Are the Articles an essential, definitive part of the fullness of Anglicanism?

I don't know if the C of E used to require all priests to actually sign.
There are Churches that regard themselves as Anglicsn in belief that have split away from the see of Canterbury. In the USA only TEC is in communion with Canterbury. Of those Anglicsn Churches that have split from Canterbury, some are in communion with each other, others are not.
In England the C of E is the main Anglican Church. Some would say that it is the onlyAnglican Church in the UK. There are, however, some continuing Anglican Churches in the UK that have split from Canterbury - but not that many, certainly not as many as in the USA. In the UK, you'll find a C of E Church in virtually every town and village - ranging from low evangelical, to high Anglo-Catholic.

 

This may help - list of Anglican Churches not in Communion with Canterbury
http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html
And list of Churches in full communion with Canterbury
http://anglicansonline.org/communion/infull.html

This is why it is difficult to define Anglicsn opinion and belief over and above the Nicene Creed - not all Anglican Churches are in Communion and there have been splits. However, most Anglican Churches would allow members of other Anglican Churches and members of other denominations to partake of the Eucharist.

 

This may also help to clarify Anglican (C of E) belief.
https://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/being-an-anglican.aspx

 

I understand your point that there are Anglican split off churches in England. If those Churches don't afirm the Articles, then their status is alot like other 16th c. Split offs in England that weren't recognized by the COE.

That last COE website appears to equate the COE's beliefs with Being an Anglican, the webpage title. And it considers the Articles to bear witness to Christian Truth.

It looks overall like a situation where the COE considers the Articles to be a defining or essential component of being Anglican but some others in communion with the COE have left that question undefined, while considering being in communion with the COE to be definitive of Anglicanism. Imagine if the COE cut all other churches out of its communion. That would leAve the CoE's teachings as definitive of Anglicanism.

It seems from this that the COE has the ultimate say on what Anglican doctrine is.

 

I think my point was that there are Anglican split off Churches in all countries. Particularly in the USA there appears to be many Anglican split off Churches, whereas in the UK there aren't so many and they are not widely known about.

Within the Anglican Communion (ie those Churches in communion with Canterbury), there are, I believe 44 Churches worldwide and, as also previously said, within the USA the only Church in full communion with Canterbury is TEC.

If, for example, the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople were to discuss ecumenical issues with the Anglican Church they would, I imagine, talk initially with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with the Heads of other 44 Churches within the Anglican Communion.

However, those Churches that have split from Canterbury have generally done so because they believe that the Anglican Comunion has moved away from some of its original beliefs/practices. They feel that their new Anglicsn Chrurches better represent true Anglican practice and belief - but of course there are quite a few varieties of these new Anglican Churches. Reasons for splits may include Anglicsn acceptance over the years of female celgy - first priests, then Bishopos. The acceptance of same sex marriage in some Churches in communion with Canterbury (eg the recent acceptance in Scotland), may prompt further splits. Some split off Churches may hold the Articles as being of greater importance than some of the Churches of the Anglican Communion view them today.

Yes, the C of E does consider the Articles as bearing witness to the Christina faith and certainly in its Canons suggests that the Articles are compatible with Tradition, Scriptures and the teachings of the Church Fathers. However some of the Articles can be are are interpreted in different ways by different Churches within the Anglican Communion and by Anglican Churches outside that Communion. To become a full member of the C of E you don't have to subscribe to them.
https://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/being-an-anglican/anglican.aspx The Anglican Comunion referred to here is made up of those Churches in communion with Canterbury.

I am sure you have read this before, but take a look st the last section on this wiki site - within the Anglican Communion (those Churches in communion with Canterbury), the 39 Articles as not officislly normative in all the Churches. The only doctrinal documents stored upon in th Anglicsn Communion are the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Chicsgo-Lambeth Quadrilteral.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-nine_Articles

 

Perhaps a shorter answer to the one I gave above:

Do all 44 Churches of the Anglican Communion, of which the C of E is one, subscribe to the 39 Articles? - No
Does the C of E? - Yes, but Clergy only have to affirm loyalty etc. Articles interpreted in different ways.
Do Anglicsn Churches outside the Anglican Comunion accept the 39 Articles as being an essential, definitive part of Anglicanism? - I don't know but would expect that some do and others don't.

 

The debate over whether splitoffs from the Anglican Communion are Anglican reminds me of the question of whether churches like the Old Catholics who split from Rome are "Catholic".
I am not judging the merits of their beliefs, just questioning the meaning of "Anglican", ie whether anyone who identifies as Anglican and with some of the Anglican heritage counts as "Anglican."

Etymologically, Anglican means the English religion or church. Since the 16th c. The crown, parliament, and see of canterbury have recognized a certain institution as their official Church of England. Back in 1400 ad, the Church of England had much different beliefs and was under Rome, and therefore Anglican would mean something much different than it does today.

Anglican in the strictest, narrowest, most formal etymological sense means the beliefs and teachings of the COE, incling the Articles that it formally recognizes.

Perhaps in the broadest sense Anglican just means identification with the heritage of the English Reformation, and I suppose some of the churches or groups you are referring to that so identify could just do so very generally and be open to the possibility of the Articles being wrong or disagree with them.

 

As someone in an Anglican "split-off" church, I can tell you we believe ourselves to be fully Anglican...and that much of the "official" Anglican Communion have departed from the Faith in doctrine and morals. However, it is realized that there are many in the Communion who are indeed fully orthodox.

Many churches such as the one I attend are in open dialogue with not only other Anglican churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and especially have developed close ties with Orthodoxy.

The English Reformation's throwing off of certain Roman practices is accepted, while excesses of the more radical reformers are rejected.
I am a Christian first and foremost...but in today's world that could mean just about anything, so I would then say that I am a Christian of the Anglican tradition.

I don't know if any of that helps much, just a few thoughts I wanted to add

 

Beginning with and during Henry viii's rule and later in the 16th century, the COE as separated from Rome changed its position radically on certain important issues. And yet, at any given moment, it was only the official COE position and not the opposite that would have been considered Anglican in the narrowest formal sense.

For example if the COE banned monasticism on doctrinal grounds in the 16th c. But allowed monasticism later, then in the 16th c., antimonasticism was still the official Anglican position.

 

So when monasteries were reintroduced in the 1800s in England this was anti-Anglican?

Btw the CoE never banned monasticism, it was the secular fiat of Henry VIII. CoE had religious communities in the 1600s:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Gidding

 

I'm not really sure what that has to do with my post
But if Anglicanism currently rejects monasticism (which it doesn't), then what is to be made of saints Augustine of Canterbury, Patrick, Aidan, Cuthbert, Columba, Bede, and the many, many other early "fathers" of the Anglo-Celtic tradition which were the roots of the Anglican Church?
But this is a topic for another thread perhaps.

Unless I'm mistaken...Neither the Liturgy, nor the Articles and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer forbid monasticism. And King Henry VIII is long gone.

 

I don't think that Anglican in its strictest narrowest sense is the C of E. Rather, in its strictes, narrowest sense it is all Churches in communion with the C of E. However,, although I attend a C of E Church of the Anglo Catholic tradition, that is not because it is C of E, but because I perceive it to be more orthodox in beliefs than many low C of E Churches in the UK. Also, in the UK, continuing Anglican Churches are few in number, so for most it is a choice between RC, C of E or one of the many Protestant denominations.

I would regard those in Anglican Churches outside Communion with Canterbury as being as much Anglican as those who attend a C of E Church and, pobably with beliefs more in line with traditional Anglicanism that some of the low, evangelical Churches of the C of E.

However, I think you have correctly come to the realisation that modern day Anglicans, both within and outside the Canterbury Communion, hold some different and, at times, contradictory beliefs.

 

The Articles of Religion
There were several attempts to codify Anglican belief.

1537 - The Ten Articles
One Bible, Three Creeds, Four Oecumenical Councils, Baptism, Penance, Real Corporeal Presence, Justification by Faith accompanied by charity and obedience, invocation of the saints and purgatory. Drawn up by Cranmer, and broadly encompass the mind of the King (Henry VIII).

1538 - The Bishops Book
This book enshrines the ten articles was written as a joint effort by 46 divines and Bishops, led by Cranmer and were to set the path for a reformation and a Church more independent, and showing some influence by the reformers.

1539 - The Six Articles
German Reformers appeared at Lambeth in 1539 and this gave the King (Henry VIII) some concern. Parliament was recalled and affirmed six core points, Transubstantiation, Withholding the Cup, clerical celibacy, chastity, private masses and auricular confession.

1546 - The Kings Book
The Kings Book in 1546, the work of Henry VIII was largely a rewrite of the Bishops Book, with a strong emphasis being placed on the six articles. It encouraged preaching and attacked the use of images.

1552 - The Forty Two Articles
More reformed and protestant, issued under royal mandate (Edward VI) in 1553. They did not have the approval of the Church. On the ascent of the Queen (Mary) they were ignored.

1563 - The Thirty Nine Articles
The forty two articles influenced the 39 articles first issued in the time of Queen Elizabeth I. They argue against a number of the Anabaptist positions, and ensure an established church holds an indigenous apostolic faith. In a sense they are the Elizabethan settlement theologically. They affirm Catholic and Reformed positions on a range of issues and sought to find a middle way.​

 

So CWJ, If someone would make the argument that the Anglican communion got away from its "true Anglican" roots and was not truly or solely "Anglican", I understand what they would mean, but back in the 16th century that argument wouldn't work, I think. The response from the COE and from most self-identified Anglicans in the 16th c. would be that the current (ie. 16th c.) position of the COE was the "Anglican" one. The "Anglican" Church was seen as "the" [singular] Church of England, the church of the crown, country (officially), and parliament. Thus for example the Articles were approved in parliament.

You asked:

No, based on the reasoning above, using the strict, official sense of the term Anglican, if the Church reversed course and reintroduced monasteries, then the new, reverted position on monasteries became the new, official "Anglican" position.

ie. The COE and hence Anglicanism allowed monasteries, then banned them, then reintroduced them again.

OK, I was just using it as a hypothetical illustration. We could be talking about any issue that the COE may have reversed course on in the last 500 years in order to illustrate the thesis about Anglicanism meaning the "official" position and teachings of the COE.

Also, if Henry VIII banned monasticism, then wouldn't the COE's ideology at the time about Henry VIII being the head of the Church mean that his ban was de facto also the Church's position on the question? It wasn't as if Cranmer/the ArchBishop of Canterbury opposed Henry VIII on the question, I think, but rather complied.

 

To be an "Anglican" church, a church must be in communion with the See of Canterbury as you stated. But that does not necessarily mean that Anglicanism, a set of teachings, is limited to the lowest common denominator between those churches. After all, the See of Canterbury ultimately had the decision which churches it allows into its communion. And secondly, if we only reduced ideologies to lowest common denominators in such a way that the Articles and BCPs are considered as non-essential (since some Anglican churches' BCP in other countries like England and New Zealand conflict, and since the EC USA hasn't clarified its position on the Articles) , we might conclude confusedly that other groups like Methodists or Old Catholics are "Anglican" in doctrine because they share those same "lowest common denominators".

Etymologically, Anglicanism means the doctrines of the Church of England, and the COE calls the Articles its doctrines.

Organizationally, the See that decides which churches are "Anglican" and in its communion is Canterbury in the COE, and the COE has decided that those in its holy orders (bishops and priests, etc.) must affirm the Articles. So in order to achieve the highest, key organizational offices in the COE, one must personally affirm those teachings. By comparison many nations require that their chief officials affirm or swear loyalty to their national Constitution. This reflects that in those countries their Constitution is a foundational part of their nation's laws.

Theoretically, if you are in the COE, your Church tells you that the Articles are its doctrines. If you are in other churches like EC USA, your church has not told you that. In case I am wrong and the EC USA has openly called the Articles part of its doctrines, please let me know. I would not be surprised if the EC USA has not affirmed the Articles, because at the time of the American Revolution, the version of the Articles that were in force included a version of Article 37 talking about things like ""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...". At that time the US was trying to assert its basic independence from the UK, and so articles passed by the national official COE could potentially create this kind of national conflict of interest between Britain and the US. I would not be surprised if Episcopalians in the US may not have felt comfortable affirming what power the King had either in the US or in the UK. Later in 1801 this passage in Italics was removed from the Articles.

We do not really have a scenario that has put the COE to the test on the Articles. The EC USA or some other Anglican church has not openly stated that the Articles "are wrong" or something like that. If it did, we could have the COE decide that the EC is in such violation of the teachings of the COE( or of Anglicanism as defined by the COE) that the COE chooses to expel the Church in question from the Anglican Communion. Once it did so, the EC USA's definition of Anglicanism as being in communion with Canterbury would by extension mean that the expelled church was not really "Anglican" anymore. In effect then, even though the EC USA may not openly call the Articles a key part of "Anglicanism", it is really up to the COE as to what defines Anglicanism in doctrine and how far it will allow its members to stray from that doctrine.

If on the other hand in this scenario the EC USA or some other church announced that the Articles were wrong and the COE announced that the church in question should remain in its "Anglican communion", the argument could be made that the COE has in effect left the limits of Anglicanism and the question of the status of the Articles ambivalent by the COE's permissiveness. Such a conjuncture of events has not yet arrived to give such an absolute answer.

 

Talking about the Anglican Communion alone - those Churches in communion with the see of Canterbury - see this article about doctrine:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/identity/doctrine.aspx
Note that it says "the 38 different province said/member churches and six Extra-Provincials around the world have varied greatly as to the status given to the Thirty Nine Articles and other secondary statements of faith (including the 1662 book of common prayer)."
Also "A very brief summary of a worldwide common Anglican stance is to be found in the Lambeth Quadrilateral."
This says to me that, within the Anglican Communion the Articles are not a essential or definitive part of full Anglicanism.
For some Anglican Churches outside the Anglican Communion, they may well be an essential orthodox definitive part.

Yes, the C of E asks its clergy to confirm loyalty to the Articles - interpreted in different ways by different traditions within the C of E - low, broad and high Church - but it is not necessary for other Churches in the communion or for the clergy of those Churches to affirm loyalty to them.

 

No Church in the Anglican Communion has been sanction about not upholding the 39 Articles as doctrine,. TEC has, however been sanctioned over its stance on gay marriage in Church.
http://religionnews.com/2016/01/14/episcopal-church-suspended-anglican-communion/

 

My conclusion - Etymologically since the Articles are an essential part of the COE's doctrine, they are therefore that of "Anglicanism".

In terms of practice, the COE decides how much deviation it will allow in the Anglican Communion, and a case has not arisen to test whether it will hold the members to the articles, because no church that I am aware of in the Communion has announced that the Articles are heresy or doctrinally wrong.

So at this point it is not clear whether the COE will use its authority to impose its idea of "Anglicanism" per the Articles on the rest of the Communion. If the Articles banned gay marriage or women priests, for example, and then the COE took action against a member church that used them, such actions by the COE would be cases in point.

 

I disagree. It's not the C of E that decides. The Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals. The decision to sanction TEC over gay marriage was as a result of a vote of all member Churches of the Anglican Communion. The C of E cannot decide any of these matters on its own. So, if a Member Church were to say that an Article was doctrinally incorrect, it would be up to all Churches within the Anglican Communion to decide upon the future standing of that Church.

 

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/pages/anglican-communion.html
This shows the status of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion