Let's do a detailed discussion for each of the Articles of Religion

Really informative, thank you.

 

Well put.

 

​

Article 22 starts to put some specifics on the errors of Rome that were alluded to in Article 19. To put some history on the Articles we should remember that they were first penned in this general form in 1562, building or several attempts previously. The Council of Trent met in Trent and Bologna between 1545 and 1563. As such they are essential contemporaneous, and likely to be responsive to similar pressures and to what was happening in the continental reformation.

A deal of the focus of the issues was the exception that had been taken to the sale of indulgences, as a fundraising mechanism for the work being done on St Peter’s in Rome. Martin Luther and the diet of worms denounced many practices based on his claim that it needed to be proved by scripture alone.

One presumes by the title of the article, that Purgatory was the number 1 objection that they were raising at the time. To understand that we need to have a look at what Trent said about Purgatory.

Decree Concerning Purgatory.
Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful. But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html​

The issue of course here is that there was a deal of revenue that resulted from this doctrine, whereby wealthy persons could leave a bequest for masses to be said on their behalf in order to facilitate an easier passage through purgatory, and the faithful were able to contribute that masses might be said to help the advance of those whom they loved and cared for who had departed this life.

Most of the scriptural material to support an understanding of a purging place between death and heaven is based on writings found in the deutero-canonical books. One reference in the New Testament is cited for the doctrine.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.​

The difficulty I have is that without the support of Maccabees this passage does not seem to naturally refer to purgatory, but rather to encourage us to build our lives on the firm cornerstone which is Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that purgatory had been a doctrine that had been used for profit by the western Church and by many artists, and the medieval concepts purgatory may have had a sense of the grotesque and the tormented. My feeling is that the EO neither rule it in our out, but are left with some sense of preparation and purification between death and resurrection.

My understanding is that it is the Council of Trent’s doctrines that are being condemned, and that by and large is the sense of a place of punishment and the opportunity to (for payment of the requisite fee) to relieve the departed of their suffering in waiting, wither by the contributions of the faithful or by the endowment of the dead person.

In 1610 John Donne penned the lines of the Poem many of us studied at School, Death be not Proud, and the closing lines probably set for the Anglican understanding of the period.

One short sleep past, we wake eternally
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.​

Pardons and Indulgences of course is very close to this matter as well, and again one must conclude that significant aim is being taken at the Council of Trent.

Decree Concerning Indulgences.
Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesiastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatsoever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.​

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Church had taken to the practice of providing a free hit in all sorts of circumstances. Those who went off on the Crusades were encouraged to go by Popes who offered indulgences in exchange for service. There is ample evidence also to suggest that generous bequest brought all sorts of benefits, a free hit being one of them.

The reformers argued vehemently that this was wrong, unscriptural and an abuse of the Church’s authority to forgive sin, which was bound to the death and resurrection of Jesus and the response of faith.

The response in the Thirty Nine Articles is clear. The remission of sin is clearly linked to Justification, and that is by grace and through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

The worshipping and adoration of images and reliques, and the invocation of saints are the next area addressed. Again this was a matter addressed by the Council of Trent.

On The Invocation, Veneration, and Relics, of Saints, and on Sacred Images.
The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified,--are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.

Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.

And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be anathema.

And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, (suggestive) of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. And if at times, when expedient for the unlettered people; it happen that the facts and narratives of sacred Scripture are portrayed and represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity represented, as though it could be seen by the eyes of the body, or be portrayed by colours or figures.

Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness.

In fine, let so great care and diligence be used herein by bishops, as that there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God.

And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged, or new relics recognised, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians, and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety. But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse has to be extirpated; or, in fine, if any more grave question shall arise touching these matters, the bishop, before deciding the controversy, shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province, in a provincial Council; yet so, that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the most holy Roman Pontiff.​

It seems clear that the Council of Trent endorsed the practice, whilst recognising that not all was well in the execution of the practice in all places. Anglicans in practice have had a varied practice here, from an absolute avoidance of any such practice, to a level of veneration specifically of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and a little more perhaps in the wake of the Oxford Movement. Generally we have been modest and restrained in the practice, for the most part at post seeking them to join their intercession to our own.

Post Vatican II Roman Catholicism is in many senses a different practice to the Roman Catholicism of the Council of Trent, in spite of the acknowledgement that everything from Trent is still in place, in reality the nature and practice has changed. The contemporary teaching on purgatory tends to speak more of waiting and purifying, the invocation of the Saints, seems modest compared to what it once was, and the sale of indulgences is no longer practiced. The Roman Pontiff does not have the moral authority and influence he once had in the west. A more independent and educated laity will assess what he has to say, and appeal to an informed conscience, where the source of the information may well be to sources beyond the Catholic Church. Catholic families in the west with two or three children are clear evidence of that. Documents such as Laudate Si are profoundly important, and address a range of concerns a long way removed from the matters addressed in Article 22.

In assessing the article we must conclude that the practices referred to do not have a clear and open scriptural mandate, and certainly within the canon as acknowledged in Article 6. Secondly we recognise that this clearly identifies some of what was alluded to in Article 19. And thirdly, within the historical context we acknowledge that there was a clear intent to distinguish the English Church of the Roman Church, as a clearer and more authentic expression of what they understood of the primitive Church.

I imagine that if the articles were being penning in the current age, they would be framed a little differently and perhaps more clear about what we did believe rather than what we did not believe.


Sorry that this has been a longer post on this article. It does not indicate that I regard it as more important, but I wanted to be clear how we set it in the historical context of the Council of Trent in order to make sense of it. The post split to get around the site limit.

 

​

The ministry of word and sacrament in our Church is ordered. The terms called and sent, and chosen and called, do not take away the notion that Christ calls people to the particular ministries of his Church, but rather enshrines the understanding that vocation will be tested by the Church, and those within the Church who have been given the authority to do so.

Whilst this comes from a different world, a world where the religion was a matter of great importance to the state, and where Christianity was the choice as against an abundance of denominational alternatives, there is no doubt that the authors of the 39 intended to ensure that our ministry was ordered, as it had always been.

 

Note that it mentions "any man" and "men", not "man or woman" nor "persons"

 

Yes I am aware of what it says, and I saw fit not to make an issue of it. In part because I believe to do so would be to make an issue of something that was not in the mind of those who wrote the articles. The norm of their experience would have been that ordained persons were men (in the sense of male in gender), however I think it would be to push the envelope to suggest the intent here was to make that an issue, given that the words man/men was/were often used to describe humans, persons, in witness whereto we have the Nicene Creed which renders 'for us men and for our salvation' with no intent of excluding women from the salvific action of God in the Incarnation of Christ.

I am mindful of the general stance taken on this site to the Ordination of Women, and I beat no drum on the matter. I believe that the real intent of the Article was to ensure that the Church kept control of the delivery of the message and the sacraments, with probably more specifically in mind those who would seek to do the same in allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, or some other body, or no body at all. It is essentially about order.

 

​

This article sometimes can seem a little challenging. Those of us who hold a great affection for liturgical structures of time past may well lament the use of the vulgar tongue. The Book of Common Prayer arguably held the Communion together for the best part of 400 years, though in fairness there was a reasonable level of departure and quite a few band-aids attached. In my youth we prayed that judges and magistrates would administer justice impartially, despite the liturgy using the word indifferently.

The thees and thous of the Book of Common Prayer are no longer the language of the people. And indeed in the current climate people are less prepared to exercise their mind enough to grasp the elegance and beauty of the language. Yet even so in the Book of Common prayer some terms were retained even though at the time they had fallen from common usage, perhaps most noticeably in the marriage rite ‘to which I plight thee my troth’.

There is something to be said for the Anglican Custom of doing things decently and in order, and in my opinion a lot to be said for it. There is a great advantage in the language of the liturgy being formal. I for one do not think that The Lord be with you - and also with you renders well as Yo U - Yo back, or inconceivable in a texting liturgy as tlbwu - aawu. As we enter a post literate age, Anglicanism with its great expression of language, artful language, beautiful language will have many challenges, and indeed we already do.

For the moment I believe we need to be conscious and aware that what we do and say liturgically can be understood, and explained where required, without losing the beauty and elegance that speaks volumes of the love faith hope and orderliness of our understanding of God.

 

Speaking in the common tongue. I agree, I do appreciate Traditions though. As much as I like KJV Bible I do wish the OT and NT readings in church were read in a more easily understood version, sometimes ESV is used on an extremely rare occasion. NIV,NLT,NKJV,etc would be very much frowned upon...a person could probably get away with reading with those type versions only once, then be politely asked to use a more traditional version next time. Idk.. doesn't really matter that much anyway.

 

Our Diocese has all but mandated the NRSV. There are a few parishes that use JB ESV or something that they use in the US Catholic Church. I think the NRSV is a reasonable compromise, reasonably formal English in the contemporary vernacular. I don't really know much else of what is about.

 

The NRSV is a very good translation.

 

I think the Canadian church endorses the NSRV, but I can't seem to stop using the AV.

 

That's probably why I use the 1662 too.

 

For me it's the Douay translation

 

Is it also used by your church, or is it a personal preference?

 

Both, Andy

 

My Church uses the JB in Church. Our Priest has recently recommended the NRSV as a good version for personal use, I have recently been using the NKJV and also a version of the New Teatament called the Eastern Orthodox Bible (not to be confused with the Orthodox Study Bible, which is different) for comparison. In find the JB in Church understandable.

 

What is JB?

 

I believe it is the Jerusalem Bible.

 

Thank you