Allen, Amanda Wrenn. The Eucharistic Debate in Tudor England: Thomas Cranmer, Stephen Gardiner, and the English Reformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eucharistic debates between evangelicals and traditionalists and even between evangelicals themselves during the Protestant Reformation were a regular occurrence and caused sharp divisions.The debate in Reformation England grew out of disagreement between traditionalists and evangelicals regarding the presence of Jesus Christ in the elements of the Eucharist, and directly shaped the direction of the Church of England.Amanda Wrenn Allen's important new work on Eucharistic debate during the Tudor era draws special attention to two key rivals in the heat of that argument, Thomas Cranmer and Stephen Gardiner, and examines their printed disputations in 1550-51.Allen contends that this debate between the two prominent English church leaders was the primary impetus in forging the path of Eucharistic worship and practice in England, beginning first in Edwardian England then continuing in the Elizabethan church.Her objective is to assess the precise methodologies and arguments used by both Cranmer and Gardiner in order to discover the theological and personal issues that drove these men to spar in print.To achieve her purpose, Allen unpacks and evaluates the three printed works that form the platform of the debate: Defence, Explication, and Answer.Allen first establishes the larger theological, political, and social contexts of the early stages of the Henrician Reformation, delineating the careers of Cranmer and Gardiner and situating them against the backdrop of political turbulence and intrigue.Both men experienced the ups and downs of Henry VIII's seemingly capricious, vacillating religious policies.It was Cranmer who eventually emerged unscathed from both the whims of Henry and the Prebendaries' Plot to depose Cranmer of his archbishopric, orchestrated chiefly by Gardiner.With Edward VI's ascension in 1547, Cranmer's position was even more solidified, while Gardiner's fate remained tenuous.Allen notes that this drama instigated and fueled the contentious nature of the relationship between
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".