The last half of your last sentence is partially correct. It was the erastian CoE’s position on a number of Reformation issues and represented how Elizabeth’s polity was structured to handle those controversies.
No, that’s not what it means at all. The eternal punishment due to our sins was completed by Christ on the cross. What purgatory does is satisfy the temporal punishment. There is a huge difference that you’re missing.
Again no. God is not being “subjective” as in we cannot have assurance that each of us will be judged according to our own sins/merits and not matched against others sins/merits.
It would be a deviation from most Anglican history, to attempt to make any given theory de fide. But accepting that it is the Blood and Body, one may still speculate in what manner this comes about. But it is speculation.
Indeed and that is the position of Richard Hooker as well. IMO, as Anglicans, we get in trouble when we try to explain everything about it (which is a natural thing that humans do), Christ is truly present in the sacrament and we truly receive Christ’s body and blood. Anything else is speculation that goes beyond what Christ said in Scripture.
But that only reinforces the point: what’s “pure” Anglicanism? Why should it be Elizabeth’s over Henry’s over Katherine Schori’s? It just means one cannot point to a “pure” Anglicanism. Saying it’s the Thirty-Nine Articles version is arbitrary, as is saying it’s the Six Articles version. Heck, even saying it’s the 1979 Episcopal BCP version is arbitrary. Your insistence that the Thirty Nine are somehow defines “pure” Anglicanism is not held by Anglicans themselves.
That they are. I like my shade of motley-dom the best. But I cannot, thereby, deny the name of Anglican to others who have other shades in mind.
Only venial sins one has not confessed. Unconfessed venial sins are purged in purgatory, but still we are not to presume that, but “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Otherwise I agree.
Of course each person is treated individually–how else? And I think “performance” is a poor description, as if ones stay in purgatory depended on how many merits one has gained. Christ indeed took all our sins upon himself. Who is denying that?
It seems to me that your saviour is impotent. He needs your help to save you, and even then his cross and death isn’t the whole of the punishment due to you for your sins. You still have to be punished. And Rome teaches that even confessed sins are punished in purgatory, unless an indulgence is obtained or necessary works of satisfaction are done.
Yes, I know those folk. Have met at least 2 of them, IIRC.
Please don’t resort to such tactics. You know perfectly well that Catholics believe Christ’s death satisfies for sin. Those in purgatory ARE SAVED–by Christ’s redemptive act.
Well, that’s just the other prong of the same fork we’ve been using on Indifferently. “Depends which Anglican you ask.” There are indeed Anglicans who hold on to Reformed doctrine and are just as Anglican who are Catholic in every way except for visible communion with the Pope. And there are Anglicans who can be barely called Christian but are still Anglican nonetheless. Indifferently is just as Anglican as GKC, despite their differing perspectives. That’s also why Indifferently can’t just claim he holds on to “pure” Anglicanism. What he holds on to is a strain of Anglicanism, but he is Anglican.Please don’t resort to such tactics. You know perfectly well that Catholics believe Christ’s death satisfies for sin. Those in purgatory ARE SAVED–by Christ’s redemptive act.
And if you don’t believe you need to confess your sins nor need purgation for your lack of cooperation with God’s grace, well that’s up to you–it’s no skin off my nose.
OSAS is not Anglican teaching–it’s Reformed. Perhaps you should reevaluate which faith community you really belong to?
Interesting lack of imagination. You appear to be unable to tell the difference between God being UNABLE to overpower our human wills versus a God who out of love seeks to give us the Grace to transform and perfect our human wills, but only does so when we choose to allow him. That’s a serious deficiency in perception.
I do feel for indifferently. He’s being told that his claimed religious label is virtually vacant of any real definable meaning besides a historical patrimony of English-ness. Ouch.
“OSAS”? You do realize modern evangelicalism and Reformed theology are not the same thing? The doctrine that “OSAS” is a parody of is the doctrine of the preservation (or perseverance) of the saints. The three part Homily on the Salvation of Mankind’s (Book of Homilies) is quite clear that man cannot lose his justification.Please don’t resort to such tactics. You know perfectly well that Catholics believe Christ’s death satisfies for sin. Those in purgatory ARE SAVED–by Christ’s redemptive act.
And if you don’t believe you need to confess your sins nor need purgation for your lack of cooperation with God’s grace, well that’s up to you–it’s no skin off my nose.
OSAS is not Anglican teaching–it’s Reformed. Perhaps you should reevaluate which faith community you really belong to?
In fact, GKC has said much the same thing, in much the same words that you have, here. On more than one occasion. It’s not approbation, it’s description.