Part Three: Blogging the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England

Part Three

We continue to discuss the antecedents to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England as discussed previously and in antecedents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. If we take the generational perspective of the 2nd commandment, we can see that generational sins were visited by divine judgment on “our” Church. New leaders arose, under the divine blessing, to cleanse her and restore Christ and His Sovereign Word above and to His Bride. It still is “our” Church as the True Catholic and Reformed Church.[1]

We were discussing the Council of Pisa, convoked 25 March 1409 on account of the Papal schism, one Pope operating in Rome and the other in Avignon, France, replete with their own dueling appointments to cardinal-ships and bishoprics with their competing claims to apostolic succession. This creates an insurmountable problem for Romanists with their claim to offer, solitarily, apostolic succession to whom they appoint by tactile contact; that’s an internal issue to them we need not worry about since apostolic succession is measured against the sovereign standard of the apostolic record and message. Does Rome just make it up as she goes while claiming semper eadem?

However, in the disastrous conflict of our church, twenty-two cardinals who called it “pledged themselves that whoever was elected Pope, the council should not be dissolved until it had commended a purification of the Church, `both heads and numbers.[2] Their choice fell unanimously upon Peter of Candia (Alexander V) and one of the first promises which he made after his election betoken the willingness of the pontiff `to forward the work of the Reformation.’”[3]

However, Hardwick tells us that other issues arose between the sessions, and it judged wise to postpone discussion of abuses until a convocation of a future synod.

A reformation of “heads and numbers” is the language of Reform.

We turn our attention from the Council of Pisa to another opportunity for Reformation at the Council of Constance of date 5 November 1414, five years after the former. One of the purposes of this council was “the Reformation of the Church.”[4] The issues were the healing of the factions, the re-establishment of the Papacy and its ancient role and honours, and the extirpation of heretics. We bring some observations about this Council of Constance, meeting variously from 5 November 1414 to 22 April 1418. Forty-five sessions were held for three reasons: end the Papal schism, reform Church government and life, and repress heresies (e.g. Huss, Wycliffe).[5]

It is not an overstatement to say that chaos, machinations, resolutions, broken promises, excommunications, canonical changes and unedifying factions characterized this period, as previously asserted.

Some observations.

First, we call attention to Von der Hartdt referred to above who collected all the sermons given during the years 1414-1418. One such man was an Oxford man, Hottric Abendon, who preached his sermon on 28 October 1415. Hardwick tells us that even a “most cursory perusal of these sermons will demonstrate the general corruption of the Church, and also the very ardent desire which was then manifested in all quarters for an immediate and effectual remedy.”[6]

Second, Gerson, the Chancellor of the University of Paris, produced a list of Roman abuses needing correction, including the Curia. Hardwick asserts that Gerson’s list concerned mostly “temporal and disciplinary matters,” but that with further consideration they would have led to deeper analyses “de Fide.”[7] There was also a fear that such a discussion would undo the then-received Catholic doctrines.

Third, remarkably and notably, during this Council of date 15 June 1415, a committee was formed under the title the “Reformation College.” This is a wonderful name. It consisted of three cardinals and deputies from every nation, together with leading divines and civilians. Unfortunately, we must wait through the generations until another Reformation would come.

Fourth, from a Romish and stoutly anti-Protestant source, this quote sums it up well.

“It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter. There reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.

“The canonical irregularities of the council seem less blameworthy when to this practical vacancy of the papal chair we add the universal disgust and weariness at the continuance of the so-called schism, despite all imaginable efforts to restore to the Church its unity of headship, the justified fear of new complications, the imminent peril of Catholic doctrine and discipline amid the temporary wreckage of the traditional authority of the Apostolic See, and the rapid growth of false teachings equally ruinous to Church and State.”[8]

This Roman description accords well with Hardwick’s and our contentions about the state of the Church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. As in the life of Christ and the apostles, Satan, hell and demons were nefariously at work.

We must pause to insert the Battle Hymn of the Reformation, Ein Feste Burg ist Unser Gott, penned by a later Reformer, Martin Luther, on the basis of Psalm 46.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgpMcwNImww

"And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

"That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever."

Yes, Satan, hell, her demons and her human pawns were at work in the Church of Christ--she'd been corrupted in doctrine and life.

Fifth, Wycliffe was condemned. His writing had been condemned in Rome (1412-1413) under John XXIII. Forty-five propositions of Wycliffe were condemned at this Council, something already declared by the Universities of Paris and Prague. A list of 260 errors was crafted. All his writings were ordered to be burned. His body was exhumed, dug up, the bones burned and the ashes cast into the Severn River—from thence, metaphorically, Wycliffe’s influence would spread to the nations in a very literal sense.[9] In 1418, Martin V in his Bull, “Inter Cunctas,” approved of the action. We wonder whether Benedict XVI continues to support a predecessor, Martin V? Don't hold your breath.

Infallible "bull"?

Sixth, Jan Hus was condemned. His errors included: the Church consists only of the elect and predestined (invisible church), the role of the Pope, the rule of Faith (sola scriptura), Communion under both kinds, the un-necessary role of auricular confession, and civil authority dependent upon Christian Churchmen, not Rome (contra Unam Sanctam, more infallible bull).

We bring Part Three to a close for now, with amplifications in our next post on Wycliffe and Huss, precursors to Martin Luther and the English Reformation.

Using one prayer from the Reformed Anglican Church, 1662 BCP, "The Third Collect, for Aid Against All Perils:"

"Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour. Amen." The war has not ended with the Reformation, unless you're at ease in Zion.

[1] Rome’s historic impenitence and impertinence disqualifies it from being called the Catholic Church. We refer readers to Bishop Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England. In the light of centuries of denial of the Biblical Gospel and unlike weak, modern Protestants in our day, we must with the Reformers call her an Anti-Christ, a counterfeit of the True Church.
[2] An interesting footnote occurs in our Hardwick text, p. 9, footnote 3, to wit, “In the fourteenth century, before the time of Hus, Mattias von Janow, confessor to the emperor Charles IV, had pressed the importance of commencing a reformation.” [emphasis added]. The footnoted source is Guerike, Kirchen-geschicte, I.774, Halle, 1843. It’s just one more piece in the puzzle of the fifteenth century which we are saying was profoundly troubled. Here we find a comment about the fourteenth century, the age of John Wycliffe.
[3] Hardwick, op.cit., 9. We regret we do not have access to two earlier sources here. First, Lenfant, Histoire du Concile de Pise, I. 290, Amsterdam 1724. The second important paper, a primary source, is a paper drawn up by a Church of England man, Richard Ulverston, as a memorial for the Bishop of Salisbury from this council. Von der Hardt, Council. Contstant, I. 1226
[4] First, Lenfant, Histoire du Concile de Constance, I, 46, 373, Amsterdam, 1727 as cited by Hardwick, op.cit., 10. Somehow we have never heard any Romanist say there were fifteenth century Reformers interested in the “Reformation of the Church.” Who was silenced when? And what was silenced? The usual line speaks of the historic unity, not divisions.
[5] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm of date 22 July 2009. John Wyclife was condemned in early 1413.
[6] Hardwick, op.cit, 10.
[7] Hardwick, op.cit, 10. Hardwick also refers to Bishop John Jewel’s note from Epistola de Concilio Tridentio (Works VIII, 86, ed. Jelf). The Bishop of Salisbury, John Jewel, states that there were seventy-five issues on the list. We do not have access to them here; it is noteworthy that a leader like Gerson penned this many criticisms of the Romish Church for Reformation. This continues to give to the Roman lie of unity, popular these days for Romish fabricators and apologists, an unpleasant odour.
[8] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm of date 22 July 2009.
[9] It must be re-asserted for this younger generation that reading the Bible by the laity has been relaxed in the last forty years. I, my father, and grandparents well remember the day of Latin Masses and the prohibition of reading the Bible. Many others will remember that also; older Roman followers remember that as well. Their response is, literally and have heard it, “Why worry? The infallible church lets us know what we need to know.”