Two Steps Back? - The Six Articles, 1539

Another post from me about the Reformation, seeing as I’m still reading about it!

Although the practical effectiveness of the Six Articles, passed through parliament in 1539, can be debated, the Articles remain significant as a dramatic shift away from growing evangelicalism in the English Church. Perhaps even more significantly, the Articles were the first major example of Henry VIII taking an aggressively active role in the religion of his country. Henry had always sought a middle way, which is evident in the balanced appointment of clerics to doctrinal discussions and committees: it was generally an equal number of conservatives and evangelicals. The Six Articles follow this trend in that they were meant to eliminate controversy, but Henry’s involvement in the theological debates, rather than merely signing the finished document, was unprecedented.

Before 1539, the reformers had gained victories under the patronage of Anne Boleyn, and later with the 10 Articles and Bishops’ Book, which, although full of compromises, were a step in the right direction. Cromwell also pushed forward with his and Cranmer’s shared goal and made sure there was an English Bible in every parish church. The extremely conservative Six Articles therefore represented a U-turn in religious policy, reaffirming the key doctrines of the Catholic Church, including transubstantiation, clerical celibacy and the necessity of auricular confession. These orthodox affirmations resulted in Bishops Latimer and Shaxton – who had spoken out viciously against the Articles in the House of Lords – resigning their sees; yet another loss for the evangelical cause.

The Articles stated that:

1. Transubstantiation was the definitive Eucharistic doctrine of the Church (though this was only implied – transubstantiation was not explicitly mentioned).
2. Lay people should not receive both parts of the Eucharist (i.e. they could take the bread but not wine).
3. Priests could not marry.
4. Vows of chastity had to be strictly observed.
5. Private masses for both the living and the dead had to be continued.
6. Auricular confession was a necessity.

The Articles took three days to pass through parliament, much to the dismay of Cromwell, who had effectively been shoved to one side by Henry’s sudden assertiveness. The parliamentary session seems to have been only a formality, as the outcome had been clear from the start, and Cromwell and Cranmer could only look on helplessly as Henry’s conservative beliefs made their mark.

For Cranmer in particular, the third article was devastating. The Archbishop had secretly married the niece of a Lutheran theologian in 1532, and the accompanying penalty was death. It was perhaps through concern for his friend that Cromwell amended the article at the last minute to include only known clerical marriages. Nevertheless, the passing of the Articles through Parliament forced Cranmer to send his wife and daughter back to Germany. Henry VIII himself doesn’t seem to have quizzed Cranmer on his marital state until 1543, but he was aware that his chaplain’s conscience was troubled by the acts: he gave Cranmer permission to miss the last day of the vote (which Cranmer refused to do) and later held a feast in the archbishop’s honour at Lambeth.

The Articles can also be seen as a clear shift in diplomatic strategy. With the support of Henry and the continental reformer, Martin Bucer, theologians had received a German Lutheran delegation at Lambeth, partly in an attempt to strengthen ties with the League of Schmalkalden. The key reason for this was the Imperial-French truce, presenting the possibility of French-Imperial-papal alliance against Henry. When the delegation refused to make enough concessions, Henry changed tactics, and seems to have favoured appeasing the Catholics instead. Although not technically foreign policy, as it was governed by England, Calais also proved to be a key stimulant: dissent was growing within the upper secular classes against Archbishop Cranmer’s more outspoken preachers there, which seems to have unnerved Henry about the speed and possible radicalism of reform. Threats from home, therefore, were more important than a possible attack from abroad, especially with the memory of the Pilgrimage of Grace weighing heavily in people’s minds.

The Articles, however, were not a complete loss for the evangelical cause. Even the point about transubstantiation was vague. The reformers at this stage, who had not yet lost their belief in the true presence in the Eucharist, could claim that the Articles still followed their own doctrine, even if the language was aggressively conservative. Cromwell also managed to delay the appointment of commissions and some of the articles either took a long time to enforce, or the initiatives were dropped. In Henry’s more happily evangelical mood following Cromwell’s fall a year later, he lifted the death penalty for married priests (no doubt with sighs of relief from Cranmer) and dropped charges on the 200 or so evangelical Londoners who had been rounded up by Bishop Bonner’s men. The changes the Articles made, therefore, were significant in what they said, rather than what they did to the English Church in practice.

V.G

'That Martin Luther guy's pretty funky'

          Hello dear readers, it is I, back again for your regular dose of extremely odd and nonsensical ramblings with just a dashing of actual Historical information. Now, please do excuse me, because it's almost half ten in the evening and, unlike actual 'normal' teenagers, I tend to stop functioning all together after around 8pm. Before 12 am doesn't look good either. But nonetheless, here I am, ready to impart the very little knowledge that I have on to you, who probably knows it anyway and is only reading this blog for a good laugh at somebody who attempts to seem knowledgeable.
   Anyway. On to the History bit. You see, the title of this article is, I believe, a brilliant representation of my mental state at the moment. It is, however, my poor, failing brains first response to reading a few articles on line about Luther and Lutherism (I wonder where they got the name from?).
    Now, Luther isn't really 'my type'. Although not a Catholic, he was a bit of a religious fanatic and didn't, in fact, really want to start a revolution at all, it seems. He targeted academics, it seems, at the 95 theses (a document in which he basically ripped the Catholic Church to shreds) was written in Latin, and was so inaccessible for the lay person. He said that it was impossible for all men to become equal and was, in general, concerned with keeping the status quo in all aspects of life apart from religion.
   In fact, from a Lutherist point of view, the Catholic Church could be seen as the revolutionary party, as it had moved drastically away from the teachings of Christ, and Luther could have been seen as a reactionary, trying to 'turn the clock back', and focus on Christians having a personal faith, rather than one controlled entirely by the Church. Luthers main problem with the Catholic Church was that it seemed to lie to the people, telling them that they could effectively 'buy' their way into heaven, as well as placing a lot less store by personal repentance and faith, and instead focusing on the power of the Church itself.
    No, the reason that I like him is that he wasn't afraid to stick up for what he thought was right. He nailed his 95 Theses onto the door of Wittenburg cathedral, and refused to stand down for what he believed, even when facing the prospect of execution at his trial in the city of Worms. That bravery and courage - to fight for what he believed, is something that I think should be admired.
     He has also won a place as one of my favorite History Boys because he did not agree with the idea that it was only through the Catholic Church that you could find freedom and redemption. He thought that a lot of faith should be a personal thing, and although I have my own views on religion, I thoroughly agree with the idea that people should be able to discover it themselves. Because if your ticket to heaven lies in the hands of one body of people, then that body has a supreme control over your every move. And one thing I can't stand is anybody having supreme control over anybody else.
   I think that's why I fell in  love with his story. One document, nailed to the door of a cathedral, sparked a revolution that gave people just a little bit more freedom.
   Anyway, sleep really does call me, so I think I'll have to love you and leave you!
   E.C 

Reaction to the Papal Visit

Pope Benedict's visit has certainly generated plenty of reaction over the last 4 days and has dominated the news schedules. The BBC showed a helpful summary programme last night examining the significance of the visit, with contributions from Lord Patten and the historian Diarmaid MacCulloch, amongst others. Pope Benedict's speech in Westminster Hall, where Thomas More and Guy Fawkes had both been put on trial, was considered to be particularly significant, and it was a nice touch for him and the Archbishop of Canterbury to publicly pay their respects at the tomb of (Saint) Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey.

Further reactions can be seen in this BBC article, including comments from the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society. It will be interesting to see if the visit will have make a significant contribution to the debate of the role of religion and politics and society, particularly in the light of the comments of Baroness Warsi this week who said that the Coalition "does God".

The Pope's Visit

The Pope is in Britain on what is the first state visit by the Pope since the Reformation. Yesterday he arrived in Edinburgh and is in London today. This visit, less like that of 1982 (not a 'state' visit), is highly controversial. Several developments have made it so - the child abuse scandal within the Catholic church, new technological developments such as stem cell research which have divided religious opinion, social developments such as civil partnerships and of course the fact that it is a 'state' visit rather than a pastoral one. The latter is down to Gordon Brown, who lobbied hard for the Pope to come to Britain to appeal to Catholic voters.
What do you think? Should the Pope be here on a state visit? What do you want to hear from him? What is your view of Pope Benedict XVI?
There are a variety of differing opinions in the press. Here is an article about Stephen Fry and Terry Pratchett's atheist view and here their letter to the Guardian with some other letters. Here is the defence of the Pope by the Belfast Telegraph and here the BBC coverage of his visit. There have also been several interesting programmes on both BBC2 and Channel 4.