Today the Church of England remembers Thomas Cramner, archbishop, liturgist and Reformation martyr who was but to death during the reign of Mary I in 1556. I must confess that I’m not his biggest fan, but I’m honest to admit that says more about me than it does about him. He was an opportunist, Henry VIII broke relations with Rome and set up the Church of England, and Cramner, a lawyer, saw a way to ensure he was in prime position for becoming Archbishop of Canterbury. He supported the King’s right to divorce Catherine of Aragon and ensured that was the right of all who were members of the new Church of England too. Then, on becoming Archbishop he ensured that the Church of England permitted her clergy to marry. Whilst this is a good thing, his main reason was because he was married – again showing his opportunistic nature. He also was the architect of The Book of Common Prayer (BCP)which became the Liturgical mainstay of the Church of England for the next 350 years and is still used regularly today. Whilst I admire the BCP immensely, and enjoy choral Evensong, I find the liturgy dated, sometimes impenetrable, especially to younger people, and dislike the fact that he split the Eucharistic Prayer in two. Finally, after the death of Henry VIII and then Edward VI six years later, England returned to Roman Catholic worship and all Anglican priests and bishops were arrested and many put on trial. Some renounced the Faith and returned to Rome and were saved. Cramner renounced the faith too but on finding that he was going to be put to death anyway professed the Anglican Faith as he was burnt at the stake. Again this shows him trying to be opportunistic and slightly cowardly too.
All that I have said above is true to how I see Cramner. But it’s my biased take on the man. Yes, he was opportunistic but someone had to take control of the situation and he did. Yes, he made sure that the new Canon Law worked in his favour, but so have many others, and his agreeing that clergy can marry has meant that people aren’t forced into celibacy to follow their calling as many Roman Catholic clergy are, and sometimes with dangerous affects for them and victims of abuse. Yes, he did split the Eucharistic Prayer in two. He did so, again, with good reason – to show the liturgy was new and different from that of Rome. The Book he largely compiled and wrote himself is one of the greatest works of liturgy ever. It is concise and usable. Yes, it’s in archaic language – but it wasn’t when he wrote it! No one without real faith and without liturgical understanding and skill could have written such a work. Cramner proved himself to be a true faithful servant of the Church through that great work. Finally, his renunciation of the Faith – he was human! He was facing death, a gruesome painful death at that too! When the chips were down, and he was enduring that gruesome death, his faith shone through as he proclaimed what his heart and sole believed. So my bias and negativity towards Cramner shows my own prejudices clearly. I project onto him my dislike of those who “climb the greasy pole”, especially in Church circles. I dislike those who manipulate things for their own ends. I dislike those, like the Prayer Book Society, who think that we should only use the BCP – and those who think it is truly relevant to the young and unchurched (whilst admitting some who don’t understand the services can still be transported by its beauty closer to God). I also dislike those who change their faith to suit themselves rather than follow God. Cramner may be accused of some of those things but he is a far greater man than that. Perhaps too, in showing me my own bias and prejudice, he does me another favour in reminding me that I need to always be aware there is another perspective to look at things from.
Site Title 