Well that’s just it GKC. Not to be offensive but ANYONE who claims to BE an Anglican MUST hold to the three Historic Creeds, IE Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian AND the 39 Articles of Religion, CF “The Jerusalem Declaration” issued by the GAFCON meeting this past summer. It’s high time REAL Anglicans spoke out and reaffirm what it means TO BE an Anglican. Don’t get me wrong I AM quite “High Church” and “Smells and Bells”, BUT I am not an Anglo-Catholic in that I seek no reunion with Rome on Rome’s terms. It may not seem so but there is a BIG difference between being “High Church” and “Anglo-Catholic”. As a conservative Evangelical/High Church Anglican I REJECT all those Roman Dogmas that authentic Anglicanism rejects, IE Purgatory, Marian Dogmas, Papal Infallibility, Justification by “Meriting Grace” (a contradiction). I am sorry my friend an Anglican who REJECTS the historic Anglican Divines (Hooker, Ridley, Andrewes, and the Caroline Divines) and the 39 Articles of Religion and the historic BCPs, 1662, American 1928, is simply NOT an Anglican. Period
Sign me “Catholic, but not Roman”
Wrong. Not offensive, just wrong.
One can just as easily say that anyone who rejects the Tractarians is not Anglican. There is an elasticity in the term and always has been, since the Elizabethan Compromise. It makes as much sense (i.e., none) to claim that an Anglican must be in communion with Canterbury. Which neither you nor I am. We both are authentic Anglicans, just the same. Different, but Anglican.
The Articles are not a form of Anglican Confession, *a la *Westminister. Anglicanism is Creedal, not confessional, and any one who rejects the major Creeds is not Anglican (or Christian for that matter). No Anglican save ordinands of the Church of England, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE, are required to affirm the Articles (and that only technically) . Any other Anglican or Anglican jurisdiction, is free to affirm, partially affirm, reject, partially reject, or ignore the Articles, as a formal document. Or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. They are historical remnants from the Compromise, how Liz chose to govern her fractious Church. One of the few things I like about the 1979 book is the historical section, where the Articles are now found. Regardless of what the folks at GAFCON declared. There are all sorts of Anglicans. Always have been.
Note: I admire the disticntion you make, quite accurately, between the concpet of high Church, and that of Anglo-Catholic. I point this out all the time, though it’s a trifle esoteric. High church/low church refers to churchmanship: how many candles and how much smoke (a thing that you would have been low church on, as REC 150 years ago, of necessity). Anglo-Catholic/reformed/evangelical is a dimension of doctrine. And, like it or not, Anglo-Catholics are authentic Anglicans. That battle was won long ago.And I know of very few Anglo-Catholics who seek reunion with Rome on Rome’s terms. If they did, it’s easy to achieve. It’s called submission.
Period.
GKC
*posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus Catholicus *
)