The attack on the Mass of the Ages continues. The rumors of Cupich shutting down the Institute of Christ the King in Chicago turned out to be true. Cardinal Gregory, of course, is doing the same in Washington D.C. And now Bishop Burbidge is doing his best to secure his clerical political future in the Church and restricting the Latin Mass in Arlington, Virginia.
About a year ago to the day I wrote an article on the Western Rebellion that took place in England during the Anglican protestant revolt against the Church. This peasant rebellion was ALL about preserving the Traditional Latin Mass from liturgical changes attempted by a schismatic, but validly ordained, Bishop of the Church. What’s shocking about this is that the changes Archbishop Cranmer sought to impose on the Mass back in the 1500s that led to the rebellion are almost identical to the ones imposed on us after Vatican II with the New Mass. And what was the result? The laity rose up and literally went to war to defend the Mass and 5000 faithful Catholics lost their lives over it.
I am reposting my original article below. Think about what these faithful Catholics went through to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass and ask yourself what we are willing to do today to defend against another round of schismatic, heretical bishops seeking to destroy our faith and traditions.
The Western Rebellion: A Lesson in Defending the Traditional Latin Mass
As the Modernist crackdown on the Traditional Latin Mass continues, the latest victim appears to be the Solemn High Mass scheduled to be celebrated on August 14 in Washington, D.C., on the vigil of the Feast of the Assumption. Archbishop Gregory put the kibosh on that, in accordance with the latest motu proprio Traditionis Custodes.
Hearkening back to my previous post where I suggested an initial action plan for the laity to combat this latest Modernist attack on the Mass of the Ages, it makes sense to look at how faithful Catholics in the past responded to abuse of authority and attacks on the liturgy. A good place to start is the 1549 A.D. Western Rebellion in England, following King Henry’s revolt and separation from the Church.
How did English Catholic laity respond to clerical attempts to reform the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass? The simple answer: they literally went to war and died over it.
In recalling this event from over 450 years ago, keep in mind that at the time King Henry VIII broke away from the Church, all of England was celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass, which in all its essential parts, was the same Mass that traditional Catholics celebrate today when using the 1962 Roman Missal. The same Mass Archbishop Gregory seems a little too happy to suppress. Much like Archbishop Gregory it appears, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Canmer, was also an ordained Roman Catholic Archbishop that rejected the teachings and authority of the Church. After Henry died, Cranmer began to implement changes to the Mass.
Archbishop Cranmer’s Changes to the Latin Mass
Despite rebelling against the Church, King Henry VIII liked the Latin Mass and was devoted to it. That is why it was not until Henry died, and his son Edward VI came to power, did Archbishop Cranmer feel free to begin changing the Mass to fit protestant theological beliefs. Even though Cranmer was an ordained Archbishop in the Church, he came to reject the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and other Catholic teachings. When the opportunity arose, as the highest-ranking Church official in England, he began the process of changing the rubrics of the Mass to be consistent with his Protestant ideas.
Cranmer slowly implemented changes to the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass (so as not to shock and alarm the faithful), which culminated in what can be best described as a “communion service.” Here are some key highlights (lowlights) of Cranmer’s liturgical “reforms”:
Use of the Vernacular: English, as opposed to Latin, was to be used as the primary liturgical language. This included all the key prayers of the Mass such as the Gloria, Credo and Agnus Dei. Eventually, the prayers of consecration were to be said in English.
Communion Under Both Kinds: Cranmer’s reforms specifically authorized the laity to drink from the Chalice, whereas the Latin Mass only permits the ordained priest to do so.
Removal of Holy Items: Beginning as early as 1538, Cranmer authorized the destruction and removal of statutes, artwork and relics from church buildings. Much of these beautiful treasures ripped out of sanctuaries and chapels were sold for a profit or given to the king directly. It was pure theft and destruction in the name of removing traditional “obstacles” that Cranmer claimed were superstitious idols misleading the faithful.
Liturgical Calendar Changes and Abolition of Feast Days/Practices: Even during the time of Henry VIII, changes to the liturgical calendar began to be put in place. The most significant changes were that the number of Holy Days, particularly during the week, were abolished or moved to Sunday. This was to minimize the number of days the faithful could (or would) not work during the week, especially at harvest time. Eventually, Cranmer would push to abolish the use of ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday and candles on Candlemas Day.
Replacement of Altars with Communion Tables: This change was consistent with Cranmer’s rejection of the Real Presence. Cranmer began to replace stone altars with wooden tables. Cranmer ordered all altars throughout England to be destroyed and replaced with wooden tables for the purpose of avoiding “contention and strife.” (That sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?) The purpose of replacing altars with the tables was, according to Cranmer, “to move the simple [that’s the theologically ignorant plebians like you and me] from superstitious opinions in the Popish mass unto the right use of the Lord’s Supper. For the use of the altar is to make sacrifice upon it: the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon.” By the time the 1552 Prayer Book was published, the word “altar” was removed completely from the rubrics.
The Church’s Response to Liturgical Revolution
Now, to be sure, not all of the changes to the Mass Cranmer imposed were unique to England. Many of the changes noted above were consistent with what was happening in Protestant areas across Europe as the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass was converted into various types of “communion services”; where the notion of sacrifice was replaced with communal meals and other types of public gatherings. With these changes in the background, the Council of Trent, and those charged with implementing the Council’s proclamations, clearly rejected and even condemned many of these Protestant efforts to destroy the Mass.
Concerning the use of the vernacular at Mass, for example, the Council stated:
“Although the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful people, it did not seem to the Fathers expedient, however, that it be celebrated indiscriminately in the vernacular.”
The Council furthermore condemned those who claimed that:
“the rite of the Roman Church, in which part of the Canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low voice, is to be condemned, or that the Mass must be celebrated only in the vernacular.” Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, September 17, 1562, chapter 8: Denz-Schön, no. 1749 and 1759.
Let’s think about that for a second. After Henry revolts from the Church so he could marry a second wife and break his marriage vows, his Archbishop essentially creates a “new” Mass that de-emphasized the sacrificial nature of the Mass, reduced the role of priests, and sought to rid the Mass of traditional customs to make it more accessible to the laity. And what did the Council of Trent do in response? Condemned it all!
The Rebellion Against Cranmer in Defense of the Mass
Needless to say, a significant portion of the English peasantry in Cornwall and Devon who knew the tradition and history of the Mass, as they had received it from generations past, did not take too kindly to Cranmer’s forced changes. In effort to calm their righteous anger, or what the post-Vatican II Church would call a “spirit of dialogue”, it was reported that voices of moderation attempted to calm grassroots movements opposed to liturgical changes. For example, the peasants were encouraged:
To trust the gentlemen and government which in its wisdom had ordained a form of service better suited to the spirit of the times than the old Latin rites, and which, as reasonable men, they would come to accept if only they would give it a fair trial…But the villagers had already made up their minds and were determined not to be put off by fair words.” Cornwall, Julian. Revolt of the Peasantry, 1549. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977, pp. 66.
Author Michael Davies points out that these villagers were not learned in theological nuances or canon law let alone prepared to have a discussion with professional Catholics (or whatever the version of those would be in 1549). Davies says:
[The villagers] were making a stand for something which deep within them they were convinced was right, something that involved their roots and their eternal destiny. Scholars could and would belittle them, Cranmer could and would sneer at them—but it is not always those who are able to put forward the most eloquent case for their cause who are in the right.” Davies, Michael. Cranmer’s Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism Through Liturgical Change. Angelus Press, 2015, pg. 238.
Having gathered in numbers to protest and potentially march on the town of Exeter in opposition to Cranmer’s liturgical changes, which now had the force of law, the rebellious villagers were met by the King’s military power. But these simple, uneducated peasants did not back down; they fought back.
Some peace negotiations ensued, and the peasants made it clear that they would stand down and not engage the King’s forces if they were allowed to attend the Mass as it had always been celebrated. Cranmer and the government refused to make the concession, causing further uprisings across England. The peasants became more organized and ultimately posed a real, viable threat to the King’s military, which relied heavily on mercenaries for reinforcement. Keep in mind, this Western Rebellion was not against the King’s authority but was always in defense of the Mass.
The rebels made specific demands to preserve the Mass and ancient practices that Cranmer attempted to erase forever. Among these demands, was “We will have the Mass in Latin as was before, and celebrated by the Priest without man or woman communicating with him” and “We will have the Sacrament hang over the High Altar and there be worshiped as it was wont to be, and they, which will not thereto consent, we will have them die like heretics against the Holy Catholic Faith.” These rebels were not shy, effeminate or intimidated.
Ultimately, the rebels were willing to go to war over the Mass when Cranmer refused to give in. Because the King did not have a standing army, he used mercenaries, from Italy, Spain and Germany to crush the Western Rebellion with brute force. Many of those mercenaries had no idea the rebellion was over the preservation of the faith and later regretted fighting for the Crown in defense of Protestantism. At least 5000 men died in defense of the Traditional Latin Mass. Many faithful priests were later executed. The heads of the leaders of the rebellion were set on spikes for all to see in London.
Lessons Learned from the Western Rebellion
A key lesson to be learned from the Western Rebellion is that the Traditional Latin Mass matters, and is not only worthy of support, but is so important that we should be willing to die for it. The western English rebels knew that the Mass was the core of the faith, and without faith, their lives lacked purpose. This is why it was worth it to fight and die for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.
And notice that the bodies of faithful rebels did not go to their graves with their heads on spikes after waiting for the Church of England to completely take away the Mass. No, what Cranmer and his cronies did was slowly begin to change the Mass, bit by bit, to conform to a new type of theology and shift focus away from sacrifice towards a man-made, watered down substitute stripped of tradition and ancient practices. The rebels, who did not have theological training, could see the Truth with their eyes as it unfolded in front of them and knew this reality was worth dying for.
Today, unlike in Cranmer’s time, the Modernists who wish to destroy or water down the Traditional Latin Mass do not have the benefit of government forces to back them up. Not yet—that is. They have nothing but our willingness to go along with it as they try to beat us with the “stick” of disobedience. Are we going to back down in the face of a stick when our ancestors in faith were willing to get their heads chopped off for the Mass?
And were the western rebels really disobedient? Or were they obedient to something more than their local ordinary and even the King of England? Obedience is an important virtue and one that must be maintained. However, true obedience must serve the good, and not work for evil, otherwise it is a vice. Our ultimate and true obedience must be to Christ the King and His Church that condemned the types of changes Cranmer attempted to impose. What are you willing to do for Christ, His Church and the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass?
Primary source for information contained in this post: Davies, Michael. Cranmer’s Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism Through Liturgical Change. Angelus Press, 2015.