On the Articles: Article XXII

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXII. Of Purgatory
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Article XXII is more explicit than any previous Article in condemning excesses of the Roman Catholic Church during the medieval period. While the title of the Article suggests its emphasis will be on purgatory, it is in fact more broadly a condemnation of a number of practices of the Roman Catholic Church found objectionable during that era. In interpreting the Articles today, it is always important to remember the historical context in which they were written. While today many of these practices continue, despite what Rome claims, their understanding of them has shifted significantly.

The “Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory [and] Pardons,” is one that has changed significantly, particular when contrasting official teaching today with the common practice of the medieval period, which is more what this Article was written to condemn even than necessarily the official Church teaching of the day. Rome itself would, soon after the continental and English reformations, recognize that in practice excesses had been taken with these doctrines, though in certain senses they maintained the doctrine of a treasury of merit as discussed in relation to Articles on salvation and justification.  The doctrine of Purgatory promoted by Rome was a medieval innovation, which seems to have originated in the 12th century, and although it remains an official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church today, they did recognize abuses related to the system of indulgences and pardons referred to in this Article.

The Article continues with the condemnation of “Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques,” which again must be understood in context. For some, particularly low Churchman, the mere use of the term “adoration” means it is a condemnation of the medieval practice of Eucharistic adoration. Grammatically, if one argues that Adoration here means Eucharistic Adoration, they must also accept that the Article bans the practice of worshipping. Instead, however, a more accurate rendering into contemporary English might read that the article condemns, “the worshipping or adoration of both images (icons) and relics of saints.” This Article does not touch on the practice of Eucharistic Adoration, which will be discussed in Article XXVIII on the Eucharist itself.

What is being here condemned then is the medieval practice of worshiping and adoring icons and relics of saints in a way that was meant to be reserved for God. This helps further grammatically and linguistically ground this Article in relation to the next section dealing with saints, as that is effectively what this Article is discussing. The use of icons and relics dates to Apostolic times, and had been affirmed, in its inoffensive forms, repeatedly. In particular, the Seventh Ecumenical Council very explicitly supports the right-use of icons. That said at various times in English Church history, the extreme radicals, such as the Puritans, sought to suppress the practice.

The historical context of the condemnation of “invocation of Saints” is also important, as a casual reader might be confused at the condemnation which is contrasted which might today be interpreted as the invocation of saints as we mark their feasts in the calendar or pray their prayers, such as the Prayer of St Chrysostom at Morning Prayer. In the Reformation era, writers used the word “invocation” as a reference to praying to a particular saint to grant a blessing. It is this form of prayer which was being attacked, as the medieval practice had grown to such a degree that prayers to the saints, or rather invocation of the saints, was an attack on the mediation of Christ. Saints were viewed as more merciful than God, and thus in some sense worthy of honour. Again this was not an express theology of the medieval Roman Catholic Church, but rather the common practice of poorly catechized Christians. It should be noted that while the practice of the invocation of saints was condemned, prayers through the saints, just as we might ask a good friend to pray for us, were not condemned. The Bishop’s Book of 1537 makes this rather explicit where it says, “to pray to the saints to be intercessors with us and for us to our Lord for our suits (supplications) which we make to Him… so that we make no invocation of them, is lawful, and allowed by the Catholic Church.”

It might be countered that it is all well and good to suggest this Article condemns primarily the excesses of certain Roman doctrines and practices rather than the practices themselves, but it is clearly not the case. The Article concludes with the statement that the practices being condemned were “vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” Therefore, if the practices are fully condemned, and not just the Roman practices of the day, then there ought to be not merely no support for their use from the earliest days of the Church, but also no Scriptural support for them. Yet that is not the case, neither in the Old Testament nor the New.

There are two types of relics. First class relics—an actual piece of the body of a saint—and second class relics—something which the saint interacted with during their lifetime such as a piece of clothing they wore.

The Old Testament gives a clear example of the power of first class relics in story of the bones of the great prophet Elisha:

So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet. (II Ki 13. 20, 21)

Again in the New Testament, there is an example of a second class relic of St Paul:

And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (Acts 19. 11, 12).

In both these cases, these passages of Scripture merely testify to the power of God working through the relics. It in no way condemns them or suggests they are in opposition to God, in the way that one would expect given the stringency of the language used in this Article if the Article were in fact condemning the totality of icons, relics, the recognition and intercession of saints and so on. Rather, the only way this Article can be interpreted is through the particular lens of the condemnation of Roman practices of the Medieval period. In interpreting all of the Articles of Religion it is important not to assume the meaning of the words and how they are to be applied to the doctrines they are describing, because the language we use to describe these matters has changed significantly and the apparent meaning of an Article is not always correct.