You mean that folks would take there own personal theological opinions and support them by their interpretation of the Articles? And they would quote from those who interpret the Articles in a similar way. Say it ain't so! I agree that the Articles are sometimes used in the same way as Scripture, as support for our own theological positions. And yes, we all add those who in the past supported our positions. It is clear that we can use the Articles and Scripture to support opposite positions on many theological issues.
RE: The Articles of Religion and TEC The official commentary on the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church, known as "White and Dykman" by the authors states, on page 136:
The Constitution implies that the Articles of Religion are to be accepted as part of the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Church.
Yes that is exactly what I am saying, and that is what I have witnessed in the past. Hence why I continue to say don't sweat the small stuff. Thanks for the post brother.
I accept that this is your interpretation. In any case, provinces are "free" to ignore the decisions at Lambeth. As a Communion, we no longer require assent to the Articles. Of course that could change. There could be enough that would go back to the Articles as our "Covenant". I could see a new ABC and GAFCON both accepted that position. As we have demonstrated here, a significant diversity of theological opinion can be included while affirming the Articles. An obvious example is the rejection of the Romish doctrine of Purgatory. I certainly reject the Romish doctrine of Purgatory as espoused at the time of Articles (the gospel according to Dante). I suspect the current pope also does. In any case, the doctrine of Purgatory described by Lewis makes sense to many of us
Like you brother I also reject the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory, but I do respect the Roman Churches right to believe it.
It's not my interpretation, it's TEC's interpretation. The Articles of Religion are still binding, in some sense, according to TEC's interpretation of its own Constitution and Canons.
Stalwart, You jumped into the discussion between Hackney and me. I posted the same quote a number of times, because Hackney claimed that Anglicanism forbids invocation of the Saints. He kept engaging me, but ignored much of what I posted, and then made false claims about my beliefs and my motives. If you read back through the thread, you will see all that. Fr. Jonathan, the person I quoted several times, does accept the 39 Articles, but does not see asking the Saints to pray for us as forbidden, wrong, or even against the 39 Articles. So, that is very relevant to Hackney's claim, but Hackney ignored it.
Maybe both sides can re-state their questions clearly and briefly in new posts, so it's all right here at the bottom of page 5, or the top of page 6. It'd be easier than trying to tangle through all the posts, wondering who is referring to what. Start over?
Gordon, you are so right. I need to stop entertaining posts that take a thread off topic. Scottish Monk didn't ask if the invocation of the Saints is allowed or forbidden, or whether or not the 39 Articles are binding for TEC. Actually, the thread is not even about invocation of the Saints. The OP, Scottish Monk said,"I read and reflect upon the lives of the Saints in my daily rule. Below are the resources I use. My rule also includes praying The Divine Office, reading Scripture, and reading other writings. Please post a reply if the Saints are a part of your daily rule." So, my answer would be, no they are not part of my daily rule, but I'm interested in studying more of what the Saints throughout history have said and believed. So, I think it is a good idea to reflect upon their writings in our daily rule or even upon occasion. I agree that all these other topics need a thread, so this one is not further derailed. Scottish Monk, I apologize for getting involved in off topic discussions of the Saints. Peace and blessings to all, Anna
Sure. Here's my question: Could (Anna) point to one Anglican theologian, before 1833, who advocated for the invocation of saints in any way?
It's ironic that Anna goes on and on about providing a source until she is put on the spotlight, THEN it's back to the OP.
For a moment, I thought I saw somebody making things personal and getting emotional. Must have been my imagination.
Hackney, Seriously? You ignored most of my posts. I didn't ask for a discussion of what Anglican theologians believed before 1833 and you know that. The whole conversation between us had to do with your claim that Anglicanism forbids invocation of the Saints. Obviously, it is not forbidden; and obviously not all Anglicans believe that the Articles forbid asking for prayers from the Saints. I posted an example, which you repeatedly ignored. I posted it several times, because you repeatedly ignored it, which led to Stalwart accusing me of being a troll. So, give it a rest, and start new threads for off topic issues. Anna
To everyone who wants to discuss whether it's lawful or moral to speak to the saints, rather than this thread's question of how you commemorate saints, please refer to this thread in Philosophy & Theology: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/article-xxii-invocation-of-the-saints.307/ It'd be nice if we could agree to limit discussion in each thread to the specific subject of its O.P. There's enough room on the forum for new threads. Pride need not lead us to think that we must move on to a new subject just because it crops up in the thread.