Are Anglicans required to accept the 7th ecumenical council?

[The Liturgist]

Good points, but on a score sheet; I would take an informed dictatorship over a bunch of know-it-all laymen any day.

Indeed, this is something I love about Anglicanism.

Implementing at least a partial monastic episcopate in the Anglican and Lutheran churches is viable considering the long tradition of Lutheran monasticism in Germany and Sweden and the less ancient, but more widespread, Anglican monasticism, with many Benedictine orders. Sadly, Anglican monasticism is in decline and the Episcopalian monastery relatively near me, across the border in California*, recently closed; I thought about joining the OHC but they could have assigned me elsewhere.

*Fun fact: California is the only US state to have the appearance of an internal border with other states, because all major highways leading to California pass through an Agricultural Inspection Station.

 

[Paidiske]

However, in defense of Anglo Catholic priests, the Oxford Movement did thoroughly deconstruct the 39 Articles as a means of facilitating Anglo Catholic worship...

Also, the 39 Articles do not always mean what they appear to mean, if interpreted in light of contemporary Anglican theology and ecumenical dialogue.

No, come on, no. This is not a matter of "facilitating Anglo Catholic worship," as if it were the adiaphora of incense or chasubles. We're talking about core doctrinal convictions, and nor can we re-interpret them to mean exactly the opposite of what their drafters (and everyone in their original context) understood them to mean.

That means, no, we don't put consecrated hosts in monstrances for adoration. No, we don't ask the saints to pray for us. And no, we don't do these things and then pretend that they don't violate basic historic Anglican norms.

But I think in the interests of ecumenical progress, the Anglican Communion should follow the example of churches like the Episcopal Church and the ACNA and revise or remove the 39 Articles. I would favor revision, to remove articles offensive to Anglo Catholics and the use of words like “Romish.”

I don't think we should abandon our convictions for the sake of "ecumenical progress." It's not true ecumenism if it just means agreeing with others for the sake of it. And I think you're coming close to the edge of debating inappropriately in the Anglican forum.

So the prevailing view I see from Anglican theologians, particularly more conservative Episcopalian theologians, is that it is the Book of Common Prayer which united the Episcopal Church doctrinally and in other respect. The articles are there, in the Historical Documents section, like the Athanasian Creed, and different Episcopalians and other American Anglicans attach different levels of importance to them.

But the Book of Common Prayer could only unite Anglicans because the church set boundaries around it. As soon as you say, "Do what you like, everything's fair game, don't bother about what's authorised (or even what can legitimately be authorised within our understanding)" you might as well not bother having a BCP.

 

[The Liturgist]

Whoops, thought I was in Traditional Theology

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't think we should abandon our convictions for the sake of "ecumenical progress." It's not true ecumenism if it just means agreeing with others for the sake of it. And I think you're coming close to the edge of debating inappropriately in the Anglican forum.

Oh SNAP! I am extremely sorry - I thought this was Traditional Theology. Please forgive me. I can understand why you got ticked off at me. I am vaporizing the offending post.

 

[Paidiske]

I hope I wasn't too grumpy. It just happens to be a topic about which I have some fairly firmly held views, as they say. (Stubborn, who, me? Surely not. )

 

[The Liturgist]

I hope I wasn't too grumpy. It just happens to be a topic about which I have some fairly firmly held views, as they say. (Stubborn, who, me? Surely not. )

No, its quite alright, I routinely chew people out for posting off-topic in TT and I made a huge faux pas. I admire your doctrinal firmness and have come to trust your orthodoxy.

 

[PloverWing]

I think it's deeply problematic to think we can just discard our most foundational doctrinal frameworks, especially when one province or area does so with no regard for their place in the wider life of the communion.

I agree with your view of oaths: either take the oath seriously, and hold people to it, or don't require the oath. I don't like oaths that don't mean anything.

As to the Articles themselves: I'm, of course, from one of the national churches that moved the Articles to a "historical documents" appendix, so that's going to influence my viewpoint. I'm glad for the move. There are Roman Catholic beliefs that are called "corrupt" and "repugnant" in the Articles, that I think of as harmless differences of opinion, and I would feel I was being false if I affirmed the Articles in their entirety. I think of those statements as understandable for their time, because the split with the RCC was still fresh, but less needed now that tempers have cooled.

You speak of one province/area discarding the Articles without consulting others, and I admit that the American church does have a history of going off in our own direction without waiting for agreement from others. What would you think of a procedure that involved the wider Communion that could revisit the Articles, to keep them or amend them or move them to "historical documents", but do this with all the national churches in conversation?

 

[Paidiske]

As to the Articles themselves: I'm, of course, from one of the national churches that moved the Articles to a "historical documents" appendix, so that's going to influence my viewpoint. I'm glad for the move. There are Roman Catholic beliefs that are called "corrupt" and "repugnant" in the Articles, that I think of as harmless differences of opinion, and I would feel I was being false if I affirmed the Articles in their entirety. I think of those statements as understandable for their time, because the split with the RCC was still fresh, but less needed now that tempers have cooled.

To my mind, the point about those Articles is not about their rhetorical force (tact not having been a driving consideration in their drafting, I agree), but about the boundaries they set. If the Articles say, for example, that transubstantiation and purgatory are "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture" then we don't teach it, or structure our liturgies in ways which affirm it. If we move that statement to "historical documents," then what's to stop some Anglican clergy from teaching transubstantiation from the pulpit?

You speak of one province/area discarding the Articles without consulting others, and I admit that the American church does have a history of going off in our own direction without waiting for agreement from others. What would you think of a procedure that involved the wider Communion that could revisit the Articles, to keep them or amend them or move them to "historical documents", but do this with all the national churches in conversation?

In theory, I'd be open to a global council. In practice, given we can't even get a bunch of our bishops to turn up to Lambeth, I'd not hold my breath expecting it to be realistically possible just now.

I would prefer to amend them (I do think there are aspects which could be improved), rather than to discard their normative force, though.

 

[Shane R]

There's a joke among certain clergy who favor the 39 button cassock. If they miss a button they say it represents an Article they disagree with.

 

[Paidiske]

And if you get to the point where you have too few buttons done up to hold the cassock on, it's time to shift denominations.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's a joke among certain clergy who favor the 39 button cassock. If they miss a button they say it represents an Article they disagree with.

So do the rare cassock-wearing Methodists have 25-button cassocks?

 

[Shane R]

I was reading a booklet by the liturgy scholar Peter Toon recently and he commented on the four councils benchmark. It was his assertion that the fifth and sixth councils were seen only as further clarification of the Chalcedonian Definition and the Church of England already accepted the Athanasian Creed. He claimed that the seventh council was little known or understood by the early Anglican divines.

 

[DeFyYing]

I hope I wasn't too grumpy. It just happens to be a topic about which I have some fairly firmly held views, as they say. (Stubborn, who, me? Surely not. )

No not at all, I actually really appreciate your input as someone deciding between the Lutheran and Anglican traditions. It's interesting to see someone else concerned about the status in the Articles which are technically still binding in England, the Mother church! For that reason I was interested in the Laudian "Old High Church" tradition as they seem to have continuity with historic Anglicanism and its formularies while having a high view of the sacraments and episcopate, is that school of thought alive and well around you in Australia?

 

[Paidiske]

For that reason I was interested in the Laudian "Old High Church" tradition as they seem to have continuity with historic Anglicanism and its formularies while having a high view of the sacraments and episcopate, is that school of thought alive and well around you in Australia?

Hmm. Well, that's a question that would take quite a bit of unpacking.

I think it would be fair to say that the high church/Anglo-catholic side of the church a) have been heavily impacted by the Oxford movement and its aftermath, so that a Laudian tendency does not come down to us unfiltered by history since that point, and b) are currently concerned with different arguments than those which were core concerns historically.

If that makes sense?

 

[DeFyYing]

Hmm. Well, that's a question that would take quite a bit of unpacking.

I think it would be fair to say that the high church/Anglo-catholic side of the church a) have been heavily impacted by the Oxford movement and its aftermath, so that a Laudian tendency does not come down to us unfiltered by history since that point, and b) are currently concerned with different arguments than those which were core concerns historically.

If that makes sense?

Gotcha, I really like the Anglo-Catholic movement I guess that I just worry about if there is a lack of continuity with the English reformation and the Elizabethan Settlement. I'm certainly grateful for the Oxford Movement for things like weekly Eucharist but doctrinally it seems very different than the theology of the Caroline Divines. Like it seems strange going to an Episcopal service with Eucharistic Adoration when I look at the 39 Articles

 

[Paidiske]

I think that's a really fair observation.

 

[DeFyYing]

I think that's a really fair observation.

I've actually done some more reading and am quite interested in the "Prayer Book Catholic" tradition as there seems to be an inherent moderation in the Dearmerites compared to that of the more radical Anglo-Catholics. Still stuck between Lutheranism and Anglicanism though

 

[Arcangl86]

I've actually done some more reading and am quite interested in the "Prayer Book Catholic" tradition as there seems to be an inherent moderation in the Dearmerites compared to that of the more radical Anglo-Catholics. Still stuck between Lutheranism and Anglicanism though

I tend to identify as a prayer book catholic myself. It's easier though in The Episcopal Church though, which was hit harder by the Oxford movement then most of the Communion. I also used to be ELCA and even went to an ELCA seminary.

 

[DeFyYing]

I tend to identify as a prayer book catholic myself. It's easier though in The Episcopal Church though, which was hit harder by the Oxford movement then most of the Communion. I also used to be ELCA and even went to an ELCA seminary.

Oh wow what made you make the switch? I see so much similarities in both traditions that I find it hard to decide.

 

[DeFyYing]

I tend to identify as a prayer book catholic myself. It's easier though in The Episcopal Church though, which was hit harder by the Oxford movement then most of the Communion. I also used to be ELCA and even went to an ELCA seminary.

What I find frustrating is how a liturgical expression of Lutheranism would be exactly what I would be looking for, but at least around me the ELCA seems to cater to low church evangelical sensibilities. I was fortunate to find an "Evangelical Catholic" parish but it seems like those that self-identify as them are more prevalent in LCMS.