The Articles were formally imposed on the clergy of the CoE, not the laity, by the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription. As ++Bramhall said,
“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 that are contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the 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.”
They were the first expression of the* via media*, how Elizabeth choose to govern a fractious Church, in a fractious land, in fractious times: religion as statecraft. They are not normative for Anglicans, generally, save, for CoE clergy, in the technical sense of the Act; a sort of job description for the erastian CoE. One can contemplate the recommendations of Lambeth, 1968:
*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 Historical documents.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.
That being said, if you can affirm, at the appropriate degree of theological certainty, what the RCC requires to be affirmed, look to the Tiber.
