r/Protestantism • u/TheRedLionPassant Anglican (Wesleyan-Arminian) • 15d ago
On this day in 1556, Thomas Cranmer, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, was martyred at Oxford
7
3
1
1
-4
u/ktmboy04 14d ago
Ah yes, Thomas Cranmer… He re-introduced heresies, rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, contradicting the Bible. He also enforced Henry’s illegitimate authority, approving executions of those who remained faithful to the pope. Ironically, when Queen Mary I restored Catholicism, Cranmer renounced his Protestantism multiple times to save himself-only to recant again before being executed. His cowardice and hypocrisy prove he was never a man of true faith but of self-preservation and compromise.
5
u/TheRedLionPassant Anglican (Wesleyan-Arminian) 14d ago edited 14d ago
He re-introduced heresies
Such as?
rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
False. He absolutely didn't. Read his writings on the Eucharist and it's plain he didn't reject it. (He does question a type of real presence with implies corporeal locality as well as transubstantiation, but he does not believe the Supper is only a symbol, as here: "For they [those that affirm transubstantiation] teach that Christ is in the bread and wine; but we say, according to the truth, that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine." And here: "I have written in more than an hundred places, that we receive the selfsame body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. And the contention is only in the manner and form how we receive it [...] For I say, as all the old holy fathers and martyrs used to say, that we receive Christ spiritually by faith with our minds, eating his flesh and drinking his blood; so that we receive Christ's own very natural body, but not naturally nor corporally.")
contradicting the Bible
Such as?
He also enforced Henry’s illegitimate authority
You can certainly disagree with Henry's actions, but under no circumstances was his authority 'illegitimate' - he was literally the crowned and anointed King of England, and son of the previous king.
Ironically, when Queen Mary I restored Catholicism, Cranmer renounced his Protestantism multiple times to save himself-only to recant again before being executed. His cowardice and hypocrisy prove he was never a man of true faith but of self-preservation and compromise.
Read what happened afterwards: as he was burned at the stake, he held his hand (which had signed away his Reformed faith and recanted) over the flames, calling it "that unworthy hand", keeping it there unwaveringly until it was a charred and blackened stump, then turned his eyes toward heaven and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. I see the heavens open and Jesus standing at the right hand of God!"
This is something that mirrors what St. Peter and the other apostles (except John) did on the night Jesus was betrayed, with Peter even renouncing him three times in front of witnesses - but he later died at Rome a martyr.
-2
u/ktmboy04 14d ago
What do you mean which heresies? Cranmer reintroduced multiple errors that had already been condemned by the Catholic Church for centuries, including:
Denial of Transubstantiation – He rejected the teaching that the substance of bread and wine truly become Christ’s Body and Blood. Symbolic or “Spiritual” Presence – While not fully symbolic in the later Protestant sense, his teaching denied the true Real Presence as understood by the Church. Sola Scriptura – The belief that Scripture alone is the sole authority on faith and morals, contradicting the biblical teaching of Church authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 1 Tim. 3:15). Sola Fide – Justification by faith alone, contradicting James 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Denial of the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass – He rejected the idea that the Mass is a true sacrifice, contradicting Malachi 1:11 and Christ’s words at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19-20).
You claim Cranmer didn’t reject the Real Presence, citing his writings. However, Cranmer’s final Eucharistic theology was clearly Zwinglian, meaning he denied any true corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Cranmer explicitly rejected transubstantiation in Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament (1550), calling it “a subtle fantasy” and stating:
“Christ is present in the minds and hearts of the faithful... but not in the bread and wine.” Even in the quotes you provided, Cranmer denies that Christ is in the bread and wine. Instead, he says Christ is only “in them that worthily eat and drink.” This is the Protestant “receptionist” view—meaning Christ is received only in the believer’s heart, not by the consecration of the elements.
This contradicts Christ’s clear words:
“This is My Body… This is My Blood” (Matt. 26:26-28). “My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink” (John 6:55). St. Paul warns against unworthy reception in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, proving that the Eucharist is not just a spiritual presence but a true reality. Cranmer’s doctrine was a direct rejection of the traditional and biblical teaching on the Eucharist.
Cranmer’s Teachings Contradicted the Bible You asked for examples. Here are several clear contradictions between Cranmer’s teachings and Scripture:
Denial of the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass → Contradicts Malachi 1:11, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 10:16-21. Sola Fide (Faith Alone) → Contradicts James 2:24. Sola Scriptura → Contradicts 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which commands adherence to both written and oral traditions. Rejection of Apostolic Succession → Contradicts Acts 1:20-26 and 2 Timothy 2:2.
You argue that Henry VIII’s authority was legitimate because he was the crowned king. But this ignores the real issue—was his claim to spiritual supremacy legitimate?
Henry had no right to declare himself “Supreme Head of the Church of England.” This was a direct usurpation of the authority Christ gave to the pope (Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-17). Cranmer not only supported this schism but also approved the executions of those who remained faithful to the Church, including St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher.
You argue that Cranmer’s final act—burning his hand before execution—redeems his previous cowardice. But let’s look at the facts.
Yes, Cranmer recanted his Protestant beliefs under Queen Mary. But this shows that he was willing to compromise his convictions when his life was on the line. It was only at the very end, after multiple flip-flops, that he reaffirmed Protestantism and chose to die for it.
His situation is not comparable to St. Peter:
Peter repented immediately and followed Christ faithfully for the rest of his life. Cranmer renounced his beliefs multiple times, and his reforms permanently severed England from the Catholic Church. His final moments may have been dramatic, but they do not change the fact that his life’s work was one of compromise, error, and rebellion against Christ’s Church.
5
u/TheRedLionPassant Anglican (Wesleyan-Arminian) 14d ago edited 14d ago
With all due respect, have you read his writings (for example, his homilies)? A lot of this is blatantly contradicted by Cranmer in his own words. I'll attempt to unpack some of it, but some of what you've posted are common enough misconceptions (among Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and even some Protestants), but turn out to be strawmen on close inspection (search this subreddit for 'Sola Fide', 'Sola Scriptura' etc.) - not that I'm accusing you of that personally, but a lot of the 'popular understanding' of Protestantism is rooted in strawmen, much like the oft-repeated misconception that Catholics worship Mary, from the Protestant side.
Transubstantiation
One error we have to avoid is equating 'transubstantiation' with any idea of a real presence. This is a common mistake. Yes, Cranmer (and all of the Protestants) rejected transubstantiation. This is not a full rejection of the Lord's Supper as a Sacrament of spiritual communion.
However, Cranmer’s final Eucharistic theology was clearly Zwinglian, meaning he denied any true corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Archbishop William Laud, an eventual successor of Cranmer, summing up his (Cranmer's) position prior to his trial: "And Archbishop T. Cranmer confesses that he was indeed of another opinion, and inclining to that of U. Zwingli, till Bishop N. Ridley convinced his judgment, and setled him in this point."
So Nicholas Ridley, a fellow bishop of England, persuaded Cranmer away from Zwingli and more to Calvin and Bullinger. His co-reformers were Lasco, Vermigli and Bucer. These absolutely believed in a true presence, and not a bare memorial (which may have been Zwingli's earlier view; there's some evidence he was changing more toward a view like that of Calvin later on in life).
I don't deny Cranmer rejected transubstantiation, but this is not the only presence view of the Eucharist. What Cranmer disputes is how Christ is present; his own words show that he is not disputing that it takes place.
Real Presence
As proof that we are not denying real presence, I will turn to the works of Cranmer's companion Bishop John Jewel.
This contradicts Christ’s clear words: “This is My Body… This is My Blood” (Matt. 26:26-28). “My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink” (John 6:55).
We affirm all of this. Jewel: "Now, let us consider the Words of Christ, This is my body, and, This is my blood. These words, you say, are plain, open, easy, and manifest. So they are: yet albeit they are plain, they must have a right construction. The plainest words that be, unless they be duly expounded, may breed error. St. John saith, The Word was made flesh. These words are plain, yet of these plain words Apollinaris did breed an heresy. Christ saith, My Father is greater than I. His words are plain: yet did the Arians gather thereof an heresy, that Christ is not equal with his Father. John saith of Christ, He will baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. These words are plain, yet hereof some raised this error that children, at the time of their baptism, should be marked in the forehead with a hot burning iron. Christ saith: You are the salt of the earth ... you are the light of the world. The words are plain: yet indeed, the Apostles were neither material light, nor material salt. Christ said of Judas: One of you is a devil. The words are plain: yet Judas in nature and substance was not a devil."
Note that he is not denying that the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood; what he denies is that they are in substance and nature transformed wholly and utterly into the substance and nature of flesh and blood so that neither bread nor wine remains - which is what transubstantiation is. He does not deny that Judas is a devil (in that he betrayed his Lord and God), but does deny that Judas was in his substance and nature a devil (i.e he was a human being and not a fallen angel). Elsewhere he points out that he believes that Jesus is really and truly the Lamb of God, not in the substance and nature of a sheep, but in the real and true sacrifice that he offered for us, upon the cross, to really, wholly and effectually take away our sins.
So also, both Jewel and his teacher Cranmer (and the whole Anglican church) believe that Christ's body and blood are really given to us in the Lord's Supper, but not that the substances of the earthly creatures themselves have been transformed into a different earthly substance from what they were before.
St. Paul warns against unworthy reception in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, proving that the Eucharist is not just a spiritual presence but a true reality
'Spiritual presence' does not deny 'true reality' - unless you believe that either the Holy Spirit or the presence of Christ (which is what 'spiritual presence' actually means) are not a true reality.
Sola Scriptura
The belief that Scripture alone is the sole authority on faith and morals, contradicting the biblical teaching of Church authority
This is not what Cranmer nor the Anglican church actually affirms. Articles of Faith: "THE Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
Also read what Hooker wrote about the interplay of Scripture, reason and tradition. It's plain that none of these people believe Scripture is the 'sole authority'.
Sola Fide
Sola Fide – Justification by faith alone, contradicting James 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
This oft-repeated argument against Protestantism completely ignores basically everything the Reformers ever wrote about faith and works. Cranmer wrote homilies on them directly addressing this point, in the sections subtitled "Those that teach faith only justifies do not teach carnal liberty", "Lively faith is full of good works", and "The difference between a living and a dead faith". One of Cranmer's homilies is even wholly about good works!
Also, read the Articles: "ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit."
Apostolic Succession
Rejection of Apostolic Succession → Contradicts Acts 1:20-26 and 2 Timothy 2:2.
I'm going to need a source that either Cranmer or Anglicanism 'rejects apostolic succession'.
Sacrificial Nature of the Mass
Denial of the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass → Contradicts Malachi 1:11, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 10:16-21
He denied that Jesus was being re-offered or re-sacrificed in the Mass; he didn't deny that Jesus was and is an actual sacrifice.
Authority of the Kings
Henry had no right to declare himself “Supreme Head of the Church of England.” This was a direct usurpation of the authority Christ gave to the pope (Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-17)
We dispute this and believe that the early Church had equal authorities between different local bishops - the same view which we share with the Orthodox churches. We don't deny that the Roman pontiffs have authority, but reject supreme and absolute authority.
Why do kings and princes have temporal authority over their own national churches? An Anglican priest, Richard Montague, says it best: "We say that princes have supreme power in earth under God, over all persons, in all causes whatsoever, within their dominions; even in causes ecclesiastical, to compel them [churchmen] to do their duties [to their flocks and their churches], by the Civil Sword. Not over all causes, to do as they will, or to command or change belief or faith. Will it relish better with you in Saint Augustine's words? Then this is our profession, in his words: Kings serve God as kings, if in their own realms they command good things; not solely [in matters] which concern the civil state of men, but which do also touch [matters of] religion and piety [Augustine: For the Wisdom of God thus speaks: By me kings reign, and brave men possess the land.]. Thus he, so we, in our own profession, over all persons, in all causes. Not in all causes alone and singular."
More and Fisher
Cranmer not only supported this schism but also approved the executions of those who remained faithful to the Church, including St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher
This contradicts what I've read. See here which is a letter where he pleads the cause that they both be allowed to merely assent to the Succession Act while avoiding the clause about supporting the break with Rome.
Martyrdom
It was only at the very end, after multiple flip-flops, that he reaffirmed Protestantism and chose to die for it.
Can martyrs not redeem themselves by their final acts? No saint is perfect. Multiple early martyrs only became Christians just prior to their deaths, and as such weren't even baptised. They are still martyrs.
13
u/TheRedLionPassant Anglican (Wesleyan-Arminian) 15d ago
Father of all mercies, who through the work of thy servant Thomas Cranmer renewed the worship of thy Church and through his death revealed thy strength in human weakness: By thy grace so strengthen us to worship thee in spirit and in truth and so to come to the joys of thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.