W
William1
Guest
No I’m Anglican and we believe in all seven saraments. There are low church that hold to two
- Status
P
poche
Guest
Not all of the episcopal ordinations are with the Old Catholics. However I remember reading how one with one Anglican bishop’s reception into the Catholic Church his ordination was conditional.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
My understanding is that all Church of England bishops, at least, have an Old Catholic consecration in their lines of succession,
That will be Bishop Leonard, mentioned above.
V
Vico
Guest
“Only” because only two are held to be effectual signs of grace, rather than seven.Vico:
No I’m Anglican and we believe in all seven saraments. There are low church that hold to two
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
Thousands
G
GKMotley
Guest
It’s the sort of thread that one often has to point at the upper levels, as it goes rolling on.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Need I explain again what the Articles were and are? And what Anglicans are? (Motely, that was quick).
It does seem to be my vocation. And I thought I was retired.
It does seem to be my vocation. And I thought I was retired.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Back to the point that @GKMotley and I harp on: the XXXIX Articles are not representative of all of Anglicanism. Anglo-Catholics generally affirm seven Sacraments.William1:
“Only” because only two are held to be effectual signs of grace, rather than seven.Vico:
No I’m Anglican and we believe in all seven saraments. There are low church that hold to two
Motley, motley, motley.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Modestly, I concede you may be right.
V
Vico
Guest
You wrote: No I’m Anglican and we believe in all seven saraments. There are low church that hold to two.
The articles explain the bifurcation. You are saying that there is a “we hold” apart from the articles? Yes, explain as many times as necessary!
Adding: @William1
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Also, Dominical/not Dominical, etc, etc.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
I do accept that to a degree – but we know that holy orders are actually Dominical, dating to the Great Commission, and there’s at least an implication that anointing the sick is Dominical.
In short, at best we can divide them into “definitely Dominical” and “not definitely Dominical,” as the Gospels are not an exhaustive account of Christ’s life and teaching.
G
GKMotley
Guest
No, that wasn’t me. I tell it in a longer fashion. Stay here a minute, I’ll be right back. Got some other stuff to handle.
Ok. Here’s a fresh one. It can be longer. Often has been.
Back in the day, religion and politics were intertwined. It shows up clearly in Henry’s Great Matter, and is even more pertinent in that the CoE was organized as an Erastian/state Church. And an Erastian Church, like the CoE, can function under laws (acts of Parliament) that are legally binding (in this case, on the clergy of the CoE).
The Articles (like the preceding documents that had appeared in the Henrician period) are religion as statecraft, specifically, how Elizabeth I choose to govern her fractious and explosive Church, in the historical context of the late 1500s. They reflect the mind of the CoE on the pressing and disruptive issues of the Reformation, and are written broadly, with a balanced appeal to both the older doctrines of the Church, and the more reformed ones. They are, indeed, the visible face of the Via Media, the Elizabethan Compromise. The intent of the XXXIX, as E. J. Bicknell says, in a very useful chapter in his A THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY NINE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (chap. 1) “They express the mind of the Church of England on the questions under dispute during the Reformation. They do not claim to be a final and complete system of theology” (though obviously, they could be treated as such, if one wanted to).
Their relevance to Anglicans today depends on the attitude of the Anglicans in question. Generally, one may affirm, deny, or partially do either, depending on personal interpretation, or possibly on the strictures of whatever parish/jurisdiction/province one belongs to. In fact, since many of them are “mere Christianity”, almost any Trinitarian Christian will find many things to agree with, without indulging in Tract 90 forms of exegesis and gymnastics. But, except with respect to the clergy of the CoE, (who were required not so much to affirm the Articles as not “dis-affirm” them), as an item, the Articles cannot be said to have any general application, to Anglicans generally, without reference to some governing authority. The governing authority for the CoE lay in the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription. And while all Anglicans still were within the COE, that was the authority. Which was limited, as noted, both in scope and in application.
Anglicanism now being fractured far beyond the CoE, authorities vary and attitudes do likewise. TEC’s militant latitudinarianism has moved them into the historical section of the 1979 book, following the even more dismissive suggestion of the 1968 Lambeth Conference. And that means jurisdictions may practice anything from generally ignoring to formally confessing them.
As to XXV, remember the basic Anglican position (if you chose the correct Anglican) that the seven are divided into the Dominical 2 and the remaining 5. Two established by our Lord. Makes seven, in all.
Ok. Here’s a fresh one. It can be longer. Often has been.
Back in the day, religion and politics were intertwined. It shows up clearly in Henry’s Great Matter, and is even more pertinent in that the CoE was organized as an Erastian/state Church. And an Erastian Church, like the CoE, can function under laws (acts of Parliament) that are legally binding (in this case, on the clergy of the CoE).
The Articles (like the preceding documents that had appeared in the Henrician period) are religion as statecraft, specifically, how Elizabeth I choose to govern her fractious and explosive Church, in the historical context of the late 1500s. They reflect the mind of the CoE on the pressing and disruptive issues of the Reformation, and are written broadly, with a balanced appeal to both the older doctrines of the Church, and the more reformed ones. They are, indeed, the visible face of the Via Media, the Elizabethan Compromise. The intent of the XXXIX, as E. J. Bicknell says, in a very useful chapter in his A THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY NINE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (chap. 1) “They express the mind of the Church of England on the questions under dispute during the Reformation. They do not claim to be a final and complete system of theology” (though obviously, they could be treated as such, if one wanted to).
Their relevance to Anglicans today depends on the attitude of the Anglicans in question. Generally, one may affirm, deny, or partially do either, depending on personal interpretation, or possibly on the strictures of whatever parish/jurisdiction/province one belongs to. In fact, since many of them are “mere Christianity”, almost any Trinitarian Christian will find many things to agree with, without indulging in Tract 90 forms of exegesis and gymnastics. But, except with respect to the clergy of the CoE, (who were required not so much to affirm the Articles as not “dis-affirm” them), as an item, the Articles cannot be said to have any general application, to Anglicans generally, without reference to some governing authority. The governing authority for the CoE lay in the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription. And while all Anglicans still were within the COE, that was the authority. Which was limited, as noted, both in scope and in application.
Anglicanism now being fractured far beyond the CoE, authorities vary and attitudes do likewise. TEC’s militant latitudinarianism has moved them into the historical section of the 1979 book, following the even more dismissive suggestion of the 1968 Lambeth Conference. And that means jurisdictions may practice anything from generally ignoring to formally confessing them.
As to XXV, remember the basic Anglican position (if you chose the correct Anglican) that the seven are divided into the Dominical 2 and the remaining 5. Two established by our Lord. Makes seven, in all.
Last edited:
S
StAugustine
Guest
Another question is whether Anglican priests receiving these orders had the intent of becoming sacrificing priests.
G
GKMotley
Guest
You may have your morsel of motelydom.
G
GKMotley
Guest
More pertinently,the question that Apostolicae Curea addressed was what was the intention of the consecrating bishops. Intertwining the form and the intent.
V
Vico
Guest
Than you for the explanation. It seems it was William1’s remark. @William1
G
GKMotley
Guest
Yes. And you are very welcome. I do that a lot.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes while we wait for the much more learned GKMotley to give you the full version.GKMotley:
Than you for the explanation. It seems it was William1’s remark. @William1
The XXXIX Articles are best understood as a historical political document, not as a confession. They reflect the dominant impulse in the CoE at a particular point in time. They do not fully represent the CoE before that time, nor after it. They certainly held a great deal of authority in the CoE for quite some time, in part because of requirements that clergy submit to them in their “literal and grammatical sense,” but there has been plenty of divergence from them, such as in the Oxford Movement of the 19th Century.
They reflect a more Reformed view within the CoE, and those who would call ourselves Anglo-Catholics, like GKMotley and I, would generally reject their approach in a number of cases, including the Sacraments.
It is important to remember that the Anglican Church is, unlike the other Protestant churches, primarily ecclesial and creedal, rather than confessional. A fairly broad divergence of opinion is allowed within broad bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Or, as has become the case in many Anglican bodies, well outside broad bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Too late. I found the latest to C&P, and was back in a flash.
But you’re right, too.
But you’re right, too.
- Status