As Anglicans, we often appeal to the Articles of Religion as a source of authority on matters of faith, practice, and doctrine. But what are they exactly? Most will deny that they are a Creed or a Confession, because such claims would argue against the catholic nature of Anglicanism, which holds to the historic creeds of the church universal, rather than a denominational confessions. I have heard others say it is a positional statement with regard to Anglican identity in response to both Reformed and Roman positions. Is it something like the Athanasian Creed, which "except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly"? Or is is a formula for church unity? Must an anglican believe it completely in order to be truly Anglican?
They are precepts drawn from the Holy Scriptures, according to their plain sense & the use of good human reason. That is how the constitutions of the Ecumenical Councils were formulated by the Church Fathers, for example. The Athanasian Creed only re-iterates the Nicene, which was built-up out of the Holy Scriptures. The Creeds & the Articles are not infallible of themselves, but whosoever can't prove that they are contrary to Scripture, cannot say that they're unreasonable or fallible (in that they are derived from God's infallible Word, not from a Pope's words). They are infallible only insofar as they correlate to God's Word - which is certainly not the Roman perspective on creeds and articles.
The Articles are a Confession in that they present the teaching of Scripture as this Church has received it. The preface from King Charles the Martyr will confirm this. Consider, And,
This brings me to the original question of this thread. I'd like to offer my thoughts as a lowly layman on the authority of the Articles. Are they a Creed? No. Nor is assent to them a necessary requirement to gaining or maintaining admittance into the Church or to identifying one's self as an Anglican in an authentic way. Consider the examinations provided in the liturgy of Baptism (from BCP 1662): Noticeably absent is any requirement to believe, support, or endorse the Articles of Religion. It therefore is not a requirement, at least initially, in the C of E, nor was it added in any of the American versions I reviewed. What about confirmed members? Are they required to believe or endose the Articles? Again, let's look at the oath confirmands take in the Order of Confirmation (BCP 1662): Nothing more is required of a confirmed member in terms of belief or creed than was a baptised member. The Order does require knowledge of the (Apostles?) Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and the Catechism. None of which require adherence to the Articles. And even if they did, the ability to recite is not a requirement to endorse, adhere, or assent to that which one is require to recite. But then excommunication holds the connotation that one may not communicate, so let use examine the requirements to recieve the Lord's Supper: After this Exhortation, which again, required no assent of the Articles, the communicant is required to make a public confession, and elsewhere, to recite the Nicene Creed. Thus, according the the Book of Common Prayer 1662, the Articles are not required to be believed by the membership. What of the clergy? Are they required to follow of believe the Articles? In the case of both Priest and Deacon, I find no mention of the Articles, only the adminition to conform one's life the the "Doctrine of Christ" and a question concerning whether the candidate is "truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to the Canons of this Church, to the Ministry of ...". A Priest, additionally, is required to give " faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God" but no reference is made that specifies the Articles. Even in the order of consecrating a Bishop, the candidate is not required to endorse all the Articles, instead it reads, "we will examine you in certain Articles". Namely, the affirmation that the scriptures are the word of God, and that nothing that cannot be proven or concluded from the scriptures may be taught as necessary for salvation. That seems about it. Thus, I conclude from the liturgy that the Articles are not among the requisites for either membership or admittance to the Orders in Anglicanism. If I have missed something, please show me from the liturgy where I have missed the all important need to endorse and adhere to the "plain meaning" of the Articles.
This is a specious argument, respecfully. The Catechism also did not have any requirement to believe, support, or endorse the BCP, or the Authorized Version (KJV). And we know that the Authorized Version was inflexibly mandatory, as was the BCP. And the BCP printings often included the Articles. The answer to your question is simple: the catechism was an address to a child. The Child was not expected to know the more mature doctrines of the faith. Notice that the same argument can be applied to the BCP. Those places don't mention the BCP, or require its use. Yet since we know that the BCP (and KJV) have been mandatory, it follows that you're not seeing all the links in the chain.
I am discussing the Creedal nature of the Articles. The BCP is a book that conforms people to a uniform and "inflexibly mandatory" common form of worship, not a uniform and "inflexibly mandatory" common faith. At most you can argue that this makes Anglicanism an orthopraxic faith, not an orthodoxic one. As for the KJV, it was not even published until nearly 50 years after the Articles. I doubt you are suggesting that everyone prior to its authorized use weren't authentically Anglican. I see nowhere in the Articles that one must read from the King James or any particular translation of the bible. What exactly is your point about the KJV? What has that to do with the required assent to the Articles?
But why is Anglicanism orthopraxic? Where in the catechism, the Articles, at baptism, confirmation, ordination, or consecration (of bishops!), are we told that we have to use the BCP? Do you see my point? Of course not. Creedal conformity doesn't work that way. It only takes effect after the publishing of the Creed. Prior to the Authorized version, any translation was fine. Prior to the Articles, any belief on the topics covered in the Articles was fine. Prior to the BCP, any liturgy was fine. The first post-Reformation Prayerbook was published by Cranmer many years after the split with Rome, and does this prove anything? No. Prior to the publishing of the Nicene Creed, people were fine to believe any of the subjects covered by it. This is how Creedal conformity works.
Here's an intriguing thought, the Articles of Religion aren't the only Articles required by the C of E. At one time or another the church has endorsed the 10 Articles, the Bishops Book, the 6 Articles, the King's Book, the 42 Articles, the 39 Articles. All of these have been guiding lights in the C of E at one time or another. If some reject the 39 Articles and ,say, the Anglo-Catholics adhere to the 10 Articles while the Anglo-Calvinists adhere to the 42 Articles, does that make them any less Anglican in formation?
It does according to some -- those who wish to exclude from the church all those who don't agree with the "excluder".
Sorry for a quick response, as I have to go now, after this. The answer to your question is already contained within your question. If the Church previously authorized the 10 Articles, the 6 Articles, and even the 42 Articles, why aren't those mandatory? The simple answer lies in finding out: what makes the articles, or anything, 'mandatory'. And that is the the Convocation of the Church. What makes the 10 Articles, or even say the 42 Articles, written by none other than Archbishop Cranmer, invalid, is that they have been solemnly repealed by the Convocation. We didn't have to modify the rite of Ordination to first add the 10 Articles, and then when they were repealed, to modify it again to remove the references to it. Similarly what makes the 39 Articles not only 'valid' but 'mandatory' is likewise, their one-time adoption by the Church. This wasn't enough for some Puritans, who lacked all respect for Formularies ratified by the Convocation, so a Canon law was added in 1604, containing the already-familiar grim passage. That canon was entirely unnecessary, since the passing by the Convocation automatically means doctrinal status for the passed documents; but the Canon went above and beyond the minimum necessity, and added an explicitly grim passage about those rejecting it. This is how doctrinal statements have always been passed in our Church. The rite of baptism or ordination does not have to be modified whenever some new doctrine gets adopted by the Church. All doctrines solemnly adopted are ipso facto considered to be mandatory.
I'm sorry, but I don't think I see the point you're making. Are you saying that the BCP is not a source of Authority? If that's your point, I agree. As an Anglican, I believe that the Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, and only those things that can be found in them or concluded from them should be taught as a doctrine of faith necessary for salvation. I agree, in general, with the Articles only when and insofar as they agree with scripture. Here is my formula, which I have taken from Richard Hooker: Scripture is the highest authority in the church, and it is to be interpreted in the light of reason and tradition. The Councils, the church fathers, the Canons of the church, all of them are fallible and should only be appealed to when the Scriptures are unclear to the light of one’s reason and only accepted when they conform to the Scriptures as interpreted by one’s reason. The same is true with the Articles imho. There is room for all parties and all Articles at the Anglican table (errr..altar?) so long as they conform to God’s Word written.
That's all fine and good, but where does it say that you have to use the BCP to be an Anglican? Nowhere at the moment of baptism, or at confirmation, or if you were to go into holy orders, would you swear to 'uphold the BCP'. And yet it is inflexibly mandatory. If you answer why that is, you'll have the answer for why the articles are mandatory on the same level.
The Lord changes not, which is why you were entirely right, This standard of judgment applies to all creedal statements of our church, from the beginning. From the Apostles Creed, to Nicene, to Athanasian, to the Articles, Catechism, and the BCP. They're not infallible, and true only from agreeing with Scripture.
Again, I don't think it is mandatory. For at least 1000 years, the BCP was not in use, but Anglicans were still Anglicans. Thus, by using your logic, I guess that means the Articles aren't necessary either. From what I have gathered, the whole prupose of the Anglican Reformation was a return to the Primitive Catholic faith, wiped clean of all the medieval accretions and innovations of the Papacy. The Reformers called for a return to ancient creeds, biblical faith, and pure worship. They used the Articles as guideposts to that end. Thus, they are only an instrument, and a fallible one which as prone to change, and in fact was changed over time. Even after the formal revisions ceased, the people of the Church continued to interpret and reinterpret the Articles (which were sufficiently vague and accomodating to many parties) in a manner that seemed most faithful to the scriptures and their own reason and conscience. I think that that elelement, the lived experience of the Church, is also important and authoritative. The church's authoritative documents are a great treasure, but in and of themselves they are inadequate to identify what the Church is. If we reduce the 'what the Anglican Church is' question down to these documents alone; the answer we are left with is not the Bride of Christ. We are left only with a pile of dusty old papers. The Church is people--people of faith--and while the Articles, Canons, BCP, and Catechism are powerful witnesses to the mind of Anglicans at a certain time, they were made for the Church's use, not the other way around. I've heard it said on this forum more than once that to determine what is authentically Anglican we can't look at what certain Anglican individuals believed, we can only go to the authoritative documents. But those documents are simply the written works of certain Anglican individuals, ratified by other Anglican individuals, and adhered to by other Anglican individuals. In that light, these authoritative documents have exactly the same weight as any other Anglican individual's thoughts. So imho, they cannot be mandatory.
Yes, because they had previously approved documents. For example the Sarum Rite, on which the BCP is based. Those earlier documents were superseded by the BCP. I don't know what you find complicated in this. My biggest point has been to try to illustrate the historic belief of the Anglican Church. The Articles have played, and do play, a role for that. If you have an unorthodox rector, he may not hold you to them. That's a plague that poisons the whole Christian world. But my advice would be to find an orthodox rector, and embrace what so many solemnly embraced before you, instead of upholding your opinions, or my opinions, as all-important. Yes, very much so. That Primitive Catholic faith was defined by authoring definitive Creedal statements, which drew the line in the sand, and defined catholicity and orthodoxy. Well they are fallible only in the sense in which the Nicene Creed is fallible. Unless you're prepared to reject the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed, you similarly have no ground on which to reject the Articles of Religion. They are of the same authority. To put a stop to which the Preface was appended in 1628 stating, I quote from the page, that "No man shall put his own sense or Comment to the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and Grammatical sense." But they're all still valid. That's my point. Of course the 'pile of papers' on its own is nothing, and needs people. But people also need doctrines on the paper to know WHAT to believe. What we are to believe, according to the Anglican Church, is set in stone, and pretty clear. We need to merge the 'people of faith' with the 'old papers'. No they're more than that, they are authoritatively and definitively, for all time and until the end of he world (unless repealed) ratified not by individuals, by the Anglican Church itself, by reformed Catholicism, by the 'apostolic Church of England' (as the formularies say).
To answer this point at the beginning of your thread, if nothing else the Articles are a formula for church unity. If we allow everyone to believe anything, we will have created anarchy. When a person comes in and has a hard time seeing what we Anglicans believe, here is a victim of all these vain anarchic voices who want to believe their personalized vain doctrines. Not counting you among their number. We must believe one thing. One God, one faith, one baptism. The only thing we can believe is what has been ratified by the Church. We must submit to the judgment of the Church, or else leave entirely if it comes to that. We cannot be in the Church while disrespecting her beliefs.
So then, to be an authentic Anglican in America, would you argue I have to use the BCP 1979, since it superceded the 1928? But I like the 1928. I like the 1789 even more. In the light of my reason, both are in far greater conformity to the Scriptures. If I lived in New Zealand, would I have to pray to Father Mother God in accordance with its latest, greatest BCP? If to be Anglican means I have to come along wherever the BCP heads, then no thanks. I'd rather be right than Anglican. Isn't the Scripture a better tool to do that. And if one has to go outside of the Scripture to show a rector he's wrong, then aren't we violating Article 7? I don't think so. The first two are ecumenical, the last is, by its own precepts, authoritative within the borders of it's own realm. The first two are much closer to the time and place of the original New Testament church and the world in which Our Lord lived and ministered. The first two make very basic statements about the Scripture as it concerned with the Trinity. The latter makes more speculative, less readily apparent statements upon the nature of sacraments, atonement, soteriology, etc. Now here's an interesting sticking point. TEC and other branches of Anglicanism in America, do not recognize the authority of any earthly King. And the limit's of any King's authority either civil or ecclesiastical extend only to the borders of his realm. I am not bound by any edict of any English sovereign, and I was, it would deny the Anglican character of a national church. Moreover, since the body that approved the Articles of Religion were brought together and presided over by a sovereign and bishop foreign to me, I am under no obligation to them whatsoever according to Article 37. I quite agree, but not at the expense of the liberty we have in Christ. Perhaps there is a via media. So they are only as eternal and unchanging as the next gnereal council, convocation, or revision of the BCP? That'll keep me up at night. yikes!!
Well said and I wholeheartedly agree! Oh come on now don't start that again...we were just starting to get along.