1) The Anglican Communion decided in 1968 that the 39 Articles are not binding, but rather were of considerable historical importance. However, each province is free to require clergy or members to subscribe to the Articles. SOme her think that TEC, in its considerable orthodoxy, continues to require assent to the Articles. I certainly disagree with that position. 2) There is much dispute with regard to what the Articles were intended to do. In any case, they preceded Calvinism. However, the use of the Articles and their interpretation were much influenced by Calvin and his followers. There is much calvinist influence in the 21st Century Church. The "calvinism" of Anglicans is often different than that of other modern Calvinists. However, the influence is strong, and there are indeed many "true" Calvinist within Anglicanism.
You didn't address any of the texts I posted, mark. According to all the TEC documents in existence now, they are part of the doctrine and discipline of the Church, unless you can point to some further clarification from the National Church. I'm not really interested in your opinions nor mine. My post is about what the current, official text says.
In a court of canon law, you may very well win your argument. I would point out that your argument stated below might or might not carry the day. Apparently, you have little interest in the actual practice of TEC, its bishops, its clergy and its members. Apparently, what is important is an attempt to secure agreement through legalistic argument. That's fine. This approach to orthodoxy and orthodoxy has a long proud history in the Western Church. Others seem more interested to understand how we practice our faith within TEC. Legalism seems less important. It is true that PEC clergy were never required to subscribe to the Articles of Religion like clergy in England were required to do. However, there is good reason for why this was not required. William White, in 1801, thought that the language of Articles VIII and X (different numbers back then) and the oath in ordination were sufficient so that an additional subscription was not necessary. The "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Church is defined as the Book of Common Prayer by all the sources that I can find. This means that the Articles of Religion are still binding on PEC clergy.
WOW! I have noticed the thread has grown and grown. In fact, I have not read many of the posts--probably not more than the first page--and I do not think I have read all of that page. Anyway, the thread is not exactly what I had in mind when I started the original post about sharing what I use in my daily rule to learn and reflect upon the contributions of the saints over the centuries. I learn a great deal from studying the lives of the saints. After all, they did encounter many of the same issues we still struggle with today in learning and sharing our faith and serving our Lord. After I began my rule of the Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours), reading Scripture, studying the lives of the Saints (and their writings), as well as reading other Christian spiritual writings--I became aware that my soul is being cleansed in a way which our Lord chooses to do. I want to spend more time following the rule, more and more time with our Lord, and less time online. I wish to thank everyone for their prayers. I will continue to pray for you and this forum. I am always open to any private discussion you care to pursue, as long as it fits within my time restrictions. ...Scottish Monk
On an unrelated note to the subject of the thread, the anti-formulary attitude of many of the posters here is totally foreign to me and my experience of Anglicanism. I'd never heard of anyone denying the Articles of Religion until I started perusing online. When I was in the Anglican Mission, both of the parishes I attended, the first was evangelical, the second Anglo-Catholic, both taught the Articles of Religion in their version of "newcomers class" and referenced them in teaching doctrine. When I moved into the Episcopal Church, I joined the closest parish to my home and they too held classes on the Articles of Religion. It was shocking to me to come online and read the hatred that some have towards our formularies. For me, it was additionally shocking for supposedly conservative Anglicans to be knocking down the only teaching authority that Anglicans have.
It is not a matter of knocking down the Articles. It certainly isn't about hating the Articles. I think Lambeth 1968 was quite clear. For the Communion as a whole, the Articles have served their purpose. Thank you for sharing your experience. I now better understand you angst. We do differ in that you consider the Articles "the only teaching authority that Anglicans have". We are not a confessional church. We are what we pray. I find it much more shocking that those in a province, we don't use a common BCP for at least some of their services. I find it even more shocking that I have FIVE Anglican bishops with jurisdiction over the small town in which I live. The resolutions at Lambeth from time to time are much more a teaching authority than the Articles. I know not where the Church will go from here. As has been noted, even the most minimal Anglican beliefs are not universally held, even by Anglican leaders. IMHO, we can only survive if we agree on essentials and distinctives, and stop sweating the small stuff. But this is not an Episcopalian or an Anglican problem. Many other churches are having the same struggles over what I would call social issues. I am relatively new in the Anglican Church (5 years). I attend and have taken all the confirmation and leadership classes. I have missed few weekend services. I am active in the Church and am part of our teaching program for newcomers. The 39 Articles have NEVER been mentioned, except perhaps in a sentence when the history of the Church was being presented. The document has never been mentioned from the pulpit. That does NOT mean that the doctrines have not been taught. We are considered a very conservative parish, one of the very largest in the diocese, and one of the fastest growing. You suggest that lessons on the Articles are the proper way to teach newcomers doctrine. Instead, we use the alpha course from Holy Trinity Brompton. This course is used by thousands of churches. We use cursillo and many bible studies to teach members. Our priests teach regarding the Church Fathers and with regard to the history of the Church. There are many other teaching opportunities through our programs. We find no need for lessons on the Articles. And yet, we are conservative and orthodox.
When I look at that, I can't help but thinking of something like "For the Church as a whole, the Nicene Creed has served its purpose". Unfair? Maybe... but do the Articles have anything in them which is repugnant to the Creeds, or to tradition? If not, they're still true, and thus they still have a purpose, right? Truth has never finished serving its purpose. Interesting how this tiff about the Saints drove right down to the essence of Anglicanism itself. Do you ever think this tendency to drop the Articles might be one of the causes of orthodoxy disappearing? Though only tangentially related to the topic of the Saints, this course of action with regard to the Articles, as a whole, has had great consequences. Acrimony amongst Anglicans began shortly after 1968, did it not (1976)? Perhaps we can blame that on the era itself, but the optionality decided on at Lambeth must have had an effect on how people decide whether the Articles communicate truth. Alpha Course takes a very different approach to the faith from the Articles, after all. When I was converting to Roman Catholicism, it was the introductory course before the specifically Roman Catholic part of the teaching! Something so ambiguous that it can be used by Anglicans and by Roman Catholics doesn't strike me as uniquely Anglican as the Articles might be. That's ecumenism for you, I guess?
I would agree, Consular, there's definitely a "slippery slope" here. The Articles of Religion were first publicly denied in the Oxford Movement, by Froude. There then developed two streams of "dealing" with the Articles, proposed by the Tractarians, to keep "Catholics" in the C of E. The first was to deny them as only relating to the era in which they were written, etc. The second was to interpret them without reference to the intent of the authors, as Newman proposed in Tract 90. The first option won out in PEC since we lost most of our Evangelicals in 1873 with the Cummins secession and subsequent Evangelicals slowly morphed into Low Church liberals. The Articles were gradually ignored, yet no constitutional or canonical changes were made to deny them authority, simply because they were unnecessary. Anglo-Catholics and Broad Church Liberals ascended in power in the early 20th century, who both deny the Articles. The problem with denying Anglicanism's core body of doctrine in the Articles is that any complaint against the Articles can easily be made against the Creed or Scripture itself. "Well, we don't really need the Nicene Creed, it was written so long ago, and it really only addressed the issues at hand, and it doesn't really apply to us today." The second option remains popular where subscription to the Articles is required, ie.. England, Africa, AMiA, etc. It has slightly more integrity to at least engage the Articles in some way and acknowledge that they are one of our formularies. I think this quote from King Charles' I Preface will show just how the Articles were treated in times past as containing the doctrine of the Church:
HH you have said the same thing over and over and over again but that does not change the fact that some people don't agree with you why are you continuing to go on and on and on and on about it?
Maybe he has a conviction for rightly-ordered worship and a zeal for truth. When it inflames us, we tend to go on and on and on. Jesus Christ went on and on and on about the same things, quite a lot. Love for souls is always zealous.
So repeating things is bad? I seem to see a lot of other people repeating things and you don't seem to mind that.
Frankly, I rarely present my own opinions, the people really wouldn't like them. Everything I post comes from my bibliography which is accessible from my blog: http://thehackneyhub.blogspot.com/p/bibliography.html. I advise anyone who disagrees to read those books and we can discuss the particular issue you contest.
I get melkite daily readings in my emails, they always include a synaxarion for the day which I enjoy reading. Today it's the commemoration of Samuel
Hackney, I noticed on your blog, you have links to "Anglican Sites." How do you "vet" these sites and decide which ones you want associated with your blog? Just wondering, Anna
Anglicanism forbids the invocation of Saints? Read "A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine .." Google Books, pg 178. Bishop Brett in his correspondence with the Orthodox Bishops says, " We cannot doubt of their,(the saints,) praying for us. And, if they pray for us, is it unlawful for us to pray that God would hear their prayers for us?" Is it a corruption in a liturgy to have such a petition in it? "I can by no means think so!".......The Apostle speaking of our praying one for another, adds,' that the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much; Now I cannot doubt their effectual fervent prayer for their brethren on earth availeth much; consequently , that it is lawfulfor any private Christian, or any congregation of Christians to pray that prayers may be available to them in this particular. We know well that there is but one Mediator betwixt God and man, the man Jesus Christ; but then we know also that this must be understood of one mediator of Redemption, because God has so often commanded us to pray for one for another, that is to be intercessors or mediators of intercession for others. There are many other Bishops of undoubted probity mentioned, stalwart Anglicans who lived in an age when the Church fought against Dissenters on both sides, Roman & Protestant, to preserve the truth, to establish clarity and preserve the faith. Archbishop Bramhall, Thorndyke, Forbes of Edinburgh and a load of others. As for the 39 Articles? They were again, only a line drawn in the sand beyond which the wild men were advised not to travel. Our faith comes from antiquity it is the distillation of two thousand years of Catholicity!
Hi highchurchman, As Hackney already pointed out, Brett was a non-juror. Enough said on that. Oh? I hadn't noticed that someone like Bramhall or Thorndyke invoked saints and prayed to them. Do you have supporting passages for that?