How Necessary Are Bishops?

i) Mine dates back to the Elizabethan Reformation, yours to 1977.

ii) No

 

ANGLICAN FAITH & PRACTICE,
PETER GUNNING.
BISHOP OF ELY.

Reason and experience and the direction of all wise men in the Church of God ancient and modern,(The House of Wisdom,) ,Councils reverend Fathers and writers and our Church in particular, have directed and commanded us not to interpret scripture in things of public concernment to the Church's rule of believing and doing, but as we find it interpreted by the Holy Fathers and Doctors and of the Church, as they received it from those before them. For that the leaving of any man to make any text, upon any device out of his own head, to the founding any new and strange doctrine or practice, as necessary there from , or to the opposing of any constantly received doctrine or practice of the Church Universal [ for in other matters they may happily with leave quietly abound with their own sense] leaves all bold innovators which can but draw away disciples after them to be as much lawgivers
to the church by their uncontrollable law interpreting , as any pope or enthusiast can or need pretend to be; and hath been and ever will to the end of the world, the ground of both heresies and schisms brought in to the Church by men who , departing from teaching and stable interpretation of the Church, in their own instability and science, falsely so called, pervert the Scriptures to their own and others,( their obstinate followers,)
Destruction.

This as late as the Early Stuart Church was the doctrine & practice of the Anglican Church.

Funnily enough the Canons of the 1572 said that nothing but the teachings of the ancient teachers and Catholic Bishops should be taught in or Churches. ( Written from memory.)

 

Phew! Well, we've moved on a bit since then.

 

But Christ's message of Salvation hasn't changed has it?

Never-the-less, it is what the Church in England has taught over the ages!
What is taught now is what some suspect to be Neo Anglicanism. New stuff and not part of the Deposit.

 

Well, I suppose that you might accuse a middle-of-the-road liberal catholic member of the CofE, like me, as being a bit "Neo". But not a heretic, I hope?

 

Which is a rather novel idea from the perspective of Anglicanism. The early years of the English reformation were rampant with iconoclasm. See "A Homily Against Peril of Idolatry", which is recommended in the 39 Articles. It wasn't until later that a respect for all 7 councils was restored in the Anglican church.

 

Dear Colleague
At the time of the English Reformation, the Church in England held to Seven Ecumenical Councils, Henry the VIII, claimed eight. It was part of the makeup as it were, of the Church in this country, after all they had, or so we are told, at least one and probably more, bishops at that event. The Seventh , the one I suppose you are refering to was a faulty copy according to sources and was rejected. It was thought that the Council allowed idol worship. In the ninth century communications were poor and the seventh council was let lie. How-and-ever, the Church in this country was catholic and followed the rest of Europe in showing honour and respect to the Holy People of God including the the Theotokos, The Mother of God. With the rest of the Church we worship God alone and pay due respect to His people.
During the time of the Saxon Monarchy at every major Synod of the Church, the opening ceremony was the roll of Councils , to show the Catholic beliefs of the English. During the middle ages, the Church took part of the latin Councils and affirmed their belief in all seven at regular intervals,i.e. 1537/42 during the trials of the reformation. In the second year of Eliza the (Anglican Parliament, adopted the Ecumenical Councils as the yardstick with which to judge heresy and in 1570 Convocation again reaffirmed our beliefs. I was told by an Orthodox minded friend that at every meeting of the Orthodox and the Anglican Church the list of Councils is affirmed. The Anglican Church has never lost respect for the Ecumenical Councils though luke warm Anglican Calvinists lack faith!

 

You're confusing anglicans with the puritans, I suspect.

 

Dear Friend It isn't for me to judge, you know if you believe the faith as held by the Scripture & Councils better than I!

 

This is not due to "a faulty copy"- this is simply how the reformers, both in England and Western Europe in general, regarded the veneration of icons. John Calvin (whose thought was highly influential to the English reformers) was aware of the dulia/latreia distinction and still rejected it as specious.

They did not specify which councils they were adopting. You are reading them rather anachronistically. At that time, the doctrine of the 7th ecumenical council would have been considered idolatrous. Once again I refer you to the 39 Articles:

This homily, "Against Peril of Idolatry," says the following about the 7th Ecumenical Council:

 

No. Iconoclasm was encouraged from the highest levels. Queen Elizabeth kept a crucifix and candles in her private chapel, but even this was a source of controversy and the crucifix was eventually destroyed. The perpetrators went unpunished.

 

The following is from Strype's Annals of the Reformation in England. It is a recorded dialogue between Queen Elizabeth and the dean after he gave her a prayer book with pictures in it:

 

Oh images were of course not used in worship. That is quite different from iconoclasm however, something only the puritans had done.

 

That is simply not true. Iconoclasm was the law of the Church of England for some time. It was considered the duty of ministers to ensure that images were defaced and removed from the churches, and visiting bishops were to inquire to make sure this was done.

 

I need to repeat this again: removed does not equal defaced. Non-Idolotry doesn't equal iconoclasm.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you denying that images were actually destroyed? They were. It was not considered enough to remove them- it had to be ensured that they could no longer be used, so they were, in fact, defaced.

From Edward VI's 1547 Injunctions:

That such images as they [ecclesiastical persons] know in any of their cures to be or have been abused with pilgrimage or offering of anything made thereunto, or shall be hereafter censed unto, they (and none other private persons) shall for the avoiding of that most detestable offence of idolatry, forthwith take down, or cause to be taken down and destroy the same; and shall suffer from henceforth no torches nor candles, tapers or images of wax to be set afore any image or picture ... (Injunction 3a)

That they [every dean, archdeacon, master of collegiate church, master of hospital, and prebendary being priest] shall take away, utterly extinct and destroy all shrines, covering of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, trindles or rolls of wax, pictures, paintings, and all other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstitition: so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass-windows, 1 or elsewhere within their churches or houses. And they shall exhort all their parishioners to do the like within their several houses. And that the churchwardens, at the common charge of the parishioners in every church, shall provide a comely and honest pulpit, to be set in a convenient place within the same, for the preaching of God's word. (Injunction 28) ​

 

My point is that there is a difference between attacking and smashing images, and removing them in an orderly manner because they don't fit the theological purpose.

 

Well, you seem to have judged that many people I would regard as mainstream Christians are "heretics". Such as our Dear Friends north of the Border in the Church of Scotland.

 

An Anglican Calvinist! I've never met one (have you?). I assume they qualify for the heretic label, though they might well have faith, especially if they're red hot.

 

You said that only puritans engaged in iconoclasm. That is clearly false from a cursory glance at the history of the English reformation.