Early Church Fathers

[karen freeinchristman]

Isn't the 'assent' actually just saying that you agree that the articles are part of what makes up our historic witness to the faith? That doesn't mean the same thing as assenting to the articles themselves, just that you assent that they are part of the historic witness.

 

[No Swansong]

That's a good question how is it worded? I was under the impression that it was an affirmation of assent to their truthfulness. Admittedly I could be wrong in this assumption. Remember my comments are all predicated upon two things #1 that it is an affirmation as I believed it to be #2 that the affirmation is necessary in order to receive Holy Orders.

 

[Iosias]

Isn't the 'assent' actually just saying that you agree that the articles are part of what makes up our historic witness to the faith? That doesn't mean the same thing as assenting to the articles themselves, just that you assent that they are part of the historic witness.

Therefore he agreed that "the articles are part of what makes up our historic witness to the faith" and therefore what they contain is a part of the faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[PaladinValer]

No, it doesn't imply that, AV.

It suggests that the Articles are part of; that doesn't automatically mean "only" but constitutes a portion of a whole.

Besides, history records that the source of much of the Reformed interpretation of those Articles isn't ancient. That alone raises a debilitating question of whether they are faith delivered to the saints (let alone the Apostles).

 

[Iosias]

It suggests that the Articles are part of

We agree then

 

[PaladinValer]

No; you quote out of context. Agree to the whole or recant.

 

[Iosias]

No; you quote out of context. Agree to the whole or recant.

The ABC has affirmed that "The Church of England...professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds" and that "Led by the Holy Spirit" the Church of England "has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, [including] the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion".

The ABC has therefore given his assent to the idea that the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion bears witness to Christian truth and that in developing the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion the Church was led by the Holy Spirit! It cannot get much clearer than that.

 

[PaladinValer]

No sir; you are wrong.

1. Quote me entirely and then say "I agree." Then, and only then, do we actually agree. You cannot line-item veto and pick and choose what you want when such action divides a phrase from the full context.

2. The ABC is a member of Affirming Catholicism, which is in direct contradiction to the Articles. Your interpretation of what he has done (or perhaps will do is a better word for it), is therefore illogical.

3. The ABC has performed a formality, nothing more. He doesn't agree with your interpretation of them and probably rejects at least one point or two completely.

 

[Iosias]

2. The ABC is a member of Affirming Catholicism, which is in direct contradiction to the Articles. Your interpretation of what he has done (or perhaps will do is a better word for it), is therefore illogical.

Then why did he affirm that the Church of England "has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, [including] the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion"?

3. The ABC has performed a formality, nothing more. He doesn't agree with your interpretation of them and probably rejects at least one point or two completely.

Then why did he affirm that the Church of England "has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, [including] the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion"?

 

[PaladinValer]

Then why did he affirm that the Church of England "has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, [including] the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion"?

Perhaps it is because it was a nonsensal formality?

Then why did he affirm that the Church of England "has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, [including] the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion"?

Perhaps it is because it was a nonsensal formality?

In your way, he could be brought under charges. God knows there are many bishops in the CoE who'd love to have him removed, regardless of all the hubub that would result. So why haven't they done that? The only answer that makes sense is that it is a formality.

 

[No Swansong]

Perhaps it is because it was a nonsensal formality?



Perhaps it is because it was a nonsensal formality?

In your way, he could be brought under charges. God knows there are many bishops in the CoE who'd love to have him removed, regardless of all the hubub that would result. So why haven't they done that? The only answer that makes sense is that it is a formality.

You seem to think that because something is a formality it dismisses dishonesty. How so?

Did he lie or not? If he did why is that acceptable to any Christian?

 

[gtsecc]

I think he crossed his fingers.

Seriously, that fact of the matter is that a heck of a lot of Priests aren't calvinists. If they can't get around the article, at least by looking at them as Newman did, then they have to convert to someoen with Bishops, which basically means Rome or the EO.

 

[No Swansong]

I think he crossed his fingers.

Seriously, that fact of the matter is that a heck of a lot of Priests aren't calvinists. If they can't get around the article, at least by looking at them as Newman did, then they have to convert to someoen with Bishops, which basically means Rome or the EO.

That may explain why it is done but it does not explain how it makes it morally acceptable.

BTW Glen I figured you would know are Bishops in TEC required to affirm the Articles?

 

[gtsecc]

That may explain why it is done but it does not explain how it makes it morally acceptable.

BTW Glen I figured you would know are Bishops in TEC required to affirm the Articles?

That is not a requirement of Deacons, Priests, or Bishops in TEC.

 

[No Swansong]

I didn't think so.

Thanks!

 

[higgs2]

Isn't the 'assent' actually just saying that you agree that the articles are part of what makes up our historic witness to the faith? That doesn't mean the same thing as assenting to the articles themselves, just that you assent that they are part of the historic witness.

That is how I understand it also.

 

[Iosias]

Perhaps it is because it was a nonsensal formality?

Then why did he affirm that the Church of England "has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, [including] the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion"?

He still swore an oath and as such is bound by it. Should he be "deposed"? I think so. Will it happen? I doubt it due to politics.

 

[Simon_Templar]

On any given issue the Early Church Fathers aren't infallible. They as individual men were not, that we know of, directly inspired in their teachings or writings. Thus they COULD be mistaken.

However, they have the benefit of being taught directly by the apostles in some cases, or only one or two generations removed from the apostles as a result they had alot more context, alot more teaching to work with than we do.
In addition to that, many of their teachings have been confirmed by the Church and thus carry not only the authority of the Early Fathers, but also that of the Church undivided.

Now, speaking for me personally. If I run into an issue where my own view seems to be at odds with the Early Church Fathers, my first course of action is to review the Early Father's teachings and make sure that I am understanding them correctly.
If I am convinced that I have a correct understanding of their teaching, and it stills seems to be at odds with my belief. I will then review both teachings and attempt to discover why they were believed, where they originated etc. Find the reasoning behind them.

The final step, which is actually part of the above step is that I take both to the scriptures and evaluate them in the light of the scriptrues. I will pray and ask for guidance and I will pay special attention to the scriptures that I originally derived my own view from, and see if I have misinterpeted them, checking to see if they fit better with the understanding that the Early Father's had.

If after all, I find that the Early Church Father's view is fits with scripture and doesn't contradict any other established doctrines, and it is still contrary to my own view, I would go with the ECF view.

 

[PaladinValer]

Then why did he affirm that the Church of England "has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, [including] the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion"?

Asked an answered.

He still swore an oath and as such is bound by it. Should he be "deposed"? I think so. Will it happen? I doubt it due to politics.

Unless that formality has no "punch," which is the case.

You go to the beach. This paricular beach is located in a country where there is a 500 year-old law, still on the books, that says people who go to the beach shirtless have violated the law to which the penalty is a $1,000 dollar fine and a month in jail. However, no one has paid heed to the law for the last 350 years because the government party that created the bill was long ousted and has never returned to power. Yet no one changed the law, but since the new parties that have come and gone and come back again see the law as silly, they don't inforce it. They recognize that it was a part of a bygone era, so they keep it for posterity.

Yet to take office, one must swear that they will abide by this law. Since it really no longer packs a punch, every person in office says it out of a formality; it a part of the culture.

So what if +++Rowan said he'd adhere to the Articles? Its an anthropological part of that province and part of the world without punch.

 

[ebia]

Then why did he affirm that the Church of England "has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, [including] the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion"?

Perhaps because he (and many others) don't think that means what you think that means.

Something doesn't have to be perfect or entirely correct to (as a whole) bear witness. The Articles are quite clearly part of how the CofE has born witness to the faith, but (at the same time) many of them are substantially flawed.