I knew Brett was a nonjuror , I am a great admirer of the whole Communion. I consider we have a lot to learn from them.That they prayed to the saints, or invoked their prayers is public enough, they were High Churchmen and Laudians. Regarding the Articles, however we phrase it, they were a guide and enough people rejected them to cause discomfort, then & now and at no time were they more than local pronouncements from two small provinces of the church catholic. As far as I can see the articles are not to be compared with the Seven Councils which are pronouncements of the whole Church. I know what Newman said and I am not a follower , even remotely, however he was a good church historian. Have you read his comments on the Non Jurors? I believe, as I have said oftimes on this board, that I follow Christ's revelation and its interpretation by the Holy Fathers in Council, those same seven I mentioned above!. That is as far as I can see the traditional standpoint of the Church in England and it is what my communion stick to faithfully! Cut no feathers with God madam less you cut more than your fingers! Dean Seward t
No, what I'm saying is that in one sense it almost doesn't matter what they say, because we need to have our doctrinal statements for doctrinal unity (whatever they are at any given age). But secondly, it does matter if the Articles are right or not, of course, for personal conscience. And that is why the Church gets together in Synods, to write the Articles. And thirdly, I actually do happen to think that the Articles were framed with extreme fidelity to the Scripture, and the Early Church. Whatever would be the bone of contention with them: sola fide, or what have you, the Church Fathers all taught it, of course in addition to what the Scripture teaches. So personally I'm extremely happy with how they turned out, although neither they, nor things such as the Nicene Creed, are infallible. Every Anglican (not just the ordinand, here, but every Anglican) swears the Apostles Creed. Now you tell me: is the Apostles Creed infallible?
Right, exactly, but that doesn't stop us from all reciting the Apostles Creed in unison. And we certainly don't treat it with irreverence, just because in some theological sense it's not infallible on the same level as the Bible.
Regarding the Non Jurors? I utterly disagree with your judgment on this subject. Whatever their weaknesses as individuals, their actions as a group stand out as marvellous essays in practical catholic action and understanding, they are a credit to traditional understanding within our Church. They forced a stupid monarch to undo his attacks on Christ's Body in England and were forced to cease practicing their Christian duty by a low church,Whig Government, not for any religious reasons ,but simply for political considerations. Unfortunately the Whig Calvinists, were not content to simply leave it at that, but in an effort to continue and redeem the Calvinist success of the 1650/60s, intruded false bishops in to the sees of orthodox Anglican Catholics. You call them schismatics and liken them to the dissenters and non conformists. You have a mistaken view of history, the nonjurors conformed to the traditions of the Church in England by following the Canons of the Seven Council. The Non Jurors were the descendants of the English Fathers of the Reformation, of the Laudians, and Restoration Fathers who combated the attacks of the Calvinists and Socinians. Below are a few of the quote you sought Making mention of the all Holy and Immaculate and most blessed Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary, let us commend ourselves unto Christ our God. Bishop Andrews. ( Devotions pg,92. “Prayers wherein the Church desirethGod to be gracious unto her and to grant the things she desireth the rather for that the saints in heaven also are suppliants for her, will not be found to contain any point of doctrine disliked by us.” Bishop Andrews. ( Devotions pg,92. Dean Field. Book III. Pg 223. Field is usually classed as a low churchman. ” To pray unto saints to be intercessors with us and for us to our Lord in our suits which we make unto Him and for such things as we can obtain of none but Him, so that we esteem not or worship not them as givers of those gifts , but as intercessors of the same, is received and approved by the most ancient and perpetual use of the Catholic Church: but, if we honour them by anyother ways than as the friends of God, dwelling with Him, and established now in His glory everlasting and as examples which were requisite to follow in Holy Life and conversation, or if we yield to the saints the adoration and honour which is due unto God alone, we do, no doubt break the Commandment! Archbishop Bramhall.Vol.1 Works. pg.58. We do sometimes meet in ancient authors with the intersession of Saints in general, which we also acknowledge; or an oblique invocation of them,(as you term it,) that is, a prayer directed to God, that he will hear the intercession of the Saints for us, which we also do not condemn Thorndyke's Epilogue! I will distinguish three sorts of prayer to the Saints. The first is of those that are made to God, but desire His blessings by and through the merits and intercession of his Saints; as the following ,'By whose merits and prayers grant that in all things we may be guarded by thy protection and help: 'We pray thee Lord by the merits of the Saints , whose relics are here and all saints, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to release me all my sins'; and again ,' that we who all believe Her truly the Mother of God, may be helped by her intercession with Thee'.... There's also quoted on the orthodox ,or traditionalist side the Collect from our American cousin and sister in Christ Anna, that she quoted on another Channel. One also from Bl Bishop Latimer , “Take saints for inhabitants of heaven and worshipping of them or praying to them, I never denied but they might be worshipped and be our mediators, though not by way of redemtion,( for so Christ alone is a whole mediator, both for them and us.) yet by way of intercession. There are many more including Bishop Forbes of Edinburgh, Bishop Montague,Antonio De Dominis. It could go on for several pages. Even so to find the faith of the Church in England, the Anglican Church we have to go further than to simply applying our minds to searching for that we have already decided and to seek what the Apostles and the descendants of the Apostles have believed and taught.
We recite all the three Catholic Creeds accepted by the Church in England because they are the interpretations made by the Councils of Bishops, of Christ's Revelation and accepted by the Church in England. They are the Deposit! S. Paul spoke about! Regarding the Nicene Creed, not only do we accept it as infallible but even the Christian Sects, i.e. Protestants, and all mainline Christian organisations agree as well. Only the Romanists have added their own version to it as from the Creed of Trent!
highchurchman, having read a large amount of Bramhall's work lately, I wanted to take you up on that quote. Although I have nothing but respect for you, what you seem to imply above is such an incorrect, OPPOSITE, representation of Bramhall's views, that I simply hope that you were merely misled, by some 'wall of quotes' dishonestly perpetrated by others, and didn't look into the quotes yourself. That Bramhall couldn't teach the doctrine you ascribe can be seen from stray comments, strewn all over his works, such as this: http://books.google.com/books?id=O10PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA494#v=onepage&q&f=false ... or this ... http://books.google.com/books?id=O10PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA241#v=onepage&q&f=false But then, if we go back to your quote, and simply read the quote within a fuller passage from which it derives, we'd find Bramhall teaching the opposite (!) of what had been implied by you: http://books.google.com/books?id=IB3YOv_GLPcC&pg=PA57#v=onepage&q&f=false Having seen Bramhall utter opinions such as, "Invocation of Saints is not necessary for two reasons...", do you think your quote was an truthful and trustworthy representation of the man's views? Were I to go through the other Divines with the same comb, I'd find similar plain endorsements of traditional Anglican theology. No Oxford Movement-like doubts and uncertainty about the Truth of Anglican doctrine.
We do sometimes meet in ancient authors with the intercession of Saints in general, which we also acknowledge; or an oblique invocation of them (as you term it), that is, a prayer directed to God, that he will hear the intercession of the Saints for us, which we do not condemn; Bramhall. http://books.google.com/books?id=O10PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA241#v=onepage&q&f=false This is what we are talking about, and it is about praying to saints, not to do tricks for us, (As King James I characterised it,) or to intrude on Christ's prerogative, but to add their prayers to ours, 'comprecation'. He acknowledges this as did the establishment of the Reformation Church in England.Unless I have been misinformed or have misunderstood, it is known as 'comprecation' or praying to the saints. Not as Rome prays, or does, but as the Orthodox do and Anglicans should. You should not jump to conclusions and imagine that Rome is behind everything, it is highly possible that what we call Anglicanism predates Rome and it certainly predates Roman error by some 1500 years give or take a year! Even so, if you had been correct it would have been of little worth, beyond exposing me as being in my dotage, for it is what the Church admits to, see our colleague the lady Anna's contributions. I also am an admirer of the Archbishop, but I follow him because he advocates the Councils and the traditions. We should look to what the Reformation Fathers have taught and compare it to what the early church fathers have distilled from Revelation & Scripture . This is the way it should be done, as I was taught at y confirmation. We have two thousand years of existence to study before we make up our mind!
So, Scripture, as interpreted by each of us, is infallible? Scripture, as interpreted by the ECF's is not (the Nicene and Apostle's Creed). ???? ========== Certainly, Scripture as interpreted by the Church (ECF's) is sufficient and no doctrine not therin contained need to believed for salvation. Scripture as interpreted by the Church contains no error with regard to faith. These statements are much more narrow than evangelical statement that "Scripture is infallible". quote="Anna Scott, post: 4827, member: 802"]Great explanation. Thank you! I would say that only Holy Scripture is infallible. Anna[/quote]
Mark1, I think my statement that "only Holy Scripture is infallible" was somewhat incomplete. The Gospel was transmitted orally, before it was written; and certainly the early councils and creeds expressed the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church. For example, the Holy Trinity was defined and expressed as part of that deposit of faith, more explicitly than that which is found in Holy Scripture. Anna
Hackney, Once again, I have to give you credit for posting links, on your blog The Hackney Hub, to Anglican articles voicing views that oppose your own, such as Anglicans Ablaze, which contains an article entitled ,The Anglican Church in North America: An Alternative Episcopal Church, By Robin G. Jordan “When the General Convention adopted the revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion in 1801, it did not required the subscription of the clergy of the Episcopal Church to these Articles, as the Canons of 1604 required the subscription of the clergy of the Church of England to the original Articles. The revised Articles had no binding force upon the consciences of the Episcopal Church’s clergy.”
George Herbert in To All Angels and Saints: I would address My vows to thee most gladly, blessed Maid, And Mother of my God, in my distress (...) But now (alas!) I dare not; for our King Whom we do all jointly adore and praise, Bids no such thing: And where his pleasure no injunction lays, ('Tis your own case) ye never move a wing.