Can anyone comment on these of the 39 Articles?

[CutlerB]

While at the Bible study the other day, my Anglican priest read the article on Transsubstantiation, which says it is false. He said that he himself though, believed in it. That made me feel awkward and brought back the thought “O authority, where are you in the Anglican communion?”

Now, could anyone comment from a Catholic perspective on these few of the 39 Articles?

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XIX. Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

XXII. Of Purgatory
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

XXV. Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, 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.

These shall suffice for now, but there are more that I would like comments on sometime.

Thank you so much. God bless.

 

[pablope]

While at the Bible study the other day, my Anglican priest read the article on Transsubstantiation, which says it is false. He said that he himself though, believed in it. That made me feel awkward and brought back the thought “O authority, where are you in the Anglican communion?”

Now, could anyone comment from a Catholic perspective on these few of the 39 Articles?

These shall suffice for now, but there are more that I would like comments on sometime.

Thank you so much. God bless.

It is a question of authority indeed, and interpretation…they just substituted the 39 articles for the Pope, seems like to me.

Where is articles authority to declare something as false, invented?

On this:

XXII. Of Purgatory
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

This should answer your question on this:

calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/relics-saints-and-the-assumption-of-mary/

Brown challenged my view that the place of saints and relics in the church was a mere holdover from paganism, and that the practice was somehow peripheral to true Christianity. Instead, Brown painted a picture of ancient Christianity and paganism in which relics were indispensable to the former, and repulsive to the latter. Far from a holdover from paganism, the place of relics in the Church appeared as something intensely Jewish, Hebraic, and Old Testament. Pagans, like Julian-the-Apostate, found the practice revolting and legislated against it. (Paganism, with its notions of ritual purity, had strictly delimited the realm of divine worship and neatly separated it from the realm of corpses and the dead.)

On Purgatory…if you have not read this before…from Scott Hahn…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html

 

[poptown]

I will try to comment.

VI talks about the Holy Scripture, claiming that it contains all things necessary for salvation, which make Holy Scripture authoritative. However, it doesn’t say whether Holy Scripture is sufficient. In fact, it is not. Otherwise, why so many Protestant Bible experts get their faiths wrong?

XI basically says that justification is completely, exclusively done by Christ, and that faith is the only thing one needs to attain that justification. In other words, our works do not affect the result of justification at all as long as we have faith in Christ. Then, does it mean unconditional election and therefore once saved always saved? I guess so, but many Anglicans may not agree (you can tell me what is your belief as an Anglican, if you would like to). Article XVI seems to say that one can commit really big sins and lose grace, while it also infers the preservation of the faithful, i.e., that the Holy Spirit is not lost even if one loses grace due to big sins and will ultimately bring the person back to God’s grace. Article XVII on predestination is also terribly ambiguous.

XIX and XX basically says no church has special doctrinal authority over others; all must recognize Holy Scripture as the ultimate authority. This is largely because Protestants believe that Catholic Church teaches a lot of things based on so-called “Holy Tradition” that are against what Holy Scripture teaches. The fact is, on the contrary, that Catholic Church’s teaching is fully in accord with Holy Scripture while Protestants misread and misunderstand Holy Scripture but instead blame the Catholic Church.

XXII marks a good point. Why do we have to believe in Purgatory, relics, intercession in order to be saved? The answer is: we don’t really have to. They are not the core of Christian faith. One can simply say he/she doesn’t understand them but trust the Church who gives and protests the essential true, saving faith. But it is totally irrational for one to completely leave the Church and embrace heretical teachings just because one doesn’t have confidence in some “miscellaneous” things that Church holds.

XXV regards Sacraments as “sign” of grace. In other words, to Anglicans, Sacraments do not cause or influence salvation, but only serve as results or displays of the grace a believer already has. That’s why this article only recognizes Lord’s Supper and Baptism as Sacraments. For Catholics, salvation is something we have to do (i.e. cooperate with God’s grace) throughout our life; therefore Sacraments in Catholic Church are not merely signs, but actually help Catholics to be saved.

Please tell me what you think, and correct me if I made an error. Thank you.

 

[CutlerB]

I will try to comment.

VI talks about the Holy Scripture, claiming that it contains all things necessary for salvation, which make Holy Scripture authoritative. However, it doesn’t say whether Holy Scripture is sufficient. In fact, it is not. Otherwise, why so many Protestant Bible experts get their faiths wrong?

XI basically says that justification is completely, exclusively done by Christ, and that faith is the only thing one needs to attain that justification. In other words, our works do not affect the result of justification at all as long as we have faith in Christ. Then, does it mean unconditional election and therefore once saved always saved? I guess so, but many Anglicans may not agree (you can tell me what is your belief as an Anglican, if you would like to). Article XVI seems to say that one can commit really big sins and lose grace, while it also infers the preservation of the faithful, i.e., that the Holy Spirit is not lost even if one loses grace due to big sins and will ultimately bring the person back to God’s grace. Article XVII on predestination is also terribly ambiguous.

XIX and XX basically says no church has special doctrinal authority over others; all must recognize Holy Scripture as the ultimate authority. This is largely because Protestants believe that Catholic Church teaches a lot of things based on so-called “Holy Tradition” that are against what Holy Scripture teaches. The fact is, on the contrary, that Catholic Church’s teaching is fully in accord with Holy Scripture while Protestants misread and misunderstand Holy Scripture but instead blame the Catholic Church.

XXII marks a good point. Why do we have to believe in Purgatory, relics, intercession in order to be saved? The answer is: we don’t really have to. They are not the core of Christian faith. One can simply say he/she doesn’t understand them but trust the Church who gives and protests the essential true, saving faith. But it is totally irrational for one to completely leave the Church and embrace heretical teachings just because one doesn’t have confidence in some “miscellaneous” things that Church holds.

XXV regards Sacraments as “sign” of grace. In other words, to Anglicans, Sacraments do not cause or influence salvation, but only serve as results or displays of the grace a believer already has. That’s why this article only recognizes Lord’s Supper and Baptism as Sacraments. For Catholics, salvation is something we have to do (i.e. cooperate with God’s grace) throughout our life; therefore Sacraments in Catholic Church are not merely signs, but actually help Catholics to be saved.

Please tell me what you think, and correct me if I made an error. Thank you.

I would take the position you discribe: I may not understand something completely, but I trust that the Church is right. My view on works would be the same as the Church, however the whole justification thingy is too confusing to me. I believe works are necessary and have an influence on losing salvation.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

While at the Bible study the other day, my Anglican priest read the article on Transsubstantiation, which says it is false. He said that he himself though, believed in it. That made me feel awkward and brought back the thought “O authority, where are you in the Anglican communion?”

This seems like (perhaps) a bit of a strawman. As far as I know, the thirty-nine articles aren’t binding on anyone outside the Church of England and Ireland; therefore other churches in the Anglican Communion are free to accept or reject them. I’m not Anglican though, so I’m open to clarification on this issue.

 

[CutlerB]

This seems like (perhaps) a bit of a strawman. As far as I know, the thirty-nine articles aren’t binding on anyone outside the Church of England and Ireland; therefore other churches in the Anglican Communion are free to accept or reject them. I’m not Anglican though, so I’m open to clarification on this issue.

I wasn’t saying they are binding. But they set the spirit of Anglican theology and its basis. After all, my priest said that the ordination is linked to them. You should identify in some way with them.

The “authority” was referring to the general doctrinal landscape in Anglicanism. I would not agree on a “DIY-church” where everyone can chose his beliefs and claim them to be true. That gets us nowhere. However, this is not the topic.

 

[poptown]

the whole justification thingy is too confusing to me. I belied works are necessary and have an influence on losing salvation.

That’s enough! Blessed are you who profess the truth of God!

In my humble opinion, a non-Catholic Christian still has a great chance to be saved as long as he does not hold strongly against work-involved salvation, the role of our free will in salvation and the necessity of obedience to Christ’s Commandments.

 

[CutlerB]

That’s enough! Blessed are you who profess the truth of God!

In my humble opinion, a non-Catholic Christian still has a great chance to be saved as long as he does not hold strongly against work-involved salvation, the role of our free will in salvation and the necessity of obedience to Christ’s Commandments.

I personally try not to judge people’s salvation. Why should I, if I cannot even say about myself?

 

[R_C]

VI
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation”
I believe Christ showed by His very words that that was not quite so. Also the writings of the Apostles became part of the Scriptures, though Tradition they were until Holy Church gathered them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

XI
Justification is one thing, salvation another thing. We cannot save ourselves, but justification is increased by our good works, which truly lead us to merit eternal life: for “by my works I shall show you my faith”. Without the works, however, the justified man can loose salvation. “Away from me, you accursed …] For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat” “'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name?” “I never knew you, away from me!” “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father”

XIX
While the “Churches” of Jerusalem, etc. were communities (called “churches” as in ekklesia, assembly), the Church, mystical body of Christ, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. There is no “Church of Rome”. There is the simple fact that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. It is a great contradiction to go against the Creed which reads: “we believe in the Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic”. We have always had heretics and schismatics throughout history, who claimed the very same things within their community. Not much has changed from the earlier days.

XX
It’s all nice and true until the following is added: “so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation”. That is a low-class way of sneaking one’s idea into an otherwise truthful statement. Holy Church, whose head is Christ, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, receives light to understand which things are necessary for salvation. We need her guidance: “for if we say that we are not blind, then our sin remains.”

XXII
I am not even going to remind the countless private revelations of purgatory throughout the centuries before the Reform. I don’t quite get how “worshipping and adoration” can be “repugnant to the Word of God”…are we not supposed to worship and adore God? We definitely don’t do that with the saints…we simply honor them for they are what we wish we were: great friends of Christ, faithful children of God, men of great faith shown through good works. “Images and relics”? Like the Ark of the Covenant and the bronze snake? And how is the Good News supposed to be shown to those who not through their fault do not know how to read the Scriptures (in an age where Latin was the only language of the Scriptures)? Perhaps the modern refrain “a picture is worth a thousand words” has never been more truthful. What, it’s not in the Bible? Well, if the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…

XXV
There are 7 Sacraments. To exclude 5 of them is heresy. There is solid scriptural foundation for each of the 5 ones that were excluded. I don’t understand what is the “corrupt following of the Apostles”. So Baptism has a visible sign and ceremony, but not penance

(“as the Father has sent me, so I send you …] if you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” “Jesus said: Man, your sins are forgiven.”)

or confirmation

But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail: and you, being once converted, confirm your brothers.

“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” …] when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them

When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized …] Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

I could go on with the others, but there are countless documents and I’m barely recalling off the top of my head, so I stop before I make some silly mistake.

Anyways just some personal thoughts on the matter. Surely there are many bright theologians who have shown with great simplicity how these statements are gravely erroneous.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I wasn’t saying they are binding. But they set the spirit of Anglican theology and its basis. After all, my priest said that the ordination is linked to them. You should identify in some way with them.

The “authority” was referring to the general doctrinal landscape in Anglicanism. I would not agree on a “DIY-church” where everyone can chose his beliefs and claim them to be true. That gets us nowhere. However, this is not the topic.

As far as I know, your comment about ordination is only true in the Church of England and perhaps the Church of Ireland.

I think most Anglicans would see themselves and their beliefs (the “doctrinal landscape” as you put it) as shaped by the Creeds, Scripture and liturgy rather than the 39 Articles.

I think you are in danger of setting up a false dichotomy that has the potential to misrepresent Anglicanism–it’s not either 1) the 39 Articles or 2) a DIY church. At least I don’t think they would see it that way. Anglicans I have known and studied with don’t identify at all with the 39 Articles except to acknowledge their historical role in English Protestantism.

 

[CutlerB]

As far as I know, your comment about ordination is only true in the Church of England and perhaps the Church of Ireland.

I think most Anglicans would see themselves and their beliefs (the “doctrinal landscape” as you put it) as shaped by the Creeds, Scripture and liturgy rather than the 39 Articles.

I think you are in danger of setting up a false dichotomy that has the potential to misrepresent Anglicanism–it’s not either 1) the 39 Articles or 2) a DIY church. At least I don’t think they would see it that way. Anglicans I have known and studied with don’t identify at all with the 39 Articles except to acknowledge their historical role in English Protestantism.

May be the case, but the CofE started it all off.

They may, I wasn’t arguing otherwise.

I wasn’t planning on setting up any such thing. I might not have phrased things clearly, though. (I have that problem frequently ) As I stated, this is not the topic of my question, therefore I will leave it at this.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

May be the case, but the CofE started it all off.

They may, I wasn’t arguing otherwise.

I wasn’t planning on setting up any such thing. I might not have phrased things clearly, though. (I have that problem frequently ) As I stated, this is not the topic of my question, therefore I will leave it at this.

My point is that you’ve started a thread that basically says “let’s bash the 39 Articles.” And that’s certainly fine–there is much to criticize in them. But your thread could leave the impression that Anglicans across the board do (or should) take them seriously and authoritatively today, and that is simply not the case.

I could equally start a thread “let’s bash the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and their censoring of heliocentric books” but it wouldn’t be very relevant to contemporary Catholic belief or practice, plus it has the potential to portray today’s Catholic in an inaccurate light.

 

[CutlerB]

My point is that you’ve started a thread that basically says “let’s bash the 39 Articles.” And that’s certainly fine–there is much to criticize in them. But your thread could leave the impression that Anglicans across the board do (or should) take them seriously and authoritatively today, and that is simply not the case.

I could equally start a thread “let’s bash the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and their censoring of heliocentric books” but it wouldn’t be very relevant to contemporary Catholic belief or practice, plus it has the potential to portray today’s Catholic in an inaccurate light.

I will not have my subject interpreted in that way. I asked for a Catholic VIEWPOINT on that, which does not necessarily entail “bashing”. As I have said over and over: I do not claim the 39 Articles as everyone’s foundation in Anglicanism.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I will not have my subject interpreted in that way. I asked for a Catholic VIEWPOINT on that, which does not necessarily entail “bashing”. As I have said over and over: I do not claim the 39 Articles as everyone’s foundation in Anglicanism.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. It sprang from your comment: “O authority, where are you in the Anglican communion?” I tried my best to answer that question.

 

[R_C]

I could equally start a thread “let’s bash the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and their censoring of heliocentric books” but it wouldn’t be very relevant to contemporary Catholic belief or practice, plus it has the potential to portray today’s Catholic in an inaccurate light.

And your point is?

There is a reason if the Church, reached a certain moment of time, decided to no longer maintain the Index. We are talking about two different topics.

The OP wanted to find out a bit more about the opinion of other Catholics on some of the 39 articles. If some of us disagree with these articles, expect us to point out exactly why (whether or not you consider that “bashing” is a personal issue).

Mind you that as far as I am aware of the Church of England states:

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

As Catholics, we intend to preserve the unity of the one Church, and it seems proper to act accordingly with regards to anything that seems to not work towards such unity for the benefit of a single community.

 

[GKC]

This seems like (perhaps) a bit of a strawman. As far as I know, the thirty-nine articles aren’t binding on anyone outside the Church of England and Ireland; therefore other churches in the Anglican Communion are free to accept or reject them. I’m not Anglican though, so I’m open to clarification on this issue.

They are binding only on ordinands of the CoE, per the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription; that is, they are not a general Anglican Confession, but politics as theology, how Elizabeth I chose to structure her fractious Church.

Not to interrupt anyone’s comments on them, to be sure; carry on.

GKC

 

[GKC]

And your point is?

There is a reason if the Church, reached a certain moment of time, decided to no longer maintain the Index. We are talking about two different topics.

The OP wanted to find out a bit more about the opinion of other Catholics on some of the 39 articles. If some of us disagree with these articles, expect us to point out exactly why (whether or not you consider that “bashing” is a personal issue).

Mind you that as far as I am aware of the Church of England states:

As Catholics, we intend to preserve the unity of the one Church, and it seems proper to act accordingly with regards to anything that seems to not work towards such unity for the benefit of a single community.

Your quote is an accurate statement of the nature of the Articles, but one might not say the CoE was saying it there. It’s a quote from John Bramhall, one time Archbishop of Armagh.

GKC

 

[R_C]

Your quote is an accurate statement of the nature of the Articles, but one might not say the CoE was saying it there. It’s a quote from John Bramhall, one time Archbishop of Armagh.

GKC

Thanks

 

[GKC]

Thanks

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[Dave_Noonan]

They are binding only on ordinands of the CoE, per the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription; that is, they are not a general Anglican Confession, but politics as theology, how Elizabeth I chose to structure her fractious Church.

Not to interrupt anyone’s comments on them, to be sure; carry on.

GKC

Thanks!