expression of primitive, Catholic Christianity. The essential Catholic foundation has got to be there from the get-go, or so it appears to me.


4:18 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark and Dan,

I really appreciate both points and I think herein lies the difference. Cranmer is using Continental sources as he writes his theology. Its obvious that he is drawing from them. Andrewes on the otherhand is exclusviely using the Fathers because he is absolutely immersed in their theology. He is immersed so much to the point that when he thinks and speaks and it seems to be his own, it could be the Fathers speaking. NO WHERE except ONE place in the Works of Andrewes does he refer to a Continental Reformer for support of his Eucharistic theology.

Lets take efficacy as an example in the provided quotation from Dan. I think the late C16 and early C17 saw that the direction of the Continent was quickly moving away from Catholic Christianity and wanted to hault the Reform because the Church was looking something like it never had. Cranmer's theology of efficacy in the quotation provided by Dan is the 'preached' word of the visible sign that gives comfort.

Andrewes on the other hand sees the visible sign as the means for the forgiveness of sins. He calls this the whole fruit of Religion. Referencing St. Basill he says,

"That at the celebration thereof, after the Sacrament was ministered to the people, the Priest stood up and said as the Seraphin doth here, Behold this hath touched your lips, your iniquity shall bee taken away, and your sinne purged. The whole fruit of Religion is, The taking away of sinne, Isaiah the twenty seventh Chapter and the ninth verse, and the specially wayes to take it away, is the Religious use of this Sacrament; which as Christ saith is nothing else, but a seale and signe of his blood that was shed for many for the remission of sinnes, Matthew the twenty sixth Chapter and the twenty eighty verse…"

Andrewes clearly sees that Eucharist and the One Sacrifice of Christ to be one and the same offering. For he says, “That our sinnes are no lesse taken away by the element of bread and wine, in the Sacrament, then the Prophet’s sinne was by being touched with a Cole.” One would immediately ask whether or not Andrewes is arguing for a sacramental causality of instrumentality. Andrewes answer to this question is given when he makes clear that it is not the Sacrament that takes away and forgives sin, so that it must be acknowledged that “none can take away sinne but God only, wee must needs confesse that there was in this Cole a divine force and virtue issuing from Christ, who is the only reconciliation for our sins without which it had not beene possible that it could have taken away sin.” Thus Christ is both the Cole and the Altar from which it comes. Once it touches the lips, like the chalice, sin is forgiven. The Altar represents the Cross on which Christ takes away the sin of the world through His sacrifice. Andrewes discusses the possessing of “a perfect sense of this coal”, that is Christ. So, as we eat of the blessed bread and wine corporally we know inwardly or spiritually our sins are forgiven. This means we all share in the blood of Christ and of His body. It is this partaking that enables one to have eternal life. All through this sermon one is conscious of the sacramental teaching by Andrewes – God can take anything and use it to be an instrument of whatever he wants, but by His divine counsel and wisdom he has determined the creatures of bread and wine for this task. One is also conscious of Irenaeus’ teaching of the hypostatical union throughout this sermon.

The point for Andrewes is that God can use either word or Sacrament but is pleased to take away sins by the touching of the Sacrament to the lips. Andrewes mentions that God can do what He will with His word.

"It pleased God to take away the Prophets sinnes by touching his lips. And albeit he can take away our sins, without touching of bread or wine, if he will; yet in the councell of his will, he commandeth unto us the sacramental partaking of his body and blood. It is his will, that our sins shall be taken away by the outward act of the sacrament: The reason is, not only in regard of ourselves, which consists of body and soul, and therefore have need both of bodily and Ghostly meanes, to assure us of our Salvation; but in regard of Christ himself, who is the burning Cole."

There lies a major difference in Andrewes' theology of the Sacraments and Cranmer's. Andrewes said baptism was the washing away of original sin and the Eucharist was for the forgiveness of sins actually committed!

8:14 am  
Anonymous Mark said...


Again, I concur that there are important differences between Cranmer and Andrewes. Cranmer's reliance upon Continental sources, needless to say, is beyond dispute. However, I have yet to come upon a quotation where he buttresses his argument via an appeal to Luther, Calvin, Bucer, etc. For Cranmer, to invoke the authority of ecclesial precedence was to appeal to "the old fathers and martyrs". Secondly, the fact that Andrewes never refers to a Continental Reformer-save in one instance-does not necessarily mean he was immune to Continental influences. Calling the sacrament a "seale and sign of his blood", for example, sounds unlike anything Iv'e encountered thus far in St. Basil. If anything, it has a suspiciously Lutheran ring to it.

Andrewes' wonderful description of the eucharist as " a kind of hypostatical union between the sign and the thing signified" -for which he appeals to Theodoret and Gelasius-defines the locus of the presence in a way that is far more satisfying than anything I have read from Cranmer. Nevertheless, it is misleading to assume that Cranmer's theology had no use whatsoever for the concept of "trans". Indeed, Cranmer speaks of "a mutation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ" where "by the mighty power of God...he who worthily eateth of that bread, doth spiritually eat Christ, and dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him".( This should be held in conjunction with the fact that Cranmer insisted that he never said that "Christ's body and blood be given to us in signification and not in deed"; but, rather, that we recieve "the self-same body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty: and the contention is only in the manner and form how we recieve it". Cranmer's peculiar form of receptionism acknowledged an instrumentalism that included a mutation of sorts in the elements themselves. They were transformed, via consecration, into "mystical" bread and wine.


11:37 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thanks and good points made. Andrewes' use of sign and seal language is that which is derived from Augustine as he was obviously the most quoted of the "Fathers in his writings. Andrewes' theology has an Eastern bent to it that is not often seen in some of the earlier C16 writers. No doubt Andrewes was influence and shaped by his present enviornment as we all are. But, he was also in a position, unlike Cranmer, to offer a bit of a critique of what was coming out of the Continent that Andrewes, in the name of the C of E, did not see as a part of the English Church's theology. The reference I was referrring to was in Andrewes' response to Perron when he was discussing the invocation of saints where he gives a reference to Chemnitz and the Examinis.

I don't have time to look too deeply into Cranmer at this moment but I was reading some things the other evening when this discussion began that were quite different. For instance, I read one place where Cranmer said to give teh elements any virtue was abominable. Though he may not have used that word. But it was equally as forceful.

Do you think Andrewes' understanding of instrumentality and Cranmer's is the same? I may be confused; as I said, I am not an expert on Cranmer so the question is a sincere one. The efficacy of the Eucharist is the taking away of sin and the purging away of sin. For Andrewes this taking away and purging has two uses.

"First the efficacy of this action. Secondly, the certainty; that as sure as this coale hath touched thy lips; so surely are thy sinnes taken away. Thirdly, the speede, that so soon as the coale touched, presently sinne was taken away and purged. The efficacie standeth, of the removing, or taking away of sinne, and of the purging away of sinne. The taking away, and the purging of sinnes, have two uses: Some have their sinnes taken away, but not purged; for something remaineth behind: Some have Adams figge leaves to hide sinne that it shall not appeare for a time; but have not Hezekiah his plaister to heal it, in the thirty eighth chapter of Isaiah and the one and twentieth verse. But by the touching of this Coal, that is, of the body and blood of Christ, we are assured that our sins are not only covered, but quite taken away as with a plaister; as the Lord speaks, I have put away thy transgressions like a cloud, and thy sins as a mist, Isaiah the forty fourth and the twenty second verse, whereby the Lord sheweth that our sinnes are scattered, and come to nothing, when it pleaseth him to take them away. The other sense gathered from the word purging is, that God doth not forgive our sinnes, as an earthly Judge forgiveth a malefactor, so that he goeth away with his pardon, without any farther favour shewed him; but that likewise becometh favourable unto us, and willing to doe us all the good he can…"

…that albeit we have lived ever so upright a life, yet if have been silent, when we should have spoken to his glory if we have omitted never so little a duty, which we ought to have performed, for all that, our case is miserable, until it please God by the burning coale of his Altar and, by the sacrifice of Christ’s body, offered up for us upon the crosse, to take away our sinnes: and that if we truly humble our selves before God, and acknowledge our sinnes, then our sinnes shall be purged by the death of Christ, and by partaking of the sacrament of his bodie and blood; the rather, because in the sacrament we doe touch the sacrifice itself, whereas the Prophets sinne was taken away with that which did but touch the sacrifice."

11:56 am  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

Jeff states:

<<...Cranmer is using Continental sources as he writes his theology. Its obvious that he is drawing from them. Andrewes on the otherhand is exclusviely using the Fathers because he is absolutely immersed in their theology. He is immersed so much to the point that when he thinks and speaks and it seems to be his own, it could be the Fathers speaking. NO WHERE except ONE place in the Works of Andrewes does he refer to a Continental Reformer for support of his Eucharistic theology.>>

The irony of your assertion, Jeff, is that nowhere in his Defence or Answer does Cranmer ever refer to a Continental Reformer for support of his Eucharistic theology. (On the rare occasion he may defend a contemporary from attacks waged by Gardiner, but he never quotes any contemporary as an authority in this matter.) In fact, Cranmer's works are so immersed in quotations from the Fathers that it would be more accurate to say that the appeal to the abjudication of the Patristic age is something that Andrewes held in common with Cranmer.

That there was a high degree of affinity between Cranmer and other reformers is not in question. For instance, the notion of Cranmer that the sacraments "preach" before men was held this in common with Luther's idea of sacraments as visible words. What is glaringly missing in Cranmer, intriguingly enough, is the notion that sacraments are "seals" of the spoken Word as held by the Continental Reformed. Cranmer avoided this terminology in his own works. Such terminology does appear in one place -- the Articles of Religion, which though drafted by Cranmer were subjected to the editorial review of Hooper and others.

Cranmer is not given far enough credit as an independent thinker.


3:57 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think there is a fair bit of the Fathers in Cranmer's work and wouldn't deny it for a moment. What do you make of Dix's view that Cranmer was too selective of the Fathers and wasn't as 'honest' about what they believed concerning the virtue in the elements?

I agree that there is definitely some similarities between the two, which makes Andrewes that much more of a catalyst for ecumenism IMHO. I am only trying to be theologically and historically honest as I can with the changes from the C16 to the early C17 via my feeble mind. I don't know why Cranmer is often revered in such a way that he doesn't warrant strong critique concerning his Eucharistic views.

4:13 pm  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

Cranmer had two main points to prove from the Fathers in his polemical discourses on the eucharist. First, that transubstantiation is not to be found in the Fathers (especially in the sense of the crass physicalism that Cranmer's contemporary opponents passed off as transubstantiation); and second, that the view of eucharistic sacrifice that the Papists held was not the view of eucharistic sacrifice that the Fathers held. He was undoubtedly correct on the first point and arguably correct on the second with some qualification, namely that the crass physicalism of his opponents warped their sacrificial theology. Cranmer was right to see the two doctrines as integrally connected.

Was Cranmer selective in his quotes? Yes, but no more than were his opponents. One insight that Mark hinted to in his comments (among many brilliant ones that he made) is that Andrewes lived in the generation once removed from the Reformation context and was able to see things much more objectively as the dust settled.

6:09 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thanks, and that dust settling is a bit of a critique. Andrewes very much unites the ONE sacrifice of Calvary and that of the Eucharist as one and the same offering. It was more for Andrewes than laud and thanksgiving (Cranmer) but the very memorial offering for the forgiveness of sins. That is a very significant difference between the two as I see it. Not only is it between the two of them, Andrewes' sacrificial view of the Eucharist goes against any claims of his sympathies with Lutheranism of his day or Luther himself as far as sacrifice goes. Andrewes was therefore willing to speak of the Eucharistic sacrifice as propitiatory; something Cranmer wouldn't dream about. What do you make of that? It sure seems to me that it is a lot more of a theological move than merely dust settling from the runnings wild in the C16.

6:18 pm  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

A couple of thoughts. First, Cranmer did acknowledge a memorial sacrifice in the Fathers, but he glosses over it rather quickly in his remarks in Answer and distinguishes that from what he sees as the current Roman position. But it simply isn't the case that he ignored it completely or didn't acknowledge it, and those who succeeded him were sure to notice and pick up where he left off and develop the theme.

Second, I know more about Cosin than I do Andrewes (Cosin was more significant in the history of liturgical development than was Andrewes, which is why I never dealt directly with Andrewes.) Cosin too uses the language of propitiation with respect to the eucharist, by which I take him to mean simply the forgiveness of sins. (I have to go back and read my notes on him again. It's been awhile.) What I do recall is that Cosin (in his early period) was fond of using provocative, theologically-charged language with a distinct Reformation spin. So not only did he like to speak in terms of "propitiatory sacrifice" but he also spoke favorably to the issue of the granting of "indulgences," but not at all in the sense that Rome was employing such language.

7:37 pm  
Anonymous Mark said...


I believe Cranmer's understanding of instrumentality is different from-and less satisying-than Andrewes'. It is abundantly clear from your earlier postings that Cranmer saw the sacramental species as the body and blood rather in the sense of a metonym: "these sentences be figurative speeches, and that Christe, as concerning his humanitee and bodily substaunce, is ascended into heaven...and that the substaunce of the bread and wyne do remain still...although they have chaunged theyr names, so that the bread is called Christe's body, and the wyne his blooude... and that wherof the bread and wyne have the names, although they bee not the very same indeed". However, and this is crucial to note, He also indicates that the metonymic body and blood play pivotal roles in conveying Christ to the souls of faithful recipients: "...hoat burning yron...for my purpose was by that similitude to teach that, yron remayning in his proper nature and substance by conceauing of fire may work another thing then is the nature of yron, AND SO LIKEWISE BREAD REMAYNING IN HIS PROPER NATURE AND SUBSTAUNCE IN THE MINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENT, HATH ANOTHER USE, THEN TO FEED THE BODY". That is why I find Cranmer's so-called receptionism so deliciosly quirky. It is a truly instrumental receptionism that can fearlessly assert "the whole Christ and the Holy Spirit, sacramentally...be in every part of the bread broken".

It is true that Cranmer, unlike Andrewes, did not define the locus of the presence within the elements themselves; he did, however, affirm a kind of transmutation in the elements by adduction "not in shape or substance, but in nature...that by God's Word there is added thereto another higher property, nature, and condition far passing the nature and condition of common bread and wine". Thus, he writes: "The sacramental bread and wine be not bare and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoever worthily eateh them, spiritually eateth Christ's flesh and blood, and hath by them everlasting life". ( Compare the above to Andrewes' assertion that "at the coming of the Almighty power of the Word, the nature is changed so that what was before the mere element now becomes a Divine sacrament, the substance nevertheless remaining what it was before". Surely, this instance of theological unity is more than a coincidence ).


10:41 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Excellent thoughts and a good post. I think the theological unity of presence is obvious in that both men strongly denied transubstantiation. Both will use language of spiritually feeding. Andrewes did so with regards to the Eucharist since he believed it was a means of receiving the Spirit and it was a protection against the Second Death. When Andrewes speaks of a 'spritual' feeding, he is not speaking of it in terms of something that is absent. His intention is to show that it is the means of receiving the Spirit. An unworthy partaking was not denied by Trent or the Lutherans with regards to those who take with an unrepentant heart. Andrewes, like most before him, couched his Eucharistic theology within the theological paradigm of condition and promise. The difference as you note is in the question of what the Sacrament IS objectively. I was reading in a sermon yesterday that I need to finish today and I found Andrewes commenting on this. He said,

"Men may draw neer to the holy mysterie of Christ’s body and blood, and snatch at the tree of life; but Christ gives it not, except they be such as overcome, either by grace of abstinence from sinne, or of repentance and sorrow for sinne: They may be partakers of the tree of life de furto, but not de jure: The bread of life is to them as the bread of wrong, Proverbs the fourth chapter and the seventeenth verse, and the bread of deceit which shall in the end fill their mouths with gravell, Proverbs the twentieth chapter."

So, the Tree of Life is taken by both; one de furto by theft and the other by right. But both receive it since that is what it IS. This was a major controversy in regards to the Articles and Andrewes does his absolute best in showing his displeasure with what seems to be the result of that controversy within the title of the Article that says the wicked do not receive the Body and Blood. I also find that title very troubling.

7:54 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the absolute necessity of receiving this Sacrament, I just read this from Andrewes:

"In this Sacrament Christ hath provided a tree of life of graces against the death of sinne, whereof they must be partakers that will eat of the tree of life, which Christ here promiseth: So that whereas the Wise man saith Fructus justi est lignum vitae, Proverbs the eleventh chapter and the thirtieth verse. The seed of this tree is here sown, and bringeth forth the root of a better tree; for as grace is the root of glory, so glory is the fruit of grace. Here in this life the root of grace is planted in us, and brings forth the fruits of righteousnesse that in this life to come it may make us partakers of the tree of glory; and to assure us of this life, we are sealed with the holy spirit of promise, as the earnest of our inheritance, Ephesians the first chapter and the thirteenth verse, and the second epistle to the Corinthians, the first chapter and the twenty second verse: That albeit we are fallen and can be overcome of sinne, yet if we fight better, and doe the first works, we shall be partakers of the life of glory: The kernel of grace is planted in us by the participation of the body and blood of Christ; of which kernel commeth a tree, which bringeth forth the fruits of holinesse and righteousness in our whole life: Which God will in due time reward with the Crown of life and glory in the world to come."

11:50 am  
Anonymous Mark said...


I would agree with Andrewes that the sacramental species, being what it is, means that Christ is recieved in the mysteries both by the wicked and the just-de furto in the one case, and de jure in the other. But I don't believe this creates insuperable problems with regard to Art. XXIX. To be a "partaker of Christ" presupposes right reception, since it is certain Christ institued the sacrament of His body and blood to be a means of attaining everlasting life. Hence the whole Christ, who is objectively present in the holy eucharist, is received by all who come to the rail; but only faithful recipients partake of him in the de jure sense, i.e. after the intention of Christ, who instituted the sacrament to be a blessing, not a curse. Such, I would argue, is implied in the 3rd paragraph of Art. XXVIII.


6:06 pm  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

The only problem with Article XXIX is its title. Give it another title with a better nuance and the rest of the article is not problematic.

6:25 pm  
Anonymous Mark said...


Could you elaborate on this? How would you retitle Art. XXIX? What better kind of nuance would you insert into it?


12:10 am  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

Something like: "Of the Wicked which partake not of Christ in the Lord's Supper."

5:10 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, let's look at Art XXIX in relationship to 1 Cor. 11.27, which states, 'Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.' The question that must be asked here is concerning the nature of a Sacrament that is both earthly and heavenly. Is it only the earthly element, ie, the sign or is the res also received? According to Paul, it seems quite clear that what is being received is the sign and the res. Therefore, the wicked do partake of Christ though they take of him to their judgment. Presence is something objective. Transubstantiation does not need to be in the picture to state that both the righteous and the wicked receive Christ. Faith and contriteness are necessary for the positive fruits of the Sacrament but not for the objective presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Since the Articles are not an established confession, is it a no-no to say, 'if the Art. teaches that the res is not received, then according to Paul's argument it is wrong.' If they merely meant the benefits of receiving Christ in the Sacrament are not given but the negative side of the conditions of the Sacrament, ie, judgment then it is correct. But, it seems hard to read it in the latter!

1:17 pm  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

Actually, I agree with you Jeff. But given the comprehensive nature and aim of the Articles as a whole in Elizabeth's day, it is unfortunate that this article (1) was included in the first place; it almost wasn't, and/or (2) if it had to be included for political reasons, that it wasn't written with near enough ambiguity to accommodate the spectrum of positions.

3:49 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I figured you did agree. I am simply having to address this in reference to Andrewes' view of presence. He was not happy with this Art. and as you said, many were not. It is an interesting one to put in. This goes to show that the little bit of Lutheran influence was fading away by this time.

4:04 pm  
Anonymous Mark said...

You guys really think its that difficult to read Art. XXIX in a res in rem kind of way? Don't get me wrong-I'm no 39 Articles of Religion fundie-although, in contrast to a number of Anglo- Catholic snobs Iv'e met, I think it's a pretty decent formulary overall, providing you don't use it like a Presbyterian uses the Westminster Confession or Heidelberg Cathecism. Needless to say, I'm on the same page with both of you concerning the objectivity of the presence: the wicked do, in fact, recieve the res- inasmuch as it is manifested in the rem. But since Andrewes' "hypostatical" union carefully preserves the integrity of substance in both, can't we say that the unworthy communicant "presses" the res with his choppers without partaking of Christ "spiritually", that is to say, according to the telos of the sacrament, which is the preservation of soul and body?

Some sidebar ruminations:

In some ways, Andrewes doesn't seem that far removed from Schmemann- in the sense that the East sees the consecrated elements as both rem and res. If true, then Andrewes' eucharistic theology has enormous ecumenical potential, don't you think Jeff? Dan, earlier you wrote that you were " a Non-Juror at heart". Would you say that your particular understanding of the presence is closer to Johnson than to Andrewes?


5:37 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Mark; my thesis title is 'Eucharist and Ecumenism in the Theology of Lancelot Andrewes: Then and Now.' ;-) So to answer your question; absolutely! It is especially true with the East. That is why someone like Nicholas Lossky can tell me that he has been praying to him for 50 years!

5:41 pm  
Anonymous William Tighe said...

I have always wondered why Elizabeth, having rejected Art. 29 in 1562, accepted it in 1571. Her reasons for rejecting it earlier (such that the C of E had only 38 articles between 1562 and 1572) probably included not offending Lutherans abroad and "conformist Catholics" (or "church papists") at home and not putting a weapon into the hands of those who might try to refute the argument that she herself often put to French and Spanish ambassadors in the 1560s that "her" church differed in only a few details from their own churches; and it may have included theological reservations on her part (although there is little real evidence about the theological underpinnings of her religious predilections) -- these all make sense. But it is hard to see why she allowed it in 1571. Haugaard (who tends to to take as unProtestant a view of Elizabeth and her Settlement as scholarship will allow) simply asserts that the bishops insisted on it, and got their way; which, if it is true, is one of the rare examples of Elizabeth backing down under pressure (the others were her desire to have Roods reerected in churches in 1561 after she claimed that they had been removed agains ther wishes [faced with a threat of resignation from a number of her bishops she relented] and her reluctant acquiescence in her bishops' decision in 1565 to enforce only the wearing of the surplice and not copes and/or Eucharistic vestments, as the 1559 Ornaments Rubric seemed to require). Certainly, this article always has been one of the "star witnesses" for Lutherans who wished to assert that the C of E was a Calvinist body, just as it was for Anglican Evangelicals who wished to assert that the C of E rejected "Lutheran errors" on the Sacrament as well as Roman ones.

10:32 pm  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

The answer to your question is that her excommunication by the Pope in 1570 rendered every "church papist" a traitor (de jure) to the English Crown. This created the necessary political critical mass to force Elizabeth to throw this bone to her moderate Puritan supporters.

6:11 am  
Anonymous William Tighe said...

A "Church Papist" as historians use the term refers to English laypeople of Catholic sympathies, or Catholic belief (who rejected Protestantism and who would have preferred that England had stayed Catholic in 1559), but who nevertheless attended their parish churches regularly or occasionally (enough to stay on the right side of the law), usually (in the first generation or two after 1559 at least) without communicating; but who even after that point rejected Protestant teachings about sola fide and often opposed "Puritan" clergy who refused to wear the surplice or who omitted the sign of the cross in Baptism. In anything, the anti-Catholic legislation after 1570, and the growing insistence of Catholic seminary priests that Catholic recusants had to shun their parish churches or be treated as apostates, seems to have increased the number of "church papists;" and Alexandra Walsham published a book a few years ago in which she insisted that "church papists" were a substantial "constituency" in the church of England well into the 17th Century. So while I can see how Elizabeth may have felt that she had to make concessions to anti-Roman zealots after 1570, I have always thought that Elizabeth would have welcomed "church papists" and have dome everything in her power to make them "feel comfortable" in her church, lest they come to the conclusion that "papist papists" were the only genuine Catholics.

2:16 pm  
Anonymous Mark said...

Dr. Tighe,

I can think of two ( admittedly exceptional ) instances where Elizabeth I was more than accomdating to English "Papists": Thomas Tallis and his protege William Byrd, who enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the field of music publication, thanks to the Queen's patronage. It is interesting to note that Tallis served at the royal chapel until his death as organist-making him a rather important figure in the performance of the Reformed rites for which he composed such magnificent anthems. ( This, of course, does not touch on the question of whether he was actually a communicant at celebrations of the Holy Communion-which I think is doubtful. It may well be that Tallis was more of a "Papist Papist" than "Church Papist" ).

Swithching from music to literature, have the religious loyalties of William Shakespeare been determined with any degree of certainty ? Many years ago I read a book by an Elizabethan scholar ( Rouse ? ) who concluded- upon evidence from his will- that Shakespeare was an Anglican; David Allen White, on the other hand, insists that he was Catholic.

All the best,

-Mark Talley

7:34 pm  
Anonymous William Tighe said...


Go to the Canterbury Tales blog, here -- http://cantuar.blogspot.com -- and then to their "April 2006" archive, and then to the entry "On This Day Shakespeare Was Baptized" and then see my two comments there, if you will.

9:12 pm  
Blogger lexorandi2 said...

I don't take issue with your definition of "church papist," you are most certainly correct. However, the Pope's excommuncation and "deposition" of Elizabeth created the right political environment for the Puritans to strengthen their position doctrinally speaking. At that point every recusant was presumed guilty of high treason, and any conforming catholic (i.e., church papist) had to live with the potential threat of being identified as a recusant. There simply was no political will to contend for a greater degree of latitude on the issue of real presence. Before 1570 Elizabeth could afford to be magnanimous to catholic sympathizers. The post-1570 era was markedly different.

10:04 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.gryziko.pl Pozostac w domu i oszczedzic pieniazki, rozrywki online z bliskimi. Sporo osób korzysta z tych gier jako ksztalty rozrywki. Wiekszosc konsol obecnie istnieja do kupienia do odwiedzenia rozrywki przez internet z pozostalymi. Mozesz tez porozmawiac z przyjaciólmi w trakcie zabawy. Ustepowac na koszty poprzez pobyt w domu i funkcjonowania w zabawy. Przetestuj gre przed pozwalasz pociechom odgrywac. Upewnij sie, ze wydaje sie byc wlasciwe na rzecz pierwotnego stulecia, czytajac opisy i inne szczególy na temat zabawy przez internet. Czasem weryfikacja okaze sie niewystarczajaca, natomiast najlepiej jest zbadac, jak inni maja do odwiedzenia powiedzenia na temat zabawy oraz tresci niego. Graj przy rozrywki sposród dziecmi. To swietny srodek, aby dowiedziec sie wiecej o swych dzieciach i ich interesów. W trakcie akcji wspólny biznes w jaki sposób ów ze swymi wlasnymi maluchami, jest to byc moze takze dzieki wspaniale konwersacji. Bedzie mozna zobaczyc oraz wesprzec w pierwotnego progresu zdolnosci. Sprawdz, badz posiadasz obszar [url=http://www.gryziko.pl]gry[/url] przy gry internetowego ze ma system lojalnosciowy. Wolno zdobyc poboczne rabaty na gry, co wiecej prenumerat czasopism gier. Maja mozliwosc one takze nagradzac ci równoczesne pieniadze na handlu uzywanymi grami. Owo byc moze kosztowac finanse, zeby sie zarejestrowac, lecz nagrody dopisac blyskawicznie jesli sie tam czesto. Jezeli nie zaakceptowac jestes pewien, lub uciecha stanie sie dzialac na komputerze, czy nie zaakceptowac, wizytowac "mozna aktywowac go" strone. Na pobraniu fajna strona bedzie okreslic, badz dopelniaja oczekiwania na rzecz okreslonej rozrywki. Jezeli nie istnieja sklonni w mysli sciaga cokolwiek, nie zapomnij, iz zdolasz po prostu usunac jego po uzyskac informacje, jakie chcesz. Faktycznie ekscytujace, jak przy grze przez internet byc moze wydawac sie dla ciebie, zobacz swoje opinie przed nabyciem. Uciecha firmy staraja sie, aby katalogów rozrywki prezentuja sie kuszaco, kiedy w rzeczywistosci, to znaczy przykre jest to wyraznie straszne. Skorzystaj z Globalnej sieci, zeby znalezc recenzje albo poprosic bliskich, jacy grali przy gre. Zwracaj uwage w owo, jak duzo kasy nastolatek spedza na grach online. Produkty te nie zaakceptowac beda niedrogie oraz niejednokrotnie jest mozliwosc zakupu wieksza ilosc zalaczniki przy tylko grze. Ustaw miesieczne i roczne limity w ilosc kasy, jakie mozna przekazac na gry online. Ponadto, mówic z dziecmi na temat budzetowania. Jesli czujesz, gdy push up, powinno sie rzeczywiscie, patrzac na dól, natomiast w nastepnej kolejnosci odwrócic osi w ustawieniach operowania. Co poniektórzy ludzie zwyczajnie nie odczuwam sie kontrole osi istnieja poprawne, gdy otrzymuja gry online. To znaczy latwe do pielegnacji. Sporo konsol daje szanse odwrócenia programy kontroli w ustawieniu obszarze.

9:41 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home

    O God, most glorious, most bountiful, accept, we humbly beseech thee, our praises and thanksgivings for thy holy Catholic Church, the mother of us all who bear the name of Christ; for the faith which it hath conveyed in safety to our time, and the mercies by which it hath enlarged and comforted the souls of men; for the virtues which it hath established upon earth, and the holy lives by which it glorifieth both the world and thee; to whom, O blessed Trinity (+), be ascribed all honour, might, majesty and dominion, now and for ever. Amen.
    --Bishop Lancelot Andrewes

Societas Sanctae Crucis

About Me

My Profile


  • To the Theotokos
  • My Parish Church
  • Taking Jesus to the Streets
  • The Angelus
  • Steel Family News
  • Anglicans For Life
  • My PHD Supervisor
  • Diocese of Durham
  • N.T. Wright Bishop of Durham
  • Bishop of Beverley FiF PEV
  • Forward in Faith
  • Religious of orthodox Tradition
  • Our Lady of Walsingham
  • Church of England
  • Church Times
  • C of E News
  • New Directions
  • Anglican Comm News Service
  • CaNN Classical Anglican News
  • Anglican Mainstream
  • Catholic World News
  • Zenit News
  • First Things
  • University of Durham
  • St. John's College
  • Touchstone: Mere Comments
  • American Chesterton Society
  • G.K. Chesterton
  • The "Colossal Genius"
  • C.S. Lewis
  • Dr. Marianne Dorman
  • Bishop Lancelot Andrewes
  • Theologia
  • The Paul Page
  • Renaissance Music
  • Wodehouse
  • Project Canterbury
  • Rosemary Pugh Books
  • Pusey House Oxford
  • Comm of the Resurrection
  • Anglicanism
  • Alexander Schmemann
  • Traditional-Anglican
  • Trushare Great Links
  • Books and Books
  • Paedocommunion
  • Summa Theologica
  • Didache
  • N.A.Patristics Society
  • Visit Olde World Family Heritage
  • Cardinal Newman Writings
  • EWTN
  • Vatican Library
  • Tune in to Ancient Faith Radio
  • Anglo-Catholic Central
  • Women for Faith and Family
  • Catholic Culture
  • Being better Dads.org
  • Anglicana Ecclesia
  • Catholic Societies

  • Mary:Grace and Hope in Christ
  • SSC England and Scotland
  • King Charles the Martyr
  • Catholic League Unitas
  • Catholic Union
  • Conf of the Blessed Sacrament
  • Society of Mary
  • Priests for Life
  • Anglican Blogs

  • TitusOneNine
  • Anthropax
  • Sacristan
  • Curate Repose
  • Whitehall
  • Apostolicity
  • The Patristic Anglican
  • All Too Common
  • Prydain
  • Thinking Anglicans
  • Drell's Descants
  • A-C Ruminations
  • emergent like slime
  • Open Thou our Lips
  • Haligweorc
  • The Confessing Reader
  • Dr. Leander Harding
  • Tex Anglican
  • St. George the Martyr
  • The Oxford Movement
  • Continuing Anglican
  • Wyclif.net
  • Third Mill. Catholic
  • Anglican Eucharistic Theol
  • Fr. Brian Douglas
  • RatherNot Blog
  • Full Homely Divinity
  • St.Peters London Docks Blog
  • In Hoc Signo Vinces
  • Anglican Wanderings
  • Timotheos Prologizes
  • Global South Anglican
  • Deaconess
  • Liturgical Links

  • 1549 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1550 Merbecke
  • 1559 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1570 Roman Mass
  • 1637 Scottish Prayer Book
  • 1662 English Prayer Book
  • 1718 Nonjurors Communion
  • 1928 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1962 Roman Mass
  • 1962 Roman Propers
  • 1969 Roman Mass
  • 1987 Anglican Use Mass
  • Pearcy Dearmer Everyman's History of the Prayer Book
  • The Liturgy of St. James
  • The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom
  • The Liturgy of St. Basil
  • Lectionary Central
  • Catholic Calendar
  • Common Prayer Calendar
  • The Roman Breviary
  • Anglican Breviary
  • Cantica Nova
  • The Music Makers
  • Catholic Liturgy Site
  • Directorium Anglicanum
  • Catholic Blogs

  • Numerous British Catholic Blogs
  • Carpe canum
  • Ignatius Insights
  • Ancient and Future Catholics
  • Catholic Pontificator
  • Random Thoughts
  • Fr. Newman's Web page
  • fides et ardor
  • St Paul Centre for Theology
  • Canterbury Tales
  • The Shrine of Holy Whapping
  • Sacramentum Vitae
  • Cardinal Schonborn
  • Pertinacious Papist
  • Ratzinger Online
  • The New Liturgical Movement
  • Scripture and Tradition
  • Against the Grain
  • Mark Shea
  • ad limina apostolorum
  • Dappled Things
  • Amy Welborn Old Blog
  • Amy Welborn New Blog
  • Catholic Catechism
  • Benedict Blog
  • Mike Aquilina
  • Libertas et Memoria
  • Video melior
  • Orthodox Blogs

  • Energies of the Trinity
  • Orthodoxy Today
  • Monachos
  • Onion Dome
  • This Is Life
  • Orthodoxie
  • Chrysostom Web Page
  • Society of Chrysostom
  • Cathedra Unitatis
  • Our Life in Christ
  • Orthodox Way
  • Exploring Orthodoxy
  • Everything Orthodox
  • Parish Web Sites

  • Durham Cathedral
  • St. Peters London Docks
  • St. Silas London
  • St. Mary Mag Middlesex
  • St. Augustine London
  • St. John the Evanglelist Berks
  • St. Pancras London
  • St. James the Great Darlington
  • St. Mary Bletchingley
  • St. James Paddington London
  • St. George Hanworth
  • St. Helens Auckland
  • St. Mary Magdalene Sunderland
  • Archives