I asked you a question, you haven't had the courtesy to respond. I responded to your question. You didn't accept my answer or the source, I can't really argue with your individualism.
Evangelicals and High Churchmen don't believe that Henry VIII or Cranmer started the English Church. However, to look at history and deny any importance to the Reformation is simply delusional.
Hackney, I asked for a source about a statement you made. Stop trying to pull me into a different discussion.
I provided you one. Now I am asking you to provide a source for a statement you made. You claim that invocation is acceptable in Anglicanism. I am asking you to provide historical evidence for that.
There's a strange dichotomy going on: Anna wants to know whether modern Anglicanism forbids invocation of Saints. Hackney wants to know whether pre-Tractarian Anglicanism forbids invocation of Saints. Isn't this like comparing cats & dogs?
Simply put, yes. However, I don't wish to know for the sake of knowing. I view history as normative for Anglican theology and practice, Anna does not. Since, Anna denies the authority of the Articles, I would like to know if she also denies the authority of the Anglican divines and their writings as well.
Yes, it is. When Hackney couldn't prove it is forbidden today, he changed the topic to the past. I am done with it. So, Hackney can have the last word. Hackney, knock yourself out. The table is yours. Anna
See below for two references that discuss Article XXII and strongly argue that invocation of saints is prohibited by Article XXII. =========== Essential Truths For Christians, A Commentary on the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles and an Introduction To Systematic Theology The Right Reverend John H Rodgers, Jr 2011 This is THE text used on the subject at Trinity School Of Ministry ======================================= Introduction to the Theology of The Church Of England, an Exposition to the Thirty-Nine Articles Boultbee (1871) https://play.google.com/books/reade...utput=reader&authuser=0&hl=en_US&pg=GBS.PA182 ======================================= THAT BEING SAID We are a Church of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason (and Experience). We grow through the centuries. I have no doubt that if we do a study of the role of Mary in the Church, we would find that Tradition strongly supports invocation of her help. This was the teaching and practice of the Church from the beginning through 1500, and yes there were and are abuses.
Thanks for the texts, I'll read them. However, apart from Sub tuum praesidium in the 3rd century, and a few prayers to Mary by Ephraem the Syrian in the 4th or 5th centuries, I don't know if Tradition supports invocation of her that strongly, at least until ~ A.D. 600?
Actually no it is not it is simply noting with interest the intolerance on both sides of the split and moving on IMHO.
last time I checked the 39 articles were non-binding and written during a period heavily influenced by calvinism
On the 39 Articles and the Episcopal Church: http://thehackneyhub.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-thirty-nine-articles-and-protestant.html
Not really. At that time there was no 'Calvinism'. Most of them were drafted even before the reign of Bloody Mary, and the list we have now was adopted by 1562. Just to give you an idea of how early that is, there weren't even any 'Puritans' yet, then. In fact, the Article on Free Will is an explicit statement of Arminianism, before there even was an Arminianism.
So, in the 1979 BCP, TEC chose to defy the suggestions of Lambeth 1968 and require members and clergy to subscribe and assent to the 39 Articles. Let's be real! This is not the situation in the US today, no matter how many times your repeat it. Call all those priests and bishops who ignore the Articles heretics if you wish. I would guess that most Episcopalians have never heard of the Articles, and that very few churches teach anything about them. It is not that folks reject the Articles. They constitute an important part of Church history, as was decided at Lambeth in 1968. I understand that TEC makes habit of ignoring the "suggestions" of Lambeth resolutions. I don't think that TEC has done so in this case. Perhaps you think that TEC is so much more orthodox to Anglican Tradition and the Communion as a whole that we in TEC subscribe to the Articles where the Communion as a whole considers them an historical document. The Thirty-Nine Articles could provide the common contract for Anglican doctrine. Perhaps Lambeth 1968 might even be reversed, if GAFCON ever attends again. In principle, I am not opposed to such a result, but that is not the current situation. Perhaps you might suggest that a new US BCP include a prayer of assent to the Articles in our Sunday worship.