Preview: "The Defender of the Faith" and "King Charles the Martyr"

Just before the hosts and the engineer of Son Rise Morning Show went off to their summer vacation after the Independence Day Holiday, I mentioned to Anna Mitchell how King Charles III has announced a slight change in his approach to being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. So she thought we should talk about that on Monday, July 13 during our regular Son Rise Morning Show segment, and I also looked at John Keble's The Christian Year poems, and found one about another King Charles--Charles I of England, Scotland and Wales, under the title of "King Charles the Martyr."

The change or addition to King Charles III's role in the Church of England was announced in "the Sovereign Grant Report 2025-26, and expands on the monarch’s responsibilities compared with last year’s version." According to this website:

The previous report described the King simply as the “Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.” The latest edition adds a broader emphasis on religious inclusion, stating: “His Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”

The revised wording reflects King Charles’ long-standing commitment to interfaith dialogue, a cause he has championed since his time as Prince of Wales. Throughout his public life, the King has regularly engaged with representatives of Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Orthodox and other religious communities in the UK and overseas, often speaking about cooperation among the Abrahamic faiths.

In 2023 before his May 6 Coronation, we talked about the Coronation Oaths that Charles would take--with some history about the changes in the Oath regarding the Catholic Church.

The website above reminds us:

Before his coronation in 2023, there had been speculation that Charles might adopt the title “Defender of Faith” rather than the traditional “Defender of the Faith,” signalling a broader commitment to all religions. However, he ultimately retained the historic title used by previous British monarchs.

Gavin Ashenden, former Anglican bishop and Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth II from 2008 to 2017, who became a Catholic in 2019, thinks that Charles III has relinquished his title as "Defender of the Faith", meaning of the Anglican Church, its doctrine, the Thirty-Nine Articles, etc. 

I'm not so sure since the Church of England has in several ways followed the spirit of the age, and may be occupying that "space" already (Carl Trueman in the article cited below has the same idea), and has been in decline in members and attendance for some years. Ashenden also comments on what the "space" or nexus of a "multi-faith nation" is and who occupies it (noting that Muslims might not accept such a space!) Is the monarch going to engage in ecumenical dialogue or just go to different religious events? Ashenden comments on the possibility of abdication, but who in Parliament would require it? Does it matter to the people of England?

Carl Trueman also notes in "No Faith Worth Defending" for First Things that multi-culturalism is the only way for the people of England to view religion, because the nation "no longer has any understanding of what religion is and why it is important." Or, as Saint John Henry Newman said in his biglietto speech on May 12, 1879, describing the phenomenon of the spirit of liberalism in religion (the anti-dogmatic principle) and its "doctrines" (!):

Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man's religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society.

And what does this mean for Catholics in England? Does it really matter to them what the monarch's role is in the official Anglican Church? May this change lead to more Anglicans converting and joining the Anglican Ordinariate?

So we'll discuss these issues on Monday, July 13, and I look forward to Anna's or Matt's thoughts.

In contrast--we probably won't have any time to discuss this at all!--some members of the Church of English--the highest High Church Anglicans!--reverence King Charles I as a martyr of the Faith (a Defender of the Anglican Faith to the end). Lord Nicholas Windsor (a convert to Catholicism like his mother, the late Duchess of Kent) wrote this introduction on the Society of King Charles the Martyr's homepage:

“May I welcome you to these web-pages of The Society of King Charles the Martyr with the hope that you will find their contents interesting and informative. Although a small society we remain very active and lively in providing a fitting organisation to keep the memory of the life and death of King Charles. It was the Blessed John Henry Newman who recalled the Church to remember ‘our own Saint Charles’ and John Keble who wrote, ‘It is as natural that the Church of England should keep this day [30th January] as it is that Christ’s Universal Church should keep Saint Stephen’s martyrdom.’ In the King’s personal piety, devotion and support of the Church, his ecumenical understanding (far advanced for his day), his patronage of the Arts in the service of God, his inspiration of the Christian classic, Eikon Basilike and of course his martyrdom, we have much to REMEMBER and be thankful for.”

(Obviously before Newman's canonization!) Lord Nicholas Windsor is "the first male blood royal to become Catholic since Charles II [on his deathbed]" and of course, he was removed from the succession rolls.

And here is Keble's poem for the martyr king's feast:

King Charles the Martyr.

This is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 1 St. Peter ii. 19.

Praise to our pardoning God! though silent now
   The thunders of the deep prophetic sky,
Though in our sight no powers of darkness bow
   Before th’ Apostles’ glorious company;

The Martyrs’ noble army still is ours,
   Far in the North our fallen days have seen
How in her woe this tenderest spirit towers
   For Jesus’ sake in agony serene.

Praise to our God! not cottage hearths alone,
   And shades impervious to the proud world’s glare,
Such witness yield; a monarch from his throne
   Springs to his Cross and finds his glory there.

Yes: whereso’er one trace of thee is found,
   As in the Sacred Land, the shadows fall:
With beating hearts we roam the haunted ground,
   Lone battle-field, or crumbling prison hall.

And there are aching solitary breasts,
   Whose widowed walk with thought of thee is cheered
Our own, our royal Saint: thy memory rests
   On many a prayer, the more for thee endeared.

True son of our dear Mother+, early taught
   With her to worship and for her to die,
Nursed in her aisles to more than kingly thought,
   Oft in her solemn hours we dream thee nigh.

For thou didst love to trace her daily lore,
   And where we look for comfort or for calm,
Over the self-same lines to bend, and pour
   Thy heart with hers in some victorious psalm.

And well did she thy loyal love repay;
   When all forsook, her Angels still were nigh,
Chained and bereft, and on thy funeral way,
   Straight to the Cross she turned thy dying eye

And yearly now, before the Martyrs’ King,
   For thee she offers her maternal tears,
Calls us, like thee, to His dear feet to cling,
   And bury in His wounds our earthly fears.

The Angels hear, and there is mirth in Heaven,*
   Fit prelude of the joy, when spirits won
Like those to patient Faith, shall rise forgiven,
   And at their Saviour’s knees thy bright example own.

+Mother=the Church of England I think (not the Blessed Virgin Mary)

*"There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." (St. Luke 15:10)

Image Source (Public Domain): The Eikon Basilike, a purported spiritual autobiography attributed to Charles I, published days after his execution.

Preview: "Disestablishment" on the Son Rise Morning Show

UPDATED because I've lost my voice: On Monday, January 15, I'll use my first segment of the year of Our Lord 2024 on the Son Rise Morning Show to discuss the Disestablishment Bill introduced in the House of Lords late last year. Either Matt Swaim or Anna Mitchell and I will talk about what this Bill proposes and what it means for England at my usual Son Rise Morning Show time on Mondays, about 6:50 a.m. Central/7:50 a.m. Eastern. Please listen live here or catch the podcast later here: remember you can also watch the hosts on the Son Rise Morning Show as they interview guests, etc, on Facebook and YouTube…!

According to the website of National Secular Society (NSS) on December 6, 2023:

A bill backed by the National Secular Society to disestablish the Church of England has been introduced in parliament.

The private member's bill, proposed by Liberal Democrat peer Paul Scriven with assistance from the NSS, was presented in the House of Lords today.

The bill makes provision for the separation of church and state by removing the Church of England's established status, abolishing the automatic right of bishops to seats in the Lords and removing the monarch's title "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England".

It would also give the Church full independence over its doctrine, liturgy, and clergy, while ecclesiastical law and courts would cease to have any legal jurisdiction. The regulation of notaries would also be transferred from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Lord Chancellor.

Under the bill, the government would set up a committee to oversee these legal changes.

Please note that notaries in England are lawyers; they are not the same as the kind of notaries we have in the USA.

When I first posted about this news, I looked for any reaction from either the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury or the Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, but found none--and still don't find any now. The Humanist UK website--announcing their organization's support for the Bill--does cite a 2018 comment by Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury:

In an interview with the Guardian, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has said that disestablishment of the Church of England would not be ‘a disaster’ for the Church, and is ‘a decision for parliament and the people’. He also said that ‘I don’t think [disestablishment] would make it easier [for the Church], and I don’t think it would make it more difficult’.

The bill has a long way to go through its stages of reading, revision, passing back and forth between the Houses of Parliament (Lords and Commons), so perhaps that explains the silence so far now. The last step is Royal Assent by King Charles III. If you wish, you may the read the Bill, as introduced, here and track its progress through Parliament here.

This Religion News Service story ties the timing of the Bill's introduction to the Church of England's recent adoption of "Prayers of Love and Faith" for blessings of "same sex couples", which has provoked division in the worldwide Anglican Communion. For Parliament and the Nation, it suggests, that is too little, too late. It also comments that since the Bill wasn't introduced by the Government it has little chance to pass because there won't much action taken.

Re: the division in the worldwide Anglican Communion: 

The Kigali Commitment of April 21, 2023, was a shot heard around the world. Thirteen hundred Anglican leaders, dominated by bishops and clergy from the Global South, gathered in Kigali, Rwanda, to declare that they no longer recognized the Archbishop of Canterbury as their leader. Representing 85 percent of the Anglican Communion, they pronounced their determination to “reset the Communion on its biblical foundations.”  

So one side, the Archbishop of Canterbury faces, however unlikely, disestablishment, which includes losing his seat in the House of Lords, and on the other, definitely, a vote of no confidence from 85% of the Anglican Communion! What would Henry VIII and Archbishop Cranmer think! (pictured above on the title page of Gilbert Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England.)

The statistics cited by Humanists UK to back the Bill are that:

The recent British Social Attitudes survey demonstrated how unrepresentative our current system is. Only 12% of people consider themselves Anglican. What’s more, 68% of 18-24 years old say they belong to no religion versus 18% saying they are Christian – including only 0.7% saying they are Anglican.

The backers of the Bill claim that England has become a more secular society and having an Established Church doesn't make sense.

I must admit that I view such issues through the eyes of Saint John Henry Newman.  He opposed the re-election of Robert Peel, representative for Oxford in the House of Commons, and Speaker of the House, after the passage of the 1829 Act for Catholic Emancipation. As Wilfred Ward explains in his biography of Newman, Volume 1, Chapter 2:

The occasion for formulating and expressing these views [that "Truths divinely revealed, developed, and explained by men of genius in the past, were preserved by that Church Catholic which was represented in our own country by the Church of England."] was Catholic Emancipation in 1829. Newman had no decided views on the measure itself. But he considered that it was proposed on principles of indifferentism. The Papist was to be tolerated, just as the Socinian was to be tolerated. He regarded it as 'one of the signs of the times,' a sign of the encroachment of philosophism and indifferentism in the Church. When Peel offered himself for re-election, Newman vigorously opposed him, and the opposition was successful. 'We have achieved a glorious victory,' he wrote to his mother on March 1; 'it is the first public event I have been concerned in, and I thank God from my heart both for my cause and its success. We have proved the independence of the Church and of Oxford ... We had the influence of government in unrelenting activity against us and the talent so-called of the University.'

Newman's concern at that time was that the Truth of Revelation be defended in English society and culture and his letters to family, like this one in March of 1829, indicate his ambivalence to the legislation and how it would affect that defense:

I am continuing in fact my letter to my Mother. Well, then, taking the state of parties in the country as it is, I look upon the granting of the Catholic claims not so much in itself as in the principle and sentiments of which it is an indication. It is carried by indifference, and by hostility to the Church. {181} I do not see how this can be denied. Not that it is not a momentous measure in itself; it is certainly an alteration in our Constitution, and, though I am used to think the country has not much to dread from Romanistic opinions (the danger seeming to be on the side of infidelity), yet there is a general impression, which Blanco White's book confirms, that infidelity and Romanism are compatible, or rather connected with each other. Moreover, it is agreed on all hands that the Emancipation will endanger the Irish Protestant Church; some even say it must ultimately fall.

All these things being considered, I am clearly in principle an anti-Catholic; and, if I do not oppose the Emancipation, it is only because I do not think it expedient, perhaps possible, so to do. I do not look for the settlement of difficulties by the measure; they are rather begun by it, and will be settled with the downfall of the Established Church. If, then, I am for Emancipation, it is only that I may take my stand against the foes of the Church on better ground, instead of fighting at a disadvantage.

Newman was already seeing the dangers of the Erastian control of the Church of England in 1829 and of course that would be one of the main themes of the Oxford Movement beginning in 1833, that the Church of England's bishops should be leading, not the Government.

After he had become a [Roman] Catholic and he spoke to "the Religious Movement of 1833" in his 1850 lectures on Anglican Difficulties with Catholic Doctrine, I think Newman had recognized the even greater dangers of that Erastianism to those of his friends who had remained in the Church of England. It was no firm or trustworthy foundation for them to stand upon: In the first lecture "On the Relation of the National Church to the Nation" he warned them:

I have said all this, my brethren, not in declamation, but to bring out clearly to you, why I cannot feel interest of any kind in the National Church, nor put any trust in it at all from its past history, as if it were, in however narrow a sense, a guardian of orthodoxy. It is as little bound by what it said or did formerly, as this morning's newspaper by its former numbers, except as it is bound by the Law; and while it is upheld by the Law, it will not be weakened by the subtraction of individuals, nor fortified by their continuance. Its life is an Act of Parliament. It will not be able to resist the Arian, Sabellian, or Unitarian heresies now, because Bull or Waterland resisted them a century or two before; nor on the other hand would it be unable to resist them, though its more orthodox theologians were presently to leave it. It will be able to resist them while the State gives the word; it would be unable, when the State forbids it. Elizabeth boasted that she "tuned her pulpits;" Charles forbade discussions on predestination; George on the Holy Trinity; Victoria allows differences on Holy Baptism. While the nation wishes an Establishment, it will remain, whatever individuals are for it or against it; and that which determines its existence will determine its voice. Of course {9} the presence or departure of individuals will be one out of various disturbing causes, which may delay or accelerate by a certain number of years a change in its teaching: but, after all, the change itself depends on events broader and deeper than these; it depends on changes in the nation. As the nation changes its political, so may it change its religious views; the causes which carried the Reform Bill and Free Trade may make short work with orthodoxy.

He was warning them that the Erastian Church of England would follow the spirit of the age and the interests of the establishment and that "changes in the nation" would be the source of church teaching, not those "Truths divinely revealed, developed, and explained by men of genius in the past . . ." And he was proved right as we have seen the last century (women priests; women bishops; abortion; contraception, etc). There have been departures in the last century and in this as the Church of England adopted those changes in doctrine and practice, culminating in Pope Benedict XVI's establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate.

Would anything change in the Church of England if this Disestablish Bill became law?

Next week, we'll resume our regular Monday morning segments on Mementoes of the English Martyrs and Confessors by Father Henry Sebastian Bowden, formerly a member of the Church of England before he became a Catholic and an Oratorian priest!

Preview: The Canonization of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales

We'll take another detour Monday morning, October 23, in our Son Rise Morning Show series on Father Henry Sebastian Bowden's Mementoes of the English Martyrs and Confessors For Every Day in the Year. This time, Matt Swaim or Anna Mitchell and I will remember the canonization of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales by Pope St. Paul VI on October 25, 1970, 53 years ago.

So I'll be on the air about 6:50 a.m. Central/7:50 a.m. Eastern, the last segment in the second national hour on EWTN Radio. Please listen live here and/or catch the podcast later here.

I did consult the index prepared by Sophia Institute Press for Father Bowden's book and discovered that he does not include six of the Forty Martyrs in his daily reflections: Saints Thomas Garnet, SJ; Richard Gwyn; John Jones, OSF; David Lewis, SJ; Nicholas Owen, SJ; Polydore Plasden. Why didn't Father Bowden include them? I don't know. We should remember that he was writing in the early Twentieth century to English Catholics, trying to inspire them spiritually and morally to be as true to their Faith in Christ and His Church as these English martyrs and confessors had been. He wasn't writing a comprehensive history/biography of the martyrs and confessors.

In 1910 when this book was published, 20 of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales had only been declared Venerable, and one of those canonized in 1970, John Lloyd, is only mentioned in the memento of Saint Philip Evans, SJ (then Venerable) on July 22, page 237. Please note that Evans and Lloyd were executed together on July 22, 1679 in Pwllhalog, near Cardiff in Wales at a site known as the "Death Junction", in the throes of the so-called "Popish Plot" and they are two of the six Martyrs of "and Wales" in the title.

We must remember that the Causes of the English and Welsh Catholic martyrs of the Reformation and Recusant eras did not start until after the Restoration of the Hierarchy in 1850. After that process Pope Leo XIII beatified 54 in 1886 and nine more in 1895. Pope Pius XI beatified 136 more in 1929 and canonized Fisher and More on May 19, 1935. Then, after World War II, the Cause began again and these 40 were canonized. Pope St. John Paul II beatified 85 more in 1987.

There are many, many resources on-line (not to mention my blog!) and in print describing the processes of beatification and canonization of the English and Welsh martyrs. Here's one about the Forty Martyrs focused on Lancashire. Here's another from the Archdiocese of Southwark.

But for Monday's discussion, I'd like to focus on Pope Paul VI's comments about the martyrs he declared saints on October 25, 1970. The Vatican website does not translate all of his homily into English, just the introductory and closing sections; a Jesuit website (ten of those canonized that day were Jesuits) provides another portion.

In the English sections of his homily, Pope Paul VI welcomed not only the English Catholic hierarchy in attendance at the Mass but the Anglican dignitaries present--assuring the latter that the canonization of these martyrs was not meant to be a point of division between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, which had just begun ecumenical talks:

We extend Our greeting first of all to Our venerable brother Cardinal John Carmel Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster, who is present here today. Together with him We greet Our brother bishops of England and Wales and of all the other countries, those who have come here for this great ceremony. . . . Thanks to them we are celebrating Christ’s glory made manifest in the holy Martyrs, whom We have just canonized, with such keen and brotherly feelings that We are able to experience in a very special spiritual way the mystery of the oneness and love of the Church. We offer you our greetings, brothers, sons and daughters; We thank you and We bless you.

While We are particularly pleased to note the presence of the official representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Reverend Doctor Harry Smythe, We also extend Our respectful and affectionate greeting to all the members of the Anglican Church who have likewise come to take part in this ceremony. We indeed feel very close to them. We would like them to read in Our heart the humility, the gratitude and the hope with which We welcome them.

And he closed his comments with words of hope about the day when "the unity of the faith and of Christian life is restored": "Perhaps We shall have to go on, waiting and watching in prayer, in order to deserve that blessed day. But already We are strengthened in this hope by the heavenly friendship of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales who are canonized today. Amen."

Obviously we are still waiting and watching for that day, for various reasons.

About the martyrs themselves, he offered this praise:

. . . it is perfectly clear that they are worthy to stand alongside the greatest martyrs of the past; and this is not merely because of their fearless faith and marvellous constancy, but by reason of their humility, simplicity and serenity, and above all the spiritual joy and that wonderously radiant love with which they accepted their condemnation and death. 

The high tragedy in the lives of these martyrs was that their honest and genuine loyalty came into conflict with their fidelity to God and the dictates of their conscience illumined by the Catholic faith. 

Faced with the choice of remaining steadfast in their faith and of dying for it, or of saving their lives by denying that faith, without a moment’s hesitation and with a truly supernatural strength they stood for God and joyfully confronted martyrdom. 

The 40 Martyrs of England and Wales canonized 53 years ago are: Alban Roe, Alexander Bryant, Ambrose Barlow, Anne Line, Augustine Webster, Cuthbert Mayne, David Lewis, Edmund Arrowsmith, Edmund Campion, Edmund Gennings, Henry Morse, Henry Walpole, John Almond, John Boste, John Houghton, John Jones, John Kemble, John Lloyd, John Payne, John Plessington, John Rigby, John Roberts, John Stone, John Southworth, John Wall, Luke Kirby, Margaret Clitherow, Margaret Ward, Nicholas Owen, Philip Evans, Philip Howard, Polydore Plasden, Ralph Sherwin, Richard Gwyn, Richard Reynolds, Robert Lawrence, Robert Southwell, Swithun Wells, and Thomas Garnet.

In England, their feast is celebrated on May 4, the date of the first martyrs at Tyburn. In Wales, their feast is celebrated on October 25, highlighting the Six Welsh Martyrs.

Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, pray for us!

Updates/Clarification on the Coronation Oath Issues, Etc

When I talked to Anna Mitchell on the Son Rise Morning Show Thursday, May 4th, she had just read the news at the bottom of the hour (6:30 a.m. my time) that Vincent Nichols, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster would be the first Catholic prelate to be present at a Coronation since the English Reformation to offer this benediction: “May God pour upon you the riches of his grace, keep you in his holy fear, prepare you for a happy eternity, and receive you at the last into his immortal glory.” (Note that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales also issued a special prayer card for the occasion, urging Catholics to pray for the new King and Queen.)

So we had a brief discussion about who had been the last Catholic bishop at a Coronation and she was a little surprised to hear that the last Catholic Coronation had been that of Queen Elizabeth I. Owen Oglethorpe, the Bishop of Carlisle, presided over her Coronation on January 15, 1559 and celebrated the Catholic Mass too, of course.

Elizabeth I did not have many choices: her Reformation Parliament had not met yet; Reginald Cardinal Pole, the Archbishop of Canterbury had died the same day as Mary I, and other prelates either refused or were not to her liking. As Oglethorpe's entry in the Dictionary of National Biography explains:

He showed some firmness when called upon to say mass before the queen in the first days of her reign. Elizabeth forbade him to elevate the Host, which, according to a Roman authority, he insisted on doing (Strype, Annals, vol. i. pt. i. p. 73). The coronation soon followed. In the vacancy of the see of Canterbury, it naturally fell to the Archbishop of York to perform the ceremony; but Heath, alarmed by ominous presages of a change in religion, refused to officiate. Tunstall of Durham was too old, and perhaps shared in Heath's objection. It devolved, therefore, on Oglethorpe, as his suffragan, to take his metropolitan's place, and on 16 Jan. 1559, the other diocesan bishops attending, with the exception of Bonner, who, however, lent him his robes for the function, he placed the crown on the head of Elizabeth, but it is asserted that he never forgave himself for an act the momentous consequences of which he hardly foresaw, and remorse for his unfaithfulness to the church is said to have hastened his end. The same month he attended Elizabeth's first parliament, when he expressed his dissent from the bills for restoring the first-fruits and tenths to the crown, and the royal supremacy, the iniquitous forced exchange of bishops' lands for impropriate tithes, and other measures (Strype, Annals, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 82-7). He was also present at the opening of the disputation on religion at Westminster in March 1559, and was one of those who were fined for declining to enter on the dispute when they saw which way things were tending. The fine imposed on him amounted to 250l., and he had to give recognisances for good behaviour (ib. pp. 129, 137-9). On 15 May, together with Archbishop Heath and the other bishops who adhered to the old faith, he was summoned before the queen, and, on their unanimous refusal to take the oath of supremacy, they were all deprived (ib. pp. 206, 210). He only survived his deprivation a few months. He died suddenly of apoplexy on the last day of that year.

That same entry by Edmund Venables explains that this was a change in character for Oglethorpe, for with the accession of young King Edward VI, "His conduct shows him to have being a man of no strength of character, with little love for the series of religious changes through which the clergy were being hustled, but reluctantly accepting them rather than forego the dignity and emoluments of office."

More detail about Elizabeth I's coronation here from a 1953 article by A.L. Rowse.

Also, just before we went on the air, I added the detail (via a Facebook message) that the Oath Charles III is taking today is a drastic revision of the the Oath as written after the Glorious Revolution. That oath contained several anti-Catholic statements. King Edward VII, Queen Victoria's son, had not wanted to profess those promises, but could not get the changes made; his son George V (Charles' great-grandfather) refused to open the next Parliament unless the oath was revised as it is now and was for King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II. The Coronation Oath before 1910 was this:

"I, A. B., by the grace of God King (or Queen) of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any such dispensation from any person or authority or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning."

Since the Glorious Revolution had overthrown the last Catholic King of England, James II and he was in France and his sons and grandsons would remain Pretenders to the throne, such an Anti-Catholic Oath was thought necessary.

See page 19 of the May issue of The Portal, the magazine of the Anglican Ordinariate in England for more background!

Preview: The Coronation Oaths and the King's Prayer, Etc.

Tomorrow morning, I'll be on the Son Rise Morning Show at my usual time, a little after 6:45 a.m. Central/7:45 a.m. Eastern to talk about the upcoming Coronation of King Charles III on Saturday, May 6th. Specifically, Anna Mitchell or Matt Swaim and I will discuss the promises King Charles will make regarding religion in the Coronation Oath. 

How appropriate to discuss this on the Feast of the Catholic Martyrs of England and Wales!! This is why I love to study the history of the Catholic Church in England because that Coronation Oath is a symbol of the lasting effects of the English Reformation, no matter how much the practice of the Christian faith has changed in England during the past few centuries. The purpose of our conversation is just to highlight how the establishment of an official state religion affects the celebration of a national event such as a Coronation. 

The person in charge of coordinating this event (as he was for the Queen's funeral last year) is the Earl Marshal of England, the 18th Duke of Norfolk, Edward Fitzalan-Howard, who just happens to be the most senior lay member of the Catholic church, and the most senior peer in the land. The Howard family claims two of the martyrs being celebrated on May 4: Saint Philip Howard and Blessed William Howard.

Please listen live here or find the podcast later that day here.

You might remember that many years ago, Charles, the Prince of Wales, spoke about being called the "Defender of Faith" in general, instead of  the "Defender of The (Protestant) Faith." This article cites that 1994 comment and discusses other aspects of the Coronation ceremony touching on the matter of the diversity of religions practiced in England and the Commonwealth in contrast to the very Anglican Christian ceremonies that comprise the anointing and coronation of the monarch in England--including Holy Communion, according to the Common Worship of the Church of England (not the Book of Common Prayer).

You might remember also that the Kings and Queens Regnant of England have been called the "Defender of the Faith" because Henry VIII was granted that title by Pope Leo X. The British Library's Medieval Manuscripts blog reminds us why he received that title:

Henry was given the title Defender of the Faith in recognition for his Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defence of the Seven Sacraments). Possibly written in consultation with Thomas More (b. 1478, d. 1535) and Cardinal Wolsey (b. c. 1473, d. 1530), Henry’s principal statesmen at this point in his reign, this theological treatise acted as a response to the pronouncements of the German theologian Martin Luther (b. 1483, d. 1546), whose ideas helped to shape the Protestant Reformation movement during the 16th century. . . .

After his excommunication, of course, Henry was stripped of that title by the Pope. But as the British Library's Medieval Manuscripts blog further explains (in 2020):

towards the end of Henry’s reign, in 1543, the English Parliament passed an act that restored the title for him and his successors. Since then, it has continued to be used as part of the styling of British monarchs (including the reigning Elizabeth II) to indicate their role as Head of the Church of England. It even features on coins of the realm, with the Latin Fidei defensor appearing in its abbreviated form F.D beside the Queen’s portrait.

New Charles III coins are in circulation of course, with the F.D. beside the King's portrait.

Dr. Francis Young has posted this comparison of the Coronation Rituals of 1953 and 2023 on his blog including some commentary. Here are some pertinent portions:

THE OATH:

Archbishop of Canterbury: Your Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries* and is enshrined in law. Are you willing to take the Oath? 

COMMENTARY: These words spoken by the Archbishop before asking the King if he is willing to take the oath are new: ‘Your Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law.’ The new words would seem calculated to explain that the Coronation Oath need not compromise the King’s commitment to a multifaith society, as well as explaining why the King is still required to take the oath – because it is legally required. The words of the oath to govern his realms and dominions according to their respective laws and customs is unchanged from 1953, apart from the omission of those Commonwealth realms over which the King no longer reigns as monarch. The words of the King’s ecclesiastical oath remain entirely unchanged.

Archbishop of Canterbury: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

The King: All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised I will perform and keep. So help me God.

Archbishop of Canterbury: Your Majesty, are you willing to make, subscribe and declare to the statutory Accession Declaration Oath?

The King: I am willing. The King: I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.

COMMENTARY: There was no Accession Oath in 1953 because Elizabeth II took the oath at the State Opening of Parliament on 4 November 1952, before her Coronation; because there has been no State Opening of Parliament since the King’s accession, it is necessary for him to take the Accession Oath at his Coronation.

THE KING'S PRAYER:

The King: God of compassion and mercy whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and conviction, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace. through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

COMMENTARY: The King’s Prayer is entirely an innovation in 2023 and represents a significant departure from previous practice, since it seems calculated to allow the King to express his personal spiritual convictions.

Please see the rest there. Young also comments on the uses of languages spoken on the British Isles as the Veni, Creator Spiritus/Come, Creator Spirit will be recited in English, Welsh, Irish Gaelic, and Scots Gaelic. The Gloria will be sung in Latin in one of William Byrd's settings (not sure if it's from the Mass for Three Voices, or for Four Voices, or for Five Voices!). 

Six new liturgical anthems and what we Catholics call parts of the Mass (the Kyrie, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei) have been specially commissioned, but "Zadok the Priest" in Handel's setting and Walton's "Te Deum" will be included, along with some other familiar Anglican hymns.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed will NOT be sung as it was in 1953. Is this another way for King Charles III to acknowledge religious diversity in Great Britain?

The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and other Christian leaders will offer benedictions. 

The BBC News website has provided a guide to the events of the day and the Church of England has also published a guide to the liturgy. I presume it will be broadcast here in the USA starting quite early in the morning.

I'll be getting ready to attend First Saturday Mass and devotions, so I doubt I'll see much of it! May God bless them all as He sees fit!

Holy Catholic Martyrs of England and Wales, pray for us!

*UPDATE: The Oath that King Charles III will swear on Saturday has not really "stood for centuries": this form of the Oath dates from 1910 and the Coronation of his great-grandfather King George V, who wanted (like his own father King Edward VII had) the anti-Catholic language taken out of the Oath as it was written after the Glorious Revolution of 1688:

"I, A. B., by the grace of God King (or Queen) of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any such dispensation from any person or authority or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning"

See page 19 of The Portal, the magazine of the Anglican Ordinariate in England!

July 14: "National Apostasy" and John Keble

In the Church of England, today is the feast day of John Keble, Tractarian, pastor, and poet. He was born on April 25, 1792 and died on March 29, 1866--so obviously his feast is not celebrated on the date of his death. The date chosen for his memorial in the Church of England is the anniversary of his "National Apostasy" sermon, delivered in the University Church of St. Mary the Virgin in 1833. John Henry Newman always considered that date the beginning of the Oxford Movement. As this biography on the Project Canterbury website describes that event:

The text of the sermon was i Sam. xii. 23: 'As for me, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you; but I will teach you the good and the right way.' The preacher's aim was to draw public attention to the grave and pressing dangers that threatened the Church both from State interference with her liberties, and from the widespread decay of religious convictions. At such a time it was the duty of all who valued the cause of the Apostolic Church to devote themselves to its defence. 'Surely,' said the preacher, 'it will be no unworthy principle if any man is more circumspect in his behaviour, more watchful and fearful of himself, more earnest in his petitions for spiritual aid, from a dread of disparaging the holy name of the English Church in her hour of peril, by his own personal fault and negligence. . . . There may be, as far as he knows, but a very few to sympathize with him. He may have to wait long, and very likely pass out of this world, before he see any abatement in the triumph of disorder and irreligion. But if he be consistent, he possesses to the utmost the personal consolations of a good Christian; and as a true Churchman, he has the encouragement which no other cause in the world can impart in the same degree; he is calmly, soberly, demonstrably sure that, sooner or later, his will be the winning side, and that the victory will be complete, universal, eternal.'

The sermon was published on July 22, under the title National Apostasy. It does not seem to have excited much attention at the time. One of the two judges before whom it was preached is said to have remarked that it was 'an appropriate discourse.' Dr. Pusey, we are told, considered 'some passages rather too pointed.' But there were others who had a truer realization of its significance. To Newman's judgment, already quoted, may be added the words of Dr. J. B. Mozley, one of the ablest of the Tractarians, and one of the deepest thinkers of his time: 'I cannot help thinking it a kind of exordium of a great revolution--shall I call it?--coming on, whether rapidly or slowly we cannot tell, but at any rate most surely.'

Mozley's comment about "a great revolution" matches one of the other great historical events we remember this day: the Storming of the Bastille in 1789, usually identified as the beginning of the French Revolution--Bastille Day.

In Chapter 1 of the Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Newman remembers his high regard for Keble:

The true and primary author of it, however, as is usual with great motive-powers, was out of sight. Having carried off as a mere boy the highest honours of the University, he had turned from the admiration which haunted his steps, and sought for a better and holier satisfaction in pastoral work in the country. Need I say that I am speaking of John Keble? The first time that I was in a room with him was on occasion of my election to a fellowship at Oriel, when I was sent for into the Tower, to shake hands with the Provost and Fellows. How is that hour fixed in my memory after the changes of forty-two years, forty-two this very day on which I write! I have lately had a letter in my hands, which I sent at the time to my great friend, John William Bowden, with whom I passed almost exclusively my Under-graduate years. "I had to hasten to the Tower," I say to him, "to receive the congratulations of all the Fellows. I bore it till Keble took my hand, and then felt so abashed and unworthy of the honour done me, that I seemed desirous of quite sinking into the ground." His had been the first name which I had heard spoken of, with reverence rather than admiration, when I came up to Oxford. When one day I was walking in High Street with my dear earliest friend just mentioned, with what eagerness did he cry out, "There's Keble!" and with what awe did I look at him! Then at another time I heard a Master of Arts of my college give an account how he had just then had occasion to introduce himself on some business to Keble, and how gentle, courteous, and unaffected Keble had been, so as almost to put him out of countenance. Then too it was reported, truly or falsely, how a rising man of brilliant reputation, the present Dean of St. Paul's, Dr. Milman, admired and loved him, adding, that somehow he was strangely unlike any one else. However, at the time when I was elected Fellow of Oriel he was not in residence, and he was shy of me for years in consequence of the marks which I bore upon me of the evangelical and liberal schools. At least so I have ever thought. Hurrell Froude brought us together about 1828: it is one of the sayings preserved in his Remains,—"Do you know the story of the murderer who had done one good thing in his life? Well; if I was ever asked what good deed I had ever done, I should say that I had brought Keble and Newman to understand each other."

Newman continued to hold Keble in high regard, even after his conversion: In Newman and His Contemporaries, Edward Short quotes a letter Newman wrote to his sister Jemima as he considered becoming an Oratorian that he thought St. Philip Neri and John Keble very similar. The saint and his erstwhile friend shared the same "extreme hatred of humbug, playfulness [Keble and Neri were playful], nay, oddity, tender love for others, and severity" (p. 65). Keble could have become the kind of saint that Neri was, Newman thought. Based on his love and admiration to Neri that is high praise indeed.

After Newman left the Oxford Movement, Oxford, and the Church of England and became a Catholic on October 9, 1845, Newman and Keble did not see each other for years. As this EWTN document notes:

Newman called to see Keble in his vicarage at Hursely on September 12, 1865. They did not recognize each other. "How mysterious that first sight of friends is! For when I came to contemplate him, it was the old face and manner, but the first effect and impression was different."1 Newman was taken aback to discover that Pusey was also paying a visit. "As we three sat together at one table, I had as painful thoughts as ever I recollect, though it was pain, not acute, but heavy. There were three old men, who had worked vigorously in their prime."

Until Keble died, Newman hoped that he would join him in the "one true fold of Christ", the Catholic Church. Newman believed that Keble had many tendencies toward the Catholic Church: his piety, devotion to Mary and the saints, his liturgical and Sacramental emphasis, his desire for apostolic authority--but Keble remained in the Church of England, to Newman's pain and sorrow.

Image Credit (Public Domain): Portrait of John Keble

Patrick Bronte, RIP--and Catholic Emancipation

Outliving his wife by 40 years and his last surviving child, Charlotte, by six, Patrick Bronte died on June 7, 1861. He is often described, based on Elizabeth Gaskall's biography of Charlotte, as the tyrant of the Haworth Parsonage household. A modern biography of Patrick Bronte, published in 2008, uses his letters and other writings to present a more balanced view:

Patrick Brontë (1777–1861) was the father of the famous Brontë sisters, Anne, Charlotte, and Emily, three of Victorian England's greatest novelists, but he was a fascinating man in his own right and not nearly such an unsympathetic character as Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Brontë would have us believe. Born into poverty in Ireland, he won a scholarship to St. John's College, Cambridge, and was ordained into the Church of England. He was perpetual curate of Haworth in Yorkshire for 41 years, bringing up four children, founding a school, and campaigning for a proper water supply. Although often portrayed as a somewhat fobidding figure, he was an opponent of capital punishment and the Poor Law Amendment Act, a supporter of limited Catholic emancipation, and a writer of poetry. This is the first serious biography of Patrick Brontë for more than 40 years.

It was of course that line, "a supporter of limited Catholic emancipation" that caught my attention. Bronte lived to see Catholics emancipated in England and the Catholic hierarchy restored. As these passages in the book by Dudley Green demonstrate (based upon letters written in 1828 to The Leeds Intelligencer), Bronte did not believe that there was any reason to discriminate against Catholics anymore, even though he thoroughly disagreed with Catholic teaching and discipline and feared its supposed tyranny. He also wanted to be assured that Britain would remain a Protestant nation and that the Church of England would be protected and honored as the State Church.

The Queen's Chaplain Resigns

On Epiphany, a verse from the Koran was read in the Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow, as Christianity Today explains:

The congregation at St Mary's cathedral heard the Muslim version of the Virgin Mary's conception of Jesus, from the Koran's Sura 19, sung by Madinah Javed. The passage explains how Mary gave birth after an angel told her God would give her a child.

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, and that He was a precursor to Mohammed rather than the Son of God.

Sura 19 states that Mary was "ashamed" after she gave birth, and that the infant Jesus miraculously spoke to her from his crib and claimed he was "a servant of God".

It denies Jesus was the Son of God.

One of Queen Elizabeth II's chaplains, The Reverend Gavin Ashenden, said that he thought that was terribly out of place at a service on Epiphany, the manifestation of the Savior and Son of God to the Gentiles. Denying the Incarnation of Jesus is a great betrayal of the Christian faith and I agree with Ashenden that it has no place in a Christian church.

He has since resigned, not wanting to draw Her Majesty into a controversy. He describes his situation in this interview:

The C of E is a rich mixture of the spiritual and the political. If you make political enemies, or your face does not fit, or you fail to adopt increasingly secular values, options that might have otherwise been open are closed down. One senior bishop invited me to tea in the House of Lords to tell me that I was finished in the C of E as an organisation because what he described as my ‘critics’ were too determined.

His final comment is this:

Demographically and financially it [the Church of England] is dying. Spiritually it appears to be on its last legs too. I’m not sure I see much point in a church that just wants to be accepted as a sort of not too irritating chaplain to a secular and hedonistic culture, which is what it seems to be becoming. I want to remain a faithful Anglican, but increasingly it looks like that is only possible outside the C of E. It has opted for a kind of spiritualised socialism and feminism in opposition to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. You get new life when you repent. But there is no sign that it is ready to take that path.

God bless him!

Be Kind to Animals: Happy Birthday to Anna Sewell

I've mentioned how much I loved to read when growing up on this blog before. The author of one of my favorite childhood books was born today in 1820, Anna Sewell:

Anna Sewell is born in Norfolk, England. The daughter of a successful children’s book writer, she helped edit her mother’s manuscripts from an early age but was not published herself until she was 57. Black Beauty, the first significant children’s story in the English language to focus on animal characters, established the precedent for countless other works.

Appalled by the cruel treatment of horses by some masters during her day, Sewell wrote the book “to induce kindness, sympathy, and an understanding treatment of horses.” The story, narrated by the horse, showed Black Beauty’s progression through a series of increasingly cruel owners until the exhausted, ill-treated animal collapses. In the end, the horse is saved by a kind owner.

Sewell wrote the book during the last seven years of her life, when she became an invalid confined to her home. The book was published shortly before her death in 1878 and became one of the best-loved children’s classics of all time. The book was made into a movie three times, in 1946, 1971, and 1994.

My husband and I could not stand to watch the 1994 movie; it's one thing to read about the cruelty, another to see it portrayed so realistically on film. Sewell's family was Quaker but then joined the Church of England in 1835. Did the participation of Anglican William Wilberforce in the efforts to pass the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833 influence this change in religious affiliation, I wonder? or his co-founding of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824?

Another favorite book from my childhood, related to Black Beauty, was Beautiful Joe, written by (Margaret) Marshall Saunders, about a family that cares for and protects abused and abandoned animals. Both of these novels have a moral message but are still good stories, even if the device of the horse or the dog narrating his story requires tremendous suspension of disbelief. 

Downton Abbey: No God Allowed

Except for anti-Catholicism, Downton Abbey has steadfastly ignored the theme of religion throughout its run. The chapel has shown up when weddings were celebrated, but otherwise the vicar has had little to do.

This article explains why: we can't have historical accuracy when atheists might be offended!

The trials and tribulations of the Crawley family have enthralled Downton Abbey viewers for six series. But some have questioned why Christianity, which would have formed a central part of the lives of the aristocracy in the early 20th century, is largely absent from the show.

Now the man tasked with ensuring the historical accuracy of the series has revealed why Downton does not do God. Alastair Bruce, who serves as the show’s historical advisor, said that executives in charge of the series had ordered producers to “leave religion out of it”, for fear of alienating an increasingly atheistic public.

Eagle-eyed viewers may have noticed that the Crawley family is never shown in the process of sitting down to dinner, with the action instead shown from part-way through the meal. This, Mr Bruce said, was to avoid having to show the characters saying grace.

He added: “In essence you hardly ever see a table that isn’t already sat at. We never see the beginning of a luncheon or a dinner, because no one was ever allowed to see a grace being said, and I would never allow them to sit down without having said grace.

“I think that the view was that we’d leave religion out of it, and it would’ve taken extra time too. I suggested a Latin grace, but they decided that was too far, and no one would’ve known what was going on.”

Here's where it gets silly:

Mr Bruce said that he was even banned from featuring napkins folded in the shape of a bishop’s mitre, for fear of breaching the religious edict. “Everyone panics when you try to do anything religious on the telly,” he said. “I still wish we could’ve got some decent napkin folds, but I was always left with my triangle.”

I liked the show when it was set in World War I; there was briefly some real historical impact to the family's response to the crisis that decimated English youth. Otherwise to me it has become a period costume soap opera. Perhaps the producers should have trusted their audience more: surely atheists are a little more broad-minded than that!

Remembrance Sunday and the Fallen

World War I revived prayer for the dead among Anglicans: the Prayer Book of 1928 included prayers for the dead in funeral services and a liturgy for All Souls Day on November 2. This is the current Collect:

Eternal God, our maker and redeemer,
grant us, with all the faithful departed,
the sure benefits of your Son’s saving passion
and glorious resurrection
that, in the last day,
when you gather up all things in Christ,
we may with them enjoy the fullness of your promises;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

Alan Wilkinson notes in his 1978 book on how the Church of England responded to WWI that Cosmo Lang--a former Fellow of All Souls College in Oxford--preached about a new view of prayer for the dead as early as 1914. While he cited the abuses of Tetzel and the "chantry system", he noted that it is natural to pray for those who have died. When so many young men, sons, brothers, fiances, and relatives were dying for their country, it is hard not to pray for them to rest in heaven. As Wilkinson sums it up, "bereavement was sweeping away the latent Protestantism of the English people in this matter"--among Anglo-Catholics, Requiem Masses were celebrated. 

The Church of England certainly did not restore the doctrine of Purgatory, a place of purgation from the attachment to sin and purification before entering eternal paradise, but prayer for the dead almost requires that there is some chance for final preparation after death. The saints in Heaven do not need our prayers; the damned in Hell cannot benefit from them.

The situation of each dead soldier's preparation for death by a holy life, balanced by his sacrifice for his country, raised many questions--would he go to heaven for dying for his country in spite of a sinful life? Did his sacrifice in war atone for personal sins? Wilkinson says that many felt uncomfortable with this "quasi-Islamic belief"--so people prayed for their beloved dead.

The Past and the Future of Christianity in England

Damian Thompson uses some demographic trends to predict or project a sad future for Christianity in England:

It’s often said that Britain’s church congregations are shrinking, but that doesn’t come close to expressing the scale of the disaster now facing Christianity in this country. Every ten years the census spells out the situation in detail: between 2001 and 2011 the number of Christians born in Britain fell by 5.3 million — about 10,000 a week. If that rate of decline continues, the mission of St Augustine to the English, together with that of the Irish saints to the Scots, will come to an end in 2067.

That is the year in which the Christians who have inherited the faith of their British ancestors will become statistically invisible. Parish churches everywhere will have been adapted for secular use, demolished or abandoned.

Our cathedral buildings will survive, but they won’t be true cathedrals because they will have no bishops. The Church of England is declining faster than other denominations; if it carries on shrinking at the rate suggested by the latest British Social Attitudes survey, Anglicanism will disappear from Britain in 2033. One day the last native-born Christian will die and that will be that.

Thompson goes on:

But the point stands: Christianity is dying out among the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain. The Gospel that Augustine and his 30 monks brought to England when they landed at Ebbsfleet in ad 597 is now being decisively rejected.

Saint Paul tells us that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek; the Almighty is not interested in ‘heritage’, the new name for ethnicity. But since Britons with Anglo–Saxon and Celtic ancestors make up 90 per cent of British Christians, that rejection represents a devastating loss of faith.

It has all happened so quickly. Anglicans in particular are abandoning their faith at a rate that (in more ways that one) defies belief. According to the British Social Attitudes surveys, their numbers fell from 40 per cent of the population in 1983 to 29 per cent in 2004 and 17 per cent last year.

He has warnings for the Catholic Church in England too, which cannot rely on immigration to fill its pews. Read the rest of his article here. He concludes:

As a Catholic, I believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church founded by Peter. There will always be someone to take the place of ‘the last Christian’. But not necessarily in Britain, where the death rattle has begun.

Not necessarily in the United States of America either. 

To juxtapose the perhaps dark future for Christianity in England to its bright and glowing past, go see these pictures of stained glass from Canterbury Cathedral, the former Catholic church appropriated by Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell. More on the exhibition at the Cathedral's website.

Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us!

Alternative History: If Thomas Cranmer Had Survived

Diarmaid MacCulloch speculated on what might have happened if Thomas Cranmer hadn't been executed during the reign of Mary I (because Mary I never reigned) in this 1996 article from History Today magazine:

What would the Church of England have looked like if instead of Queen Mary's triumph in 1553, Queen Jane's quite reasonable hereditary claim to the throne had succeeded in establishing her regime? The Lady Mary would have to have been effectively neutralised, and one fears that neutralising her for good would have involved the block, in a return to Henrician savagery. The Lady Elizabeth could have been married off to Lord Robert Dudley, a good catch for a royal bastard, and a good chance for them both of a happy love-match.

Archbishop Cranmer, living to his allotted three-score years and ten or beyond, could produce a third version of his two earlier Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552, in the light of friendly criticism from continental reformers whom he respected, like Peter Martyr, Johann Heinrich Bullinger and Calvin. He would be succeeded as archbishop by Nicholas Ridley or Robert Holgate, with energetic younger. reformers like Edmund Grindal ready to make their mark and pick up good ideas from the best reformed churches of Europe. The Scots immigrant John Knox, mellowed by an increasingly successful career in the Church of England, would be appointed Bishop of Newcastle, benevolently taking no notice of the advanced congregations in his diocese who received communion sitting; this was a practice in any case increasingly common throughout Jane's Church, despite Cranmer's grumbles. Cranmer's cherished reform of the old popish canon law would be achieved; the primer and catechism published at the very end of Edward's reign in 1553 would become the standards; the Forty-two Articles would have been unmodified by Elizabethan hesitations about relegating the significance of the sacrament of Holy Communion to that merely of a symbolic repetition.

Out in the parishes, metrical psalms in the style of Geneva would quickly have spread: these were the best secret weapon of the English Reformation, making its public worship and private devotional practice genuinely popular throughout increasing areas of the kingdom. This congregational music would also take over in the cathedrals, now devoid of choirs or polyphony, and with their organs (where they survived) used mainly for entertainment in the Dutch fashion. The conservative nobility would continue the sullen public compliance with religious change which they had shown under Edward VI, their private celebration of ceremonial worship tolerated as eccentricity, like the Lady Elizabeth's patronage of choral music in her own chapel.

The traditionalist higher clergy would gradually die off in senior church offices and the universities, with no possibility of like-minded replacement: since the universities produced no major haemorrhage of exiles in the 1560s, the Jesuits and other religious orders would find it difficult to recruit potential clergy to train for their attempt to treat Jane's England as a mission field. England would have become the most powerful political player in the Reformed camp, with Cranmer a cordial if geographically distant partner with John Calvin. It is powerfully symbolic that it was Cranmer's son-in-law Thomas Norton who translated Calvin's Institutes into English, and Cranmer's veteran printer Reyner Wolfe who published it. With a Cranmer-Calvin axis, the profile of Reformed religion across the whole Continent would have been changed, and with the help and encouragement of Bishop Knox, the Reformation in Scotland might have followed a close path to the Reformed Church of England.

Then MacCulloch acknowledges what happened instead when Elizabeth I came to the throne after Mary I's death and created a compromise Church of England that in some ways thwarted Cranmer's reforms, especially in its "long march away from Cranmer's eucharistic theology". MacCulloch traces the ambiguous legacy of Thomas Cranmer through the Stuarts to the Tractarians concluding:

In an ecumenical age, which honours honest doubt and hesitancy as a lesser evil than clear-eyed ideological certainty, Cranmer may win admirers and sympathisers and take his due place in Anglican history. He would not have known what Anglicanism meant, and would probably not have approved if the meaning had been explained to him, but without his contribution, the unending dialogue of Protestantism and Catholicism which forms Anglican identity would not have been possible. Beyond the concerns of Christianity, for all those who criticise his politics, or find his theology alien, Cranmer's language remains as the most enduring monument to Henry Vlll's and Edward VI's most faithful servant. Twentieth-century scholarship has reminded us just how fundamental is the structure of language to the way in which we construct our lives and our culture. Cranmer's language lies at the heart of our own English-speaking culture, which has now become so central to the destiny of the world.

Read the rest there.