In one of the great historical novels of the twentieth century, Hilda Prescott’s ‘The Man on a Donkey’ we follow the events around the Pilgrimage of Grace, events around the time, of course, of the martyrdoms we commemorate today. And towards the end of that extraordinary novel, we watch and listen to Robert Aske, the leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace, in his last anguished moments, hanging in chains from the Keep of the Castle in York: “God did not now nor would in any furthest future prevail. Once he had come and died. If he came again, again he would die, and again and so forever, by his own will, rendered powerless against the free and evil wills of men. Then Aske met the full assault of darkness without reprieve of hoped for light, for God ultimately vanquished was no God at all. But yet, though God was not God, as the head of the dung worm turns, so his spirit turned blindly, gropingly, hopelessly loyal, towards that good, that holy, that merciful – which though not God, though vanquished – was still the last dear love of a vanquished and tortured man.”
The cross stands while the world turns. If Christ came again so would his cross. Because that evil, that passionate commitment as it so often seems, to destroy and undermine the good, is written into the experience of fallen humanity. There is no shortcut, there is no happy ending, in any ordinary sense. The dying martyr in that passage can only turn to what he does not know; and what he does not know is very distant from, and very different from, the God who is a God of happy endings and solutions. But the cross that stands while the world turns is the cross of God: and so we are taken to a second level, where we realise what it is that is being transacted in the cross of Christ, and what it is that is transacted in every moment of reckless, generous, terrible suffering for the sake of God’s truth. Aske turns to what is still ‘the last dear love of a vanquished and tortured man’. In darkness and in torture, men and women throughout the centuries have turned to the crucified Christ; they have addressed the crucified Christ with the last calling of their lips and the last movement of their hearts, as did John Houghton. They know that whatever else may disappear, there is something on which they may call – and it is Christ crucified.
The God who has, it seems, been vanquished, is yet a God who cannot be abolished. In many ages and many places, authorities even more appalling than Henry VIII have believed that they could abolish God and the cross of God; and they have had to discover that while they may vanquish, they cannot destroy. That which is the last hope, the last longing of the condemned and tortured, remains. The cross stands while the world turns.
Question: When was the last time Rowan attended the Commemoration of the Oxford Martyrs?
I am unable to see the martydom of these good men as a Catholic vs Protestant matter. Though I do not deny such martydoms occured on both sides and to our shame as Christians.
To me this is a martydom of the church vs the world. Of the challenge such believers have given to despots of every age. And the rage with the world responds to those who say no to the glories of its empty vanities.
Truly said, Paula.
How depressing!
But,
Christ the victor! Oh death, where is thy sting!?
Evil only exists because God desires to give grace for now.
God’s grace is far more important than my life.
What joy that none can take away!
Don
That’s a nice thought Paula except to not think of their martyrdom in a Catholic vs. Protestant manner is to deny history.
These men were killed because they maintained their Catholic faith and refused to become Protestant. I am hard pressed to think of a more thoroughly Catholic vs. Protestant issue than killing those who would not convert (on either side of the divide).
I am actually kind of confused about why the Archbishop of Canterbury is commemorating the Carthusian Martyrs. After all, they died rather than become part of his church. He also called the actions of Henry VIII ‘appalling’ .. but those actions were what led to the organization that the Archbishop leads today.
I would say that honoring the Oxford Martyrs seems more appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury. It almost reads like a weird kind of creepy gloating to have the theological descendants of those who martyred the Carthusians ‘commemorating’ them.
Mary Martha, I am not ignorant of history. But tell me this do you think the dissolution of monastaries was done strictly because the refusal of some orders to sign the Act of Supremacy? I think that Henry VII wanted those lands and he wanted any valuables and would have taken them by other means if every jack one of those monks had stuck a Papal mitre on his head. And if they had asserted their rights to the lands and valuable they too would have risked a charge of treason.
Even before we visited the UK in May of 1999, my wife and I (she a cradle Episcopalian, I a convert from Missouri Synod Lutheranism in 1969) were appalled by what Henry had done. When we visited England, especially York where we saw the ruins of St. Mary’s Abbey, our sense of outrage was reinforced. And, of course, St. Mary’s was but one of many examples. Fortunately, our distaste does not extend to the British people, only to Henry Tudor, willful man that he was.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus, Christus imperat!
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
#1 At the invitation of the Prayer Book Society, he attended and preached at the Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the martyrdom of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 2006 http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/353.
This is classic Rowan Williams, poetic, beautiful and Christologically focused on the steady power of Christ’s love expressed in the witness of martyrs.
#7 MA
People tend to forget that the position of the Abbeys in England was under threat well before the Reformation and the reign of Henry VIII. There was a long-running battle for power between the bishops and the abbots. In one case the Bishop of Exeter and the Abbot of Glastonbury purported to excommunicate each other.
In the dissolution of the monasteries, arguably the bishops won.
In addition one also had to remember that the Abbeys and even small priories were supported by huge landholdings of up to half of a county. The great abbeys were enormously expensive to build and maintain and took the resources of much of society to keep going and the taxes of the populace, so they were neither universally popular nor an aid to the development of England, although they did provide medical and educational resources to the locality. Huge and pointless effort was taken up with the repetitious saying of masses for the dead and there were chantries set up all over the country for this purpose and this became a huge racket. Had the resources to keep these institutions been removed by tax reform then they would have decayed fairly quickly.
We all regret the passing of these magnificent buildings, but they are a long way removed from the small economical institutions we find today following a contemplative life. So bear in mind that were it not for the Reformation and Dissolution in England that there would have been no development here, no foreign expansion, no United States and probably no industrial revolution.
I too, this this is a bit creepy. Perhaps an annual apology, even an annual joint apology with both Catholics and Protestants owning their part of the shame would seem more fitting.
But, the idea of those descended from the slayers celebrating the martyrdom is just bizarre to me. It might even make more sense if it weren’t a collection of Anglicans meeting on the site of the confiscated and never returned lands. This remains Church of England property. How can this be? If there is a memorial to Catholic martyrs, why has it not been returned to Catholic hands?
#9, from what I have read it appears the Carthusians were sincerly living out their faith in true commitment to Christ and His teachings. I agree that for the time this was a rarity.
[b][i]9. Pageantmaster[/i][/b],
Thank you for the history. Unfortunately, we in the US apparently haven’t received the historical education (even from within the Episcopal Church, from which most of my awareness, less than complete as it turns out, had come) that we should have.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
The Archbishop writes:
This is something none of us can know in relation to any person with certaintly, but his personal fate aside, I do believe that God uses individuals, sometimes in spite of themselves to work His wonders.
As I suggested in the previous comment, the development of the United Kingdom, the foreign expansion, the establishment of the Thirteen Colonies and the effect on Christianity in England and Europe were all dependent on Henry’s actions. In particular the Reformation in England with all the strange twists it took during his reign and those of his children changed England beyond recognition: the use of the Bible in English, the creation of the Prayer Book, the consequent expansion of literacy and education led by the church, and in many ways a large part of our move from a medieval society into a modern one required those changes. As by-products all the things we take for granted: universal suffrage, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom, industrialisation and scientific advance all advanced as a result of the changes started by the Tudors. And also as a church, we have developed the successful mission of the Church of England worldwide which has been such a benefit to so many millions, and of that heritage and gift I am deeply proud and profoundly grateful.
It also has to be said Keith #7 that the reason Catholics are taking communion in two kinds themselves and reading the bible in English in a church reformed of its major abuses is because of the Reformation in England and Europe. It had to pull its socks up, which I am glad to say it did, to some considerable extent.
#9 M.A. Thanks – I think there is probably just as much to learn over here, even about ourselves. I do find on many issues though that the more one delves, the more hard it is to see what the consequences would have been had history been different. As with out lives even difficult things, events and people seem to lead to good things in the end with hindsight.
I also think some of the chippy comments are misplaced. We and our Catholic cousins get along quite well and like doing things together here in the UK, as we do mostly on T19.
#11 Paula Loughlin – thanks for the background. There is a bit more here, and like much of the process of dissolution the end of the priory was pretty brutal.
You may rest assured that the Christian action initiated by the Carthusians continues. The Charterhouse has contained one of London’s major teaching hospitals, the site also continues the charitable shelter of the elderly and the school which was based there had to move out to new premises through its expansion in the 19thC and became one of the major Public [private] Schools. Much of the original site and its churches is still very recognisable and it is administered by a charitable trust from what I remember from visits.
#9
Concerning the Industrial Revolution, Henry’s Dissolution of the
Monasteries may have actually delayed the Industrial Revolution by
about 2 centuries. This article of several years ago
makes that clear :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3298716/Henry-stamped-out-Industrial-Revolution.html
In brief, the Cistercian monks of Rievaulx in Yorkshire seem to
have developed a blast-furnace for the large-scale production
of cast iron. Additionally, the article states that the annual meeting
of Cistercian abbots would have probably resulted in the transfer
of this technology to other countries. It seems Henry threw out
the baby with the bathwater. There is a bias or mental predisposition
to see the Reformation in England as a sort of “progress unchained”
development. It was far more complex that that.
#17 IchabodKunkleberry
Thanks – that is interesting, and as you say the monks may have been more advanced in metallurgy. However according to this Wikipedia article which cites the one in the Telegraph, production at
may have ceased by the dissolution in 1537, but blast furnaces had been in use in Sussex from the 1490’s and elsewhere from the 1530’s, but that really efficient production only came in with the use of coke rather than charcoal in the 1700’s and it was this cheaper coal based iron that kicked off the industrial revolution.
Nevertheless the industrial revolution also relied on social factors including the freeing up of people from the ties of inter alia the monasteries and the huge release of land assets and resources and the build up of private capital that resulted. Had people been tied into a serf like existence on monastery land it is debatable what would have happened. In addition, the colonial trade expansion which happened when England was freed from links with Spain in the Elizabethan period might not have happened. Much of the industrial revolution was driven by that trade pattern and in particular the harnessing of firstly water driven and subsequently steam driven factories for textile manufacture without the import of raw cotton from the US and the export of finished textiles to India and elsewhere which was the ultimate result. Everything came from this – the building of the canals, iron bridges and railways for the transport of goods internally; the expansion of the merchant sailing fleet built of wood and the development of steam driven craft built of iron and then steel.
The monasteries and their estates were communities and societies with their own communities integrated around them. It has to be questionable even if the foreign issues with Spain allowed and England had been able to trade as it has, whether that form of structure even if the technology was known would have created the development of the factories, private capital and enterprise which were necessary for the expansion of the industrial revolution and the trade expansion which it enabled. Monastic communities have had a tradition of guarding jealously within their orders their production secrets.
Pointless effort saying masses for the dead?
Some of us don’t see it that way.
Susan Peterson
And I always heard that after the monasteries went, there was no one to take care of the sick for a long time until a whole new hospital system was built up.
You seem so confident that everything about the move “from a medieval society to a modern one” was a good thing.
I like flush toilets and antibiotics, but I don’t see that religiously and morally it has been a good thing. You certainly don’t know the “what would have happened if” things had developed differently.
I for one wish with all my heart that England had remained Catholic.
In any case, Henry’s treatment of these monks was horrific. Some were killed in brutal ways, and the rest were just left chained up in a dungeon to die of thirst and starvation.
The ABOC did speak well, or at least movingly, I think, although I haven’t analyzed his words carefully. But it does seem a bit odd his eulogizing men who died rather than join the schism he heads. There is a little bit of equivocation over what they died for, a little bit of sense that “all martyrs die for the same thing really,” as if the actual content of their beliefs is irrelevant. I do accept that people who believe opposing theologies can on one side and the other believe that in holding to their beliefs they are holding fast to Christ. But I don’t think we can make martyrdom an act completely abstracted from the reasons for it, and I think his talk tends in that direction.
Susan Peterson
#19,
Yes, about as pointless as the Communion of Saints. After all, having
achieved eternal bliss, why would a saint bother with pointless prayers
or intercession for the living ?
#19 Eulogos: “Pointless effort saying masses for the dead?
Some of us don’t see it that way” and #21 IchabodKunkleberry: “Yes, about as pointless as the Communion of Saints. After all, having achieved eternal bliss, why would a saint bother with pointless prayers or intercession for the living ?”
Important points, but different.
The first goes back to a belief in Purgatory which was specifically rejected by the Reformed Church of England as an accretion for which there is no biblical warrant. This was stated in Article XXII of the Church of England Articles of Religion:
[blockquote]XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God[/blockquote]
If you don’t believe in Purgatory, saying prayers for the repose of the departed makes no sense, because it is predicated upon trying to ease their path through a state of Purgatory and reducing the time they spend there.
Moreover in monastic England this had become a source of enormous abuse. People were terrified into handing over enormous bequests of land and assets to the monasteries often disenfranchising their heirs so that masses and prayers would be said for them. This is how the monasteries became so wealthy and such enormous landowners, not through their own efforts. Socially for England to advance something had to be done about it. Like the sale of indulgences, the monastic industry based on prayers for the dead had become a source of huge abuse as people were terrified into handing over their family’s assets.
I have to say I attended the RC funeral of a friend who died suddenly. It was a service I was comfortable in…that is until it came to the homily…the priest set out and banged on about the trials of Purgatory the deceased was now embarking on to the extreme distress of the grieving family and friends – on and on he went, and the family who had been holding it together wept. It was one of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen in a church.
But it brings into focus one of the large differences between Catholics and most Anglicans – we believe that through his own grace, Christ receives us into his arms at death – there can be no harm in prayers for the dead if people so wish, but we do not believe that it affects the achievement of God’s embrace of those we love or their being with Him. Thus we do not require people to believe it as necessary to salvation which is the test applied by the Articles.
The issue of prayers or intercession of Mary and the Saints for the living is also dealt with in Article XXII above. Again it goes back to our relationship with Christ which we believe is direct following the rending of the curtain in the Temple. Christ through his death and resurrection restored us to relationship with God the Father and his intercession is the only one we need, for he is our great high priest.
Now in the CofE we honour Mary and the Saints, and you will find churchmen including perhaps the ABC referring to them in prayers, but we do not require that their intercession is a belief necessary to salvation. Moreover like the concept of Purgatory, it can be abused. I can’t tell you the number of times I have spoken to good Catholic Christians who have told me that they feel unworthy to approach Christ or the Father directly in prayer and so they ask for the intercession of Mary or the Saints. This is just so desperately sad and misses the point of what Jesus did. We are told to pray directly to the Father at all times and with all manner of requests. This is what God wants, a direct relationship with Him and to hear from us, for we are His children. You will note that prayers in the CofE are directed to Almighty God or the Father and end with the note that this is through the Name of Jesus Christ, for again we are instructed to pray ‘in His name’ and our requests will be answered.
As for the specifics of the dissolution of the monasteries and the Archbishop’s speech:
[blockquote]it does seem a bit odd his eulogizing men who died rather than join the schism he heads.[/blockquote]
This sort of abusive language does no more good than talk of the whore of Babylon and the Antichrist – one would have hoped that you with your Anglican husband could move on from such talk Eulogos. We belong to the Church of England which is part of Christ’s church and contiguous with the church over time and space. We do not believe that that is determined by Rome and indeed the Articles state that the Pope has no authority in England. I would certainly be more respectful in visiting a Catholic weblog.
I do not know the particular circumstances of the way in which the Prior and some of the monks resisted the dissolution. In most places the dissolution took place peaceably. The abbots, monks and nuns, who were members of local families returned to their families and took up other occupations including continuing some of the work they had been engaged in in the religious house. However there was defiance of the King and those who did so were firmly and sometimes brutally treated.
I think it is right for the Archbishop to laud the faithfulness of these Catholic martyrs without necessarily approving their acts of disobedience to the law and rightly regretting their fate. From a modern perspective the treatment of the martyrs on both sides is hard to comprehend. The Church of England shares many saints with the Catholic Church and I see no reason why we should not respect and share in the commemoration of the Carthusian martyrs with our Catholic brothers and sisters.
[blockquote]You seem so confident that everything about the move “from a medieval society to a modern one†was a good thing.[/blockquote]
We cannot know how things would have worked out, but I am clear that the removal of the state of peasantry and oppresive tithes for those on the considerable part of England owned by the monasteries was absolutely necessary for the development of the country and the freedom of its inhabitants. Had we been Catholic we would probably have been as poor, backward and arrested as Spain remained until quite recently.
The treatment of the martyrs is not hard to understand-“the cross stands while the world turns.’
This is not quite as tragic as martyrs and ruins and such, but still…
Let us not forget one other sad fact born from the pride of Henry VIII: Out of the dissolution of the monasteries and their stored treasuries of early English literature came only ‘Beowulf’ and a few other odds and ends.
I wish I had ever heard a priest mention Purgatory at a funeral!
I wouldn’t put it as “the trials of Purgatory the deceased is now embarking on” but I would speak of the purification that God’s love and light has to work in us until we are capable of beholding the beatific vision, and that prayers here can help the person along that path (or to open up to that love and light, to try to maintain the metaphor) because of the communion of saints. I certainly hope people pray for me when I am dead and have masses celebrated for me. (Mass is the making present of the one sacrifice of Christ. Having mass said for someone is a way of helping him access that infinite grace; it isn’t something “in addition.”)
Those monks weren’t resisting the dissolution , they were refusing to sign a document saying that Henry was the head of the Church in England, which to do would be an act of schism and denial of the faith. Catholics believe that the successor of Peter has authority in every land.
My husband knows what I think. He isn’t very theological, hasn’t decided what he believes about a lot of issues, and likes the people and the moral seriousness of his current church.
If you would rather not have Catholics be Catholics here, say so. But when the subject is men who died specifically because they believed that to acknowledge that Henry was head of the church was to put themselves in schism from Christ’s church, it is difficult to avoid uncomfortable subjects.
Does the Church teach anything different today? No, not really.
Those who have grown up in other ecclesial communities are not considered guilty of the malice of schism as a Catholic would be who knowingly separated himself from the faith. And there is a more sophisticated understanding that Catholics who do so these days almost certainly do not understand the real issues involved, and may actually be finding in a separated community some part of Catholic truth which they never understood as Catholics, which may be largely our fault. However, should a Catholic find himself in a situation like that of the Carthusian martyrs, he ought by God’s grace to do as they did, because they were precisely correct in their judgment of the meaning of what they were being asked to do.
Susan Peterson
“Yes, about as pointless as the Communion of Saints. After all, having
achieved eternal bliss, why would a saint bother with pointless prayers
or intercession for the living ?”
Wow. So charity ends at the gates of Heaven, does it? I had always rather thought Heaven would be the summit of charity, what with that whole “God is love” thing. Most be one big navel-gazing pig-roast up there if our dearly departed are are too busy enjoying eternal bliss.
25. Thank you, Mrs. Peterson.
The discussion of the dissolution of the monasteries being a necessary occurrence for the progress of the British Empire is fascinating and might even be true. But, it is very much beside the point.
I, for one, would not rely on my own virtue to die for the faith. But, I would hope that if Anglicans were still disposed to the murder of Catholics for their faith, I would be able to rely on the Holy Spirit enough to give glory to God in my flesh and bones as did these holy Carthusians who certainly did not die for land and building but for their ancient Catholic faith.