Is there uniformity on how Anglicans view the creeds?

[mark46]

Gotcha. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this. I would say I am in agreement with you, as that has been my understanding as well: a saving faith doesn't necessitate correct theology.

The Grace of God isn't dependent on the proper understanding of the Creeds and Articles. Over the past many decades, I have been surprised many, many times by how many believe that saving faith in Jesus Christ is dependent on essentially having a correct understanding of doctrine. I have been a member and teacher in many churches. For me, this understanding of salvation is seriously deficient.

Either the thief on the Cross was welcomed into Paradise or he wasn't. The professions of faith by the thief and Thomas are instructive.

Just BTW, our very careful understanding of nuances of the faith were not held by very many in the Early Church, certainly not before Nicea.

 

[Shane R]

My rector is one who chooses to ignore the Athanasian creed. But one time the bishop came and he wanted to use it so we did. Our main acolyte was quite interested in the document, apparently never having seen it before. He turned to me and said, "This is really interesting, have you ever read it before?"

Yes Joel, I'm the deacon (at that time), I am familiar with the Athanasian creed. He was about 18 or 19 at the time, not a little kid.

 

[Arcangl86]

My rector is one who chooses to ignore the Athanasian creed. But one time the bishop came and he wanted to use it so we did. Our main acolyte was quite interested in the document, apparently never having seen it before. He turned to me and said, "This is really interesting, have you ever read it before?"

Yes Joel, I'm the deacon (at that time), I am familiar with the Athanasian creed. He was about 18 or 19 at the time, not a little kid.

I mean I first encountered it in seminary in my 30s.

 

[Paidiske]

I probably first encountered it when I was considering offering for ordination; I knew I would have to assent to the 39 Articles, so I examined them carefully, which meant I had to read the Athanasian Creed. I would have been about 26?

 

[Arbuthnott]

Most of the Anglicans I know adhere to the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed--for sure.

The Athanasian Creed is in the Book of Common Prayer and probably seen more as a historical document. Here is a link to the official Episcopal position on The Athanasian Creed from The Episcopal Dictionary of the Church.

I am not a member of the Clergy, but a pew warmer. I suggest you follow the comments of Paidiske.

 

[Paidiske]

But bear in mind that I am in Australia, and the answer to this question is not necessarily going to be the same around the world.

 

[Albion]

Most of the Anglicans I know adhere to the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed--for sure.

The Athanasian Creed is in the Book of Common Prayer and probably seen more as a historical document.

For what it's worth, what you've said here--on both accounts--applies only to the 1979 book of The Episcopal Church.

The historic BCP, which was used in TEC until the 1980s, and is still used by Continuing Anglicans, omits the Athanasian Creed from the Articles of Religion.

But all of that aside, I've not met any Anglican who objects to Athanasian Creed's contents, no matter which church he belongs to. There must be some, but I don't get the idea that they are very numerous. Not even the Free Church of England does.

 

[Paidiske]

The historic BCP, which was used in TEC until the 1980s, and is still used by Continuing Anglicans, omits the Athanasian Creed from the Articles of Religion.

Sorry, Albion, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that in the TEC historically, the Athanasian Creed has not been in the 39 Articles?

I understood that TEC... sits lightly... to the Articles, but I did not know that they had so edited their contents. Have they made other changes as well?

(For those reading along, the text of Article VIII with which I'm familiar, and which I thought was universally held by Anglicans, reads: The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.)

 

[Albion]

Sorry, Albion, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that in the TEC historically, the Athanasian Creed has not been in the 39 Articles?

That's right. It was omitted when the American church became independent of the CofE and remained that way until recently. I am right now looking at Article VIII ("Of the Creeds") in my fifty-year old copy of the BCP printed "according to the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA."

However, that doesn't mean that Episcopalians think of the Athanasian Creed as having been rejected. It just wasn't included for some reason.

(For those reading along, the text of Article VIII with which I'm familiar, and which I thought was universally held by Anglicans, reads: The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.)

Here, that is rendered as follows:

The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

Far out.

What else have they changed??

 

[Albion]

Far out.

What else have they changed??

I've been trying to think of any. So far, none come to my mind unless it would be the omission of Art. XXI altogether.

 

[Paidiske]

I find it really disturbing that they seem to feel they can just change the Articles.

I mean, over time we might feel the need to contextualise or apply them differently, but that's a whole other level!

 

[Albion]

I find it really disturbing that they seem to feel they can just change the Articles.

I understand, but that was over 200 years ago and I have no idea if any of this was thought to be controversial at the time. By the way, there is a footnote to Article XXI, now omitted. It says that the contents of the "former" Article are of a local and civil nature, and the parts which are not are provided for in other of the Articles.

I mean, over time we might feel the need to contextualise or apply them differently, but that's a whole other level!

Until then, we here in the States are resolved to stand on the historic 37 1/2 Articles of Religion!!

 

[seeking.IAM]

Despite not being included in the Articles, my Episcopal Church recites the Athanasian Creed in worship. Not often and not regularly, but it has and undoubtedly will again.

 

[Arcangl86]

Far out.

What else have they changed??

Articles 36, and 37 have also been edited and there is a annotation to Article 35.

XXXV. Of the Homilies.

The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article,
doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the
former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and
therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly,
that they may be understanded of the people.

Of the Names of the Homilies

1 Of the right Use of the Church. 11 Of Alms-doing.
2 Against Peril of Idolatry. 12 Of the Nativity of Christ.
3 Of repairing and keeping clean of
Churches. 13 Of the Passion of Christ.
14 Of the Resurrection of Christ.
4 Of good Works: first of Fasting.
5 Against Gluttony and Drunkenness. 15 Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the
Body and Blood of Christ.
6 Against Excess of Apparel. 16 Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
7 Of Prayer. 17 For the Rogation-days.
8 Of the Place and Time of Prayer. 18 Of the State of Matrimony.
9 That Common Prayers and Sacraments
ought to be ministered in a known tongue. 19 Of Repentance.
20 Against Idleness.
10 Of the reverend Estimation of God's Word. 21 Against Rebellion.
[This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Book of Homilies to be an
explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references to
the constitution and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of
this Church; which also suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in churches,
until a revision of them may be conveniently made, for the clearing of them, as well from
obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references.]

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.

The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth by
the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such
Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and
ungodly. And, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, we
decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "The Book of Consecration of
Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time
of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth
contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing,
that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or
ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King
Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same
Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered."

XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.

The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things
temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of
all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority,
regularly and legitimately constituted.

The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "The King's Majesty hath the
chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief
Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all
causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.
Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we
understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the
ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also
lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative,
which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God
himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by
God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the
stubborn and evil-doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous
offences.

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons,
and serve in the wars."

 

[tbstor]

Interesting information! I found this article, which may be of use to some of you.

 

[Ananias]

Articles 36, and 37 have also been edited and there is a annotation to Article 35.

ACNA's 2019 BCP is basically a modernization of the 1662 BCP prayer book. They even retain the Coverdale Psalter (yay!), even though the rest of the Bible translations seem to come from the ESV. The 39 Articles and the Creeds track with the 1662 BCP as well as far as I can tell.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is difficulty to say there is any uniformity at all in Anglicanism. Even rejecting all three creeds probably wouldn’t get you excommunicated. Having said that, the overwhelming majority of Anglicans would accept them. At least insofar as they could make head or tail of the Nicene, and still more Athanasian, creeds.

 

[Albion]

It is difficulty to say there is any uniformity at all in Anglicanism. Even rejecting all three creeds probably wouldn’t get you excommunicated. Having said that, the overwhelming majority of Anglicans would accept them. At least insofar as they could make head or tail of the Nicene, and still more Athanasian, creeds.

In truth, there is hardly any branch of Christianity in which there is actual uniformity. Some cults, perhaps. And there is no such thing as "any uniformity at all." Either there is uniformity or else there is not uniformity. There isn't such a thing as partial uniformity.

So the issue is more about what you said here--will the difference of opinion get you excommunicated.

Personally, I'm not keen on excommunicating people. It matters much more that the church is solid, not that it permits someone to sit in the pews who may have a mental reservation about some article of belief.

Unfortunately, what Anglicanism in recent generations has experienced is the opposite, i.e. the church itself became unfocused and rudderless while, at the same time, the idea of excommunicating anyone didn't exist (with the possible exception of traditionalist clergy, of course).

 

[lesliedellow]

In truth, there is hardly any branch of Christianity in which there is actual uniformity. Some cults, perhaps. And there is no such thing as "any uniformity at all." Either there is uniformity or else there is not uniformity. There isn't such a thing as partial uniformity.

So the issue is more about what you said here--will the difference of opinion get you excommunicated.

Personally, I'm not keen on excommunicating people. It matters much more that the church is solid, not that it permits someone to sit in the pews who may have a mental reservation about some article of belief.

Unfortunately, what Anglicanism in recent generations has experienced is the opposite, i.e. the church itself became unfocused and rudderless while, at the same time, the idea of excommunicating anyone didn't exist (with the possible exception of traditionalist clergy, of course).

Having everybody believe whatever they like is equivalent to having the Church, as a corporate body, believing nothing.