Calling a Holy Table an Altar Does Not Make You a Romanist or a Romanizer
The Puritans and Presbyterians of the seventeenth century were not beyond portraying those with whom they disagreed in the worst possible light and demonizing them. Archbishop William Laud’s enemies went as far as making false entries in his diary in order to secure his condemnation. However, they were unsuccessful in proving in court that he had subscribed to the doctrine of transubstantiation, much less taught that doctrine, and was in league with the Church of Rome. They eventually resorted to a bill of attainder, an Act of Parliament that declared him guilty of high treason and condemned him to death.
Archbishop Laud undoubtedly was a martinet, that is, he was “someone who demands that rules and orders always be obeyed, even when it is unnecessary or unreasonable to do so.” He was harsh in is treatment of those who opposed his various reforms of the English Church and its institutions and consequently made a lot of enemies. We, however, would be wise to take with a pinch of salt contemporary accounts of what he said and did. They contain many exaggerations and inaccuracies. If we have a pre-existing negative view of the Caroline High Churchmen, it may be tempting to take these accounts at face value and not dig deeper into the truth of what happened. However, as writers we owe those for whom we are writing to undercover the truth and to provide them with an accurate as possible description of that period in English Church history, rather than a partisan view that reflects our prejudices and the prejudices of past generations.
I mention Archbishop Laud because his name always crops up in a discussion of the Caroline High Churchmen and their views. Some writers have christened this particular wing of the English Church as “Laudian.” While this label has gained currency. it may be an oversimplification of the identity of this particular group of churchmen and their beliefs and practices. We are also apt to associate them with Archbishop Laud and how we perceive Laud is apt to color how we perceive them.
It is much better to look at the Caroline High Churchmen individually, recognizing that their views would change over time. For example, John Cosin in his early writings gives the appearance of having a realist view of the sacrament of Holy Communion but in his later writings he clearly takes a receptionist view of the eucharistic presence, a view commonly held by the Caroline High Churchmen.
With a few notable exceptions, the Caroline High Churchmen were staunchly anti-Roman Catholic. They had no truck with the Bishop of Rome and papistry. The beliefs that they held and practices that they adopted, they thought were consistent with the beliefs and practices of the primitive Church, based upon their reading of the early Church Fathers and their understanding of Scripture. In their desire to bring the beliefs and practices of the English Church into conformity with those of the primitive Church, they were not far different from the early English Reformers. They may have been naïve in their reading of the Patristic writers and given too much weight to the rule of antiquity. However, they were not motivated by a desire to bring the English Church back into the fold of the Church of Rome as were the proponents of the Rome-ward movement in the nineteenth century.
It is noteworthy that the Restoration bishops who revised the Church of England’s Ordinal in 1660 and its Prayer Book in 1662 were, with one exception, Caroline High Churchmen. So were the Scottish bishops who compiled the 1637 Scottish Prayer Book, a book that would not only influence the 1764 Non-Juror Communion Office, which Bishop Samuel Seabury brought back with him from Scotland, but also the 1662 revision of the English Prayer Book, which is widely recognized as a formulary of historic Anglicanism around the world.
Among the dangers of characterizing as “Romanists” or “Romanizers” anyone who exhibits an interest in the early practices of the Christian Church and its early rites and services and describing their interest as “Romanism” is that through the use of such an inexact definition of Romanism, is that it is possible to characterize the sixteenth century Reformers, both in England and on the European continent as exhibiting Romanizing tendencies because they retained elements from the medieval Latin service books, translated into the vernacular, in the liturgies that they crafted. The use of too broad a definition, however, ignores a critical factor that sets these Reformers and others like them apart from those individuals who have genuine Romanizing tendencies—intent!
What prompted me to write this essay was the assertion of one writer in a recent article that the placement of the communion table against the east wall and the railing off of the table from the congregation in the seventeenth century amounted to Romanism as did the description of the table as an “altar” in the Episcopal Church’ s The Book of Common Prayer (1979) and represented a departure from how the table had been described in previous Anglican service books. This assertion was far from accurate and suggests that the writer in question needs to research his subject more thoroughly before writing about it. Even a cursory investigation into the historical facts of the matter does not support the writer’s contention.
In the Constitution and Canons Ecclesiastical of 1640, in Section VII. 'A Declaration concerning some Rites and Ceremonies,' we find this provision:
That the standing of the Communion Table, side-way under the East window of every Chancell, or Chappell, is in its own nature indifferent, neither commanded nor condemned by the Word of God, either expresly, or by immediate deduction, and therefore that no Religion is to be placed therein, or scruple to be made thereon. And albeit at the time of reforming this Church from that grosse superstition of Popery, it was carefully provided that all meanes should be used to root out of the mindes of the people, both the inclination thereunto, and memory therof; especially of the Idolatry committed in the Masse, for which cause all Popish Altars were demolished: yet notwithstanding it was then ordered by the Injunctions and Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, of blessed memory, that the holy Tables should stand in the place where the Altars stood, and accordingly have been continued in the Royall Chappells of three famous and pious Princes, and in most Cathedrall, and some Parochiall Churches, which doth sufficiently acquit the manner of placing the said Tables from any illegality, or just suspition of Popish superstition or innovation. And therefore we judge it fit and convenient, that all Churches and Chappels do conform themselves in this particular, to the example of the Cathedral, or Mother Churches, saving alwaies the generall liberty left to the Bishop by Law, during the time of Administration of the holy Communion. And we declare that this situation of the holy Table, doth not imply that it is, or ought to be esteemed a true and proper Altar, whereon Christ is again really sacrificed: but it is, and may be called an Altar by us, in that sense in which the Primitive Church called it an Altar, and in no other.
And because experience hath shewed us, how irreverent the behaviour of many people is in many places, some leaning, others casting their hats, and some sitting upon, some standing, and others sitting under the Communion Table in time of Divine Service: for the avoiding of these and the like abuses, it is thought meet and convenient by this present Synod, that the said Communion Tables in all Chancells or Chappells, be decently severed with Rails to preserve them from such or worse profanations.
And because the Administration of holy things is to be performed with all possible decency and reverence, therefore we judge it fit and convenient, according to the word of the Service-Book established by Act of Parliament, Draw neer, &c. that all Communicants with all humble reverence shall draw neer and approach to the holy Table, there to receive the divine Mysteries, which have heretofore in some places been unfitly carried up and down by the Minister, unlesse it shall be otherwise appointed in respect of the incapacity of the place, or other inconveniences by the Bishop himself in his jurisdiction, and other Ordinaries respectively in theirs.
And lastly, whereas the Church is the house of God, dedicated to his holy worship, and therefore ought to minde us, both of the greatnesse and goodnesse of his Divine Majestie, certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof, not onely inwardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in it self, profitable unto us, and edifying unto others. We therefore think it very meet and behoovefull, and heartily commend it to all good and well affected people, members of this Church, that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgement, by doing reverence and obeisance, both at their coming in, and going out of the said Churches, Chancels, or Chappels, according to the most ancient custome of the Primitive Church in the purest times, and of this Church also for many yeers of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custome, we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people, not with any intention to exhibite any Religious worship to the Communion Table, the East, or Church, or any thing therein contained in so doing, or to perform the said gesture, in the celebration of the holy Eucharist, upon any opinion of a corporall presence of the body of Jesus Christ, on the holy Table, or in the mysticall elements, but onely for the advancement of Gods Majestie, and to give him alone that honour and glory that is due unto him, and no otherwise; and in the practise or omission of this Rite, we desire that the rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle, may be observed, which is, That they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not, and that they who use it not, condemn not those that use it. [1]
Note that it provides the rationale for the placement of the Holy Table and its railing off from the congregation and gives permission to refer to the table as an "altar." It states that the table "...may be called an Altar by us, in that sense in which the Primitive Church called it an Altar, and in no other." This shows that the practice of referring to the Holy Table as an "altar" in the English Church goes back at least as far as the seventeenth century.
A perusal of the rubrics of the Non-Juror Communion Office of 1718 contains these directions:
The Altar at the Communion time having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand at the East end of the Church or Chapel. And the Priest and People standing with their faces towards the Altar, shall say or sing (in the same manner as the Psalms for the day are said or sung) for the Introit the Psalm appointed for that day according to that Translation which is in the Book of Common Prayer.
Note, that whenever in this office the Priest is directed to turn to the Altar, or stand or kneel before it, or with his Face towards it, it is always meant that he shall stand or kneel on the North side thereof. [2]
For a summary of the history of the Non-Jurors, see the Encyclopedia Brittanica article, “Non-Juror.” [3]
Despite their loyalty to James II and to his son Charles Edward the Young Pretender, the Non-Jurors were not Romanists. They did make overtures to the Eastern Orthodox Church, recognizing in Eastern Orthodoxy an ancient tradition of Christianity distinct from Roman Catholicism. These overtures did not go anywhere as the Non-Jurors were too Protestant for the Eastern Orthodox.
A similar examination of the rubrics of the Holy Liturgy of the Non-Juror Deacon's Devotions of 1734 uncovers these directions:
Before the Communion-time the Deacon shall prepare so much bread, wine, and water for the Eucharist, as he judgeth convenient: laying the bread in the paten, or in some other decent thing provided for that purpose; and putting the wine into the chalice, or else into some fair and convenient cup provided for that use, and the water into some other proper vessel. After which he shall place them all upon the Prothesis, and cover them with a fair white linen cloth.
The Altar, at the Communion-time, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand at the East end of the Church or Chapel. [4]
The 1764 Scottish Communion Office, which forms the basis of the 1789 Communion Service contains this rubric:
Then shall the Presbyter, turning him to the altar, kneel down, and say, in the name of all them that shall communicate, this collect of humble access to the holy communion, as followeth. [5]
So does the Scottish Communion Service in the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book, also derived from the same office:
Then shall the Presbyter, turning him to the Altar, kneel down, and say, in the name of all them that shall communicate, this Collect of humble access to the Holy Communion, as followeth: [6]
As we see from these examples, the 1979 Prayer Book was not the first Anglican service book to refer to the Holy Table as an "altar." In referring to the Holy Table as an "altar," the 1979 Prayer Book did not break new ground. Rather it took its place firmly in the Scottish-American Prayer Book tradition in which it stands.
Who then were the “Romanists” or the “Romanizers”? They were churchmen who were a part of a nineteenth century movement in the Church of England and its daughter churches who wanted to bring about the reconciliation of these churches with the See of Rome. To that end they sought to introduce changes in the beliefs and practices of these churches so that they would be indistinguishable from the Church of Rome. They adopted this strategy, believing that if they Romanized these churches, the Pope would recognize their respective churches as a part of the Roman Catholic Church. To this end they introduced into their respective dioceses and parishes beliefs and practices from the nineteenth century continental post-Tridentian Roman Catholic Church and promoted the acceptance of these belief and practices in the larger church. They compiled what are known as the Anglican Missals and adopted nineteenth century Roman Catholic vestments, liturgical colors, and ceremonial. They rationalized the introduction of these beliefs and practices with the argument that if the English Reformation had not occurred, the English Church would have adopted the same beliefs and practices as the post-Tridentian Continental Roman Catholic Church. Their strategy was unsuccessful.
Some would convert to Roman Catholicism; others would form a wing of the Anglican Church that, while it leaned toward Roman Catholicism in doctrine and liturgy, rejected papal infallibility and authority. In this wing Edward Bouvrie Pusey’s theory that the Anglican Church was the third great Catholic tradition with Easter Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism flourished. This wing bore similarities to what would become the twentieth century movement known as Traditionalist Catholicism, “a movement that emphasizes beliefs, practices, customs, traditions, liturgical forms, devotions and presentations of teaching associated with the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).” One of the particular emphases of Traditionalist Catholics is the Tridentine Mass. This is the liturgy which the post-Second Vatican Council Mass of Paul VI replaced. It is also the liturgy that strongly influenced this wing of the Anglican Church.
In the 1970s members of this wing would break with the Protestant Episcopal Church and join with other disaffected Episcopalians to form the Continuing Anglican Movement. In the 1990s and later members of the same wing would also migrate to the Reformed Episcopal Church. With the creation of the Anglican Ordinariates in 2009, this wing would experience a split in which a segment of the wing would migrate to those bodies.
It is painting with too broad brush strokes to characterize as “Romanists” or “Romanizers” all who take an interest in the early practices of the Christian Church and its early rites and services and to describe their interest as “Romanism.” As we have seen, these descriptors are applicable only to the proponents of the nineteenth century Rome-ward movement and their efforts to transform the Anglican Church into a facsimile of the nineteenth century post-Tridentine Continental Roman Catholic Church for the specific purpose of promoting reunification with the Church of Rome. Romanism would have its day, but that day is past. Romanism has made its bow and exited from the stage of history.
What we see in the various permutations of the Anglican Church in the twenty-first century is something entirely different. In my next article I will grasp the nettle and offer an explanation of what is going on.
[1] Constitution and Canons Ecclesiastical https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A00089.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
[2] The Nonjurors’ Communion Liturgy (1718)
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Communion_Nonjurors.htm
[3] Britannica, “Non-Juror”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nonjuror
[4] Deacon's Devotions (1734)
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/deacons_devotions_hc.htm
[5] The Scottish Communion Office of 1764
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/Scot1764_Communion.htm
[6] The Scottish Book of Common Prayer (1929)
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/Scot_Scottish_Communion.htm
Comments
Post a Comment