Transubstantiation...Your Take?

[jrtrent]

cannot be proved by Holy Writ = By what standard? The protestant idea of how something is proved by scripture alludes me.

but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture = Meaning?

overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament = Meaning?

and hath given occasion to many superstitions = Ummmm, what doesn’t give occasion to superstition? Superstitions are formed of one’s own imagination regardless of the subject matter.

For now, all I can offer is a short passage from Richard Adams’ commentary on the prayer book (written 1876).

Article XXVIII. The first paragraph is directed against Zwinglian and Puritan doctrine; the rest against Roman. . . The plain words of scripture represent our Lord’s natural body to be in Heaven, and it cannot be in two places at once. See Acts iii. 21. The Romanists call in the aid of miraculous power to account for this, and we cannot deny that such power would be exerted if needful, but it is not needful, for the Real Spiritual Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament satisfies all the requirements of the words, “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,” and it would, in the face of our Lord’s declaration in John vi. 62,63, be presumptuous to affirm the necessity of a continual recurring miracle to produce our Lord’s natural Body daily on tens of thousands of Altars–Overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, i.e., as an outward sign of inward grace, for if no bread and wine be left there are no outward signs.–And hath given occasion to many superstitions. Those superstitions were greater at the Reformation than now, and were chiefly connected with the adoration of the Elements.

 

[JonNC]

=hapaxparadidomi;10374143]Well let’s look at it like this: you agree that there is a change. You don’t believe that the change happened in the accidents. So where would that leave this change to occur? Where does it cease to be bread?

You’re asking a Lutheran a question in a format that we don’t think in. You’re speaking of the metaphysics - substance and accidents. We understand why you do so, so that’s not a criticism.

We just don’t speak of it in that way. There is a change. It [bread and wine] are His body and blood.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

For now, all I can offer is a short passage from Richard Adams’ commentary on the prayer book (written 1876).

Article XXVIII. The first paragraph is directed against Zwinglian and Puritan doctrine; the rest against Roman. . . The plain words of scripture represent our Lord’s natural body to be in Heaven, and it cannot be in two places at once.

Really? Does he believe that Christ is God? Does he not believe God can be in two places at the same time, in fact, everywhere at the same time (omnipresent)? His first sentence sets up a false premise.

See Acts iii. 21. The Romanists call in the aid of miraculous power to account for this, and we cannot deny that such power would be exerted if needful, but it is not needful, for the Real Spiritual Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament satisfies all the requirements of the words, “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,” and it would, in the face of our Lord’s declaration in John vi. 62,63, be presumptuous to affirm the necessity of a continual recurring miracle to produce our Lord’s natural Body daily on tens of thousands of Altars–Overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, i.e., as an outward sign of inward grace, for if no bread and wine be left there are no outward signs.–And hath given occasion to many superstitions. Those superstitions were greater at the Reformation than now, and were chiefly connected with the adoration of the Elements.

I don’t think I’ve seen a worse argument for the Eucharist as a symbol.

 

[jrtrent]

I don’t think I’ve seen a worse argument for the Eucharist as a symbol.

Maybe that’s because Adams didn’t believe that the Eucharist was a symbol. That was the Zwinglian and Puritan belief that he said the first paragraph of Article XXVIII was directed against:

“The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.”

And Article XXV also notes that the sacraments are not just memorials, but effective means by which God works in us:

“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.”

 

[PRmerger]

but I do understand the Catholic position is extremely important for the Catholic Church’s view to be the One True Church. - Peace

Is this position not merely an extension of what you believe regarding Christianity?

That is, could not a Muslim tell you, “I understand the Christian position is extremely important for Christians to view their religion as the One True Religion.”

What would you say to that, CU?

I suspect you would say, as do I, “Yes, Muslim friend, Christianity is the One True Religion. Come join us in the Truth!”

And so we say to you, “Yes, Christian friend, Catholicism is the One True Church. Come join us in the Truth!”

 

[PRmerger]

I professed Christ at 18 and I just turned 52. I made my rounds through many of the various Christian circles. I have had many Catholic friends, and my college roommate just became a Catholic Priests a few years ago. His twin brother has been a Catholic Priest for about 30 years…so I do understand the Catholic faith for a non-catholic. IMO… all churches know in part and most like to dig in their war bunkers to claim that their theological distinctive is exclusively right, and everyone else is wrong. Well, I think the grass is not greener on the other side of any particular church denomination, and we all know in part and believe something in error. Issues like this should never divide the body of Christ… but I do understand the Catholic position is extremely important for the Catholic Church’s view to be the One True Church. - Peace

I wonder how you would respond to a Muslim telling you that he has many Christian friends, and that his college roommate became a Christian pastor, along with his twin brother who’s been a Christian pastor for 30 years…telling you that he does understand the Christian faith, for a non-Christian.

 

[joe370]

Right. That “mystical transformation that cannot be definitively understood” is transubstantiation! The Church made a nice fancy word for us to explain what is impossible to understand.

LOL…

 

[joe370]

No. Luther never referred to it as consubstantiation, since consubstantiation is a metaphysical construct just like transubstantiation is. Luther didn’t like Aristotelian philosophy.

What we believe is what Christ said, “this [bread] is my body.” Whether or not the substance of the bread and wine remain the substance of bread and wine are unknown. That’s for God to know. Paraphrasing Luther, God does with the bread and wine as He wills. We receive His body and blood.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Maybe that’s because Adams didn’t believe that the Eucharist was a symbol. That was the Zwinglian and Puritan belief that he said the first paragraph of Article XXVIII was directed against:

Well, the following was certainly directed against the “Romanists”:

"The Romanists call in the aid of miraculous power to account for this, and we cannot deny that such power would be exerted if needful, but it is not needful, for the Real Spiritual Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament satisfies all the requirements of the words, “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,” and it would, in the face of our Lord’s declaration in John vi. 62,63, be presumptuous to affirm the necessity of a continual recurring miracle to produce our Lord’s natural Body daily on tens of thousands of Altars–Overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, i.e., as an outward sign of inward grace, for if no bread and wine be left there are no outward signs.

He certainly does not believe in the real presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. He very clearly believes in only a spiritual presence.

 

[GKC]

Well, the following was certainly directed against the “Romanists”:

"The Romanists call in the aid of miraculous power to account for this, and we cannot deny that such power would be exerted if needful, but it is not needful, for the Real Spiritual Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament satisfies all the requirements of the words, “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,” and it would, in the face of our Lord’s declaration in John vi. 62,63, be presumptuous to affirm the necessity of a continual recurring miracle to produce our Lord’s natural Body daily on tens of thousands of Altars–Overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, i.e., as an outward sign of inward grace, for if no bread and wine be left there are no outward signs.

He certainly does not believe in the real presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. He very clearly believes in only a spiritual presence.

Some Anglicans are like that.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

Some Anglicans are like that.

GKC

I was surprised to see this, from Article 28:

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
"…Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

I really thought we were closer in belief than that. I think the Lutheran position may be closer than the Anglican. Am I missing something?

 

[GKC]

I was surprised to see this, from Article 28:

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
"…Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

I really thought we were closer in belief than that. I think the Lutheran position may be closer than the Anglican. Am I missing something?

Most likely missing what the Articles were. It is a tale I’ve told oft. They are not normative for Anglicans in general, and only, in a technical sense, for clergy of the Church of England, IOW the Act of subscription of 1571 (being an Erastian Church, the Parliament gets to do stuff like that)… They amount, in that sense, to a job description for CoE clergy. But it is technical, only. Much historical detail has been posted by me on this over the years. I could do it again. In brief, Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional, and the Articles are politics as religion, part of the Elizabethan compromise that determined how Elizabeth I was to govern her fractious realm and church. Some Anglicans (individuals or jurisdictions) certainly affirm them, some ignore them, most affirm a few, ignore others, some cut them out of the Book of Common Prayer and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Heck, I’ll bet you can find more than one of the articles that you would agree with. But no Anglican must affirm them (save as noted, per the Act of 1571), just because they are in the 39. In the 1979 Episcopal Prayer Book, you will find them in a new section for historical documents. So they are, though, as I said, Anglicans, being motley in composition, have a range of reactions to them. Variable, Anglicans.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

Most likely missing what the Articles were. It is a tale I’ve told oft. They are not normative for Anglicans in general, and only, in a technical sense, for clergy of the Church of England, IOW the Act of subscription of 1571 (being an Erastian Church, the Parliament gets to do stuff like that)… They amount, in that sense, to a job description for CoE clergy. But it is technical, only. Much historical detail has been posted by me on this over the years. I could do it again. In brief, Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional, and the Articles are politics as religion, part of the Elizabethan compromise that determined how Elizabeth I was to govern her fractious realm and church. Some Anglicans (individuals or jurisdictions) certainly affirm them, some ignore them, most affirm a few, ignore others, some cut them out of the Book of Common Prayer and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Heck, I’ll bet you can find more than one of the articles that you would agree with. But no Anglican must affirm them (save as noted, per the Act of 1571), just because they are in the 39. In the 1979 Episcopal Prayer Book, you will find them in a new section for historical documents. So they are, though, as I said, Anglicans, being motley in composition, have a range of reactions to them. Variable, Anglicans.

GKC

Thanks, I appreciate the education and your willingness to repeat something for the hundredth time for my sake.

 

[GKC]

Thanks, I appreciate the education and your willingness to repeat something for the hundredth time for my sake.

You’re very welcome. I do cut and paste myself a lot.

The first post I ever made, anywhere on line, was around 12 years, on a RC board, and addressed some basic points about Anglicans, the Queen of England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in response to some questions that were floating around. I still do that kind of thing a lot.

And one does find a variety of Anglicans about, as I said.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

It is a tale I’ve told oft. They are not normative for Anglicans in general, and only, in a technical sense, for clergy of the Church of England, IOW the Act of subscription of 1571 (being an Erastian Church, the Parliament gets to do stuff like that)… They amount, in that sense, to a job description for CoE clergy. But it is technical, only. Much historical detail has been posted by me on this over the years.

I guess what I’d like to see is where I can find in the Prayer Book, the Church of England canons, or other official documents, that the 39 Articles are given the low regard you seem to hold for them. I know they are normative for the Anglican church I belong to, but mine is not affiliated with the Church of England. However, at least on their online materials, we see the 39 Articles to continue to be in the Book of Common Prayer, with a declaration by King Charles preceding them, which reads, in part:

That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles

In the index to the church canons, there are two references to the 39 Articles. In section A we find:

A 2 Of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion

The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.

A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

And in section C 15, the 39 articles are a part of the Declaration of Assent, which all bishops, priests, deacons, and clerks must affirm, being asked:

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

The CHURCH OF ENGLAND (WORSHIP AND DOCTRINE) MEASURE 1974 (No. 3), which I believe was adopted in 1920, borrows from the church canons in saying, "References in this Measure to the doctrine of the Church of England shall be construed in accordance with the statement concerning that doctrine contained in the Canons of the Church of England, which statement is in the following terms: “The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.”

To say “They are not normative for Anglicans in general, and only, in a technical sense, for clergy of the Church of England,” doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the documentation found in either my small Anglican body or in what I can find on the Church of England’s website. I don’t doubt you when you say, “some ignore them, most affirm a few, ignore others, some cut them out of the Book of Common Prayer and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter,” but I’m still curious as to what they find in their church’s documentation that encourages, or even allows, such a low view of these Articles of Religion.

 

[GKC]

I guess what I’d like to see is where I can find in the Prayer Book, the Church of England canons, or other official documents, that the 39 Articles are given the low regard you seem to hold for them. I know they are normative for the Anglican church I belong to, but mine is not affiliated with the Church of England. However, at least on their online materials, we see the 39 Articles to continue to be in the Book of Common Prayer, with a declaration by King Charles preceding them, which reads, in part:

That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word: which We do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles

In the index to the church canons, there are two references to the 39 Articles. In section A we find:

A 2 Of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion

The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.

A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

And in section C 15, the 39 articles are a part of the Declaration of Assent, which all bishops, priests, deacons, and clerks must affirm, being asked:

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

The CHURCH OF ENGLAND (WORSHIP AND DOCTRINE) MEASURE 1974 (No. 3), which I believe was adopted in 1920, borrows from the church canons in saying, "References in this Measure to the doctrine of the Church of England shall be construed in accordance with the statement concerning that doctrine contained in the Canons of the Church of England, which statement is in the following terms: “The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.”

To say “They are not normative for Anglicans in general, and only, in a technical sense, for clergy of the Church of England,” doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the documentation found in either my small Anglican body or in what I can find on the Church of England’s website. I don’t doubt you when you say, “some ignore them, most affirm a few, ignore others, some cut them out of the Book of Common Prayer and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter,” but I’m still curious as to what they find in their church’s documentation that encourages, or even allows, such a low view of these Articles of Religion.

We’ve done that before. Eventually, I grow weary. Try Clutterbuck’s MARGINAL CATHOLICS. Or Staley’s THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. Or review our previous exchanges. And go to the site another poster gave, in another thread, and reconcile a Corpus Christi Procession with Article XXVIII:

stmarysbournest.com/index.php/galleries/gallery/corpus_christi_festival_and_procession_2012

Sometimes I don’t mind repeating myself, over time, and to a succession of posters. To the same poster, not so much.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

We’ve done that before. Eventually, I grow weary. Try Clutterbuck’s MARGINAL CATHOLICS. Or Staley’s THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. Or review our previous exchanges. And go to the site another poster gave, in another thread, and reconcile a Corpus Christi Procession with Article XXVIII:

stmarysbournest.com/index.php/galleries/gallery/corpus_christi_festival_and_procession_2012

Sometimes I don’t mind repeating myself, over time, and to a succession of posters. To the same poster, not so much.

GKC

Sorry to have wearied you, and thank you for the references. I will see if I can get one or both of those books through inter-library loan. From what I’ve been able to see of them so far, they represent what’s called the Oxford Movement and/or Anglo-Catholicism. Learning more about the history of that movement might answer my questions.

I did go back to review previous exchanges, and found interesting quotes from various people about how the Articles are not considered essentials of the faith, as if a person would be damned if he did not wholeheartedly agree with every jot and tittle, but as “pious opinions,” “theological truths,” “safe and pious principles,” and intended to foster unity, as his majesty’s decaration also makes clear, “We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace; and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or Questions to be raised, which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonwealth.”

What I haven’t seen is anything in the church canons or its statements on doctrine to indicate that the articles “are not normative for Anglicans in general,” or that people may feel free to cut them out of their prayer books and use them to kindle fires. Rather, the church describes the 39 Articles as being true doctrine, agreeable to the Word of God, grounded in the teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church, and that their formation came about through the leading of the Holy Spirit, not just political expediency.

Sorry for being a pain, and for the repeated questions/observations, but, given what the church seems to teach about them, I have to admit that curiousity is aroused anew each time I see the statement that the Articles are not normative for Anglicans in general or that quoting them is not a reliable way to explain Anglican doctrine to others.

More interesting to me, though, will be to discover what it is about the 39 Articles that some Anglicans don’t like. Why, for instance, did the 1968 Lambeth Conference recommend that assent to the Articles should no longer be required of ordinands and ask Churches in the Communion to consider whether they even belong in the Prayer Book. Obviously, and counter to what I see in the canons, many Anglicans do not consider the Articles to be theologically sound, and maybe I’ll find out why in the books you recommended or through further study of the Oxford movement.

 

[GKC]

Sorry to have wearied you, and thank you for the references. I will see if I can get one or both of those books through inter-library loan. From what I’ve been able to see of them so far, they represent what’s called the Oxford Movement and/or Anglo-Catholicism. Learning more about the history of that movement might answer my questions.

I did go back to review previous exchanges, and found interesting quotes from various people about how the Articles are not considered essentials of the faith, as if a person would be damned if he did not wholeheartedly agree with every jot and tittle, but as “pious opinions,” “theological truths,” “safe and pious principles,” and intended to foster unity, as his majesty’s decaration also makes clear, “We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace; and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or Questions to be raised, which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonwealth.”

What I haven’t seen is anything in the church canons or its statements on doctrine to indicate that the articles “are not normative for Anglicans in general,” or that people may feel free to cut them out of their prayer books and use them to kindle fires. Rather, the church describes the 39 Articles as being true doctrine, agreeable to the Word of God, grounded in the teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church, and that their formation came about through the leading of the Holy Spirit, not just political expediency.

Sorry for being a pain, and for the repeated questions/observations, but, given what the church seems to teach about them, I have to admit that curiousity is aroused anew each time I see the statement that the Articles are not normative for Anglicans in general or that quoting them is not a reliable way to explain Anglican doctrine to others.

More interesting to me, though, will be to discover what it is about the 39 Articles that some Anglicans don’t like. Why, for instance, did the 1968 Lambeth Conference recommend that assent to the Articles should no longer be required of ordinands and ask Churches in the Communion to consider whether they even belong in the Prayer Book. Obviously, and counter to what I see in the canons, many Anglicans do not consider the Articles to be theologically sound, and maybe I’ll find out why in the books you recommended or through further study of the Oxford movement.

Possibly so. And some comments in this post confirm something I had concluded previously from your questions. You (I conclude) have very little exposure to the history of Anglicanism, or the range of doctrine that it has always encompassed, or the story of how the Articles and many other things came to be. I expand my recommendations to a good history of the Church of England, for example, say Moorman’s HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND (an oldie but goodie). The CoE is not the totality of the concept “Anglican”, but understanding the history of what happened is essential. History, in fact, is essential, in understanding many things.And, as I so often say, it’s complicated.

Wearying as the repetitive discussion may be (given that, unlike some such historical topics here, this one is not personally interesting to me; it’s merely part of my role of explaining Anglicanism to folks who might have an erroneous idea of it), it serves well to illustrate my most common mantra. Anglicans are a motley crew. And on the particular subject of the Articles, if you wanted to know what a Anglican individual/group might say, you would need to inquire. You cannot do the reverse: assume that a statement in the Articles represents what Anglicans affirm, generally. Say, as with respect to a Corpus Christi procession. Obviously. There is no overarching authority (I wonder why this is not mentioned more often) which compels Anglicans to any one view of them (save as I have noted); they are in no sense a universal Anglican confession. And some will affirm, reject, etc, etc. Which is true.

Good luck. I’ll soldier on here.

GKC

 

[jrtrent]

. . . some comments in this post confirm something I had concluded previously from your questions. You (I conclude) have very little exposure to the history of Anglicanism, or the range of doctrine that it has always encompassed, or the story of how the Articles and many other things came to be. I expand my recommendations to a good history of the Church of England, for example, say Moorman’s HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND (an oldie but goodie). The CoE is not the totality of the concept “Anglican”, but understanding the history of what happened is essential. History, in fact, is essential, in understanding many things.And, as I so often say, it’s complicated.

I’ll add Moorman to my reading list.

You’re right about my lack of knowledge of Anglicanism, other than the Anglican church I joined just a few short years ago; we were then part of the Anglican Province of America, but my congregation split from that and joined a different group.

I do now have several books on CD about the 39 Articles, of varying length and purpose, some being introductions, others history, others expositions and commentaries. It takes a while for books to come in on interlibrary loan, so if there is anything on the list below you recognize and think might be helpful, I’ll start with it.

E. J. Bicknell–A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England

T. P. Boultbee–An Introduction to the Theology of the Church of England in an Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

E. H. Browne–An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Aricles, Historical and Doctrinal

G. Burnet–An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England

A. P. Forbes–An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles

E. C. S. Gibson–The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England

E. T. Green–The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation

C. Hardwick–A History of the Articles of Religion

E. A. Litton–Introduction to Dogmatic Theology on the Basis of the Thirty-Nine Articles

G. F. Maclear and W. W. Williams–An Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England

Thomas Rogers–The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England; an Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles

W. H. G. Thomas–The Principles of Theology; an Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles

W. G. Wilson and J. H. Templeton–Anglican Teaching; an Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles

 

[datritle]

The Cobert Report? Really?

.

Colbert IS a Catholic. and HE wasn’t arguing against the Faith. his idiot guest was. He called himself catholic, but NOTHING he was saying was even remotely orthodox.