Cramner and the liturgical birth of Anglicanism

[proximefactum]

WI Thomas Cramner's Prayer Book of 1549 was nothing more than an English translation of the Sarum rite?

In OTL, Cramner intentionally removed important parts of Catholic theology from the first Prayer Book, such as the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers for the dead, and transubstantiation, for example. He imparted a much greater Reformed flavor to the service. He did, however, preserve to a good degree the organization of the Sarum rite.

In ATL, let's assume that the 1549 Prayer Book was a straight translation of the Sarum, with the Catholic theology intact. The people maintained their veneration of Mary, plenty of saint's days remained on the calendar, iconoclasm did not occur, and the other sacraments remained largely the same.

Would this scenario hold back Lutheran and Calvinist influences in England? Was the Protestantization of England inevitable? Would Mary Queen of Scots have an easier reign? Would Protestants be allowed to practice their faith in a country that remained largely Catholic in theology and liturgy but without union with Rome?

 

[Philip]

Would this scenario hold back Lutheran and Calvinist influences in England?

Be careful about grouping the Lutheran and Calvinist movements at this time. They were really quite different.

Was the Protestantization of England inevitable?

You will have to define 'Protestantization'. After all, the Church of England is, by definition, Protestant. Changing some points of theology does not alter that basic fact.

Would Protestants be allowed to practice their faith in a country that remained largely Catholic in theology and liturgy but without union with Rome?

Again, I think you need a new word here. The Church of England is Protestant.

 

[proximefactum]

Be careful about grouping the Lutheran and Calvinist movements at this time. They were really quite different.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism at that particular time. Diverse strains of Protestant thought did exist in 16th century England, and they were not necessarily homogenous. John Bunyan, though of the 17th century, did not fit cleanly into either category, and suffered much for his non-conformity.

You will have to define 'Protestantization'. After all, the Church of England is, by definition, Protestant. Changing some points of theology does not alter that basic fact.

I would not call a straight translation of the pre-reformation Sarum rite into middle English "Protestant", because it would have retained the core of Roman theology and would have rejected the "protests" against Roman doctrine and liturgy behind Calvin's and Luther's projects.

At the same time in history as the western Reformation, the Roman Mass was said in Church Slavonic as well as Latin. Both the Masses were theologically orthodox and identical save the language used. If Roman theology and sacraments were maintained in England even though the liturgical language changes to middle English, then there is in essence no "protest" theologically or liturgically because the Roman orthodoxy remains unchallenged. Vernacularization is not an arbiter of doctrinal orthodoxy.

The pre-reformation Sarum (and Tridentine) rites are full-throttle against Calvin and Luther's theological ideas. As previously said, the Canon (te igitur) of the Sarum and Tridentine are almost identical. That same prayer was in the crosshairs of both Calvin and Luther, and neither one of them would have approved of the Sarum Mass as-is.

If you mean "Protestant" as a protest against Roman religio-political interference in English affairs, then you could make a case for using the term "Protestant".

There are Christian groups today (like the Polish National Catholic Church) that do not define themselves as "Protestants", because they share Roman Catholic theology and liturgy but reject the authority of the Pope. The division is not theological or liturgical, but political. A similar scenario could have happened in 16th century England -- minor changes to the rites but maintenance of Catholic doctrine. The modification to English Christianity would be anti-Papal and political, but not deviant from the Catholicity of previous eras. If this were the case, a good argument could be made that the English Church of the 16th and 17th centuries would not be "Protestant" in the way we use the term today.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism at that particular time. Diverse strains of Protestant thought did exist in 16th century England, and they were not necessarily homogenous. John Bunyan, though of the 17th century, did not fit cleanly into either category, and suffered much for his non-conformity.

I would not call a straight translation of the pre-reformation Sarum rite into middle English "Protestant", because it would have retained the core of Roman theology and would have rejected the "protests" against Roman doctrine and liturgy behind Calvin's and Luther's projects.

At the same time in history as the western Reformation, the Roman Mass was said in Church Slavonic as well as Latin. Both the Masses were theologically orthodox and identical save the language used. If Roman theology and sacraments were maintained in England even though the liturgical language changes to middle English, then there is in essence no "protest" theologically or liturgically because the Roman orthodoxy remains unchallenged. Vernacularization is not an arbiter of doctrinal orthodoxy.

The pre-reformation Sarum (and Tridentine) rites are full-throttle against Calvin and Luther's theological ideas. As previously said, the Canon (te igitur) of the Sarum and Tridentine are almost identical. That same prayer was in the crosshairs of both Calvin and Luther, and neither one of them would have approved of the Sarum Mass as-is.

If you mean "Protestant" as a protest against Roman religio-political interference in English affairs, then you could make a case for using the term "Protestant".

There are Christian groups today (like the Polish National Catholic Church) that do not define themselves as "Protestants", because they share Roman Catholic theology and liturgy but reject the authority of the Pope. The division is not theological or liturgical, but political. A similar scenario could have happened in 16th century England -- minor changes to the rites but maintenance of Catholic doctrine. The modification to English Christianity would be anti-Papal and political, but not deviant from the Catholicity of previous eras. If this were the case, a good argument could be made that the English Church of the 16th and 17th centuries would not be "Protestant" in the way we use the term today.

Heck, large chunks of the Anglican communion TODAY refuse to view themselves as 'Protestant'. Of course, no one ELSE recognises that distinction.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

That's an interesting question, Proximefactum.
Do you think the mentioned Prayer Book was the actual turn towards Protestantism?
I vaguely remember that this twist was made effective in (kind of) a catechism,
but I do not know when exactly and published by whom ...


At first, I think "Catholoid" Anglicanism would not have made much of a difference for the
English and Scottish people (in comparison to OTL's Anglicanism).
It would, however, make it much harder to vindicate the separation from Rome.
Protestant creed was a (comparatively) handy explanation.
What standpoint would England take in the confessional conflicts on the continent?
If it proceeds as in OTL with a (though distant) support for Protestants it might be seen
as an ill-believing ally of convenience (as France in 30-Years War was to the Protestants). Catholics may label the Anglicans as Protestants
in spite of all theological differences if the do not condemn the Protestant movements.
The sharpness of the conflict might eventually force the Anglican Church to become
"actually" Protestant.


Anyway, I think, political history may still develop mostly as in OTL.
If it does, then I cannot see the history if theological ideas within Christianity as a whole
change signifantly - in spite of the intriguing aspect that Roman theologists
may get argumentive support from adversary clergimen.