I am almost finished reading the MacCulloch's biography on Thomas Cranmer. On the back of the book one of the reviews says that the book is "...constantly absorbing...". Trust me, this book is not constantly absorbing.
My thoughts on Cranmer after reading this have changed. I guess I do not see him as a great liturgical genius. He did not write the BCP from scratch. It is better to say that he compiled it, as he borrowed from ancient, medieval, and contemporary sources. To be sure, he did write certain parts of it - certain prayers here and there, the litany, etc. - but much of the rest of it was borrowed from other sources. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, mind you, but it only goes to show that he was not some "fountain" of fine liturgy in and of himself.
I used to feel sorry for him since he was martyred under Mary, along with Latimer and the others, at Oxford. I mean, who can't feel sorry for a martyr? But I actually learned that he had people burned at the stake (traditionalists, anabaptists, etc.) too when he was in power. So it seems that he got what he deserved. It is funny, because this morning the Psalm appointed for the morning office in the 1928 BCP is Psalm 18, which speaks of one being rewarded according to his works.
All I can say is that I am glad that there wasn't any theology surrounding him or his office that made him the infallible 'vicar of Christ', otherwise we'd all be in trouble. Think about: "The Primate of All Engalnd, Thomas Cranmer, speaks ex cathedra and declares that the Eucharist is purely a memorial, and that this doctrine is to be held by all the faithful." That would be scary. Anglicans have been able to look back on him, and acknowledge his faults and wrong ideas in certain areas, and make appropriate changes. Cranmer wasn't all bad by any strech of the imagination. But I certainly wouldn't have kept him as my ABC if I was king!
