Home » Posts tagged 'Thomas Cranmer'
Tag Archives: Thomas Cranmer
Thomas Cranmer and the Lord’s Table: How Is the Presence of Christ There?
Since Christ, an important part of the history of true Christianity proceeded from and among the English speaking people. Whatever good came from the English, which affected the whole world, related to a populist association with the Bible. The populist movement against Roman Catholicism in sixteenth century England corresponded to respect for the Word of God. Two main figures served as a conduit for the fulfillment of the English Reformation: King Henry VIII and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. The former clashed with the pope for personal reasons and the latter for doctrinal ones.
Henry VIII served like a wrecking ball, while Cranmer worked more behind the scenes, picking his opportunities to exact systemic changes to the entire nation. These positive words do not serve as an endorsement of the Church of England. They explain an important departure from Catholic authority over the nation, opening the door for further deference to scripture. True New Testament churches benefitted from this work.
A direction toward freedom of conscience and soul liberty traces from King Alfred’s ninth century translation and circulation of the ten commandments, the psalms, and the four gospels in Old English. In the late fourteenth century John Wycliffe produced a hand written translation of the entire Bible into the vernacular. His followers, the Lollards, were persecuted by authority, but populist seed was scattered. William Tyndale brought about the first printed edition of the New Testament into English in 1525. Shortly thereafter, Miles Coverdale finished Tyndale’s work with an entire English Bible in 1535.
Three major events in Cranmer’s life shaped his biblical influence on England. First, Cranmer’s work as a scholar at Cambridge drew the attention of Cardinal Wolsey for the justification of the annulment of Henry’s marriage to Catharine of Aragon. Wolsey took Cranmer’s suggestion to canvass European theologians for their opinion rather than the Pope. Second, when Cranmer became ambassador to the Holy Roman Emperor, he intersected with influential reformers, who opposed Roman Catholicism. Third, he married Margarete, niece of Andreas Osiander’s wife, leader of reform in Nuremberg. To keep peace with the Catholic Church in England, the pope allowed for Cranmer’s appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533. Henry was far less the Protestant, but his annulment and then marriage to Anne Boleyn, aligned him with Cranmer. He became sympathetic with separation from Rome.
Jumping past Henry’s death in 1547, Cranmer had exerted great influence in the upbringing and training of Henry’s only son, Edward VI. At Edward’s coronation, Cranmer called Edward a second Josiah and encouraged him to continue reformation of the Church of England. Edward trusted Cranmer more than anyone. Cranmer saw the pope and the Mass as enemies of true Christianity and especially in the Mass. For him, the Mass was false doctrine that resulted in the condemnation of men. In 1550, Cranmer published a paper, “A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Savior Christ.” Cranmer rejected the Roman Catholic theology of the Mass or its version of the Lord’s Table.
Thomas Cranmer saw the reform of the Eucharist, the Catholic term for the Lord’s Table, as a return to biblical Christianity. He also thought that the false teaching kept its adherents from the true salvation of their souls. Cranmer believed the corruption sprang from the popish doctrine of transubstantiation or the physical presence of the real flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in the elements. However, Cranmer did believe that Christ was present spiritually at the Table. Cranmer wrote that the eating and drinking of Christ is the faith of the believer, that those who have believed in Jesus Christ have in them His spiritual presence at the Table through justification by faith. He said that the presence of Christ was not in the elements.
Cranmer rejected and repudiated the continued sacrifice of Christ at the Mass. It detracted from the finished work of Christ, His substitutionary, sacrificial death one time on the cross. He argued that salvation could come only through Christ’s death. Even though Cranmer believed that the celebration of the Lord’s Table may be a good work, it did not win the favor of God or put away evil. He also taught that it was a memorial of Christ and spiritual nourishment to the godly. On the other hand, the belief and practice of the Roman Catholic Church led men into idolatry and endangered their souls, the doctrine of Antichrist.
Upon focusing upon this distinction of Cranmer from the transubstantiation of Roman Catholicism, I ask you reading if the presence of Christ is a factor in the observance of the Lord’s Table? Roman Catholicism says Christ’s physical presence is in the elements, transubstantiation. Later leader of the Oxford movement within the Church of England in the early 19th century, Edward Pusey, revived the doctrine of consubstantiation, the real, spiritual presence of Christ in the elements. This apparently was also Luther’s teaching, rejected by Cranmer. Cranmer taught not the “real presence” of Christ in the elements, but the “real absence” of Christ in them. Instead, the presence of Christ is in the converted soul of the believer as he partakes of those elements.
As I grew up in church, I heard three titles: the Lord’s Table, the Lord’s Supper, and communion. Very often, I refer to the ordinance taught in Matthew 26 and 1 Corinthians 11 as communion. When I call it, when anyone calls it, “communion,” what do they mean? I don’t think I understood that as I grew up in church, but later as I studied 1 Corinthians 10 especially, I did understand. At the Lord’s Table, God intends for not only communion with the other members of the church by partaking of the one bread, but also communion with Jesus Christ spiritually. That seems to me like the Cranmer view of the presence of Christ at the Lord’s Table in the believing person who partakes of the elements.
The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:15-22:
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
This is where the terminology “communion” comes, referring to the Lord’s Table. In chapter 10, Paul argues against eating meat offered unto idols because there is the presence of demons with the physical meat. He says that eating is fellowship with or communion with devils. Paul uses the Lord’s Table as part of his argument. He is writing that when someone eats the bread and drinks of the cup, he communes with or fellowship with (same Greek word) Christ. Those eating things of the Gentile sacrifice commune with devils.
Earlier Paul said the idol was nothing (1 Corinthians 8:10). It’s not the hunk of wood or stone that is something, but what is behind the idol that is something, which is, as Paul later shows in 1 Corinthians 10, a devil or a demon. This same teaching goes back to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Moses writes that they sacrificed unto devils (Leviticus 17:17, Deuteronomy 32:17). Something spiritually is happening with the offering of the meat to the idol. Someone comes into communion with a devil or devils just like at the Lord’s Table someone comes into communion with Jesus Christ spiritually. It is not just a physical act, the Lord’s Table, but a spiritual one.
The same point could be made from the beginning of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, when Paul says that the passing through the Red Sea for the children of Israel was a spiritual experience. I believe that Paul makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 12:13. A spiritual communion exists with the ordinances. It is more than just a physical act. God is present and with true believers communion with Him occurs. The basis for communion with each other is the communion that regenerated, immersed church members have with God. When believers call it “communion,” we mean “communion” with other believers, but also “communion” with God spiritually. Hence, God’s spiritual presence is there at the Lord’s Table.
The Tale of Two Archbishops of Canterbury
Most, I believe, would argue that Thomas Becket is the most famous archbishop of Canterbury. More than any other figure, he put Canterbury itself on the map in England. Fame came from his brutal death at the hands of knights of King Henry II.
In his late thirties, early forties, Becket, not even a Roman Catholic priest, served Henry II as the chancellor of England. When the opportunity came to insert a new Archbishop at Canterbury, Henry was happy to choose Becket. Henry II brought many important features to English civil rights and a just legal system. He had no jurisdiction over the misbehavior of Roman Catholic leaders. He expected Becket to help him with that.
Becket instead defended the power of Roman Catholicism against state intervention, even in criminal cases. Years Becket antagonized the King. Then Henry said aloud in his knight’s presence, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Whatever their original intentions, four of the knights killed Becket on December 29, 1170.
Monks took blood of Becket poured out in the Cathedral, mixed it with water, and used it for the anointing of the sick. Apparently men witnessed miracles. In stain glass at Canterbury is a portrayal of a death bed where the man drank the concoction and vomited out the cause. He walked away well.
The Pope venerated Becket as saint and martyr. Thousands took a pilgrimage to Canterbury to visit the shrine of Becket. Geoffrey Chaucer wrote about these pilgrims in Canterbury Tales. King Henry did penance of hundreds of blows with a rod. A memorial still decorates the place where Becket died in Canterbury Cathedral. A candle remains perpetually lit where Becket’s shrine once sat.
Almost no one cares about the death of another Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. He held that office during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and shortly Mary I. Cranmer opposed the power of the Roman Catholic Church. He led the English Reformation. He wrote the first two editions of the Book of Common Prayer, the official liturgy for the Church of England. If you try to find the place in Oxford where Queen Mary, Roman Catholic “Bloody Mary,” executed him, it will not be easy.
Shortly before his execution, Cranmer said:
And now I come to the great thing that troubleth my conscience more than any other thing that I said or did in my life, and that is the setting abroad of writings contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and written for fear of death and to save my life if it might be; and that is all such bills which I have written or signed with mine own hand since my degradation: wherein I have written many things untrue. And foreasmuch as my hand offended in writing contrary to my heart, therefore my hand shall first be punished, for if I may come to the fire, it shall be first burned. And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and anti-Christ, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament. . . .
As he died in the flames, burnt at the stake, he cried: “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” Whatever Cranmer may have believed, he attempted to distinguish himself from Roman Catholicism at least and wrote the following in the Book of Common Prayer:
Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.
I don’t write this to advocate for the Church of England, just to provide a distinction between the way England treats these two Archbishops, even though the former was Roman Catholic.
Recent Comments