You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
jrtrent
Guest
I happen to live in a country and state in which government lays no legal requirements upon churches concerning their statements of faith, so the idea of this Parliamentary Act of Subscription is quite foreign to me, in more ways than one. Legal fiat aside, I’d say the Articles are necessarily normative for anyone who belongs to a church that considers them normative, just as is the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, or the Book of Concord, or the Articles of Religion (Methodist), or any of a number of other documents various churches put out as official declarations of belief and practice. If the Church of England affirms the Articles, and it seems they do, then they are normative for Anglicans who are in the Church of England.I know lots of folks who have. And lots of folks who have not. Any Anglican individual, or parish, or jurisdiction, could declare that the Articles govern him/them. My point was that no Anglican must do so, by legal fiat, due to the mere historical existence of the Articles, save the ordinands of the CoE (technically), IOW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription (1571). The requirements stated in there constitute a sort of job description for CoE clergy, the CoE being an Erastian Church.
All too many folk discover the Articles and think they are a form of universal Anglican Confession, which is what I meant by “generally”. They aren’t. I do believe the REC speaks highly of the Articles, yes. And if next year they decided to put them in an historical section of the Prayer Book, that would be all right, too. But the clergy of the CoE have a law facing them. What that law means, and how it is enforced, is another matter, but the CoE affirms the Articles.
“The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1974/3
For any Anglican body that affirms the 39 Articles, they can indeed be read as a confession, or at least as a source for accurate information about the doctrine of that church.
If the CoE affirms the Articles, how does it follow that only those members of the CoE who are candidates for ordination need consider the Articles to be normative? The Declaration printed along with the Articles includes, “That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles.” It sounds like the intent is that the Articles be normative for all, not just candidates for ordination.We shall amend my statement to say the Articles are not necessarily normative for any Anglican, save the ordinands of the CoE.
Of course, the Church of England is but one of many Anglican churches in the world, and the Thirty-nine Articles have been adapted in other places to be more in keeping with the politics of their country (i.e., there are references to Parliament, the Realm of England, and so on in certain articles that would have no application in other countries), but which groups of Anglicans do you know of that have stated that the Articles are not normative? If you are an Anglican but don’t consider them normative for yourself, which articles would you point to as being ones you can’t subscribe to, or which ones teach doctrine that is now considered false by Anglicans generally?
For the OP, it’s beside the point if there are Anglicans who do not follow the 39 Articles, because at the church the OP attended, they are normative enough to be “used as basis to withhold partaking of Holy Communion.”
G
GKC
Guest
Your closing sentence is quite true. I’m leaving for the day, will discuss this a little further when I return.I happen to live in a country and state in which government lays no legal requirements upon churches concerning their statements of faith, so the idea of this Parliamentary Act of Subscription is quite foreign to me, in more ways than one. Legal fiat aside, I’d say the Articles are necessarily normative for anyone who belongs to a church that considers them normative, just as is the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, or the Book of Concord, or the Articles of Religion (Methodist), or any of a number of other documents various churches put out as official declarations of belief and practice. If the Church of England affirms the Articles, and it seems they do, then they are normative for Anglicans who are in the Church of England.
“The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1974/3
For any Anglican body that affirms the 39 Articles, they can indeed be read as a confession, or at least as a source for accurate information about the doctrine of that church.
If the CoE affirms the Articles, how does it follow that only those members of the CoE who are candidates for ordination need consider the Articles to be normative? The Declaration printed along with the Articles includes, “That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles.” It sounds like the intent is that the Articles be normative for all, not just candidates for ordination.
Of course, the Church of England is but one of many Anglican churches in the world, and the Thirty-nine Articles have been adapted in other places to be more in keeping with the politics of their country (i.e., there are references to Parliament, the Realm of England, and so on in certain articles that would have no application in other countries), but which groups of Anglicans do you know of that have stated that the Articles are not normative? If you are an Anglican but don’t consider them normative for yourself, which articles would you point to as being ones you can’t subscribe to, or which ones teach doctrine that is now considered false by Anglicans generally?
For the OP, it’s beside the point if there are Anglicans who do not follow the 39 Articles, because at the church the OP attended, they are normative enough to be “used as basis to withhold partaking of Holy Communion.”
GKC
I
Indifferently
Guest
The Articles are not considered to be binding. You are ascribing to Anglicanism a sort of legalism which simply does not apply in reality. Anglicanism is based on an historic compromise, as far back as the first Elizabeth, who did not wish to make Windows into men’s souls. The Articles were politically important many years ago, but are not now.I happen to live in a country and state in which government lays no legal requirements upon churches concerning their statements of faith, so the idea of this Parliamentary Act of Subscription is quite foreign to me, in more ways than one. Legal fiat aside, I’d say the Articles are necessarily normative for anyone who belongs to a church that considers them normative, just as is the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, or the Book of Concord, or the Articles of Religion (Methodist), or any of a number of other documents various churches put out as official declarations of belief and practice. If the Church of England affirms the Articles, and it seems they do, then they are normative for Anglicans who are in the Church of England.
“The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1974/3
For any Anglican body that affirms the 39 Articles, they can indeed be read as a confession, or at least as a source for accurate information about the doctrine of that church.
If the CoE affirms the Articles, how does it follow that only those members of the CoE who are candidates for ordination need consider the Articles to be normative? The Declaration printed along with the Articles includes, “That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles.” It sounds like the intent is that the Articles be normative for all, not just candidates for ordination.
Of course, the Church of England is but one of many Anglican churches in the world, and the Thirty-nine Articles have been adapted in other places to be more in keeping with the politics of their country (i.e., there are references to Parliament, the Realm of England, and so on in certain articles that would have no application in other countries), but which groups of Anglicans do you know of that have stated that the Articles are not normative? If you are an Anglican but don’t consider them normative for yourself, which articles would you point to as being ones you can’t subscribe to, or which ones teach doctrine that is now considered false by Anglicans generally?
For the OP, it’s beside the point if there are Anglicans who do not follow the 39 Articles, because at the church the OP attended, they are normative enough to be “used as basis to withhold partaking of Holy Communion.”
The old liturgy, particularly the beautiful 1662, is a far better reflection of what is considered to be necessary to faithfully adhere to our mode of Christianity. There is much benign ambiguity surrounding historically contentious matters.
G
GKC
Guest
I agree. I’ll be back to muse on it, somewhat, I hope. Eventually.The Articles are not considered to be binding. You are ascribing to Anglicanism a sort of legalism which simply does not apply in reality. Anglicanism is based on an historic compromise, as far back as the first Elizabeth, who did not wish to make Windows into men’s souls. The Articles were politically important many years ago, but are not now.
The old liturgy, particularly the beautiful 1662, is a far better reflection of what is considered to be necessary to faithfully adhere to our mode of Christianity. There is much benign ambiguity surrounding historically contentious matters.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Eventually, indeed. Long day. And I’ve still got the tail end of the flu.I agree. I’ll be back to muse on it, somewhat, I hope. Eventually.
GKC
Likely tomorrow. Probably. But first a clarification. I don’t know why I let “ordinands” stand alone there. It should be ordinands/clergy. The Act of Subscription was operative for any who were clergy, or in order to be clergy. Silly me.
GKC
J
jrtrent
Guest
I’m probably not understanding the distinctions you and GKC are making by your use of words like normative and binding. If someone want to learn about the doctrinal beliefs of the Church of England, the 1974 Worship and Doctrine Measure tells me those doctrines can be found in “the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.”The Articles are not considered to be binding. You are ascribing to Anglicanism a sort of legalism which simply does not apply in reality.
When I look at the Thirty-nine Articles in the Book of Common Prayer found on the Church of England’s website, they are introduced by “His Majesty’s Declaration” which says they “contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England,” and that it is required that “all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles.”
The question for me isn’t if they are “binding” or not, in a legalistic sense, but are they true? Are they still a reliable source for learning about the doctrine of the Church of England? If they are no longer valid, maybe they should be removed from the prayer book.
A church should be able to comminicate what its beliefs are, and most have documents in which those can be found. When someone wants to know more about my church, I point them first to the 39 Articles of Religion. For more information, I also suggest the Affirmation of St. Louis and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. When I was an AFLC Lutheran, I referred inquirers to Luther’s Small Catechism, the unaltered Augsburg Confession, and the AFLC Fundamental Principles. At least as recently as 1974, the Thirty-nine Articles seem to have been an authorized source for learning about the doctrine of the Church of England.
Edit: I know this is a bit off-topic, but this side issue at least keeps the thread in view in hopes that the OP will respond to some of the earlier comments that bore more directly on the original question.
G
GKC
Guest
Ah, well. Likely not worth the wait. But here we are.
First point: where we agree.
" I’d say the Articles are necessarily normative for anyone who belongs to a church that considers them normative".
True, to the extent that they are so specified. And true where that condition holds. Which is not universal in Anglicanism, hence the Articles are (without further explication) not generally normative for Anglicans.
“For any Anglican body that affirms the 39 Articles, they can indeed be read as a confession, or at least as a source for accurate information about the doctrine of that church.”
True, same comment. If any person/parish/province wanted to declare them a confession, nihil obstat. That was not their original intent, nor are they theologically comprehensive, but could be done.
"For the OP, it’s beside the point if there are Anglicans who do not follow the 39 Articles, because at the church the OP attended, they are normative enough to be ‘used as basis to withhold partaking of Holy Communion.’ ".
Yes.
So, what was I saying, when I said that for Anglicans, generally, the Articles are not (necessarily) normative or binding?
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 can function under laws (acts of Parliament) that are legally binding.
The XXIX Articles (like the numerous preceding documents that had appeared over the previous 20 years or so), are religion as statecraft; how Elizabeth 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. 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/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. But, except as noted (and that is a technical point; CoE clergy are 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 intent of the XXIX, as with the similar predecessor statements, was not to provide a comprehensive statement of faith. 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”. As some Church authorities said, over the next 100 years or so), they were limited in scope and tailored in application:
James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh:
“We do not suffer any man to reject the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or legacies of Christ and his apostles ; but in a mean, as pious opinions, fitted for the preservation of peace and unity ; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.”
John Bramhall, succeeding Archbishop of Armagh:
“We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, ‘without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same as contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.”
George Bull, Bishop of St. David’s
“The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity.”
(continued)
First point: where we agree.
" I’d say the Articles are necessarily normative for anyone who belongs to a church that considers them normative".
True, to the extent that they are so specified. And true where that condition holds. Which is not universal in Anglicanism, hence the Articles are (without further explication) not generally normative for Anglicans.
“For any Anglican body that affirms the 39 Articles, they can indeed be read as a confession, or at least as a source for accurate information about the doctrine of that church.”
True, same comment. If any person/parish/province wanted to declare them a confession, nihil obstat. That was not their original intent, nor are they theologically comprehensive, but could be done.
"For the OP, it’s beside the point if there are Anglicans who do not follow the 39 Articles, because at the church the OP attended, they are normative enough to be ‘used as basis to withhold partaking of Holy Communion.’ ".
Yes.
So, what was I saying, when I said that for Anglicans, generally, the Articles are not (necessarily) normative or binding?
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 can function under laws (acts of Parliament) that are legally binding.
The XXIX Articles (like the numerous preceding documents that had appeared over the previous 20 years or so), are religion as statecraft; how Elizabeth 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. 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/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. But, except as noted (and that is a technical point; CoE clergy are 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 intent of the XXIX, as with the similar predecessor statements, was not to provide a comprehensive statement of faith. 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”. As some Church authorities said, over the next 100 years or so), they were limited in scope and tailored in application:
James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh:
“We do not suffer any man to reject the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or legacies of Christ and his apostles ; but in a mean, as pious opinions, fitted for the preservation of peace and unity ; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.”
John Bramhall, succeeding Archbishop of Armagh:
“We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, ‘without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same as contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.”
George Bull, Bishop of St. David’s
“The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity.”
(continued)
G
GKC
Guest
Note the pragmatic emphasis on peace and unity. Point is, the Articles were a means to insure domestic tranquility, in Elizabeth’s fractious and tempestuous Church: Articles of Peace, as some said. And the method chosen to do that was not to make the laity subscribe to them but to require the clergy to do so. Or, as was the practice, state their acceptance of them, and to refrain from disputing them.The technical requirement still exists, but practically, it is a dead letter. That requirement was legal, an act of Parliament, and hence the clergy of the CoE are the only ones the Articles are binding on, in the sense the Act states. And hence I describe them as I do.
The Declaration you quote from the PB is from Charles I, using the Articles as they were intended, to pacify the realm. In 1628, when that was written, he was faced with some troublesome ultra-Calvinists, and was using the Articles to quiet things down. He “required” the subjects to adhere to them, but this is exhortation. In the full declaration he promised to take action against those (who were under the Subscription Act) who failed to do so. Which was legal. Charles was very aware of the volatile mixture of religion and politics in the day. It became even clearer to him about 20 years later.
There is no question that the Articles have shaped Anglicanism, far beyond the CoE. But the historical origin, or the continued existence, of the Articles does not mean that there is a single uniform reaction to them. At Lambeth, 1968, this was recognized:
Lambeth 1968 The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
“The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled ‘Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles’ (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.”
This passed. And following this TEC moved them into a new section of the 79 book. Historical documents.
What that recognizes is that there is not a single attitude toward the Articles throughout the Communion, but variable ones. And that should be reflected in how the Articles might be viewed. IOW, Anglicans are a motley crew. And to find out what attitude any take toward them, one needs to inquire of the particular Anglican entity. Anglicans, generally (meaning, without further explication) may interpret, affirm, deny, or partially affirm or deny, the Articles. Or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. You need to ask.
Bottom line.
The articles are binding, demonstrably, and historically, only on the clergy of the CoE, per the terms of the Act of Subscription.
If you wish to know what a given Anglican individual or entity says/affirms/requires with respect to the Articles, you have to ask them.
Anglicans are a motley crew.
This no doubt could stand editing, but it’s not going to get it. Dang flu.
GKC
The Declaration you quote from the PB is from Charles I, using the Articles as they were intended, to pacify the realm. In 1628, when that was written, he was faced with some troublesome ultra-Calvinists, and was using the Articles to quiet things down. He “required” the subjects to adhere to them, but this is exhortation. In the full declaration he promised to take action against those (who were under the Subscription Act) who failed to do so. Which was legal. Charles was very aware of the volatile mixture of religion and politics in the day. It became even clearer to him about 20 years later.
There is no question that the Articles have shaped Anglicanism, far beyond the CoE. But the historical origin, or the continued existence, of the Articles does not mean that there is a single uniform reaction to them. At Lambeth, 1968, this was recognized:
Lambeth 1968 The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
“The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled ‘Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles’ (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.”
This passed. And following this TEC moved them into a new section of the 79 book. Historical documents.
What that recognizes is that there is not a single attitude toward the Articles throughout the Communion, but variable ones. And that should be reflected in how the Articles might be viewed. IOW, Anglicans are a motley crew. And to find out what attitude any take toward them, one needs to inquire of the particular Anglican entity. Anglicans, generally (meaning, without further explication) may interpret, affirm, deny, or partially affirm or deny, the Articles. Or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. You need to ask.
Bottom line.
The articles are binding, demonstrably, and historically, only on the clergy of the CoE, per the terms of the Act of Subscription.
If you wish to know what a given Anglican individual or entity says/affirms/requires with respect to the Articles, you have to ask them.
Anglicans are a motley crew.
This no doubt could stand editing, but it’s not going to get it. Dang flu.
GKC
P
PRmerger
Guest
Hi, Indifferently,
I see you are online now. Would you mind answering a question you left unanswered from a different thread?
Thanks.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10235131
I see you are online now. Would you mind answering a question you left unanswered from a different thread?
Probably best if you return to that thread to answer, rather than posting your response here.What about the canon of the NT?
Do you think that there is some error in this table of contents? For example, do you believe Revelation should be excluded and, say, the letter of Clement included?
Thanks.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10235131
J
jrtrent
Guest
Thank you for your detailed response. I’ll have to chew on it for a while to better understand it. What I seem to be getting, though, is that at least for Anglicans who are in the Church of England, the 39 Articles have become something of a non-player as far as an authoritative source of doctrinal belief.But, except as noted (and that is a technical point; CoE clergy are 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.
Reading the suggestions of the more recent Lambeth Conferences reveals a move away from traditional teaching that seems reflected in the belief statements of several Anglican bodies not associated with Canterbury (such as women priests, open communion, downplaying of the 39 Articles, increased acceptance of homosexuality).
Like the 1974 Worship and Doctrine Measure, the 2008 GAFCON Jerusalem Statement quotes the Church of England Canon A5, saying, “We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it.”
I’m still not quite sure what a GAFCON is, or what significance the conference and its declaration has, but the 4th tenet of the Jerusalem Declaration states, “We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.”
To repeat what you said above, “the Articles cannot be said to have any general application, to Anglicans generally, without reference to some governing authority.” My governing authority is the church I belong to, and it recognizes the 39 Articles as authoritative. Given the language of His Majesty’s Declaration and canon A5, I find it surprising that members of the Church of England don’t also find them authoritative, but I certainly take your word for it.
I still don’t quite understand why a person would want to be ordained into the Church of England, or for that matter be a member of it, if they don’t believe the doctrinal statements given by the church, including the 39 Articles. If there are doctrinal positions they can’t subscribe or assent to in good conscience, why not find a church more in line with their own thinking? To have the 39 Articles in one’s prayer book, to have them cited in your church’s canons as a source of sound doctrine, and then to decide that they are not important or not binding seems very strange to me.
Don’t feel you need to respond to my ramblings, especially as you’re not feeling well. I’ll continue to search it out as best I can. I’m still mostly curious about which of the articles seem to cause people the most trouble, which are the ones most often seen as false by those not wanting to subscribe to them.
G
GKC
Guest
Here’s GAFCONThank you for your detailed response. I’ll have to chew on it for a while to better understand it. What I seem to be getting, though, is that at least for Anglicans who are in the Church of England, the 39 Articles have become something of a non-player as far as an authoritative source of doctrinal belief.
Reading the suggestions of the more recent Lambeth Conferences reveals a move away from traditional teaching that seems reflected in the belief statements of several Anglican bodies not associated with Canterbury (such as women priests, open communion, downplaying of the 39 Articles, increased acceptance of homosexuality).
Like the 1974 Worship and Doctrine Measure, the 2008 GAFCON Jerusalem Statement quotes the Church of England Canon A5, saying, “We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it.”
I’m still not quite sure what a GAFCON is, or what significance the conference and its declaration has, but the 4th tenet of the Jerusalem Declaration states, “We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.”
To repeat what you said above, “the Articles cannot be said to have any general application, to Anglicans generally, without reference to some governing authority.” My governing authority is the church I belong to, and it recognizes the 39 Articles as authoritative. Given the language of His Majesty’s Declaration and canon A5, I find it surprising that members of the Church of England don’t also find them authoritative, but I certainly take your word for it.
I still don’t quite understand why a person would want to be ordained into the Church of England, or for that matter be a member of it, if they don’t believe the doctrinal statements given by the church, including the 39 Articles. If there are doctrinal positions they can’t subscribe or assent to in good conscience, why not find a church more in line with their own thinking? To have the 39 Articles in one’s prayer book, to have them cited in your church’s canons as a source of sound doctrine, and then to decide that they are not important or not binding seems very strange to me.
Don’t feel you need to respond to my ramblings, especially as you’re not feeling well. I’ll continue to search it out as best I can. I’m still mostly curious about which of the articles seem to cause people the most trouble, which are the ones most often seen as false by those not wanting to subscribe to them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Anglican_Future_Conference
The participants at GAFCON were mainly from the evangelical side of Anglicanism and hence more likely to embrace the Articles. But your para about the recent Lambeth Conferences indicates a misunderstanding about some other basic points. Most of the Anglican groups not associated with Canterbury (the Continuum), are on the Anglo-Catholic side of the spectrum. Less likely to have much use for the Articles, and no use at all for female ordination, same sex anything, open communion.
I didn’t say the CoE didn’t consider the Articles important, or reflective of CoE doctrine. I said the Act of Subscription was basically a dead letter. Like I said, could have done some editing for clarity. Serious failure to communicate, I fear.
The point, again: the existence of the Articles doesn’t tell you anything about which Anglicans accept them in what manner, to what degree. You need to inquire.
And, technically, I was responding to post # 15 which said that no Episcopalian is required to subscribe to the Articles. Which is correct. I replied that no Anglican was, save, in a technical sense, ordinands (and clergy) of the CoE. Which is literally true, unless some other Anglican jurisdiction has a copy of the Subscription Act, legally binding, in their bailiwick. The clergy of the CoE are unique in that respect.
Anglicans are not only a motley crew, but a rather complicated one.
GKC
L
LoveMercyGrace
Guest
OP responding to some of posts per a request.
First, I am baptized.
I have been separated from the church.
I started attending a REC Anglican church.
I was told I needed to attend catechism, baptism, and be confirmed in order to partake in
Holy Communion.
Later I found my papers, and said I have been baptized and have received communion in RC church. ( God help us needing to produce documents!)
Vicar said, I needed to still attend catechism and be confirmed when Bishop comes.
I accepted as the doctrine of this church, at this point.
This is where it went astray, became painful and confusing…
Other people attending catechism are allowed to take communion. I am the only one being
excluded.
So there is no doctrine that says “only those confirmed shall partake”.
A vague reference to article 29, ( which I then looked up)
Can not give confession, perhaps there is no such thing in this
church other than the general daily confession.
On article I found on ENS and why I inserted it were… first, I was
suffering at being singled out like this ( having just come from church) and wondering if I
should continue in any church; ( I reasoned) even an unbaptized
person was welcomed at church - as Christ welcomes anyone who comes to
him…Christ had called her to His table. This priest was insightful compassionate-
welcoming her. I saw this as Christs will being fulfilled and a blessed act on the part of the
priest who so allowed this, he has preached the gospel by his actions and helped to save a
soul.
And God bless him.
Edit: I know this is a bit off-topic, but this side issue at least keeps the thread in view in hopes that the OP will respond to some of the earlier comments that bore more directly on the original question.
First, I am baptized.
I have been separated from the church.
I started attending a REC Anglican church.
I was told I needed to attend catechism, baptism, and be confirmed in order to partake in
Holy Communion.
Later I found my papers, and said I have been baptized and have received communion in RC church. ( God help us needing to produce documents!)
Vicar said, I needed to still attend catechism and be confirmed when Bishop comes.
I accepted as the doctrine of this church, at this point.
This is where it went astray, became painful and confusing…
Other people attending catechism are allowed to take communion. I am the only one being
excluded.
So there is no doctrine that says “only those confirmed shall partake”.
A vague reference to article 29, ( which I then looked up)
Can not give confession, perhaps there is no such thing in this
church other than the general daily confession.
On article I found on ENS and why I inserted it were… first, I was
suffering at being singled out like this ( having just come from church) and wondering if I
should continue in any church; ( I reasoned) even an unbaptized
person was welcomed at church - as Christ welcomes anyone who comes to
him…Christ had called her to His table. This priest was insightful compassionate-
welcoming her. I saw this as Christs will being fulfilled and a blessed act on the part of the
priest who so allowed this, he has preached the gospel by his actions and helped to save a
soul.
And God bless him.
Edit: I know this is a bit off-topic, but this side issue at least keeps the thread in view in hopes that the OP will respond to some of the earlier comments that bore more directly on the original question.
J
jrtrent
Guest
Thank you for this further information. Andrewstx in post 15, as well as GKC, had mentioned the relative position of the 39 Articles in various Anglican bodies. They mentioned that in the Episcopal Church, these had been relegated to the status of “historical document.” The Reformed Episcopal Church is a different organisation, which says, “The Reformed Episcopal Church vigorously holds to the plain understanding of the 39 Articles of Religion of the English Reformation and adopted them as the doctrinal standard of the Church at her founding.” Perhaps that explains the reference to Article XXIX.OP responding to some of posts per a request.
First, I am baptized.
I have been separated from the church.
I started attending a REC Anglican church.
I was told I needed to attend catechism, baptism, and be confirmed in order to partake in
Holy Communion.
Later I found my papers, and said I have been baptized and have received communion in RC church. ( God help us needing to produce documents!)
Vicar said, I needed to still attend catechism and be confirmed when Bishop comes.
The Episcopal Church’s website says, “It goes by several names: Holy Communion, the Eucharist (which literally means “thanksgiving”), mass. But whatever it’s called, this is the family meal for Christians and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet. As such, all persons who have been baptized, and are therefore part of the extended family that is the Church, are welcome to receive the bread and wine, and be in communion with God and each other.” So it sounds as if had you gone to an Episcopal Church, as opposed to a Reformed Episcopal Church, your baptism alone would have made you a welcome communicant at Holy Communion.
The Anglican church I go to has yet a different affiliation than the REC, but it, too, required my studying the catechism and being confirmed by the Bishop before taking communion, though it accepted my Lutheran baptism as valid.
I accepted as the doctrine of this church, at this point.
This is where it went astray, became painful and confusing…
Other people attending catechism are allowed to take communion. I am the only one being
excluded.
So there is no doctrine that says “only those confirmed shall partake”.
It is hard to understand why some would need confirmation by an REC bishop to commune while others don’t, and obviously they didn’t give you a satisfactory explanation. I can’t think of one myself. I do know that at both the Lutheran church I formerly attended and at the Anglican church, they stressed a right understanding of what happens at communion.A vague reference to article 29, ( which I then looked up)
Coming from a Roman Catholic background, perhaps the REC church wants to be sure you understand the differences in belief before partaking of communion. In my church, knowledge of the catechism must be demonstrated prior to confirmation, and in it we learn that the Body and Blood of Christ are spiritually taken and received. Article XXVIII also states, “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” Articles XXV, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, and XXXI give other differences between Anglican and Catholic understandings of this sacrament.
Perhaps the REC is more careful about instruction prior to communion for those coming from the Roman Catholic church due to there being such a great difference in understanding what Holy Communion is and does. Still, I think if confirmation before communion is a rule for one, it should be a rule for all. I would ask the REC church you attend for clarification on this matter.
Can not give confession, perhaps there is no such thing in this
Auricular confession to a priest is not part of Anglican teaching so far as I know. Article XXXV declares the Books of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. There is a homily on “Repentance, and of True Reconciliation unto God” with a lot of good information that can be found on the subject, especially in part 2. anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk2hom20.htmchurch other than the general daily confession.
While there is no specified duty to confess to a priest, confession to God and acknowledging our faults one to another are part of our duty. Also, as the homily points out, “I doe not say, but that if any doe finde themselues troubled in conscience, they may repayre to their learned Curate or Pastour, or to some other godly learned man, and shew the trouble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may receiue at their hand the comfortable salue of GODS word: but it is against the true Christian libertie, that any man should bee bound to the numbring of his sinnes, as it hath beene vsed heretofore in the time of blindnesse and ignorance.”
J
jrtrent
Guest
Thanks for the quotes in your earlier post by Usher, Bramhall, and Bull. I especially enjoyed that of Bramhall. My introduction to Anglicanism many years ago was the writings of J. C. Ryle, who expresses his opinion of the authority of the Articles in rather strong terms in a chapter of his book Knots Untied. Yet even he is careful to note:I didn’t say the CoE didn’t consider the Articles important, or reflective of CoE doctrine. I said the Act of Subscription was basically a dead letter. . . technically, I was responding to post # 15 which said that no Episcopalian is required to subscribe to the Articles. Which is correct. I replied that no Anglican was, save, in a technical sense, ordinands (and clergy) of the CoE. Which is literally true, unless some other Anglican jurisdiction has a copy of the Subscription Act, legally binding, in their bailiwick. The clergy of the CoE are unique in that respect.
*"Let us mark, in the next place, as we read the Articles, their studied moderation about things non-essential to salvation, and things about which good Christian men may differ.
About sin after baptism, about predestination and election, about the definition of the Church, about the ministry, about the ceremonies and rights of every particular or national Church - about all these points it is most striking to observe the calm, gentle, tender, conciliatory tone which runs throughout the Articles; a tone the more remarkable when contrasted with the firm and decided language on essential points, to which I have just been referring.
It is clear as daylight to my mind that the authors of the Articles intended to admit the possibility of difference on the points which I have just been enumerating. They saw the possibility of men differing about predestination and election, as Fletcher and Toplady did. How cautious are their statements, and how carefully guarded and fenced!"*
The congregation I attend was formerly part of the Anglican Province of America (APA), but is now affiliated with the Anglican Churches of the Northwest. The APA has a joint affirmation with the REC on Anglican belief and practice. rechurch.org/recus/?MIval=/recweb/anglican_belief_practice.pdf
This includes the statement, “The Articles of Religion are generally normative (both descriptively and prescriptively) for understanding the historic teaching and positions of the Church of England and the faith and practice of her derivative provinces and jurisdictions.” Also, there is the REC statement that the church, “vigorously holds to the plain understanding of the 39 Articles of Religion of the English Reformation and adopted them as the doctrinal standard of the Church at her founding.” While this seems contrary to your statement that the Articles are not generally normative, I begin to think that there is more difference in how we understand the word “normative” than there are differences between how see the purpose and applicability of the 39 Articles.
G
GKC
Guest
Ryle is the man for maintaining the authority of the Articles, yes.Thanks for the quotes in your earlier post by Usher, Bramhall, and Bull. I especially enjoyed that of Bramhall. My introduction to Anglicanism many years ago was the writings of J. C. Ryle, who expresses his opinion of the authority of the Articles in rather strong terms in a chapter of his book Knots Untied. Yet even he is careful to note:
*"Let us mark, in the next place, as we read the Articles, their studied moderation about things non-essential to salvation, and things about which good Christian men may differ.
About sin after baptism, about predestination and election, about the definition of the Church, about the ministry, about the ceremonies and rights of every particular or national Church - about all these points it is most striking to observe the calm, gentle, tender, conciliatory tone which runs throughout the Articles; a tone the more remarkable when contrasted with the firm and decided language on essential points, to which I have just been referring.
It is clear as daylight to my mind that the authors of the Articles intended to admit the possibility of difference on the points which I have just been enumerating. They saw the possibility of men differing about predestination and election, as Fletcher and Toplady did. How cautious are their statements, and how carefully guarded and fenced!"*
The congregation I attend was formerly part of the Anglican Province of America (APA), but is now affiliated with the Anglican Churches of the Northwest. The APA has a joint affirmation with the REC on Anglican belief and practice. rechurch.org/recus/?MIval=/recweb/anglican_belief_practice.pdf
This includes the statement, “The Articles of Religion are generally normative (both descriptively and prescriptively) for understanding the historic teaching and positions of the Church of England and the faith and practice of her derivative provinces and jurisdictions.” Also, there is the REC statement that the church, “vigorously holds to the plain understanding of the 39 Articles of Religion of the English Reformation and adopted them as the doctrinal standard of the Church at her founding.” While this seems contrary to your statement that the Articles are not generally normative, I begin to think that there is more difference in how we understand the word “normative” than there are differences between how see the purpose and applicability of the 39 Articles.
The APA is one of the more reformed minded of the Continuing jurisdictions. The REC is the original American breakaway Anglican church, and was extremely inclined to the reformed/evangelical side of the Anglican spectrum. They are currently also associated with the ACNA, AFAIK.
I suggest that the main difference is in the word “generally”, though. I continue to suggest you ask before assuming.
GKC
P
pablope
Guest
Well…some thoughts on what you said here…if one finds or seeks a church to his liking…then is not that person creating a church of his own…one that agrees with him?Thank you for your detailed response.
I still don’t quite understand why a person would want to be ordained into the Church of England, or for that matter be a member of it, if they don’t believe the doctrinal statements given by the church, including the 39 Articles. If there are doctrinal positions they can’t subscribe or assent to in good conscience, why not find a church more in line with their own thinking? To have the 39 Articles in one’s prayer book, to have them cited in your church’s canons as a source of sound doctrine, and then to decide that they are not important or not binding seems very strange to me…
Should it not be…Jesus founded a Church…and we find that Church…and conform ourselves to the teachings of that Church…instead of searching for one that agrees with us?
I
Indifferently
Guest
Depends what you mean by Church.Well…some thoughts on what you said here…if one finds or seeks a church to his liking…then is not that person creating a church of his own…one that agrees with him?
Should it not be…Jesus founded a Church…and we find that Church…and conform ourselves to the teachings of that Church…instead of searching for one that agrees with us?
P
pablope
Guest
Why should there be many meanings for the Church…should not there be only one meaning for it? And should it not be as it was understood by the ECFs?Depends what you mean by Church.
And should it not be in accordance with the Creeds of the early times…One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic?
I
Indifferently
Guest
Yes and No.Why should there be many meanings for the Church…should not there be only one meaning for it? And should it not be as it was understood by the ECFs?
And should it not be in accordance with the Creeds of the early times…One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.