Ask me anything: Episcopalian Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Episcopalian2004
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rakovskii said:
Wasn’t one of the central ideas in creating their church that a king should be the head of his nation’s church instead of the pope or bishops?
Click to expand...
During Henry’s reign, the prevailing theory (that Protestants latched onto because it was convenient for them) was that the king was the supreme authority within his realm and that there should not be any estate of the realm (such as the clergy) divided in loyalty.

It’s worth pointing out that the clergy at the time were considered a distinct social class, and the Convocations of Canterbury and York were able to promulgate binding laws and taxes for England outside of any secular government apparatus. What Henry did was to essentially nationalize these structures and make them ultimately dependent on him.
 
Last edited:
That’s fair, but I think only insofar as it applies to the CoE. After all, there’s no governing body with authority over the whole Anglican Communion; each church is self-governing. Bodies outside of England are free to reject the Articles as they see fit.
 
The whole monarchy thing in the Anglican church drives me nuts. it’s not like they are models of virtue or anything. To me it harkens back to the days of Divine Right of Kings. I don’t believe that Regina and her heirs and successors have anything to add to the conversation around faith.
 
A subject I must posted on in three figures, over the years.

The XXXIX Articles (like the numerous preceding documents that had appeared in the CoE 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, Anglicans 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, (i.e., are not normative for all Anglicans, merely from their history and existence)without reference to some governing authority. Which, for the CoE clergy, was the 1571 Act of Subscription. For the ACNA, the episcopal authority of its bishops.

There is more that might be said. But my net connection is iffy. I’ll be back, as I may. Let’s see if this goes through.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about doing a big bonfire with the homilies after this small group gets done.

I could also use them to light my chimney when I grill.
 
Last edited:
The Bishops had little to do with them save to rubber-stamp them. This was the Monarch as Governor, setting policy.

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.”

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.

There is more. I may post it.or I may not, things being what they are.
 
Alas, I’m always stuck going to a tiny Methodist church in the boonies of Louisiana at Easter. Though we do have a large bonfire at the family land, so I could use them for kindling for that.
 
As long as you can make a good use of them, they are not merely historical.

Hope this topic dies down. I have trouble getting on line anywhere, getting worse. My ISP is not my friend, right now.
 
OP, or whomever feels like answering:
Other than the missionary outreach in Africa, how culturally diverse are your churches. I assume that if your community is predominately white, your church is as well but in cities and town where there is cultural diversity is it reflected very well in your pews?
 
Pattylt said:
OP, or whomever feels like answering:
Other than the missionary outreach in Africa, how culturally diverse are your churches. I assume that if your community is predominately white, your church is as well but in cities and town where there is cultural diversity is it reflected very well in your pews?
Click to expand...
In my church, there’s some racial diversity, though it’s mostly in the form of African immigrants to the US, including one fellow who – thank God! – just had his asylum request granted by the US government and will soon have his family join him here after quite some time… But my area is predominately well-educated, well-off, and white, so it’s not particularly surprising that my church is the same.

In general, the Anglican communion in areas that were part of the English Empire naturally look quite English, because people tend to bring their religion with them, so those who aren’t of English descent tend not to belong to the derivatives of the Church of England.
 
Many years ago, while I was attending the University of Detroit, the congregation at the Episcopal church where I worshipped was about 80% African American, which reflected the demographics of the area pretty closely.
 
The other thing I’ll note is that the Anglican Church / Anglican Communion effectively defines itself as the “Canterbury Communion” or “COE Communion” - those churches in communion with Canterbury. Should the COE decide strongly enough to make the Articles binding on those in communion with it like it requires its own clergy to affirm them, the COE would effectively make them binding on all Anglican churches like the Episcopalians. That is because the COE can excommunicate other churches like the ECUSA and still be Anglican, but the ECUSA can’t be excommunicated by the COE and still define itself as “Anglican” in the way that it currently does (Like the COE, it defines the Anglican churches as those in communion with Canterbury).
 
No, that would not be what could happen.

The Anglican Communion is a group of equal, auto-cephelous Anglican Churches, all in some sense, in communion with each other, and with Canterbury. The CoE cannot impose anything on all such Churches, though they may impose stuff on themselves. The CoE cannot excommunicate any Church, though it could (on its own) break or declare impaired communion with such. The Communion, as a whole, could vote a member Church to be in impaired communion, or not in communion, if whatever number of Communion member Churches decided to vote that was so.

In fact, unless things have changed, a number of Communion Churches, primarily in Africa, are in impaired communion with TEC, because they consider TEC …odd. And a number of such Churches, in the Communion, are in communion with the ACNA, because the ACNA is not…odd. Though not in the Communion. I don’t recall how many Anglican Communion Primates were present at and participated in, ++Beach’s enthronement as Primate of the ACNA Six or seven, IIRC. My own Continuing Anglican Bishop was also present.

Anglican Churches in the Communion are, technically, Anglican Churches in the Communion. Anglican Churches not in the Communion are Anglican Churches, not in the Communion.
 
Last edited:
I have a nodding acquaintance with it but have not really sat down with it. Does it answer my question somehow?
(I see it was formerly called An Act Abolishing Diversity in Opinions…
I guess that means maybe King Henry wouldn’t like what’s happening now?)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, more or less.
Here they be, in their original glory of expression. They are Hank’s doing.
Code: 
First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ’s mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man;
Secondly, that communion in both kinds is not necessary ad salutem, by the law of God, to all persons; and that it is to be believed, and not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under the form of the bread, is the very blood; and with the blood, under the form of the wine, is the very flesh; as well apart, as though they were both together.
Thirdly, that priests after the order of priesthood received, as afore, may not marry, by the law of God.
Fourthly, that vows of chastity or widowhood, by man or woman made to God advisedly, ought to be observed by the law of God; and that it exempts them from other liberties of Christian people, which without that they might enjoy.
Fifthly, that it is meet and necessary that private masses be continued and admitted in this the King’s English Church and Congregation, as whereby good Christian people, ordering themselves accordingly, do receive both godly and goodly consolations and benefits; and it is agreeable also to God’s law.
Sixthly, that auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God
And be it further enacted… that if any person or persons… contemn or contemptuously refuse, deny, or abstain to be confessed at the time commonly accustomed within this realm and Church of England, or contemn or contemptuously refuse, deny, or abstain to receive the holy and blessed sacrament above said at the time commonly used and accustomed for the same, that then every such offender… shall suffer such, imprisonment and make such fine and ransom to the King our Sovereign Lord and his heirs as by his Highness or by his or their Council shall be ordered and adjudged in that behalf; And if any such offender … do eftsoons… refuse… to be confessed or to be communicate… that then every such offence shall be deemed and adjudged felony, and the offender… shall suffer pains of death and lose and forfeit all his… goods, lands, and tenements, as in cases of felony.

I like the “eftsoons”.

They had the nickname of the Bloody Whip, with Six Strings.You can extrapolate.

Added: the post is oddly formatted. Not my idea.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top