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

You may find these of interest if you have not seen them already.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/identity/about.aspx
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/structures/member-churches.aspx
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/relationships/churches-in-communion.aspx

 

Hi Christina.
What I meant was that when someone defines Anglicanism as the churches in communion with Canterbury , then it de facto makes canterbury the ultimate decider of who is Anglican. If most churches in the Communion fall into severe heresy, the See may not be able to get the votes to expel the heretics. But even then if the See chose to cut ties, those Churches would cease to be called Anglican based on the definition I just gave.

 

I don't agree that Canterbury is de facto the ultimate decider of who is Anglican within the Anglican communion in the modern age. I think that all the current Churches in communion with Canterbury are, together, the ultimate deciders of who is Anglican within the Anglican Communion as they all have an equal vote. Although TEC has been sanctioned, it hasn't been expelled by the member Churches.

If all Churches in the Communion went one way and the C of E went another that would certainly be an interesting situation. Would the C of E alone be truly Anglican, even if it had moved far from traditional Anglican belief and worship? Would Anglicanism be the new C of E doctrines, beliefs and ways of worship or old doctrines, beliefs and ways of worship practised by mainly non-English Churches? We already have many Anglican Churches that have chosen to cut ties with Canterbury but still regard themselves as being in the Anglican Tradition,with some being more traditionally Anglican in belief and worship than the C of E and other Churches in the Anglican Communion today.

 

A US Episcopalian's view of the 39 Artcles.
http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2011/03/10/of-the-39-articles/

 

All the churches together are the deciders by vote of who is in the "Anglican Communion". But only the See of Canterbury/COE is the ultimate decider of who is in communion with Canterbury/COE.
And the COE defines Anglicanism as the teachings of the COE, while the EC USA defines Anglicans as those in communion with the COE. Either way, in terms of practical reality, the COE ultimately decides who or what gets to count as Anglican.

How else would one explain that what defined Anglicanism through the last 500 years was not what the COE taught at the opening period of the English Reformation, but what the COE taught at any given period? After all, as I understand it, some major reverses/changes were made in COE Articles or teachings from that opening period up to the next 300 years (ie. from the 16th cent. to 1812).

If the EC USA refused to accept the changes made by the COE in the Articles after 1776 and broke communion with the COE, then based on the definitions underlined above, even if the EC USA had greater numbers in the pews, we would still say that the COE was Anglican and the EC USA was not.

 

He finds them an essential part of Anglicanism:

 

Yes he does. Maybe others don't!

 

Perhaps. But I don't know of any Church being expelled from the communion or sanctioned by the C of E alone, only of the TEC being sanctioned by all the Churches in the communion - had the C of E voted one way and all or most of the other Churches another way TEC would still have been sanctioned. In fact I do think C of E had some sympathy towards TECs position but realised it was not the view of the majority. I know only of Churches having chosen to break ties with the Anglican communion, not being expelled.

 

On primacy in the Anglican Communion
https://conciliaranglican.com/2016/01/19/primacy-and-anglicanism/

 

Episcopal clergy must affirm Article 6 in part, as follows: "I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation". This is the only part of the Articles that has legal force in the Episcopal Church.

I grew up in the Episcopal Church, and the Articles were never once mentioned in the parish of my childhood. I discovered them on my own.

 

You

You and me both Mockingbird.

I raised the concern during Lent with my parish priest and he insisted that the articles were a messy business that had a lot of politics in it and must be understood within that context(paraphrased by me). It's the reason I never signed the declaration here, I just don't grasp their contribution to the One, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I wish somebody could take me article for article and help me reconcile them with the early church.

 

Zimkhitha,

Philip Barrington is very dedicated to the Church's theology from the Apostolic and Patristic eras, and on this forum he has started a series of threads going over each Article. (http://forums.anglican.net/forums/questions-about-anglicanism.5/)
So far he has made posts on Articles 1-5.
Feel free to PM him to see if he has written in more detail or can give you a forward look on this.

Another question is how literal you want to be in your reading of them? The Preface of the Articles by King Charles said that the Articles must be read literally and grammatically. However, Philip wrote to me that on the question of the Eucharistic presence in bread I am too literal in my reading of the Articles. The alternative to a literal reading is to look at context, the authors' intent, what historical developments were going on at the time.

 

Zimkhita,

As I understand it, the Church of England has officially decided that the Articles are doctrines of the Church of England, and the Australian Church has a statement in its Constitution to that effect too. But the US Episcopalians do not have an official position on the Articles' status. Do you know whether the South African church does? Have they made an announcement or canon/ruling to that effect?

 

I spent my teens and some of my twenties in an evangelical Church within the Church of England and the Articles were never mentioned in my Parish either! I have recently started attending an Anglo-Catholic Church within the Church of England and they haven't been mentioned in that Parish either!

 

I have posted the relevant section of the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, so as to be clear. The Thirty Nine articles are in the Ruling Principles of the Anglican Church of Australia, but not the Fundamental Declarations. The importance of that is quite widespread.

Paragraph 6 in the ruling principles holds adhering to the Fundamental Declarations is ahead of our need to be in Communion with The Church of England, and indeed the Thirty Nine Articles are not the litmus test of who we can be in communion with (whereas creed, scripture, obedience, teaching, sacraments and the threefold order of the sacred ministry are).

Paragraph 5 sees the Church, presumably through it's General Synod, as having plenary authority, subject to the Fundamental Declarations. Given that the Fundamental Declarations are not inconsistent with the Thirty Nine Articles, this may seem a mute point. The matters that these refer to have not been tested as yet.

We had a famous case in Australia called the 'little red book case' where the Bishop of Bathurst authorised a pattern of worship which some persons in the Diocese of Sydney believed contravened the practice and doctrines of the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty Nine Articles. The truth of the diversity of Australian Liturgical Practices, which seem to stretch from south of Geneva to East of Istanbul, is that one wonders how the ruling principles are being understood and imagine that at some stage someone will want to test it. (One of the least edifying things is Christians in court with Christians)

I suspect one of the problems we have not built into this is the current seemingly widespread practice of Parish Bound local practice, where with the Internet, the PC and a good Printer/Photocopier the local parish can run off it's own worship booklet (or just display it on a screen) for the local rite. I do think that the Church of England has made a good fist of trying to deal with this with Common Worship, and I think a number of the Australian Bishops have authorised its use (in whole or in part).

Thankfully, I suspect, the canons of 1604 are not referred to, to the best of my knowledge, in the constitution.

CHAPTER I. - FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATIONS

1. The Anglican Church of Australia, being a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, holds the Christian Faith as professed by the Church of Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth in the creeds known as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.

2. This Church receives all the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the ultimate rule and standard of faith given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary for salvation.

3. This Church will ever obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline and preserve the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons in the sacred ministry.

CHAPTER II. - RULING PRINCIPLES

4. This Church, being derived from the Church of England, retains and approves the doctrine and principles of the Church of England embodied in the Book of Common Prayer together with the Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and in the Articles of Religion sometimes called the Thirty-nine Articles but has plenary authority at its own discretion to make statements as to the faith ritual ceremonial or discipline of this Church and to order its forms of worship and rules of discipline and to alter or revise such statements, forms and rules, provided that all such statements, forms, rules or alteration or revision thereof are consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained herein and are made as prescribed by this Constitution.

Provided, and it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard.

Provided further that until other order be taken by canon made in accordance with this Constitution, a bishop of a diocese may, at his discretion, permit such deviations from the existing order of service, not contravening any principle of doctrine or worship as aforesaid, as shall be submitted to him by the incumbent and churchwardens of a parish. Provided also that no such request shall be preferred to the bishop of a diocese until the incumbent and a majority of the parishioners present and voting at a meeting of parishioners, duly convened for the purpose, shall signify assent to such proposed deviations. Such meeting shall be duly convened by writing, placed in a prominent position at each entrance to the church and by announcement at the morning and evening services, or at the service if only one, at least two Sundays before such meeting, stating the time and place of such meeting, and giving full particulars of the nature of the proposed deviation.

5. Subject to the Fundamental Declarations and the provisions of this chapter this Church has plenary authority and power to make canons, ordinances and rules for the order and good government of the Church, and to administer the affairs thereof. Such authority and power may be exercised by the several synods and tribunals in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

6. This Church will remain and be in communion with the Church of England in England and with churches in communion therewith so long as communion is consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained in this Constitution.​

You are not alone.

 

I never heard about the articles until the last couple of years. They are not appended on our prayer book and there is no such requirement on the ordination services of deacons, priests or bishops. Based on this, I can say that there is no official position on them. We have always been an Anglo Catholic province (until recently)...so I gather that this may have something to do with the Articles being a non-issue.

 

I found this from our Canons


(a) The Bishop, or some person duly appointed by him, shall first read the following Preface:
The Church of the Province of Southern Africa is part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures, held by the Primitive Church, summed up in the Creeds and affirmed by the undisputed General Councils, to which the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons bear witness. In the declarations you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care; and will you consent to be bound by the laws of this Church?"

It seems like they are not directly required to affirm the articles BUt rather the faith of the primitive church. #Confused

 

OK, it's the same kind of thing as in the COE, in South Africa.

The Bishop announces to the new clergy that the Church of South Africa "professes the faith.... to which the 39 Articles... bear witness..... Will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under god?"

Then the clergy reply "I declare my belief in the faith.... to which the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.... bear witness".

As I understand it, the faith to which the 39 Articles bear witness or testify of are the beliefs in those Articles. So for example, naturally a Faith or set of beliefs that teach Transubstantiation would not be the Faith/set of beliefs in the Articles, as the Articles reject Transubstantiation. So to give an analogy, even aside from the issue that the Articles were not promulgated in the Roman Church, it is hard to imagine a Catholic priest, who believes in Transubstantiation, affirm that an Article saying "Transubstantiation is repugnant" bears witness to his faith. But an Anglican who intensely rejects Transubstantation would not have a problem saying that the statement "Transubstantiation overthroweth the nature of a sacrament" (another line in Article 28) is a witness to his faith.

Or to put it another way, is Transubstantiation part of the Roman Catholic faith? If so, then that is not the faith to which the Articles rejecting this teaching witness.

 

From The Council of Trent

CHAPTER IV
On Transubstantiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.​

This, I take it, to be directly the matter that is addressed in Article XXVIII and the rejection of the doctrine is based on a failure of scriptural warrant in accord with Article VI.

It is clear that the mind of the Anglican Church at this time (and in the mind of those who drew up and approved the Thirty Nine Articles) and over a period of 98 years) that the Church of Rome had moved into areas of doctrine for which it lacked a scriptural base. This was one of them.

I think that the idea of the nature of a sacrament being overthrown comes from the strong declaration that they are no longer bread and wine, but only body and blood. The incarnation does not reject the physical world, and the sacramental action of the Holy Eucharist does not reject the physical world, but embraces and transforms. Some people suggest that Anglicans only play at the sacrament because they don't really believe it, however I think that Anglicans embrace the sacramental action in a much fuller sense, it touches heaven and earth, it is the table set in the doorway of heaven. And we too are touched here and driven that we might live lives where something of heaven, of Christ, can be seen in us.

Most Anglicans I suspect have little trouble with Body and Blood, however they have some trouble with Not Bread and Not Wine.

Shift the paradigm. Is Jesus human or divine? Our answer is both. Any other answer is likely to be heterodox.

I believe for most Anglicans the Holy Eucharist is both Incarnational and Eschatalogical.

We find Christ in the Holy Eucharist only to find that he has first found us. (thank you to Augustine of Hippo).

It is my prayer that somehow this helps.

 

Philip, I wasn't particularly advocating Transubstantiation, just using the Article's position on it to illustrate how the wording the South African church uses entails affirmation of the Articles' teachings.

Advocates of the belief of a real presence in bread can use a good literal analysis directly from scripture on their views.

I am not sure how much I want or need to get into the Transubstantiation debate here.

I think as you said that many Anglo Catholics dont hold to Transubstantiation but rather to another common theory on the real presence. So I suppose a more relevant question would be whether a clergyman who denied Transubstantiation would be in violation of the Articles if his faith was that Christ's body was eaten in both a spiritual and physical manner and that the means for eating were both faith and the believer's mouth?