I didn't say they weren't based on doctrine I was talking about your misinterpretation of them. There is a quote from Gordon D. Fee that fits here quite well. "Scripture can not mean today what it could not have possibly meant at the time it was written". Your interpretation of article 22 is not in context and does not mean what you say it does, in my humble opinion.
I would suggest we unify around the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ instead of the petty arguments about which denomination has correctly or incorrectly interpreted them. There is nothing wrong with tradition as it long as it is in alignment with Christs teachings.
Anglo-Catholics are not Anglicans.? WE can't really judge all of them, can we? I have friends who are Anglo catholics and they are more Roman than most of the Romanists I know. Yet there are others who believe as we do and are described as Anglo Catholics. It is in their beliefs we should judge, if judge we must. Not in labels .
Metropolitan Hilarion receives in Moscow a pilgrims group from the Church of England 6.09.2012 On September 6, 2012, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk received a group of pilgrims from the Church of England led by Bishop Robert Ladds, Honorary Assistant Bishop in London and Superior-General of the Society of Mary. Full article: http://mospat.ru/en/2012/09/06/news69922/
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in Saint Savas Serbian Church in London fortnight ago. Funeral of a Serbian Royal House member is in question.
The discussion on Mary has been moved here: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/the-virginity-of-mary.639/ It will be stated once again: On this site the Articles of Religion and other Anglican Formularies are to be held with the utmost respect.
You mean above the scriptures? Further, the Articles do not affirm the Roman superstitions about Mary.
Further according to most Anglican sources, i.e. Kidd , The 39 Articles , published by the Church Historical Society, the 39 Articles are to be seen through the,' prism,' of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These latter, 'Interpret, explain and Complete Scripture!
The scriptures are primary and final authority; the Articles teach this. Article VIII: "VIII. Of the Creeds. 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."
"VIII. Of the Creeds.[/quote]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." [/quote] Who has said otherwise? The problem is not our theology, it is all the people who want to be popes. Pitting their own ways against the Revelation.Who ignore the Church and use the phrase,"I think,....'. Which is alright in one way, but when the individuals pit their own strength against Christ's teaching, that's the problem!
Church of Russia representative meets with a delegation of the Church of England 11.06.2010 Hegumen Philip Riabykh, vice-chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, met with Bishop John Ronald Angus Stroyan of Warwick. The DECR vice-chairman expressed regret at the absence of regular contacts between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of England, caused by the liberalization of Anglican theology and the church practice maintained by some churches in the Anglican Community. In his response, Bishop Stroyan stressed that Archbishop Rowan William of Canterbury made serious efforts to restrain the process of liberalization in the Anglican churches. Among his recent initiatives is a proposal to exclude representatives of liberal churches, who violate the moratorium adopted in the Anglican Community on the ordination of gays and lesbians, from the theological dialogue with other confessions since they cannot expressed the opinion of all the Anglican churches... Full article: https://mospat.ru/en/2010/06/11/news20342/
The issue is whose interpretation of the Truth of Scripture and even of the ECF's view of Scripture should we accept? Should we accept the interpretations of the Church? Or should we accept the anarchy of saying that Scripture is self-interpreting and clear to all, rendering each man's opinion/interpretation as valid?
Cromwell died a Roman Catholic, highchurchman. Henry VIII was a Roman Catholic too. Thank you for your posts Servos. They have been interesting and informative, not to mention colorful!
And what if just one person, or a small group of people, has it right and the "Church" has it wrong? What then? It was the near-universal position of the "Church" for centuries that persecution and murder in the name of Jesus was acceptable. The "Church" was obviously wrong, and the Dissenters paid the price of that error. So, who was the true church there? If just one believer has the correct interpretation and follows it, that sole individual is the church.