Thanks GKC, but why? Looking through the list (btw, thanks for the link), yes, there are a few names that seems questionable to me. Rossetti? Poetry? Dix? Don’t get me wrong about Dix - I got his books on my shelf and I respect him as a scholar, but he merely studied something that was already there, not innovate or uncovered something new like the Church Doctors did.
And Luther? Let’s not forget that Henry VIII earned his title of Defender of the Faith for his treatise against Luther. If the CoE were to say Luther is now acceptable does that mean the monarch cannot be regaled with that title anymore?
But most baffling to me remains Ignatius. I understand Anglicans have a very different concept of being in communion as compared to Catholics. I can understand picking saints from other Christian churches who are not in communion with you, even if I don’t agree with it. But to pick someone who explicitly made clear that he is rejecting communion with you is inexplicable. I keep getting the image of that young man continuously proclaiming his love for the young lady who wants to have nothing to do with him. For heavens sake, the guy doesn’t like your church!! I can imagine Ignatius in heaven with his head in his hands when another petition from an Anglican comes through, wishing there is a way to turn off that dastardly notification from people he doesn’t like.
Giving the CoE the benefit of the doubt, I would really like to know the basis why they were made saints. What is the intention of having Anglican saints? What is the process and the criteria? Not knowing this, I can only provisionally conclude that it is merely for a feel good feeling and to keep everyone happy. Sorry for any CoE within earshot, it really is so CoE.
It’s more like it is really so Anglican.
I would have thought that More and Fisher would have been the names to boggle your mind the most.
I often find that I can’t explicate Anglicanism, adequately, as I have noted before, though I can often describe it. If the link doesn’t do it for you, you’re on your own. To me, the point is that these are Christian heroes/saints/martyrs, not Anglicans merely, and not even merely those who would appreciate or approve of Anglicanism, at all. Anglicanism can come to the point of admiring a Newman, even if a Newman has rejected Anglicanism. Think of it as an Honours List. Broad minded, those Anglicans.
So, leaving you mind-boggled on that issue, I can add a little something to the idea of Henry and Defensor Fidei/Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. I’ve done it often before. How came Henry’s title?
Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that, of course; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a singular title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.
In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:
“Rex Fidelis”, “Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”
When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. And it was at least partially Henry’s work. Probably). So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, (his copy bound in cloth-of-gold, hand inscribed to Leo, the 27 other copies more mundane), a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.
The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: Defensor Fidei . Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it.
So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, in her Second Act of repeal, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat. Hence, the title attached to the British Monarchy is not really the same as the one Henry bore. It’s a gift from Parliament. Just uses the same words.
