"This godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers": Anglicanism, Reformation, and patristic catholicity
We might think that this claim by 'A Better Intentionalism' regarding the Articles of Religion can be welcomed. It appears, after all, to echo Jewel's declaration in the Apology:
we do show it plainly that God's holy Gospel, the ancient bishops, and the primitive Church do make on our side, and that we have not without just cause left these men, and rather have returned to the Apostles and old Catholic fathers.
This, however, is not what 'A Better Intentionalism' is suggesting. Rather, following a well-established Tractarian path, it is invoking "the patristic church" against the Reformation:
we are in a position today to see that there are some areas in which the doctrine of a Parker or Cranmer actually does differ from that of the early centuries of the Church.
What are these areas? Oddly, 'A Better Intentionalism' fails to provide an answer other than asserting that Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem "plainly" believed that in the Eucharist "Christ is received by the mouth". One might have expected at least some hint of a wider range of issues. But, no, nothing is suggested apart from this rather narrow insistence that a true partaking of Christ in the Sacrament "is ... by the mouth". Words from Hooker spring to mind:
In a word, it appeareth not that of all the ancient fathers of the Church any one did ever conceive or imagine other then only a mystical participation of Christ's both body and blood in the sacrament - LEP V.67.11.
And here is the point: for the Reformation of the ecclesia Anglicana, the Eucharist was a central issue. The conviction of not only the Reformers but of succeeding generations of Anglicans - Hooker, Andrewes, Laud, Taylor, Waterland - was that the reformed ecclesia Anglicana had retrieved, did confess, and was practising the Eucharistic faith of the Primitive Church. The words of Cranmer, then, captured an essential aspect of the ongoing Anglican conviction and experience:
But thanks be to the Eternal God, the manner of the holy communion, which is now set forth within this realm, is agreeable with the institution of Christ, with St. Paul and the old primitive and apostolick church, with the right faith of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for our redemption, and with the true doctrine of our salvation, justification, and remission of all our sins by that only sacrifice - A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine, V.XVIII.
If this conviction was erroneous, if the Eucharistic doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church was not retrieved by the Reformers and embodied in the Formularies they established, then we are left open to the suggestion that the Council of Trent was actually correct, that it, and not the Reformers, understood the "proper and most manifest meaning" of the Eucharist as "understood by the Fathers".
Against this, however, we are confronted with the Reformers and succeeding generations of Anglican theologians engaging in a significant and ongoing exercise of ressourcement, of attentively and respectfully attending to the Eucharistic theology of the patristic witnesses. Cranmer's A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine was, in many ways, an extended discussion of patristic teaching. In a short section of the Apology on the Eucharist, Jewel quotes from Ambrose, Gelasius, Theodoret, Augustine, Origen, Cyril, Cyprian, and Chrysostom. Taylor insisted that the 'realist' terms of the Fathers did not "signify more than our sense of them does import". And Waterland provided the classical High Church account of the role and authority of antiquity:
Great regard therefore ought to be paid to the known sense and judgment of the apostolical Fathers. The later Fathers, of the second, third, and fourth centuries, have their weight also, in proportion to their known integrity, and abilities, and fame in all the churches ; and more especially in proportion to their early standing, their nearness to the fountain-head.
In other words, the Reformation of the ecclesia Anglicana and the theology which flowed from it - the theology of Hooker, Andrewes, Laud, Taylor, Waterland - was not an alternative to patristic catholicity: it was intentionally an embodiment of patristic catholicity. This challenges the Tractarian notion proposed by 'A Better Intentionalism' that Reformed teaching and patristic catholicity are at odds:
True it is, that the animating spirit of the Articles, tends in the direction of Reformed teaching. No doubt. But at the level of the letter, there is room within them to believe the catholic faith as the early fathers held it.
Such an understanding is nothing less than a fundamental rejection of the classical Anglican experience, the conviction that this tradition is a living out of the "godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers".
Indeed. Dr. Wayne Hankey, a brilliant scholar and former student of Dr. Crouse, wrote that his teacher, whose mastery of patristics qualified him to be the first Protestant to lecture on the Fathers at the Vatican, was fully convinced that the sacramentalism of the 16th and 17th C Church of England was substantially the same as the doctrine of Augustine, Chrysostom and other fathers of the first 5-6 centuries.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder why one would remain an Anglican if you didn't think this was the case ...
DeleteAre you familiar with Dr. Timothy Le Croy? He's a very learned Presbyterian theologian whose doctoral dissertation reexamines the eucharistic theology of Paschasius Radbertus. Rather than interpreting Paschasius against Ratramnus, he believes the two actually held to the same concepts. He proposes that a true understanding of Paschasius might overcome the divisions that have kept Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox from communicating at a common table.
ReplyDeleteHere is the abstract:
"Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus of Corbie were two ninth century monks who each wrote treatises on the topic of the Eucharist—both with the same title, De corpore et sanguine Domini. During the sixteenth century Reformation an historical narrative and interpretation was established which posited Paschasius and Ratramnus as bitter rivals in a eucharistic controversy. Ratramnus was claimed by the Reformers as one who shared their view of the Eucharist, and Paschasius was claimed by the Roman Catholics as one who shared theirs. This common interpretation has persisted to this day. However, in the last 25-30 years there has been some call... to theorize that there was no controversy between Paschasius and Ratramnus. These more recent scholarly questions led me to discover that...no one had ever attempted to read Paschasius’s text in its own particular context and in its own terms, and no one had explored the role of the theology of corpus in his text and how that might lead to developments in its overall interpretation. The purpose of this dissertation is therefore to carefully explore the historical and theological context surrounding the writing of Paschasius’s treatise... Finally, I argue in this dissertation that the entirety of Paschasius’s writing and theologizing was for the purposes of promoting unity in the church through the means of worthy eucharistic reception.
Here are the last two paragraphs of my dissertation that I used to close my presentation at the defense:
Which leads me to the final aspect of my conclusion: my estimation, or hopes rather, for the ultimate impact of this study. I am a Presbyterian minister. I did my doctoral work at a Jesuit university. I have rubbed shoulders with many followers of Christ from different, often warring, ecclesiastical traditions: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox. I have seen that a great deal that holds us apart is our view of the Eucharist. This is utterly absurd when we stop to think about it! A table that was meant to unite has become a table of division. Devils rejoice at the thought.
My hope is that this study will help to show that we can all agree on the Eucharist. I believe that Paschasius’s doctrine of the Eucharist presents us all a way forward, a way of conceiving of the Lord’s Supper that we can all agree with. A Eucharist that is powerful. A Eucharist that distinguishes between the bodies of Christ. A Eucharist that insists upon its mystical nature. A Eucharist that eschews Berengar’s oath. Paschasius’s theology pre-dates our disagreements. His theology represents an era before our Church was rent asunder. If I a Presbyterian pastor can work to rehabilitate a Roman Catholic saint, attempting to show that his theology presents us all with a way forward, cannot we all give a little ground? What beauty would it be – What glory! – if this text, a text that has been used as a blunt axe to split the Table of the Lord in to pieces, could finally be used as it was originally intended: a text to bring us all to the Eucharist together and to make us all one."
Now here is something one would like to read. Unfortunately it has yet to be published. Let us hope Dr. Le Croy will do so speedily.
Thank you for drawing this to my attention. It certainly sounds fascinating and reflects the significance of Augustinian Eucharistic doctrine in the Latin West. Hopefully it will be published!
Delete