Ship of Fools: How High Church is the Archdeacon

Thread: How High Church is the Archdeacon Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030505

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

I think this is an Ecclesiastics thread rather than a Heavenly one, but do move it if appropriate!

I'm in the middle of re-reading Barchester Towers - much of which is concerned with the clash between the Low Church Bishop Proudie, his ghastly wife and Chaplain Obadiah Slope on the one hand and the - supposedly - High Church Archdeacon Grantley and his colleagues on the other.

The book is set in the 1850s or perhaps a tad earlier, and I do wonder just how High Church the Archdeacon would have really appeared to the first readers, given that we're told that he has no candles on his altar - lit or unlit - doesn't cross himself, doesn't believe in the Real Presence, and doesn't apparently wear anything more clerical in church than a preaching gown or perhaps a surplice.

Trollope certainly knew his beloved Anglican church very well, and insists that the Archdeacon is no 'Puseyite' - but is he really High Church at all, even by the standards of the day?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

It is important, particularly at that time to distinguish between High Church and Anglo Catholic. In particular a man of Grantly's age would be likely to be that kind of High Church sometimes called "High and Dry".

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Trollope meant High Church in the older sense of high and dry vs low and lazy etc. There was a high emphasis on following Anglican traditions, not just in ceremonial, but in governance and adherence to authority - very Erastian. At its extreme, the high church party revered Charles I as a martyr. While ritual was emphasised, this was Anglican ritual rather than the return to pre-Reformation espoused by the ritual movement which started about the time of Trollope's writing. The early adherents to the Oxford Movement were high church in this sense, rather than in the Anglo-Catholic tradition which followed.

Current examples (I can only speak in local terms) are the traditional prayer-book evangelicals in such Sydney parishes as Pymble and Killara - solid dignified liturgy, strictly following an authorised prayer-book, but with fairly Calvinist preaching.

[ 28. September 2016, 11:26: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I think the other important aspect of the older meaning of 'High Church' was the importance placed on the Church of England and its established status itself. This would differentiate it from the Sydney evangelicals who frequently seem (at least from this distance) to regard Anglicanism as one of many equally appropriate evangelical options.

Indeed, I am not sure the old concept of 'Highness' could ever be truly applicable in a country without Establishment or something very like it.

This tendency might have been linked with certain ritual practices but this was not by any means its primary concern!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think the other important aspect of the older meaning of 'High Church' was the importance placed on the Church of England and its established status itself. This would differentiate it from the Sydney evangelicals who frequently seem (at least from this distance) to regard Anglicanism as one of many equally appropriate evangelical options. !

Sight diminishes with distance. Sydney has (except at the very beginning) always been a predominantly low church diocese. The Moore College training in the 1980's led to the strong role taken by the powerful clique, now with so much influence. This Moore College stream must be distinguished from the traditional evangelicalism to which I referred.

Of course, even in the earliest colonial days, the C of E was not an established church here, the early governors and their masters in London strongly and successfully resisting attempts in that direction by the clergy.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

By modern standards, high and dry would have appeared very low. Until the Oxford movement, no one was much interested in vestments or ornaments. It was the evangelicals who argued for relaxing the law governing how services were conducted.

The main things that were likely to have marked out a pre 1833 high churchman would probably have been,
- an outspoken disapproval of all forms of dissent, whether Protestant or Papistical.
- a disapproval of enthusiasm of any sort.
- a strong regard for apostolic succession, and therefore disapproval of collaboration with Prussian clergy in the Holy Land.
- an insistance on the enforcement of CofE burial rights, intransigence on Irish bishoprics, tithes etc.
- a greater insistence than others on the understanding that the sacraments (he would have assumed there were only two of them), and particularly baptism, take effect ex opere operato.
- not accepting versions of the Bible printed without the Apocrypha.
- if intellectual, an interest in the Fathers.
- greater diligence in marking 30th January and 29th May.
- disapproval of hymns.

I suspect, but have no evidence for this, that a high and dry churchman would have been less flexible on allowing the singing of psalms in metre in place of the said psalms in the service, rather than in addition to them and before and after the service itself. He may also have advocated the celebration of the Lord's Supper more frequently than three times a year or quarterly, but would probably have regarded over-frequent celebration or celebration on a Sunday evening as having the taint of enthusiasm.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Interesting answers, and many thanks for them - it does help to clarify the Archdeacon's probable position for me.

I'm curious about his stated disbelief in the Real Presence, though; after all, the Wesleys were High Anglicans (and High Tories as well, as the two things generally went together!) but the Real Presence was certainly part of their faith, and is specifically referred to in Charles' hymns, though modern Methodist hymn-books seem rather to play it down.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't think Trollope is a good guide to theological issues.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Real presence is a rather imprecise term. People use it with different underlying meanings. The linked article explores some of the complexity, and explains why Methodists might use the term, and language and imagery associated with it, without meaning the same as a contemporary High Anglican or Roman Catholic might.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

The 1662 clearly teaches belief in the Real Presence. What it's cagey about is whether that Presence inheres in the elements or not.

I would tend to think that this ambiguity is on purpose.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Yes. I'm sure you're right. It's fairly blunt about transubstantiation and about memorialism, but vague about the rest.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

That's of a piece with the Anglican position in general--comprehend as much of Protestantism as possible while excluding hyper-Reformed and Catholic positions.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Real presence is a rather imprecise term. People use it with different underlying meanings. The linked article explores some of the complexity, and explains why Methodists might use the term, and language and imagery associated with it, without meaning the same as a contemporary High Anglican or Roman Catholic might.

Possibly not, but he was certainly a good guide to contemporary Anglican attitudes; and he surely loved 'whatever is of good repute' about the Church.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I forgot to mention one other aspect of being high church in the C18, though not as late as 1833. That is a progressively more wistful sympathy with Jacobitism. It was de facto dead from 1788 when the notional claim passed to a Cardinal, but it was fading long before that.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Just to add I have seen "real presence" used to refer to John Calvin's position. Indeed many high church Anglican's espouse Calvin's doctrine today pretty accurately if this board is anything to go by.

Jengie

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

Martin Luther strongly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in tne Eucharist,however the other Reformer John Calvin,just like Uldrych Zwingli did not share this vision.
If you do believe in the Real Presence,you do not have any objection to the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament,an ancient practice and still maintained by Orthodox,Roman-Catholics and many Anglicans.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Martin Luther strongly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in tne Eucharist,however the other Reformer John Calvin,just like Uldrych Zwingli did not share this vision.
If you do believe in the Real Presence,you do not have any objection to the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament,an ancient practice and still maintained by Orthodox,Roman-Catholics and many Anglicans.

I suggest you actually read some Calvin, rather than his commentators. He did not share Zwingli's views on the Eucharist. His Eucharist is far more complex than that even in the simplified version in the Institutes. I have heard him described as the highest of the Protestant Reformers on this matter by people who had actually read him.

You problem is that you are missing a crucial bit of Reformed doctrine. Difference over how the Eucharist functioned were declared "non-essentials" in around 1548.

Of the three theological icons (Holy sacrifice, Fellowship meal, Heavenly feast) used for the Eucharist, Calvin's draws most heavily on that of the heavenly feast which distances him automatically from Zwingli. It also can be seen as predating post-modern understanding with the fine distinction he draws between sign and signified. It is a reading of this that gives an understanding of real presence. It is no more a good reading than that of Memorialism that you do but then you did that.

Jengie

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Martin Luther strongly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in tne Eucharist . . . .
If you do believe in the Real Presence,you do not have any objection to the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament . . . .

Not quite, perhaps. As you note, Luther strongly believed in the Real Presence, but also believed that the sacramental union only happened during the celebration of the Eucharist. With that understanding, reservation doesn't quite make the same sense.

And of course, there is the question of the purpose of reservation—communion of the sick and absent or adoration.

Meanwhile, what Jengie Jon said about Calvin, who did indeed assert the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (though I have some recollection that he may have preferred the term "true presence"). Calvin's understanding differed from Catholic understanding, of course, as did Luther's. But Calvin also affirmed that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is ultimately a mystery, beyond our explanation. "Now, if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it."

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is above all a Great Mystery, hardly to explain.
The Eastern-Orthodox,and the Oriental Orthodox Churches Churches have better dealt with this vision than the Western Churches whether Roman-Catholic,Reformed or Lutheran.
Anglicans and Old-Catholics are quite close to the Eastern Orthodox.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Coming back to the OP question, I think others upthread have got the 'high and dry' thing right, but thought I'd share what a CofI (and definitely Evangelical) clergyman said to me some years ago: 'The Church of Ireland is high in its ecclesiology and low in its practices'. I suspect that that would sum up Archdeacon Grantly's position too.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I forgot to mention one other aspect of being high church in the C18, though not as late as 1833. That is a progressively more wistful sympathy with Jacobitism. It was de facto dead from 1788 when the notional claim passed to a Cardinal, but it was fading long before that.

Hmm, yes, thanks for reminding us of that! This puts me in mind of another fictional character, Fielding's Squire Weston, fulminating against 'Whigs and Hanoverians'. One imagines he would be proud to be considered a 'High and Dry' churchman, despite not being depicted as even slightly religious!

[ 02. October 2016, 20:19: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I suspect Trollope was confusing Real Presence (which the Archdeacon would have accepted in some form) with transubstantiation, which he would have regarded as a fond thing vainly imagined, as the 39 Articles say.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Hmm, yes, thanks for reminding us of that! This puts me in mind of another fictional character, Fielding's Squire Weston, fulminating against 'Whigs and Hanoverians'. One imagines he would be proud to be considered a 'High and Dry' churchman, despite not being depicted as even slightly religious!

He would certainly have disapproved of Dissenters and Papists in more or less equal measure, though whether he had ever met any of either is more of an open question.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0