Anglicanism vs. Catholicism

[Paul_Rimmer]

I got’cha. I misunderstood your original post that I responded to. You’re opinion is that an Anglican can reject any and all of the 39 Articles so long as they take their rejection seriously. Correct?

Well, not all of them, but most of them, yes.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I was glad to read your thoughtful post, and will revise that I don’t really think the 39 articles should be confessed, as on Sundays. I do think they should be believed, and should at the very least be seriously considered. I accept all of them, though I have a more loose interpretation of some.

I think those folks who affirm the 39 Articles are the truest and most honest Anglicans. And they have no business, if they do indeed affirm the Articles, joining the Catholic Church. They’d be seriously inconsistent, bizarre, and going against their consciences. The Anglo-Catholics who have nothing but the prayer book (which in itself is protestant by and large) to grab onto and the Tractarian approach to worship and church polity, those folks make the most likely group to go over the Tiber, IMO…

I also agree, by that understanding of returning to Rome. I have no business becoming in that sense Catholic. I suppose I have a wild pie-in-the-sky dream of, some day in the very distant future, the Anglican Bishops sitting down with the other Western Catholic Bishops and the Pope, calling a local council (or ecumenical council, if the Orthodox had already reconciled with Rome), and reconsidering certain views Rome currently holds, as well as certain views Anglicans tend to hold. There are some propositions I would consider revising my position on, if Rome would be willing to do the same with some of her’s. The very authority of such a council, if it came to any sort of consensus, would be a powerful thing, and is what I picture as the beginning of genuine unity.

 

[nhylan]

I agree, a new council would solve problems of deciding authority in a reunion of Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. It would have to be a give and take so unfortunately that will never happen. Their doctrine is infallible remember?

I was glad to read your thoughtful post, and will revise that I don’t really think the 39 articles should be confessed, as on Sundays. I do think they should be believed, and should at the very least be seriously considered. I accept all of them, though I have a more loose interpretation of some.

I also agree, by that understanding of returning to Rome. I have no business becoming in that sense Catholic. I suppose I have a wild pie-in-the-sky dream of, some day in the very distant future, the Anglican Bishops sitting down with the other Western Catholic Bishops and the Pope, calling a local council (or ecumenical council, if the Orthodox had already reconciled with Rome), and reconsidering certain views Rome currently holds, as well as certain views Anglicans tend to hold. There are some propositions I would consider revising my position on, if Rome would be willing to do the same with some of her’s. The very authority of such a council, if it came to any sort of consensus, would be a powerful thing, and is what I picture as the beginning of genuine unity.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I agree, a new council would solve problems of deciding authority in a reunion of Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. It would have to be a give and take so unfortunately that will never happen.

Not in the environment of this backlash to Vatican II, but I’m hoping that, in talking with things for which Rome may be willing to reconsider (such as Anglican Orders), we can build points of agreement, and hopefully a good conversational tone to carry on to more difficult issues.

Ultimately, though, you are right in the natural order. It would take a miracle. So, for right now, prayer for unity is probably the best thing.

Their doctrine is infallible remember?

If they really believe that, then they should have nothing to worry about open and friendly discussion about such doctrine.

If I had a chip to bet that could never lose, that chip would be on the table all the time.

 

[Contarini]

I was glad to read your thoughtful post, and will revise that I don’t really think the 39 articles should be confessed, as on Sundays. I do think they should be believed, and should at the very least be seriously considered.

But do you think they are true, when they contradict the consensus of the pre-Reformation Church? Why do you think this?

I also agree, by that understanding of returning to Rome.

Rome and/or the Eastern Church, which holds fast to the Seven Councils.

That ought to be the bottom line. The Anglo-Catholics saw this, but unfortunately they tangled themselves up in tortuous historical revisionism and were unable or unwilling to say simply, “Anglicanism has fallen away from Catholicism and we need to repent.”

I have no business becoming in that sense Catholic. I suppose I have a wild pie-in-the-sky dream of, some day in the very distant future, the Anglican Bishops sitting down with the other Western Catholic Bishops and the Pope, calling a local council (or ecumenical council, if the Orthodox had already reconciled with Rome), and reconsidering certain views Rome currently holds, as well as certain views Anglicans tend to hold.

But as long as the Articles are seen as irreformable, that would be pointless.

We have to decide: Articles or the Seven Councils? As long as that ambiguity remains, Anglicanism will remain incoherent.

If, as I believe, the Church of the First Millennium was unquestionably Catholic and Orthodox, then we Anglicans have no business demanding to be treated as equal partners by Rome or the Orthodox. We should pick one of them and humbly submit ourselves to them. I would love this to be a collective act, because I don’t trust my own judgment to choose between two such illustrious competitors. I do, however, trust my own judgment to say that the Reformation was wrong insofar as it broke with those teachings and practices held in common by Rome and the East.

Edwin

 

[Eutychus123]

But do you think they are true, when they contradict the consensus of the pre-Reformation Church? Why do you think this?

Rome and/or the Eastern Church, which holds fast to the Seven Councils.

That ought to be the bottom line. The Anglo-Catholics saw this, but unfortunately they tangled themselves up in tortuous historical revisionism and were unable or unwilling to say simply, “Anglicanism has fallen away from Catholicism and we need to repent.”

But as long as the Articles are seen as irreformable, that would be pointless.

We have to decide: Articles or the Seven Councils? As long as that ambiguity remains, Anglicanism will remain incoherent.

If, as I believe, the Church of the First Millennium was unquestionably Catholic and Orthodox, then we Anglicans have no business demanding to be treated as equal partners by Rome or the Orthodox. We should pick one of them and humbly submit ourselves to them. I would love this to be a collective act, because I don’t trust my own judgment to choose between two such illustrious competitors. I do, however, trust my own judgment to say that the Reformation was wrong insofar as it broke with those teachings and practices held in common by Rome and the East.

Edwin

I think that Anglicans would argue that the Vatican moved away from the Vincentian Canon, and that certain Roman doctrines are innovations.

Also, the Oriental Churches have been separated since the 4th? century.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I still ask the same question I did a couple of pages back…How would this be a collective act? You acknowledge that the Reformation was wrong and that either Orthodoxy or Catholicism are the two legitimate choices and you can find the bad in both, but why can’t you just choose one and join? Why do you need Anglican bishops to lead you to either Holy Orthodoxy or to Catholicism? In saying you’d prefer Anglicanism to take you back ‘home’ to either of these two great churches, you’re acknowledging Anglicanism to be bigger and wiser than your own intellect and you yourself incapable of choosing? Do you think your intellect and over-analyzing is getting in the way of making a decision and you’re yielding to Anglicans to make the decision for you with a hoped-for council, etc.? If Anglicanism is, as you say, “incoherent,” then how can it bring you to where you belong? And why do you not trust your own judgment? Perhaps some solid prayer to the Holy Spirit to guide you and focusing on the prayer life and faith over pure intellect is what God is calling you to do? I say all this not from a judgmental and arrogant pedestal, but because first-hand I believe that God has sent me this very message. My intellect can take me only so far. Faith, prayer, and grace are terribly powerful forces and not only our intellectual prowess can carry us to where God wants us. And with the Anglican inability to see the forest for the trees, especially at this sad point in history, I wouldn’t hold my breath about them sailing the ship anywhere soon.

We have to decide: Articles or the Seven Councils? As long as that ambiguity remains, Anglicanism will remain incoherent.

If, as I believe, the Church of the First Millennium was unquestionably Catholic and Orthodox, then we Anglicans have no business demanding to be treated as equal partners by Rome or the Orthodox. We should pick one of them and humbly submit ourselves to them. I would love this to be a collective act, because I don’t trust my own judgment to choose between two such illustrious competitors. I do, however, trust my own judgment to say that the Reformation was wrong insofar as it broke with those teachings and practices held in common by Rome and the East.

Edwin

 

[Soldier_X]

And with the Anglican inability to see the forest for the trees, especially at this sad point in history, I wouldn’t hold my breath about them sailing the ship anywhere soon.

At least you said “sailing” instead of the grossly overused “swimming” (as in, Great Lakes Megachurch Swim Team 2009 haha)

 

[Contarini]

I think that Anglicans would argue that the Vatican moved away from the Vincentian Canon, and that certain Roman doctrines are innovations.

Sure, but it’s the pot calling the kettle black. Anglo-Catholics are generally the ones who make this argument, and they’ve survived for 150 years by pretending to be “the real Anglicans” and either ignoring or distorting the historic Protestant formularies of Anglicanism (chiefly the Articles, but also the Homilies and the 1552/1559/1662 English BCP tradition). When you look at what Anglicanism as a whole has believed and practiced, instead of what Anglo-Catholics have said they ought to be believing and practicing, it should be clear that Anglicans have “moved away from the Vincentian canon” (along with Protestantism as a whole) far more clearly than Rome has.

If we really want to uphold the Vincentian Canon against Rome, we should be Orthodox. It’s as simple as that.

Also, the Oriental Churches have been separated since the 4th? century.

Fifth/sixth. But close enough. I’m open to hearing an argument showing that Chalcedon or Ephesus was wrong, but I have yet to see a strong enough argument to overcome the assumption that I naturally begin with in favor of my own Chalcedonian tradition, which constitutes the vast majority of historic Christianity.

Edwin

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

But do you think they are true, when they contradict the consensus of the pre-Reformation Church? Why do you think this?

I don’t read them as ever contradicting the consensus of the pre-Reformation Church. They may disagree with the understanding of some members of that Church, but about things for which there should be a diversity of opinion and belief. “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”, to quote a restorationist.

Rome and/or the Eastern Church, which holds fast to the Seven Councils.

Rome holds to more, and it’s clear the Eastern Church doesn’t follow very closely parts of those Seven Councils (one bishop per city?). There are also canons in those councils that are suspect, inserted unfairly, etc. It’s a mess. I do accept, however, all seven ecumenical councils. I see no conflict between them and the Articles. I just consider both them and the articles to be fallible about a great many things, and probably false about a few.

If, as I believe, the Church of the First Millennium was unquestionably Catholic and Orthodox, then we Anglicans have no business demanding to be treated as equal partners by Rome or the Orthodox. We should pick one of them and humbly submit ourselves to them. I would love this to be a collective act, because I don’t trust my own judgment to choose between two such illustrious competitors. I do, however, trust my own judgment to say that the Reformation was wrong insofar as it broke with those teachings and practices held in common by Rome and the East.

Then I respectfully offer that you might want to trust the authority of the Pope, which was respected highly in the Early Church, through the Seven Councils, and consider submitting to the authority of Rome. Become a Roman Catholic. It’s sounds like you’re pretty-much there anyway, to me. Why wait?

 

[Contarini]

I still ask the same question I did a couple of pages back…How would this be a collective act?

I said that I’d like this to happen, not that I think it will. But of course something like it is happening on a small scale with the Ordinariates.

You acknowledge that the Reformation was wrong and that either Orthodoxy or Catholicism are the two legitimate choices and you can find the bad in both, but why can’t you just choose one and join?

Because I’m not making this decision in a vacuum. If I had no church affiliation, no wife or child, and no job as a teacher of religion at an evangelical college, then sure–I would just flip a coin at worst (to avoid the Buridan’s Donkey problem). But when taking either step will involve breaking ties with the Christian community in which I’m deeply involved, putting strain on my marriage, and possibly losing my job, I need to know with reasonable certainty that it’s the right decision.

Furthermore, precisely because of Anglicanism’s incoherence, we don’t make the kind of exclusive claims that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy do. That means that Anglicanism is an appropriate place for someone who sees validity to both sides’ arguments.

Why do you need Anglican bishops to lead you to either Holy Orthodoxy or to Catholicism?

Because I don’t think I’m infallible.

In saying you’d prefer Anglicanism to take you back ‘home’ to either of these two great churches, you’re acknowledging Anglicanism to be bigger and wiser than your own intellect and you yourself incapable of choosing?

Christians should always make decisions as part of a community, yes. To reject Protestantism by an individual choice is intrinsically paradoxical–maybe self-defeating. It baffles me that more converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy do not see how serious a problem this is.

If Anglicanism is, as you say, “incoherent,” then how can it bring you to where you belong?

I don’t think there’s something called “Anglicanism” out there which will bring me anywhere.

But all my religious theories are straw in the fire compared to the living, concrete community with which I worship on Sunday.

And why do you not trust your own judgment?

Because setting up one’s own judgment as the arbiter of truth (even though he wouldn’t have put it that way and didn’t maintain a theory of "private judgment) is how Luther got us all in this mess in the first place!

I can’t believe that you even ask that question. If private judgment were reliable, Protestantism would work just fine.

Perhaps some solid prayer to the Holy Spirit to guide you and focusing on the prayer life and faith over pure intellect is what God is calling you to do?

That’s probably true!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t read them as ever contradicting the consensus of the pre-Reformation Church.

I’m happy to debate the point with you, but I may be unable to convince you. Do at least consider this: low-church Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, all coming from different theological positions, *all *think that what you are saying is nonsense. Low-Church Anglicans think that the pre-Reformation Church was wrong and was rightly corrected by the Reformers. Roman Catholics of course think that the Reformation was wrong to break with Rome. The Orthodox are perhaps the best judges, since they weren’t directly involved in the original quarrel. And they invariably conclude, when they look carefully at the Articles and at Anglicanism as a whole, that the Articles do contradict the teaching of the historic Church. On more than one occasion Anglo-Catholics have persuaded the Orthodox to accept their reading of Anglicanism, only for the Orthodox to reject this interpretation and accuse Anglicans of deceit upon further acquaintance with Anglicanism. You can see this happening in Palmer’s correspondence with the Russians in the 19th century, and in the judgment of St. Raphael Hawaweeny on Anglicanism in the 20th.

Specifically:

Article 6 can perhaps be defended in light of patristic statements about the material sufficiency of Scripture. However, in the light of Articles 20 and 34 it is clear that the theology of the Articles has no room for a doctrine of Sacred Tradition.

Article 11 explicitly appeals to the Homily on Justification for further elaboration. That Homily is a standard Protestant exposition of sola fide, though it is more orthodox than some inasmuch as it does not explicitly teach imputed righteousness (the doctrine can be understood to be implied). In light of the Homily on Good Works, however, we are clearly to understand the Anglican position to be as hostile to a traditional doctrine of good works and sanctification as is that of Continental Protestantism. The heresy is not so much in what is affirmed (forgiveness through the mercy of Christ received by faith) as in the hostility to the traditional view of continuing sanctification as an intrinsic part of justification. (Article 12 makes this quite clear–good works are only the result of faith rather than being seen as the work of the Holy Spirit within us and thus part of the process of justification.) The Articles clearly come down on the Protestant side in distinguishing sanctification sharply from justification and insisting that, while good works are necessary, they have nothing to do with justification per se. This distinction is not traditional or orthodox.

Article 19 is unorthodox by omission, since it defines the Church with no reference to apostolic succession.

Article 21 may be orthodox, depending on how it is interpreted, although its statement of the authority of princes is one place where Anglicanism agrees too much with the most corrupt expression of Eastern Christianity!

Article 22 speaks in such broad terms that Anglo-Catholics have been able to interpret it as only a rejection of late medieval abuses. However, there is no reasonable warrant for such an interpretation. If Article 22 had been teaching a position similar to that of the Orthodox, it would have been quite easy to say so. This article, in its historical context, is clearly a rejection of a host of traditional beliefs and practices regarding post-mortem purgation, devotion to the saints, and the use of icons/images.

Article 24 is not unorthodox, but it is overly hostile to archaic/sacred language, reflecting the typical Reformed focus on intelligibility as opposed to mystery.

Article 25 is typically Protestant, and contrary to traditional Christianity, in its limitation of the concept of “sacrament” to baptism and Eucharist.

Article 28 flatly contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the Real Presence.

Article 31, while again using pejorative and caricaturing language, cannot be reasonably interpreted otherwise than as a rejection of the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (See Francis Clark, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation.)

Article 32, in light of 6, 20, and 34, denies the Church’s right to impose a discipline of celibacy.

Article 35 further makes it clear that the Articles as a whole are to be interpreted in the context of the Homilies.

 

[Contarini]

They may disagree with the understanding of some members of that Church, but about things for which there should be a diversity of opinion and belief.

The history of the Reformation doesn’t allow us to take that approach, if we care about the unity of the Church. The Reformers denounced traditional Christianity for “works righteousness” and “idolatry.” And the Articles clearly fall in line with these denunciations, although they do so moderately and vaguely enough that well-meaning people have been able to find wiggle room.

Rome holds to more, and it’s clear the Eastern Church doesn’t follow very closely parts of those Seven Councils (one bishop per city?).

The Eastern Church as a whole accepts the one-bishop-per-city principle (unlike Rome)–it’s just that the situation in America has led to a lot of confusion. The Orthodox I am acquainted with agree that this is a mess and are trying to sort it out, in contrast to Roman Catholics, who are happy to proliferate jurisdictions, and conservative Anglicans, who frequently seem to think that the geographical principle is outdated and gets in the way of evangelism.

There are also canons in those councils that are suspect, inserted unfairly, etc. It’s a mess.

I’m talking about the doctrine of the Councils, not all their canons. And really I use “the Seven Councils” as shorthand for the tradition of the first millennium, which one can discern easily by looking at those things Catholics and Orthodox have in common.

I do accept, however, all seven ecumenical councils. I see no conflict between them and the Articles. I just consider both them and the articles to be fallible about a great many things, and probably false about a few.

How can you accept them and say that they are probably false?

Then I respectfully offer that you might want to trust the authority of the Pope, which was respected highly in the Early Church, through the Seven Councils, and consider submitting to the authority of Rome. Become a Roman Catholic. It’s sounds like you’re pretty-much there anyway, to me. Why wait?

Why are you so anxious to shoo me in the direction of Rome rather than Orthodoxy?

This is an aspect of Anglicanism I don’t get. I almost suspect at times that Anglicans deliberately ignore the Orthodox, because we can defend our independence much better if we pretend that the only alternative is Rome.

Edwin

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

The history of the Reformation doesn’t allow us to take that approach, if we care about the unity of the Church. The Reformers denounced traditional Christianity for “works righteousness” and “idolatry.” And the Articles clearly fall in line with these denunciations, although they do so moderately and vaguely enough that well-meaning people have been able to find wiggle room.

They clearly but vaguely fall in line with the denunciations of the reformation?

The Eastern Church as a whole accepts the one-bishop-per-city principle (unlike Rome)–it’s just that the situation in America has led to a lot of confusion. The Orthodox I am acquainted with agree that this is a mess and are trying to sort it out, in contrast to Roman Catholics, who are happy to proliferate jurisdictions, and conservative Anglicans, who frequently seem to think that the geographical principle is outdated and gets in the way of evangelism.

I’m with the west on this one.

How can you accept them and say that they are probably false?

I don’t think they are perfect. They were written by human beings, aren’t inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so are at risk for being in error.

Why are you so anxious to shoo me in the direction of Rome rather than Orthodoxy?

I don’t want to shoo you. Call it loving encouragement. In the words of an erstwhile matchmaker, you two seem perfect for each other. Seriously, you read like a Roman Catholic, to me. If you aren’t seriously considering becoming a Roman Catholic, I think you should. Just my opinion. Soft words of advice; take them or leave them.

This is an aspect of Anglicanism I don’t get. I almost suspect at times that Anglicans deliberately ignore the Orthodox, because we can defend our independence much better if we pretend that the only alternative is Rome.

Oh, I don’t mean to ignore the East. If they establish a Patriarch of England or the United States, I’ll seriously consider them. Until then, it’s just too far away from my cultural comfort for me to really consider converting.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I’m happy to debate the point with you, but I may be unable to convince you. Do at least consider this: low-church Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, all coming from different theological positions, *all *think that what you are saying is nonsense.

This can’t be true of every Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian. I have Roman Catholic friends and Eastern Orthodox friends who both agree that the Religious Articles can be read in a way that they are in line with Rome (one Eastern Orthodox friend strongly advocates this position as a criticism of Rome).

But even if I were alone, if I’m right, why should I worry about being alone?

As for the particular articles, this topic is very big. I’ll start a thread on this topic, where we can work through the articles one at a time.

This should be very interesting.

 

[Contarini]

They clearly but vaguely fall in line with the denunciations of the reformation?

Oops! You caught me out. What I meant was that: “it seems clear to me that they fall in line. . . although they do have some ambiguity.” In other words, while I grant that there is ambiguity, I think that this has been overplayed by Anglo-Catholics.

I come to this issue as a student of the Continental Reformation. I think that a lot of Anglicans exaggerate the differences between early Anglicanism and Continental Protestantism because they mistakenly assume that the Continental Reformers were identical to the Puritans and/or to free-church modern American Protestantism. Many of the qualifications the Articles and Homilies make–allowing for the importance of good works, the value of tradition if kept in submission to the Scriptures, the real reception of Christ’s Body and Blood in a “heavenly and spiritual manner”–are typical of Continental Reformed theology.

I’m with the west on this one.

You mean that you don’t think the one-bishop-one-city rule is important?

Why disregard the tradition of the Church on this point? It seems to me that this principle is vital to a truly incarnational ecclesiology. The Christian community gathered around one bishop at one place and time is the Church in that place and time. Divide that local community, and to some extent you have divided the Church.

I don’t want to shoo you. Call it loving encouragement. In the words of an erstwhile matchmaker, you two seem perfect for each other. Seriously, you read like a Roman Catholic, to me.

What makes you think that I’m more Roman Catholic than Orthodox?

Oh, I don’t mean to ignore the East. If they establish a Patriarch of England or the United States, I’ll seriously consider them. Until then, it’s just too far away from my cultural comfort for me to really consider converting.

I don’t find them “away from my cultural comfort.” But given the local focus of my ecclesiology, the fact that there’s no Orthodox parish in my town is a major issue.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I’m happy to debate the point with you, but I may be unable to convince you. Do at least consider this: low-church Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, all coming from different theological positions, *all *think that what you are saying is nonsense. Low-Church Anglicans think that the pre-Reformation Church was wrong and was rightly corrected by the Reformers. Roman Catholics of course think that the Reformation was wrong to break with Rome. The Orthodox are perhaps the best judges, since they weren’t directly involved in the original quarrel. And they invariably conclude, when they look carefully at the Articles and at Anglicanism as a whole, that the Articles do contradict the teaching of the historic Church. On more than one occasion Anglo-Catholics have persuaded the Orthodox to accept their reading of Anglicanism, only for the Orthodox to reject this interpretation and accuse Anglicans of deceit upon further acquaintance with Anglicanism. You can see this happening in Palmer’s correspondence with the Russians in the 19th century, and in the judgment of St. Raphael Hawaweeny on Anglicanism in the 20th.

Specifically:

Article 6 can perhaps be defended in light of patristic statements about the material sufficiency of Scripture. However, in the light of Articles 20 and 34 it is clear that the theology of the Articles has no room for a doctrine of Sacred Tradition.

Article 11 explicitly appeals to the Homily on Justification for further elaboration. That Homily is a standard Protestant exposition of sola fide, though it is more orthodox than some inasmuch as it does not explicitly teach imputed righteousness (the doctrine can be understood to be implied). In light of the Homily on Good Works, however, we are clearly to understand the Anglican position to be as hostile to a traditional doctrine of good works and sanctification as is that of Continental Protestantism. The heresy is not so much in what is affirmed (forgiveness through the mercy of Christ received by faith) as in the hostility to the traditional view of continuing sanctification as an intrinsic part of justification. (Article 12 makes this quite clear–good works are only the result of faith rather than being seen as the work of the Holy Spirit within us and thus part of the process of justification.) The Articles clearly come down on the Protestant side in distinguishing sanctification sharply from justification and insisting that, while good works are necessary, they have nothing to do with justification per se. This distinction is not traditional or orthodox.

Article 19 is unorthodox by omission, since it defines the Church with no reference to apostolic succession.

Article 21 may be orthodox, depending on how it is interpreted, although its statement of the authority of princes is one place where Anglicanism agrees too much with the most corrupt expression of Eastern Christianity!

Article 22 speaks in such broad terms that Anglo-Catholics have been able to interpret it as only a rejection of late medieval abuses. However, there is no reasonable warrant for such an interpretation. If Article 22 had been teaching a position similar to that of the Orthodox, it would have been quite easy to say so. This article, in its historical context, is clearly a rejection of a host of traditional beliefs and practices regarding post-mortem purgation, devotion to the saints, and the use of icons/images.

Article 24 is not unorthodox, but it is overly hostile to archaic/sacred language, reflecting the typical Reformed focus on intelligibility as opposed to mystery.

Article 25 is typically Protestant, and contrary to traditional Christianity, in its limitation of the concept of “sacrament” to baptism and Eucharist.

Article 28 flatly contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the Real Presence.

Article 31, while again using pejorative and caricaturing language, cannot be reasonably interpreted otherwise than as a rejection of the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (See Francis Clark, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation.)

Article 32, in light of 6, 20, and 34, denies the Church’s right to impose a discipline of celibacy.

Article 35 further makes it clear that the Articles as a whole are to be interpreted in the context of the Homilies.

I agree, in general. But Art. 25 can be tweaked, if one wishes, to 7 sacraments.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I agree, in general. But Art. 25 can be tweaked, if one wishes, to 7 sacraments.

GKC

Well, one can tweak nearly all of them if one tries hard enough, as Tract 90 shows! But I think the present question depends on how one interprets “the like nature of sacraments.” I take this to be saying “they do not have the essential properties of sacraments.” Many modern Anglicans have taken it to mean “they are not sacraments in quite the same way.” This is arguably a fine distinction–I suppose one could say that they are “sacramental acts” rather like the RC concept of a “sacramental.” But I think the language is stronger than it’s taken to be, because the (to us) archaic language sounds less direct in our ears than it would have done in the sixteenth century.

I may be wrong on this–I’m tolerably comfortable reading sixteenth-century English, but don’t claim to be an expert on all the nuances.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Well, one can tweak nearly all of them if one tries hard enough, as Tract 90 shows! But I think the present question depends on how one interprets “the like nature of sacraments.” I take this to be saying “they do not have the essential properties of sacraments.” Many modern Anglicans have taken it to mean “they are not sacraments in quite the same way.” This is arguably a fine distinction–I suppose one could say that they are “sacramental acts” rather like the RC concept of a “sacramental.” But I think the language is stronger than it’s taken to be, because the (to us) archaic language sounds less direct in our ears than it would have done in the sixteenth century.

I may be wrong on this–I’m tolerably comfortable reading sixteenth-century English, but don’t claim to be an expert on all the nuances.

Edwin

It’s usaully done by distinguishing the two as Dominical; established of our Lord, Gospel based, with form. These are the ones that are generally necessary, i.e. necessary to Christians in general.

The five are commonly called sacraments (commonly called being Anglican-speak for “another name”, as the Fifth Sunday in Lent, commonly called Passion Sunday, the Nativity of Our Lord, or the Birthday of Christ, commonly called Christmas Day. Five Sacraments, two Dominical, established of Our Lord, in form.

Or cut the things from the book, etc, etc. Who particularly cares what Elizabeth thought would keep the peace? I recall Bishops Bull and Bramhall.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Because I’m not making this decision in a vacuum. If I had no church affiliation, no wife or child, and no job as a teacher of religion at an evangelical college, then sure–I would just flip a coin at worst (to avoid the Buridan’s Donkey problem). But when taking either step will involve breaking ties with the Christian community in which I’m deeply involved, putting strain on my marriage, and possibly losing my job, I need to know with reasonable certainty that it’s the right decision.

Furthermore, precisely because of Anglicanism’s incoherence, we don’t make the kind of exclusive claims that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy do. That means that Anglicanism is an appropriate place for someone who sees validity to both sides’ arguments.

So do you think that every person who chooses Catholicism or Orthodoxy is a self-proclaimed infallible type? I’m confused by this statement. Are you saying since you’re not infallible you can never in your lifetime come to find the right Church where you belong? With this logic, nobody would find Catholicism or Orthodoxy?
Because I don’t think I’m infallible.

I guess I’m guilty because looking at all the fact, I have made the decision that Protestantism is wrong. I read the Catholic statements and history, looked at Protestants’ statements and history and choose to believe Protestantism is wrong. Who else is going to think for me? The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches can only teach and lead, we must make the decision, it’s free will?
Christians should always make decisions as part of a community, yes. To reject Protestantism by an individual choice is intrinsically paradoxical–maybe self-defeating. It baffles me that more converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy do not see how serious a problem this is.

In your previous post you made it sound (perhaps I misread you) that you wouldn’t jump to Rome or Orthodoxy on your own, you’d like your Episcopal diocese to do it and that would be acceptable? Now you don’t even acknowledge them as existing or taking you anywhere? I’m on a roll with confusion today. I’m just misreading your statements apparently.
I don’t think there’s something called “Anglicanism” out there which will bring me anywhere.

Then what’s the point in delving so deep into theology and having all these theories and spending the time if lex orandi, lex credendi does it for you? It’s a waste of time if you local worship is all you need. I’m sure a Baptist or Mormon could say the same thing. Local comfort and meanginful worship to the adherent is enough, then why study and delve at all?
But all my religious theories are straw in the fire compared to the living, concrete community with which I worship on Sunday.

Ultimately don’t you think God expects every man to judge where he belongs? What about Augustine? The guy was a Manichaean and a Neo-Platonist, a womanizer, a secularized lost soul. He came to a realization through a long and slow, steady process that he must become a Catholic. And he did. Was he using private judgment and being arrogant? How do you suggest one find his place in Christendom? You’re saying Anglicans won’t get you there, you can’t challenge your wife’s views (whatever they are), you can’t rely on your bishop to inspire you to other places, you don’t recognize Protestantism as valid and you don’t recognize Catholicism or Orthodoxy as viable choices because you’d have to make the decision to go to one. And in making the decision to go to one you’d be exercising private judgment? That is the weirdest logic I’ve ever heard in here, respectfully? How do you make decisions if every decision ultimately has to come from YOU and you don’t trust yourself to make one because it’s “private judgment?” I’m totally lost on your logic. And I’m even more lost in why you find it so puzzling that I’d ask?
Because setting up one’s own judgment as the arbiter of truth (even though he wouldn’t have put it that way and didn’t maintain a theory of "private judgment) is how Luther got us all in this mess in the first place!

I can’t believe that you even ask that question. If private judgment were reliable, Protestantism would work just fine.

That’s probably true!

Edwin