Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Robert Lyon, Aug 20, 2017.
Another filter, do you see a difference between capital c in Catholic and a small c?
I have had a response.
Yes this is a great puzzle. As far as I know it was the belief of Cranmer and others at the time of putting the first prayer books together that the word ‘holy’ had been added at a later time and so in the interests of purity they omitted it.
Here is the link to the site that he has been involved with, which many of you may find interesting. http://anglicaneucharistictheology.com/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Welcome.html
The difficulty of the proposition that Cranmer thought it was not part of the original, as I see it, is that we have no evidence of this, and the practice of the Church universal, beyond our tradition seems to suggest that the word holy in reference to the Church is indeed part of the original text of the Nicene Creed. I am not entirely sure that the argument stands up particularly well in light of the inclusion of the filioque clause which is clearly not part of the original text of the Nicene Creed, though it would have been in use in English liturgy post the Norman conquest.
Thanks for that, Philip.
I really appreciate your interest in exploring this curio.
I am interested in this topic and hope that some people will have more to offer. I am off on vacation for 3 weeks - Edinburgh Oxford Dublin and not likely to get any free time to pursue it.
Enjoy over 'ome!
This may be as far fetched as a wheelbarrow of manure fro China, but bare with me. What if Cranmer did not truly support Henry
philip enjoy your tour of the British Isles
I think that we are all aware than Cranmer had more of a mind to reform than Henry VIII. They were both clearly strong willed, and so far as they could accommodate each other, they did, but they were not a doveset couple. Cranmer was the ArchBishop of Canterbury that facilitated the Kings passage through a number of marriages. The touch and go moment was following the death of Catherine of Aragon, the Pope could easily have opened the door, and history may well have been different.
Interesting thread. I just emailed Colin Buchanan who @Botolph quotes. Colin says:
I wouldn't advise treating this question as of any interest! See F.E.Brightman, The English Rite, Vol. 1, p.civ, and his reference to John Dowden, The Workmanship of the Prayer Book pp.104-105. These references show that some sources in Cranmer's time omitted 'holy' There can be absolutely no doctrinal implication whatsoever - for Cranmer had no problem in using 'holy' in the Apostles' Creed, used twice daily in Morning and Evening Prayer!
I'll sleep easy now.