Small o orthodox

[mark46]

I am a bit confused. Are you discussing this from the persective of those Americans who use the 1979 prayer book?

It is my understanding that many world Anglicans (1/3 or so) have affirmed the Jerusalem statement that affirms the importance of the Articles. I was under the impression that ACNA had also done so (perhaps not).

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.


Also, does the Church of England now consider the Articles merely as a historical document, without authority, or do priests still affirm the Articles?

As I say, I am confused on this point.

There are two glaring mistakes in that analysis.

1. What happened in your parish or with your rector does not decide anything. We all know that there are liberal parishes and then there are conservative parishes, etc.

2. The placement of the Articles in the new book was done in order to suggest that they are only a historical memento. That was well known -- and widely discussed -- at the time that the proposed new book was being considered for adoption, whether or not you remember this or ever knew it.

Of course, you can say that the practical effect of the move was negligible because most people don't pay much attention to the Articles in any case, but that's not what you were trying to argue. And it's not that good an argument, anyway, since you do not know what use of the repositioning (and retitling) might be made by the next round of revisionists. It is entirely likely that any future debate over the Articles will feature someone pointing to the 1979 book and saying that its placement, etc. "proves" something about "the church's historic stance," blah blah blah.

 

[Albion]

I am a bit confused. Are you discussing this from the persective of those Americans who use the 1979 prayer book?

In that post I was specifically responding to what Mockingbird wrote. But Allipalli also had seemed to have only the USA in mind when he wrote, "That is precisely my dilemma -- which group of Anglicans to stand with. For the past nine years I've worshipped at both TEC and AMIA. When I moved to Washington state I ended up at TEC mainly because the ACNA/PEARUSA is far away and I had an unreliable car. Now I have a new car and going to the ACNA church is a possibility."

So while I wondered about exactly what you mentioned here, and it's worth bringing up that information, it does appear that the subject has been focused on American Anglicans.