Any Anglicans / Episcopalians considering switching to RCC?

[exnihilo]

Like?

VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION - establishes a different canon of scripture.

XI. OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN - proclaims justification by faith alone.

XIX. OF THE CHURCH - proclaims the Catholic church erred in teaching the Faith.

XXII. OF PURGATORY - proclaims purgatory a ‘romish’ doctrine. Says it and the invocation of Saints is repugnant and contrary to Holy Scripture.

XXV. OF THE SACRAMENTS - denies five of the seven sacraments are sacraments. Denies adoration and Eucharistic processions.

XXVIII. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER - denies Transubstantiation and says it is repugnant to Scripture. Denies the Real Presence.

XXXI. OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST FINISHED UPON THE CROSS - calls the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit.

There might be some other things but I think that sufficient to show the 39 Articles are unreconcilable with and openly hostile to the Catholic Faith.

 

[GKC]

Anent the Articles and Anglicanism, generally, time to post again what I’ve posted before.

The Articles are statecraft as religion; how Elizabeth choose to govern her fractious and explosive Church, in the historical context of the late 1500s. Their relevance to Anglicans today depends on the attitude of the Anglicans in question. One may affirm, deny, or partially do either. In fact, since many of them are “mere Christianity”, almost any Trinitarian Christian can find things to agree with, without indulging in Tract 90 forms of exegesis. But, except for the clergy of the CoE (IAW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription/1571, technically, the Articles are properly considered what the 1979 Episcopal prayer book considers them: historical. And the CoE clergy are required not so much to affirm the Articles as not “dis-affirm” them,

The articles are not a form of Anglican Confession; Anglicanism is Creedal, not confessional. Today one can easily find Anglicans who affirm them, in total, Anglicans who pick and choose from them as appropriate expressions of their beliefs, and Anglicans who cut them from their Prayer Books and use them to light the new fire at Easter.

 

[Anglicanus_Rex]

VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION - establishes a different canon of scripture.

XI. OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN - proclaims justification by faith alone.

XIX. OF THE CHURCH - proclaims the Catholic church erred in teaching the Faith.

XXII. OF PURGATORY - proclaims purgatory a ‘romish’ doctrine. Says it and the invocation of Saints is repugnant and contrary to Holy Scripture.

XXV. OF THE SACRAMENTS - denies five of the seven sacraments are sacraments. Denies adoration and Eucharistic processions.

XXVIII. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER - denies Transubstantiation and says it is repugnant to Scripture. Denies the Real Presence.

XXXI. OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST FINISHED UPON THE CROSS - calls the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit.

There might be some other things but I think that sufficient to show the 39 Articles are unreconcilable with and openly hostile to the Catholic Faith.

In order to make that case, you’d have to beg the question and assume that the controverted points are part of the Catholic faith. Well beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Henry took it further, in the Henrician Acts of 1534,. But the conflict between the Crown and Rome was of long standing in England. What Henry did was a difference in degree, not in kind, of a process that had been on going in England for +/- 300 years; the increasing independence of the ruling class (monarchy, at the time) from any control from outside the realm. Back at least to Henry II, in the 12th century. Acts of Parliament and Royal decrees limiting and abolishing Papal and Church prerogatives were numerous (Council of Westminster, Council of Clarendon, First Statute of Winchester, Statute of Mortmain, the Writ Circumspecte agatis , the Statue of Carlisle, and the double Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, for example). It was the birth pangs of nationalism.

Elsewhere, too, of course, as in Papacy v Kings of France; Papacy v Dukes of Burgundy; etc.

 

[GKC]

Elsewhere, too, of course, as in Papacy v Kings of France; Papacy v Dukes of Burgundy; etc.

Yeah, but I barely know of those foreign places.

 

[Padres1969]

Would you be ok with actual bowing to the altar though?

I see genuflecting and bowing as simply two sides of the same coin. Members of my congregation typically do one of the other (usually the genuflecting is a dead giveaway of the former Roman Catholics like myself). But both are meant to convey the same type of respect toward the altar and the consecrated host. And bowing has the added benefit of being easier for old people to do I’ve noticed (heck even us not old people sometimes mess up genuflecting. I nearly took the lady sitting next to me out during the Easter Vigil when I genuflected on return to my pew after kneeling for an extended period at the altar before my reception. My knees had gone to sleep. )

 

[Padres1969]

VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION - establishes a different canon of scripture.

XI. OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN - proclaims justification by faith alone.

XIX. OF THE CHURCH - proclaims the Catholic church erred in teaching the Faith.

XXII. OF PURGATORY - proclaims purgatory a ‘romish’ doctrine. Says it and the invocation of Saints is repugnant and contrary to Holy Scripture.

XXV. OF THE SACRAMENTS - denies five of the seven sacraments are sacraments. Denies adoration and Eucharistic processions.

XXVIII. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER - denies Transubstantiation and says it is repugnant to Scripture. Denies the Real Presence.

XXXI. OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST FINISHED UPON THE CROSS - calls the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit.

There might be some other things but I think that sufficient to show the 39 Articles are unreconcilable with and openly hostile to the Catholic Faith.

I’ll address the ones that jumped out at me first as being very much a wrong interpretation of the Articles.

XXV: Does not deny that there are 7 sacraments. Rather it points out that only 2 are sacraments of the Gospels. Which is true. But it clearly states the other 5 are allowed by the scriptures. And indeed the modern interpretation of at least the ECUSA is that the other 5 are sacramental rites and outward signs of inward grace provided by Christ through those rites. They’re just not the 2 sacraments given to us by Christ in the Gospels.

XXVIII: Yes it denies transubstantiation, but it in no way denies the real presence. If you read the first paragraph it specifically distances Anglican thought on the Eucharist from the more reformed idea of the Eucharist being memorial. It specifically mentions that they Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Anglicans at the time simply didn’t subscribe to the specific mode of real presence presented in transubstantiation. But real presence is not denied.

And then close by reiterating what GKC said, that the Articles today are considered by branches of Anglicanism as a historical document, not necessarily a binding one.

 

[GKC]

I’ll address the ones that jumped out at me first as being very much a wrong interpretation of the Articles.

XXV: Does not deny that there are 7 sacraments. Rather it points out that only 2 are sacraments of the Gospels. Which is true. But it clearly states they are allowed by the scriptures.

XXVIII: Yes it denies transubstantiation, but it in no way denies the real presence. If you read the first paragraph it specifically distances Anglican thought on the Eucharist from the more reformed idea of the Eucharist being memorial. It specifically mentions that they Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Anglicans at the time simply didn’t subscribe to the specific mode of real presence presented in transubstantiation. But real presence is not denied.

And then close by reiterating what GKC said, that the Articles today are considered by branches of Anglicanism as a historical document, not necessarily a binding one.

Two Dominical sacraments, established in their form and matter by Our Lord.

Five other sacraments, commonly called thus.

 

[exnihilo]

Anent the Articles and Anglicanism, generally, time to post again what I’ve posted before.

The Articles are statecraft as religion; how Elizabeth choose to govern her fractious and explosive Church, in the historical context of the late 1500s. Their relevance to Anglicans today depends on the attitude of the Anglicans in question. One may affirm, deny, or partially do either. In fact, since many of them are “mere Christianity”, almost any Trinitarian Christian can find things to agree with, without indulging in Tract 90 forms of exegesis. But, except for the clergy of the CoE (IAW the Parliamentary Act of Subscription/1571, technically, the Articles are properly considered what the 1979 Episcopal prayer book considers them: historical. And the CoE clergy are required not so much to affirm the Articles as not “dis-affirm” them,

The articles are not a form of Anglican Confession; Anglicanism is Creedal, not confessional. Today one can easily find Anglicans who affirm them, in total, Anglicans who pick and choose from them as appropriate expressions of their beliefs, and Anglicans who cut them from their Prayer Books and use them to light the new fire at Easter.

I wouldn’t disagree with this. But they remain incompatible with the Catholic Faith and show a hostility towards it. Folks who come from its religious heritage may deny them in whole or part but it remains part of the tradition. Personally I find the idea you can pick and chose whether you hold to the 39 Articles troubling. If they were nothing but theological opinions that would be one thing. But they make clear statements about the Faith and the Catholic Church. It is like how I don’t see how you can allow same sex marriage. To me it is either morally wrong to perform, my opinion, or it is morally wrong to deny. It is something you are either all in or not in at all on.

In order to make that case, you’d have to beg the question and assume that the controverted points are part of the Catholic faith. Well beyond the scope of this thread.

By Catholic Faith I meant ‘the’ Catholic Church and its various rites. I would think most Orthodox would also find parts of it very objectionable.

I’ll address the ones that jumped out at me first as being very much a wrong interpretation of the Articles.

XXV: Does not deny that there are 7 sacraments. Rather it points out that only 2 are sacraments of the Gospels. Which is true. But it clearly states they are allowed by the scriptures.

XXVIII: Yes it denies transubstantiation, but it in no way denies the real presence. If you read the first paragraph it specifically distances Anglican thought on the Eucharist from the more reformed idea of the Eucharist being memorial. It specifically mentions that they Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Anglicans at the time simply didn’t subscribe to the specific mode of real presence presented in transubstantiation. But real presence is not denied.

And then close by reiterating what GKC said, that the Articles today are considered by branches of Anglicanism as a historical document, not necessarily a binding one.

XXV: Are there only two sacraments of the Gospels? I’d disagree with that. The Gospel of John clearly teaches the forgiveness of sins as commanded by Jesus. I think a good case can be made for marriage as well. The Articles assert, ‘but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.’ That seems like a denial to me.

XXVIII: It says, ‘The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.’ Only after a heavenly and spiritual manner sounds like a denial to me. I do find the language in some places confusing and seemingly at odds with other passages.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yeah, but I barely know of those foreign places.

You do right. I am told they are Abroad.

 

[Anglicanus_Rex]

The articles are not a form of Anglican Confession; Anglicanism is Creedal, not confessional.

Exactly. Very much like Eastern Orthodoxy in this respect.

 

[SyroMalankara]

But I agree about Article 22, it doesn’t forbid having icons or images. Simply forbids worshiping them. Which you can argue is a practice the RCC would say they aren’t even doing anyway.

This seems to be taking a modern definition of ‘worship’ into an older English usage. ‘Worship’ in this sense was synonymous was ‘veneration’. Just as in British court, one would refer to “Your Worship” the Judge, whereas in later English (American English), “Your Honor” is synonymous. In other words “honor”/veneration is forbidden, not latria.

 

[Anglicanus_Rex]

Two Dominical sacraments, established in their form and matter by Our Lord.

Five other sacraments, commonly called thus.

Or for those Philistines who can’t express as well as those of us among the higher gentry; Sacraments of the Gospel and Sacraments of the Church.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I would also refer you to *Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church * pgs 46-60.

I’m sorry, what happened to the first reference. It didn’t in fact state what you said it would. What am I looking for in this one?

 

[codefro]

Thanks for participating. I liked your blog post on a year of Benedictine Discernment. I hope it is going well for you.

Thank you!

And to answer Anglicanus Rex, I said nothing about ecclesiology coming from Henry. That would be silly, as silly as the state of modern ecclesiology in the Church of England today. Henry was responsible for a break from Rome. Further error followed Henry.

 

[Anglicanus_Rex]

I’m sorry, what happened to the first reference. It didn’t in fact state what you said it would. What am I looking for in this one?

That is because I do not have it in front of me right now, as I am not at home I will have to review it later.

 

[Anglicanus_Rex]

Thank you!

And to answer Anglicanus Rex, I said nothing about ecclesiology coming from Henry. That would be silly, as silly as the state of modern ecclesiology in the Church of England today. Henry was responsible for a break from Rome. Further error followed Henry.

What you said was “I also realized that Henry’s break from the Catholic Church was just another domino of heresy that started with him and led the Anglican “communion” to where it is today.”

This would strongly indicate that you believe that there was something within Henry’s theology and/or ecclesiology that led to further heresy and the state of the modern communion. My response to you was that Henry had no ecclesiology or theology that has impacted Anglican theology or ecclesiology. And if you think there is, then you haven’t studied Anglican history.

 

[codefro]

What you said was “I also realized that Henry’s break from the Catholic Church was just another domino of heresy that started with him and led the Anglican “communion” to where it is today.”

This would strongly indicate that you believe that there was something within Henry’s theology and/or ecclesiology that led to further heresy and the state of the modern communion. My response to you was that Henry had no ecclesiology or theology that has impacted Anglican theology or ecclesiology. And if you think there is, then you haven’t studied Anglican history.

He made an erroneous error and broke with Rome, thus starting a domino effect of further and further error leading to today. That is what I said, and am saying.

 

[GKC]

I wouldn’t disagree with this. But they remain incompatible with the Catholic Faith and show a hostility towards it. Folks who come from its religious heritage may deny them in whole or part but it remains part of the tradition. Personally I find the idea you can pick and chose whether you hold to the 39 Articles troubling. If they were nothing but theological opinions that would be one thing. But they make clear statements about the Faith and the Catholic Church. It is like how I don’t see how you can allow same sex marriage. To me it is either morally wrong to perform, my opinion, or it is morally wrong to deny. It is something you are either all in or not in at all on.

Let me repeat. The Articles are normative in no sense, save a technical one, on the clergy of the Church of England, for whom they were a sort of job qualification, in the sense of not disputing them. They are not binding in the legal sense (per the Act of Parliament) on laity. And they are not binding in any sense on any Anglican, necessarily. What a given Anglican might say of them is an open question. You would need to ask. As to myself, I have literally never heard mention of them, from any cleric, or any layperson, in my parish, ever. They are history.

Let’s try Lambeth, 1968, Resolution 43:

Resolution 43
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.

Which passed. Of course, Anglicans being Anglicans, it is only a recommendation. To find out what a given Anglican polity might hold on this, you need to ask.

Keep in mind. They are not normative.They are not confessional. They are a mixed bag of theology, and I would not doubt you could find some that are something you could affirm; I certainly can. But, in general, they are history. This is not to make you feel any more favorable toward the Anglican zoo. It’s to tell you, again, that citing an Article is not necessarily to score a point against a given Anglican.

 

[GKC]

That is because I do not have it in front of me right now, as I am not at home I will have to review it later.

I have it. And I don’t find a Syrian reference. Are you thinking of the Liturgy of St. James? If so, I don’t find it either. Of course, there are a lot of pages in there. I await more info.

Though seeing a reference to Celtic in your posts, I suspect I know what you are going after.