- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Yep. Selectively.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
In the 39 articles of faith. Number 22. Read it. As to saying an Anglican can believe it I am not arguing against. I can believe it and still be very welcome in my Church.
G
GKC
Guest
The Articles, being an historical document, how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, in fractious days, is not necessarily normative for any Anglican, merely by virtue of their existence, save only, in a technical sense (not enforced) as to clergy of the CoE, per the Parliamentary Subscription Act of 1571. The CoE, being an Erastian Church, gets to do things like that. Anglicans, in general, may choose to affirm, partially affirm (not hard, many are merely mere Trinitarian Christianity), reject, or cut them from their prayer books and use them to ignite the new fire at Easter.
Motley, is Anglicanism.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Uhmm. I may be new to these threads but I am seriously confused. Didn’t I say individual Anglicans can believe it or not. Even saying I can or not though it is rejected by our Confessions? You are only stating more clearly what I already said.
I personally have no problem with a person believing in Purgatory. I don’t believe it will have anything to do with his/her salvation. I was just stating how the foundations of Anglicanism started. CS Lewis also believed in something like purgatory and he was also a devout Anglican.
After reading all their confessions and some research into Anglicanism (yea, I do that too) I came to see that by the very fact they focus on the cores (Basically in my opinion the Apostles Creed/ Nicene Creed) and anything else is extra. Believe it, don’t believe it, it matters not.
I’m sorry, I have this problem of not being clear. I should work on that.
J
jschwartz
Guest
I don’t know why my comments were removed, but in brief: Article 22 has to be understood in context. John Henry Newman, in Tract XC of 1841 §6, discussed Article XXII. He highlighted the fact that it is the “Romish” doctrine of purgatory coupled with indulgences that Article XXII condemns as “repugnant to the Word of God.” The article did not condemn every doctrine of purgatory and it did not condemn prayers for the dead.
Bishop Hobart, founder of the General Theological Seminary, and an early proponent of Episcopal High Church/Catholicism, wrote that “Hades, or the place of the dead, is represented as a spacious receptacle with gates, through which the dead enter.” (the Greek Orthodox refer to Hades as a sort of purgatory).
The Anglican Catechist of 1855, elaborates, and explains that it “is an intermediate state between death and the resurrection, in which the soul does not sleep in unconsciousness, but exists in happiness or misery till the resurrection, when it shall be reunited to the body and receive its final reward.”
In 1966, John Macquarrie, one of Anglicanism’s most distinguished theologians, wrote “Principles of Christian Theology,” in which he set forth a very positive and thoughtful exposition of the doctrine of purgatory. This influenced many Anglicans (and Catholics), and it gave fresh prominence to what many considered at best a minor doctrine and one that was no longer relevant. Macquarrie’s picture of purgatory is of a sanctifying process in which those who die in imperfection are conformed to Christ. In his view, purgatory makes perfect sense.
In fact, today’s Book of Common Prayer, includes prayers for the dead, both that they may be “purged” of “defilements . . . contracted” in their “earthly life” and that they may increase in the “knowledge and love” of God.
Bishop Hobart, founder of the General Theological Seminary, and an early proponent of Episcopal High Church/Catholicism, wrote that “Hades, or the place of the dead, is represented as a spacious receptacle with gates, through which the dead enter.” (the Greek Orthodox refer to Hades as a sort of purgatory).
The Anglican Catechist of 1855, elaborates, and explains that it “is an intermediate state between death and the resurrection, in which the soul does not sleep in unconsciousness, but exists in happiness or misery till the resurrection, when it shall be reunited to the body and receive its final reward.”
In 1966, John Macquarrie, one of Anglicanism’s most distinguished theologians, wrote “Principles of Christian Theology,” in which he set forth a very positive and thoughtful exposition of the doctrine of purgatory. This influenced many Anglicans (and Catholics), and it gave fresh prominence to what many considered at best a minor doctrine and one that was no longer relevant. Macquarrie’s picture of purgatory is of a sanctifying process in which those who die in imperfection are conformed to Christ. In his view, purgatory makes perfect sense.
In fact, today’s Book of Common Prayer, includes prayers for the dead, both that they may be “purged” of “defilements . . . contracted” in their “earthly life” and that they may increase in the “knowledge and love” of God.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Did this change? And Please inform me of the context then?
XXII. OF PURGATORY
THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, 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.
I’m talking original foundation. I’m not saying freedom was not given and today many churches in the Anglican Communion could have changed something. I don’t see the difference when you have the Catholic Church who still preach the same as what was stated in Florence but having such a high percent who don’t even believe this but still go on with the normal Catholic Sacraments.
Maybe it’s a case of, “okay you will not be burned at the stake anymore” and Anglicans can change the writing while Catholics can’t but many still reject it.
G
GKC
Guest
J
jschwartz
Guest
The 39 Articles of Religion don’t serve as the be all, end all explanation of Anglican belief anymore. Low Church Anglicans tend to emphasize these more, as they reflect the more Reformed impulse within the church’s history at that time. There was a concern that dissenters who wanted the reforms to go much further (for example, to abolish hierarchies of bishops) would increase in influence. Wishing to pursue Elizabeth’s agenda of establishing a national church that would maintain the indigenous apostolic faith and incorporate some of the insights of Protestantism, the Articles were intended to incorporate a balance of theology and doctrine. This allowed them to appeal to the broadest domestic opinion, Catholic and otherwise.
That being said, most Anglicans don’t really believe these statements verbatim anymore, as the church has gone to the more Catholic side of things, albeit in a very liberal way in provinces such as the US Episcopal Church.
That being said, most Anglicans don’t really believe these statements verbatim anymore, as the church has gone to the more Catholic side of things, albeit in a very liberal way in provinces such as the US Episcopal Church.
G
GKC
Guest
Originally Posted by MichaelP3
"Uhmm. I may be new to these threads but I am seriously confused. Didn’t I say individual Anglicans can believe it or not. Even saying I can or not though it is rejected by our Confessions? You are only stating more clearly what I already said.
I personally have no problem with a person believing in Purgatory. I don’t believe it will have anything to do with his/her salvation. I was just stating how the foundations of Anglicanism started. CS Lewis also believed in something like purgatory and he was also a devout Anglican.
After reading all their confessions and some research into Anglicanism (yea, I do that too) I came to see that by the very fact they focus on the cores (Basically in my opinion the Apostles Creed/ Nicene Creed) and anything else is extra. Believe it, don’t believe it, it matters not.
I’m sorry, I have this problem of not being clear. I should work on that."
Pardon. My reply got lost, when I attempted a reply. I must reconstruct it.
Patience is requested.
"Uhmm. I may be new to these threads but I am seriously confused. Didn’t I say individual Anglicans can believe it or not. Even saying I can or not though it is rejected by our Confessions? You are only stating more clearly what I already said.
I personally have no problem with a person believing in Purgatory. I don’t believe it will have anything to do with his/her salvation. I was just stating how the foundations of Anglicanism started. CS Lewis also believed in something like purgatory and he was also a devout Anglican.
After reading all their confessions and some research into Anglicanism (yea, I do that too) I came to see that by the very fact they focus on the cores (Basically in my opinion the Apostles Creed/ Nicene Creed) and anything else is extra. Believe it, don’t believe it, it matters not.
I’m sorry, I have this problem of not being clear. I should work on that."
Pardon. My reply got lost, when I attempted a reply. I must reconstruct it.
Patience is requested.
T
twf
Guest
The verses that state that nothing but the sacrifice of Christ is required don’t contradict my beliefs… for as I outlined earlier, our suffering here or in the next life is a participation in the sufferings of Christ, not something added to it. Christ doesn’t require our participation, but He wills it. The verses that state that our works / actions / suffering do matter, and St. Paul in particular going so far as to say that he ADDS to the sufferings of Christ, also do not contradict my faith. The Catholic understanding of this mystery is at peace with the whole of Scripture. I don’t believe the Protestant understanding properly addresses verses such as Col. 1:24.
We agree that purgatory as defined in the medieval Latin Church is a strictly Western concept, but I would say the Eastern view is still much closer to the Catholic view than it is to most Protestant views. After death the process of salvation continues and our prayers and sacrifices on earth can aid those who have died… that’s the common kernel.
G
GKC
Guest
Trying again.
The Articles are basically historic: statecraft as theology, an outline of the Elizabethan Compromise and a form of job description for the Erastian CoE clergy, the laity not being so required to affirm them (or, more accurately, to not oppose them).
They are in no sense an Anglican Confession, Anglicanism being, to the extent it is anything, creedal, as you seem to be noting.
The decennial Lambeth Conferences are in no wise authoritative or binding, on Anglicanism in general, but the 1968 Conference did pass a resolution illustrative of the Articles contemporary status:
" The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled “Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles” (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context."
Which is what the status of the Articles is, currently. Generally.
Lewis, who I have collected and studied for over 50 years did indeed accept the concept of purgation, as seen most clearly in his epistolary LETTERS TO MALCOLM and in his personal letters. His comments on the “Romish” doctrine can be found in his ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, EXCLUDING DRAMA.
I too have a habit of confusing folk, I fear. But Anglicanism is a confusing beast, and I take any chance I get to clarify stuff, to the wider audience. I don’t think we are fundamentally differing here.
There was more in the first effort, but what the heck.
The Articles are basically historic: statecraft as theology, an outline of the Elizabethan Compromise and a form of job description for the Erastian CoE clergy, the laity not being so required to affirm them (or, more accurately, to not oppose them).
They are in no sense an Anglican Confession, Anglicanism being, to the extent it is anything, creedal, as you seem to be noting.
The decennial Lambeth Conferences are in no wise authoritative or binding, on Anglicanism in general, but the 1968 Conference did pass a resolution illustrative of the Articles contemporary status:
" The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled “Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles” (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context."
Which is what the status of the Articles is, currently. Generally.
Lewis, who I have collected and studied for over 50 years did indeed accept the concept of purgation, as seen most clearly in his epistolary LETTERS TO MALCOLM and in his personal letters. His comments on the “Romish” doctrine can be found in his ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, EXCLUDING DRAMA.
I too have a habit of confusing folk, I fear. But Anglicanism is a confusing beast, and I take any chance I get to clarify stuff, to the wider audience. I don’t think we are fundamentally differing here.
There was more in the first effort, but what the heck.
A
Abu
Guest
The Bible which the Catholic Church has produced and guaranteed to be free from error states unequivocally that “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.” [2 Maccabees 12:46]
That means unforgiven venial sins for which one has to undergo Purgatory to get to heaven. The failure lies in not having the complete Catholic Bible.
First, Our Lord had to redeem us from the effects of Original Sin which had closed heaven, but was opened by Him for us
Then, for our salvation, what is needed still is what we can and should suffer with Him; have to suffer, and offer supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings as coredeemers (1 Tim 2:5).
It is St. Paul, who wrote: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience. [Frank Sheed, *Christ In Eclipse, p 105-7].
M
MichaelP3
Guest
, p 105-7].
1 Tim 2:5 (I dont really see this proving anything)
For there is one God.
There is also one mediator between God and the human race,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
And Col 1:24
This is a very interesting one. I had to look at my Direct Greek translation for a while, and interestingly the word “lacking” isn’t there. And although it isn’t proof then, I would say it’s a serious narrow path to walk if one would say ANYTHING lacked from Christ’s suffering. As a believer in an all powerful sovereign God this is just unthinkable to even go there. What translation is that?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
M
MichaelP3
Guest
On Timothy, I don’t know, it was used as a reference in the post I replied to.
Before I get deeper. Is Col 1:24 even used “officially” as a proof for purgatory?
A
Abu
Guest
MichaelP3 #231
My quoted translation is in the Catholic New American Bible, and in the *New King James Version *edited by the Protestant Dr Robert H Schuller. My old *Holy Bible *of 1953 by the (Catholic) Confraternity of Christian Doctrine also contains the same “lacking” in Col 1:24.
The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus has REDEEMED us from our fallen state in which heaven had been closed, but our SALVATION depends upon our cooperation with His saving Grace.
This wallowing in self-interpretation always leads to error.
What is lacking is our co-operation. That is precisely why **St Paul teaches: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12). **We don’t achieve salvation in one fell swoop by accepting Christ as our personal saviour as some are misled to feel. St Paul knows very well what he is teaching:
So, St Paul:
“But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1Cor 9:27). And again: “Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12). Yet again, “And we exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).
“All, of us have a scrutiny to undergo before Christ’s judgment-seat, for each to reap what his mortal life has earned, good or ill, according to his deeds.” (2 Cor 5:10).
It is not only very interesting, it is the reality. It is not “just unthinkable”; it could not be otherwise. We are not “saved” by Christ’s suffering and death on the cross, but we are REDEEMED, and for salvation we have to work that out in fear and trembling.
My quoted translation is in the Catholic New American Bible, and in the *New King James Version *edited by the Protestant Dr Robert H Schuller. My old *Holy Bible *of 1953 by the (Catholic) Confraternity of Christian Doctrine also contains the same “lacking” in Col 1:24.
The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus has REDEEMED us from our fallen state in which heaven had been closed, but our SALVATION depends upon our cooperation with His saving Grace.
This wallowing in self-interpretation always leads to error.
What is lacking is our co-operation. That is precisely why **St Paul teaches: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12). **We don’t achieve salvation in one fell swoop by accepting Christ as our personal saviour as some are misled to feel. St Paul knows very well what he is teaching:
So, St Paul:
“But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1Cor 9:27). And again: “Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12). Yet again, “And we exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).
“All, of us have a scrutiny to undergo before Christ’s judgment-seat, for each to reap what his mortal life has earned, good or ill, according to his deeds.” (2 Cor 5:10).
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
What do you mean?
It’s used by various people. The Catechism states this:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611
606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439)
S 1304; Council of Trent (1563)S 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336)S 1000.607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39
L 77,396; cf. Mt 12:31.609 2 Macc 12:46.
610 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274)
S 856.611 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41,5
G 61,361; cf. Job 1:5.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I don’t see Col 1:24 there. That’s why I asked. Everyone would use the story of Onan but it isn’t used in Huminae Vitae as even Paul VI realised it doesn’s add weight.What do you mean?
It’s used by various people. The Catechism states this:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611
606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439)
607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39
609 2 Macc 12:46.
610 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274)
611 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41,5
Yea I know that part in the Catechism. I am maybe one of the few Protestants who can quote from it if you wish.
- Status