I am just reading up on the 39 articles of Religion ...
Are these then the theological statements most Anglicans would agree to?
Have they remained the same since the 16th century?
Pretty much the same since the 16th century yes. All Anglicans? Certainly not. But they are about as official as the Anglican Church gets. Which admittedly doesn't really happen in the Anglican Communion. That is probably why they can and sometimes do "Change" doctrinal stances such as ordaining women, more easily than the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox.
__________________
Just a Christian
Please note if I am posting in an inappropriate manner or unintelligibly please notify a moderator. I take some very serious medications which alter my Level of Consciousness. Mods please remove anything necessary.
Where did that come from? No offence meant, but historically Lutherans were the protestants! Protesting against Rome. Anglicans used the term in a political way when they opposed the right of the Papacy to interfere in English politics, but in a religious setting they always used to eschew the term.
When the usurper, William of Orange took over the throne, (A Calvinist), he asked the English Church if they would use the term more often, so that the Dutch Calvinists would be more at one with us! The English Convocation, High Church men, for the most part refused, declaring the Church was historically Catholic. Interestingly, the one part of the Catholic Church to lay claim to the title was the Roman Church , when in a letter to the House of Lords, they claimed to be Protestant Dissenting Catholics.
I am not much of a theologian, but my understanding has always been that Anglicans are Catholic in faith, and the term Protestant refers mainly to the churches formed during Luther's reformation. I became distrubed whn i realised that RCC classifies us Protestants-not that it changes much though
I am not much of a theologian, but my understanding has always been that Anglicans are Catholic in faith, and the term Protestant refers mainly to the churches formed during Luther's reformation. I became distrubed whn i realised that RCC classifies us Protestants-not that it changes much though
A very good case can be made for saying that Anglicans are both Catholic and Protestant, but we need to avoid being sucked in by the mythology that Anglo-Catholicism and Anglo-Papalism promote. There was a church in England before the Reformation, but it took the side of the continental Reformers on all the key issues, and this has never been repealed. Consequently, the Anglican Far Right merely pretends that the Reformation didn't happen in England. That's hardly a thesis that anyone possessed of even a shade of objectivity can seriously entertain.
Indeed, there were key elements of historic Roman Catholicism which were retained--the Episcopacy (but not viewed in the same way) and the sacraments as effective channels of grace (but only the two sacraments of the Gospel, the others being really sacramentals and optional, despite being called "sacraments," or " lesser sacraments most often).
And many of these rich inheritances from the past, eg. episcopacy, church calendar, veneration of the saints, liturgical worship, and so on were not banished by the predominant continental reform movement (Lutheranism) either, so this can't reasonably be seen as the hard line dividing Catholicism from Protestantism.
On the other big issues that divide--the primacy of Scripture, Salvation by Faith, ending corrupt devotional practices common during the Middle Ages, congregational singing, worship in the language of the people, lay participation, communion in two kinds, ending the sway of the bishop of Rome over the church, and so much more, the English Reformation made Christianity in England clearly Protestant.
Besides, where does the idea come from that, if any church body rejects the Catholic Church's jurisdiction, calling what remains "Catholic" is an accurate thing to do? Catholicism has never stood on the platform of "take what you want out of this mix." You're either part of that entity's idea of what the Church is...or you're not. (To be sure, not everyone who is not Catholic, ergo becomes a "Protestant," a la the Mormons but that's another story).
Still, if the Roman concept of the visible church and all that it entails is rejected, you're not a Catholic in the usual sense of the word, even if you retain some important Catholic characteristics.
Finally, and it's just a personal opinion, I think Anglicanism would be a whole lot healthier, and certainly more united in the way it once was, if everyone would get past yearning to be something other than Anglican while still retaining membership in one of the Anglican churches. If that other church is better, join it.
Hard to say. There are no others that rival the 39 Articles in the Church, and the clergy were, until recently and still by implication, required to attest to them (Maybe still are in the CofE if not everywhere else), BUT just like the Bible where every verse can be interpreted differently by a bunch of different people even though the words don't change, the Articles have been subjected to all manner of different interpretations themselves.
For example, one of them rejects the "Romish" teachings on Purgatory, Indulgences and some other things. Does this mean that those things which are characteristic of the Roman Church are rejected by the CofE? Or does it mean that the "Romish Doctrine concerning X,Y, and Z" is wrong, as though some other church believes in all of these items and that they are OK except for that particular slant put on them by Rome (in other words, Purgatory is not rejected, just the "Romish" explanation of it)? Or could it mean that the way that the Roman Church spoke of and taught about those things AT THE TIME (late 16th century) is condemned, but not any longer.
You get all of these things, but the Articles--in the normal way of reading them--are still a reasonable guage of Anglican thought, and you can see that they strike a balance between Catholicism and Puritanism. Anglicans often say that we are a middle of the road church, not tending towards any extremes or doctrines peculiar to us alone, so that seems to reflect the tone of the Articles.
Yes.
To a great extent, I agree with this. But the teaching I've always heard, and consider orthodox for Anglicans, is that we define ourselves, not by a Confession of Faith or compendium of Magisterium pronouncements, but by our praxis -- that Prayer Book worship and what the words and actions therein authorized or prescribed imply about our beliefs, is the standard for Anglicans.
Drawing a parallel to an argument that you and I, Albion, have been involved with over in GT, it's not appropriate to take the doctrine of the Theotokos isolatedly and hold it up as 'giving honor to Mary', but rather it has to be seen in the context of the Christological debates of the 4th century, and what it was constructed to say about Jesus's divinity and humanity. Likewise, the 39 Articles do define Anglican thinking, but in the context of being inclusive of a moderate semi-Calvinism and as against Roman-distinctive beliefs and practices -- what was needed and appropriate at the time they were adopted.
C.S. Lewis, who was far from being a Catholic apologist, explained 'Purgatory' once in words I paraphrase (because my copy is in storage): "Any Englishman is fit to be presented to the King (this was pre-1953) simply by being an Englishman. But coming in from the fields, with clods of dirt on your boots, hot and sweaty, and being summoned to the Royal Presence, would you not say, 'Wonderful! But first let me bathe and put on my best clothes,' that I may feel fit to come before his Majesty.'" This was the sense in which he understood Anglican doctrine -- that it allowed for immediate access to heaven, but also that some might feel they needed to 'clean up' before coming before the Lord God Almighty. "Purgatory is Heaven's 'mud room.'" There is room in Anglicanism for both views: Heaven as immediate reward, and an intermediate preparatory state that is not "the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory."
The same is doubtless true of other such comments in the Articles -- I remember discussing with you that what the Articles say about sacraments is that there are only two prescribed by Christ as mandatory on His Church: Baptism and the Eucharist, but that what the Articles condemn of the other five of the Catholics' "seven sacraments" is not their actual practice -- every Prayer Book has allowed for each of them -- but rather the corruption that the medieval Church placed on some of them: mandatory private auricular confession, for example, with quasi-penal penances that could be overcome by Papal indulgences; turning the anointing of the sick into 'extreme unction,' something given only to dying people; and so on.
As for the unchanged content of the Articles, in general terms you are quite correct that it has never been substantively changed since the 1600s. However, the American Church modified two of them in 1786 (included in the 1789 BCP and every American book since), modifying the language of one and including a bracketed text in place of another to remove references to British governmental forms and bring them into conformity with the new Republic. I would not be surprised to find that other non-British books do likewise relative to local circumstances, the Province of the Southern Cone, for example, hypothetically adopting language that says it is appropriate for congregations to pray for the leaders of the particular republic in which their parish is sited This is a minor nitpick on a point (the unchanged nature of the Articles) that in principle I agree with you on.
__________________
"It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." -Jesus
To a great extent, I agree with this. But the teaching I've always heard, and consider orthodox for Anglicans, is that we define ourselves, not by a Confession of Faith or compendium of Magisterium pronouncements, but by our praxis -- that Prayer Book worship and what the words and actions therein authorized or prescribed imply about our beliefs, is the standard for Anglicans.
And I agree with that. But at the same time we can't talk as though the prayerbook is sterile or noncommittal on these matters. You also subscribe to another perspective, ofen said by Anglicans, I'm guessing. That is the idea that we believe as we worship. Well, the BCP clearly and consistently lays out a theology that we give assent to at every worship service, and it is in harmony with the Thirty-nine Articles. That is why Anglo-Catholics have to use a Missal instead of the Book of Common Prayer. Yet it is the BCP that is as official as anything we have.
Drawing a parallel to an argument that you and I, Albion, have been involved with over in GT, it's not appropriate to take the doctrine of the Theotokos isolatedly and hold it up as 'giving honor to Mary', but rather it has to be seen in the context of the Christological debates of the 4th century, and what it was constructed to say about Jesus's divinity and humanity. Likewise, the 39 Articles do define Anglican thinking, but in the context of being inclusive of a moderate semi-Calvinism and as against Roman-distinctive beliefs and practices -- what was needed and appropriate at the time they were adopted.
And when would that be, would you say? The articles were written in the 16th century, all right, but they were officially adopted by your church, the Episcopal Church in the USA during the 19th century! What's more, they have never been rescinded. The fact is that saying they were needed only in the time when they were adopted is a very unconvincing argument that has become near-famous among Anglo-Catholics, adherents of a revisionist movement within Anglicanism that emerged only a century and a half ago.
The same is doubtless true of other such comments in the Articles -- I remember discussing with you that what the Articles say about sacraments is that there are only two prescribed by Christ as mandatory on His Church: Baptism and the Eucharist, but that what the Articles condemn of the other five of the Catholics' "seven sacraments" is not their actual practice -- every Prayer Book has allowed for each of them
Well now, wait a minute. We are not faced with an either-or situation here, as though if matrimony were not considered to be a sacrament, we therefore must stop performing marriages in the church. They are retained, most of them anyway. But they are not sacraments and don't have the character of sacraments of the Gospel, that's all.
As for the unchanged content of the Articles, in general terms you are quite correct that it has never been substantively changed since the 1600s. However, the American Church modified two of them in 1786 (included in the 1789 BCP and every American book since), modifying the language of one and including a bracketed text in place of another to remove references to British governmental forms and bring them into conformity with the new Republic.
Certainly that's historically true...but I don't see that it affects our relationship to the Articles or what place they have among Anglicans. Not at all. I have not argued that they are unchangeable. I have not said that they are infallible. None of that. But what is true to say is that they do represent the parameters of Anglicanism today as they did in the late 16th century, unless an Anglican simply says he refuses to acknowledge them in his own mind. They do retain their place with the church itself, however, even if the far wing of Anglo-Catholicism customarily says that they don't.
I would not be surprised to find that other non-British books do likewise relative to local circumstances, the Province of the Southern Cone, for example, hypothetically adopting language that says it is appropriate for congregations to pray for the leaders of the particular republic in which their parish is sited This is a minor nitpick on a point (the unchanged nature of the Articles) that in principle I agree with you on.
"Nitpick?," well, that may be too strong a word, but I know that we agree that the Articles themselves allow as how national differences will necessitate change of this sort. These changes are not even especially theological modifications, so I don't see this point as contradicting anything else that's previously been noted.
Thanks for another thoughtful and well-informed post, Polycarp.
Regarding the 39 Articles and the Anglican Church!
The Articles are no more than a line drawn in the sand beyond which the various rogue elements, both Calvinist and Anglo Papists were warned not to stray.Further more, they were to be viewed through the ,'lens,' of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These latter are one of the foundation pillars of the Church here on Earth after the Revelation of Christ. These the Anglican Church has held to through thick and thin. Revelation, Scripture and the Seven Councils. These things are what Traditional Catholics hold to, those people who eschew them might claim to be Anglican in the wider sense , but in effect are Neo Anglicans.
The Prayer Book bears the basis of our theology, the Missal is simply a resource book to amplify ceremonial used in our worship of God.
When we speak of Anglo Catholics? It is a term for our bretheren whose ideas have served their turn and whose efforts have shown failure and if we are to preserve Anglicanism we should look back to the Fathers of the First Three Centuries and the later Reformation and the Non Juring Anglicans. This is Anglican Catholicism at its best!
A very good case can be made for saying that Anglicans are both Catholic and Protestant, but we need to avoid being sucked in by the mythology that Anglo-Catholicism and Anglo-Papalism promote. There was a church in England before the Reformation, but it took the side of the continental Reformers on all the key issues, and this has never been repealed. Consequently, the Anglican Far Right merely pretends that the Reformation didn't happen in England. That's hardly a thesis that anyone possessed of even a shade of objectivity can seriously entertain.
Indeed, there were key elements of historic Roman Catholicism which were retained--the Episcopacy (but not viewed in the same way) and the sacraments as effective channels of grace (but only the two sacraments of the Gospel, the others being really sacramentals and optional, despite being called "sacraments," or " lesser sacraments most often).
And many of these rich inheritances from the past, eg. episcopacy, church calendar, veneration of the saints, liturgical worship, and so on were not banished by the predominant continental reform movement (Lutheranism) either, so this can't reasonably be seen as the hard line dividing Catholicism from Protestantism.
On the other big issues that divide--the primacy of Scripture, Salvation by Faith, ending corrupt devotional practices common during the Middle Ages, congregational singing, worship in the language of the people, lay participation, communion in two kinds, ending the sway of the bishop of Rome over the church, and so much more, the English Reformation made Christianity in England clearly Protestant.
Besides, where does the idea come from that, if any church body rejects the Catholic Church's jurisdiction, calling what remains "Catholic" is an accurate thing to do? Catholicism has never stood on the platform of "take what you want out of this mix." You're either part of that entity's idea of what the Church is...or you're not. (To be sure, not everyone who is not Catholic, ergo becomes a "Protestant," a la the Mormons but that's another story).
Still, if the Roman concept of the visible church and all that it entails is rejected, you're not a Catholic in the usual sense of the word, even if you retain some important Catholic characteristics.
Finally, and it's just a personal opinion, I think Anglicanism would be a whole lot healthier, and certainly more united in the way it once was, if everyone would get past yearning to be something other than Anglican while still retaining membership in one of the Anglican churches. If that other church is better, join it.
When I refer to the Anglican church as Catholic in faith, i am not referring to the RCC interpretation of the word. To me, Protestant is just another extreme which i don't find in Anglicanism. Even before Augustine, the Anglican church was Catholic in faith (in the pure sense of the word).
Regarding the 39 Articles and the Anglican Church!
The Articles are no more than a line drawn in the sand beyond which the various rogue elements, both Calvinist and Anglo Papists were warned not to stray.Further more, they were to be viewed through the ,'lens,' of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These latter are one of the foundation pillars of the Church here on Earth after the Revelation of Christ. These the Anglican Church has held to through thick and thin. Revelation, Scripture and the Seven Councils. These things are what Traditional Catholics hold to, those people who eschew them might claim to be Anglican in the wider sense , but in effect are Neo Anglicans.
I'm afraid the history just doesn't bear that out. For those self-same articles say this (modern language version taken from the Church Society):
'XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.'
The historic Anglican view has been that councils can and have erred, and if Sola Scriptura is not laid out clearly in the 39 Articles, certainly the Primacy of Scripture is.
__________________
No condemnation now I dread; Jesus, and all in Him, is mine; Alive in Him, my living Head, and clothed in righteousness divine, Bold I approach the eternal throne, and claim the crown, through Christ my own. Charles Wesley
When I refer to the Anglican church as Catholic in faith, i am not referring to the RCC interpretation of the word. To me, Protestant is just another extreme which i don't find in Anglicanism. Even before Augustine, the Anglican church was Catholic in faith (in the pure sense of the word).
But it adopted all the key points of the Protestant Reformation during the 16th century when it became recognized as something distinctive. According to the World and National Councils of Churches, the compilers and editors of almost every reference work on the subject, the Royal Family, etc. Anglicanism is Protestant.
However, to be Protestant does not require that one abandon every Catholic quality, belief, or practice. The Reformation did not demand that, either. To that extent I completely agree with you, but we are speaking here of a matter of making a classificiation. Therefore it's necessary to either place Anglicanism into the category of Protestant or else consider it to be something on its own (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Other).
When we talk about being Protestant in regard to being Anglican, we should really define our terms, The Anglican Church has never as far as I know used the term protestant in its basic documents to define the organisation or that bodies beliefs. Unlike for instance Rome which has done so.
Further, if we are going to discuss Anglicanism, or the belief of the Church we should remember that at its greatest extent, Anglicanism has never been more than twenty six diocese' of the Catholic Church. It has also to be discussed in relation to the basics, "Revelation, Scripture and the Councils". These are the Catholic fundamentals that have been held for nigh on two millenium! They constitute Holy Tradition and the people who reject them are not Anglicans, but Neo Anglicans, a new breed!
__________________ All profess that there are seven Holy and Ecumenical Councils and these are the seven pillars of the Faith of the Divine Word on which He erected His Holy Mansion, the Catholic and Ecumenical Church!
[John 2nd, Russian Metropolitan. 1080.]
Linear Mode
