>From: Joseph Patterson <merechristianity71@...>
>To: faithandlife@...
>
>I would be interested in some of your thoughts about this former Anglican 
>historians take on the English Reformation.  Bill Tighe is now a Roman 
>Catholic. http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=959

Joseph+,
I've talked with Dr. Tighe a few times and consider him to be an extremely 
intelligent and thoughtful historian. He's very generous as well and just 
sends me books now and then. I agree with his take on the novelty and 
invalidity of women's ordination. The English Reformation did not grant the 
Church of England to be independent from the Faith once delivered. And just 
because jurisdiction has been changed concerning Rome, it does not mean that 
anyone is at liberty to create a new and different Catholicism. Any 
assertions to that effect should be rejected, regardless of how one 
understands the specific historical events.

Running commentary on the article you linked:
Dr. Tighe (WT) begins with this thesis: Episcopalian/Anglican assertions 
cannot be justified (as shown by history), which say: “Well, the Church of 
England rejected papal jurisdiction …and so …people (and the CofE in 
particular) are free to act on their own authority in making women priests 
and bishops, etc.” So I think he's not primarily addressing APA type folk, 
but ECUSA "conservatives" who are just fine with Women's ordination (and 
often the 1979 BCP as well). As usual though, he will end up being a 
passionate proselitizer of non Roman Catholics in general.

Then comes the historical overview:
WT: History of Henry VIII seeking an annulment was political power-mongering 
and technically illegal.
--OK; but possession is 9/10 of the law, and Henry "possessed the law." This 
doesn't make it good, but it still happened.

WT: Different Houses and Convocations of Parliament and Clergy did not 
concede Henry's authority all at once, but at different times and degrees.
--OK. But slow acceptance in some quarters doesn't mean it didn't happen.

WT: Henry resorted to crass intimidation.
--I'm sure that was part of why everyone eventually went along with the new 
structure. But not the only reason.

WT: Of the six or so major declarations effecting Henry's realignment, only 
one was undisputably taken in consultation with the Bishops of the Church, 
the rest were largely secular.
--OK.

WT: Henry acted too unilaterally, and decisions were made that weren't 
really decisions of the church, but just of Henry (and later Edward VI).
--Well, the CofE went along, and ratified everything by actions and time, 
even if the king didn't consult very much and allow them to "vote."

WT: Significant changes started happening such as Clerical marriage, 
Communion in both kinds, English use, etc.--changes that circumvented the 
Convocations.
--They may have circumvented the Convocations, but most of these did not 
circumvent the Catholic Faith. Besides, the Convocations of clergy *de 
facto* ratified these changes even if not given the *de jure* chance at 
first--and even if their preference was otherwise for quite some time.

WT: A touch of hagiography for Queen Mary. In effect, "Mary's was a 
religious revival! but Henry and Edward were secularists at heart."
--This is the first place Dr. Tighe's bias moves from 
a-bit-slanted-but-plausible to rather-slanted-and-imbalanced. There was 
plenty of religious motivation under Edward too, and plenty of politics 
under Mary.

WT: "The Convocation debate early in Mary’s reign can justly be seen as the 
first time since 1532 that the Church of England had been able to express 
its mind freely through its own institutions.
--No. That just seems goofy: Henry intimidated, but those in Convocation 
under Mary didn't feel any intimidation and simply "expressed their mind 
freely"? (Now what was Mary's nickname?) This is presumed to prove there was 
a free-will consensus against ever having become distanced from the Pope. 
Not likely--at least not that far. Mary, of course, fostered intimidation 
very well. But it is important to note that there is the reality (both by 
intimidation and no doubt spirituality too), that the CofE is "back to 
square 2" and re-connected to Rome under Mary. Consequently, "Parliament 
repealed all of the Henrician legislation against the papacy in the late 
summer of 1554."

WT: Elizabeth was sly and a bit duplicitous by holding her (anti-papal) 
cards so close.
--She would have lost her head otherwise, methinks. What is noteworthy is 
change away from Rome that the CofE and world-wide Anglicanism knows to this 
day is traced to Elizabeth. One can be informed by Henry VIII, but he and 
his lusts did not birth today's Anglicanism. The reorganization we know was 
born of Elizabeth in company with the Bishops and Parliament of her reign. 
Her motivations and justifactions were often different from Henry's. Dr. 
Tighe spends some time in his final paragraphs begrudgingly admitting to 
this and then discounting Elizabeth's reforms (which kept much Catholic 
structure and content) as unremarkable since so similar to the reform in 
Sweden and Denmark. The English Reformation finds its legitimate history in 
what happened under Elizabeth, with Henry VIII being much less relevant, 
despite his setting the stage and taking a trial run. Rome did not see 
Elizabeth as an enemy of the Faith, at least not for about eight years after 
her reign began, when the Pope finally excommunicated her. The Pope's 
support and patient hopes of getting her married to some Roman Catholic 
royal undermines the sweeping claims that Elizabeth's reforms were 
illegitmate from the get-go.

WT's concluding assertion: "All churchmen (in Elizabeth's first years) voted 
against both acts (Uniformity & Supremacy)...a case of laymen (alone) 
authorizing an alteration in the doctrine and discipline of the Church 
against the will of the clergy" And 16 of 17 Bishops were eventually forced 
to resign who would not subscribe the Act of Supremacy. And WT further 
relates that Convocations (of clergy) were inclined toward Rome, as seen in 
its draft Articles (never voted on or submitted to Parliament). THEREFORE, 
according to Dr. Tighe, "the conclusion is easy to draw. Far from seeking 
“independence” from the papacy, far from approving its “reformation,” the 
Church of England throughout this period opposed such measures on every 
occasion that, through its own organs of government and self-expression, it 
was able to voice its sentiments. To effect the kind of “reformation” that a 
few desired for religious reasons and that many more desired for political 
reasons, the Church had to be bludgeoned into submission."
--I believe this is rather overstated. The CofE did not unanimously favor 
Rome through this period. Further, the wording is misleading, the very 
evidence Dr. Tighe presents only proves there were many clergy, arguably 
most, who wanted to pull back from the full extent of Edwardian reforms, and 
no conclusive proof that they were demanding the status quo be returned to 
papal dominance. I think he just demonstrates that there were plenty of good 
Anglo-Catholics at that time. Thousands of clergy subscribed to the Acts of 
Uniformity and Supremacy. Their consciences allowed them to do so--this is a 
fairer conclusion than to say all these clergy were bludgeoned against their 
conscience--especially since their own testimony affirms it. Is it so 
unthinkable that many subscribed to the English reformation because of 
Scriptural principles which were espoused by those who died in Foxe's book 
of Martyrs under Mary (as one-sided as it was)? Did no clergy after Cranmer, 
Ridley and Latimer think in similar veins? And isn't it reasonable to 
consider there was some motiviation which came from the backlash at having 
finally escaped the "bludgeoning" of England under Mary; and not out of 
craven fear of Elizabeth's fist--which I think most scholars will say was 
not as heavy as Mary's. It shouldn't really be a surprise that the 
Reformation under Elizabeth had plenty of politics as well as spiritual 
impetus. Nor should it be surprising that acceptance was not universal. One 
of WT's recommended books, "The Stripping of the Altars" reveals that there 
was plenty of iconoclasm (anti-Catholicism) in the cities, but much less in 
the country.  My final take is that Dr. Tighe outlines the policital 
ugliness and shows one side of the battle for the CofE--there was more 
dissent than many realize; but he short-changes the reasoned and spiritual 
motivations which were there as well.

Well, it's late. I'm not going to proof this, so apologizes for typos and 
any incoherence. Also, I'll be out of town and won't be able to interact 
with comments (if any) for a couple days.

Peace to all, GCM+


Parliament to cut off the payment of annates to the papacy by 
newly-appointed bishops. This evoked furious opposition from the clergy, as 
well as massive resistance in Parliament itself