Article XIX. Of the Church & Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church

XIX. Of the Church.

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of
God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in
all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of
Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of
Faith.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of
Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s
Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to
another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it
ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce
any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
__________________________________________________

"The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of
Faith" is a very powerful statement, and one of particular importance at this point in history.

Article XX. gives the Church the authority in controversies with the stipulation that it cannot "ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written."

1. Since there are disagreements regarding the interpretation of Holy Scripture (not only within Anglicanism, but throughout Christendom); whose interpretation decides if the Church has ordained that which is contrary to God's Word?

2. If the Church can no longer be trusted to hold authority in controversies of faith; what does that mean for us as Anglicans?

3. What are the implications for the historic Episcopate?

I welcome all on-topic comments.

 

Anna, I will give my own answer via two of our brethren from the past.

1. Interpreting scripture: John Chrysostom - Homily 3 on 2 Thessalonians

2. Where to turn if the hierarchy goes wrong: Vincent of Lérins - Commonitory on the Catholic Faith: Beginning of Chapter 3

3. I don't believe the historic episcopate is somehow destroyed by teaching heresy? Maybe formally or morally it is compromised, but materially, or at its very essence, it lives on in the lineage. I have no strict answer for you here; I hope that's ok.

 

Consular,

Interesting quotes.

What are your answers for my questions #1 and #2.

Thanks,
Anna

 

Anna, those two quotes serve as my answers. I like to speak with the voice of the Fathers more than anything.

 

I must missed it.... :think:

 

See above, post #3.

 

All those years ago when I was in industry ,'it,' was known as custom and practice, when I studied for the Church, the term was, every where, and by all!

Maybe there's something I'm missing, how-and-ever, regarding the Church! There's only one Church, that is the Body of Christ and it is a federation of Christian Communities.We are made members by baptism after being taught the faith. It is this right belief that as much as most is essential and this belief is the Revelation of Christ once made to the saints, or the Holy People of God. It is recorded in Scripture and is explained, interpreted and completed by the Bishops of the Early CHurch, through the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We cannot reject it or rethink it, it has all been done, it is what S.Paul describes as the deposit of faith.
For me, this is what Vincent of Lerins is telling us and this is how Catholic Christianity has succeeded for some 1900 years at least! If we do not hold to the Revelation, we are not Catholics. Certainly we fail in our claims to be true members of Christ and are no more than sectarians! Whatever that word covers!
As I understand it, neither the C.of E, nor Rome, (certainly classical protestantism hasn't) has kept the faith, the former has ignored it and the latter has added to it.When we judge the modern Anglican Sects, we should study just how close they stand in relation to Scripture & Holy Tradition, without catering to much for our own flights and fancies.

 

It's good to see all that absolute truth affirmed, highchurchman, but in your historical summary you say that seven ecumenical councils are binding upon us. Why so? Lancelot Andrewes was adamant about accepting the first four, I think. The seventh council obliged veneration of images, among many other bizarre things alien to the old Christian faith.

Article VI tells us that Scripture is sufficient for salvation. One thing Roman Catholics "pin us down" on is our acceptance of any Councils as authoritative. If councils have authority over us, the Romans say, then we are dishonest about deriving our obligatory salvation-beliefs from only Scripture. This is a dilemma, not to mention the fact that the Church had to pre-exist the Scriptures in order for them to become extant - and if the infallible scriptures needed the Church in some way, then the Church had to be infallible for at least a little while. What of authority, then?

 

Great questions. Very important!

1. Christians have a strong tradition of hermeneutics from which to draw. NT writers explain the OT. Creeds and Councils provide accepted interpretations and clarity. Theologians, even outside of our own tradition, have written excellent commentaries on all portions of the Bible. We have catechisms. This is where knowledge of Church History and of traditional doctrine is so helpful. By examining this broader tradition of interpretation (to avoid the errors inherent in a single school of thought), and by reading the Bible without a Modernist or Postmodernist bias, we can discover which interpretation(s) are true. This is the "faith once delivered." Of course, I believe in the individual's right to arrive at other interpretations; but I do not believe that the Church has the authority to present private interpretations or trendy fads in place of traditional teaching. The overall voices of the saints speaking throughout the ages tell us whose interpretation is contrary to the Word.

2. For us, as Anglicans, we must remember that our Church has existed since ancient times. Through schisms and heresies, there have always been faithful clergy and bishops who did not depart from the truth. The deposit of faith has always been present. In our case today, I think that we easily fall into a regional or national way of thinking. There are Anglicans all over the world, and there are bishops teaching the truth in many places. We can look to them (N.T. Wright might be an example) for leadership. We can also look to our history and hold fast to what we know is true, waiting for the day when the Lord restores us with better leadership. But as long as we keep believing and practicing what we know, and as long as we instruct others to do so, the true teachings of the Church have not vanished. We can outlast the fads of today.

3. This one is tricky. I don't think that Succession is abolished even in cases of heresy, but I also don't think that laypeople have any responsibility to "learn from" a bishop who is very heretical or apostate. The Lord works through their ministry (such as it is) to give grace to the people through Sacraments. I know that the Church is a place where Word and Sacrament are rightly presented, and that "Word" portion is difficult to find in the presence of false teaching. I need to give this more thought.

4. The Church, in my usage, refers to the pre-Schism Catholic Church and to the Churches that have maintained Succession. I also recognize the contributions of many faithful people who followed Christ in other Protestant churches. Their Sacraments might not be right, but sometimes their preaching/teaching ministry is very good. Our situation is sometimes reversed, so we don't have any room to boast. So again, Rome/Orthodox/Us are the Church in my usage, but I don't limit God's work to those bodies (there's another sense in which all Christians comprise the Church). They are the ones, though, that are especially useful for the issues of interpretation that we are pondering.

 

Interesting my brother and that is why I don't believe our Lord ever expected his disciples to try and encode the un-encodable... once you pull on one of the threads of dogma encoded by those who have gone before us it all starts to unravel. All we end up then is a Church trying to justify itself rather then get on with the job of healing the sick (physical and spiritual) and tending to the needs of those who need it. IMHO

 

The English Church affirmed their belief in the Councils as far back as Saxon times, every few years they met in Synod and confessed or professed their support in and for the Ecumenical Councils. For fifteen hundred years this occured regularly and no one queried except for the Seventh Council.It was the Anglican way of professing their beliefs! The only query was then was about Ephesus II, ( I think,) it dealt with what Dean Field described as ,'manners,' in that it settled the problem of our relationship with the Lady Mary and the Holy people of God,The Saints. Sadly, it was introduced to the West, in a corrupt form and in this manner it was rejected by the Anglican Church! Remember this is 1100 years ago, give and take a year! Without understanding the matter clearly, the Anglicans followed their own good sense and the councils teaching whilst rejecting the false or corrupt offering! IN EFFECT, WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE TEACHING OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL naturally, whilst rejecting the false message.
It was usual to speak in formulas, as in the Creeds, these were easy to understand and made things easier when we consider that the First four Councils are the basis of the faith, the next two are simply explanatory and the Anglicans accepted without real demur that we should be polite in our dealings with the saints including the mother of our Lord and Saviour! For over several hundred years the question of the Seven Councils was dealt with in this way, four fundamental and two explanatory the third simply manner.

As I have said in other threads in 1536/7, 42 the Convocation of the English Church affirmed the formula recorded above, as did in 1559, an Anglican Parliament in the Act of Supremacy, all gave authority to the Councils, ,'four holy councils,' and all others sith that time in any point consonant to the same." As late as the period between the two WW, the Anglican Church affirmed the Seven Councils in discussions with the Orthodox.

 

We are instructed by S. Jude, "It was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered!" Ep. Jude. vs.3.

Once delivered? And that some two thousand years ago, there's no need for all this argument, the faith is there . S .Paul is firm in his instructions," O Timothy Keep the Deposit!" and again, "Keep the Deposit by the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us." (1 Tim., 6/20. 2 Tim., 1:14.) What we have to do is accept it and believe it! We should seek what has been delivered and we should preserve it! It has already been interpreted and accepted by the whole Church Catholic. Today we live in a society where scholarship is shoddy and we shouldn't put too much faith in modern scholarship, a typical case is the modern interpretations forced upon us by later scholars. Some time late last year at a discussion on the early Stuart Church, a 'scholar,' made a quote from a modern book of that name to prove that the Stuart Church was ,'Protestant', in a modern sense and backing his statement up with a quote regarding Archbishop Laud! He was embarrassed and dismayed when I pointed out that he had misquoted Laud, who had referred to,' Romans,' not Catholics. His quote was genuine in that the speaker had quoted the author of the book, however the modern author had not been faithful to Laud's original statement, translating it no doubt for modern ears. It is what modern scholarship does in the business of the Councils!

 

Article VI tells us that Scripture is sufficient for salvation. One thing Roman Catholics "pin us down" on is our acceptance of any Councils as authoritative. If councils have authority over us, the Romans say, then we are dishonest about deriving our obligatory salvation-beliefs from only Scripture. This is a dilemma, not to mention the fact that the Church had to pre-exist the Scriptures in order for them to become extant - and if the infallible scriptures needed the Church in some way, then the Church had to be infallible for at least a little while. What of authority, then?

I believe that ,"Scripture is sufficient for salvation," What the Bishops do in Council is interpret the Revelation of Christ. This with the aid and assistance of the Holy Ghost the Comforter , following Acts 15! It was Bl.William Laud who said that If all parts of the Church agreed on the findings of a particular Council then it should be considered final, or words to that effect! Dean Field,in his wisdom described the General Councils, meaning Ecumenical ones as",the highest level of jurisdiction in the Church! They have supreme power, that is the bishops assembled in a general council may interpret scripture and that by their authority suppress all them that shall disobey." We should remember that we are not a Confessional Church founded on a particular doctrine such as Rome is, on the question of the papacy! We have no beliefs that are not shared by the whole church!
I've found the quote by Laud,
"It is true that a General Council de post facto, after it is ended and admitted by the whole church is then infallible."
"Conference with Fisher.











"We should remember we are not the entire Church, of which there's only one and we are as Anglicans a Communion within the Body of Christ! We should have confidence in Christ and our Membership of His Body!

 

Just taking a few minutes to check in. I still have company. So, won't be able to give a proper response to each post now. I do really appreciate all the comments and all the effort in answering the thread questions.

Very interesting posts by all.
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! ​

 

highchurchman,
I really appreciate the effort you put into your posts. We all benefit from your knowledge of history.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Anna

 

I'm trying to understand what Article XX. means to us today in our present disagreements.

What is the specific definition of "the Church" that has "power to decree Rites or Ceremonies" and "authority in Controversies of Faith"?

If we "adapt the 'plain and grammatical sense' in interpreting" the Articles; it would seem that "the Church" that has "power to decree Rites or Ceremonies" is the same as that which has "authority in Controversies of Faith."

Considering Anglicans have the power to decree Rites and Ceremonies; Article XX. must, in its 'plain and grammatical sense,' be referring to the Anglican Church; and more specifically for Episcopalians: The Episcopal Church. (Maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud.)

Since a Provisional Rite for “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” (A049) passed in the 2012 General Convention, we have a "Controversy of Faith" settled (at least for now) by "the Church," (The Episcopal Church.) The House of Deputies concurred with the House of Bishops to pass Resolution A049. (I realize there is a controversy regarding whether or not the GC had the authority to pass A049.)

Article XX. also states, "and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s
Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."

The problem is that those who agree with the Rite, for blessing same-gender unions, use Holy Scripture in defense of their position (though that is very difficult to see, at least for me personally.) Those opposed to the Rite (including myself) also use Holy Scripture in defense of their position.

So, who is "the Church" that has "power to decree Rites or Ceremonies" and "authority in Controversies of Faith"?

And

According to the 'plain and grammatical sense' of Article XX.; how are "Controversies of Faith" to be settled by "the Church" when both sides claim Holy Scripture as support? Does "the Church" settle the matter as stated in Article XX.?

And

Specifically, who decides "the Church" has unlawfully ordained that which is contrary to God’s Word written; and what is the process to bring "the Church" in line with Holy Scripture?

I welcome all comments.

Anna

 

Lady Anna,
,'The Church,' is the Body of Christ and there is only one Church, membership is open to all who are Baptised by Water and by Words. Before they are confirmed in their membership they are taught the faith, this being based on Jude,i.e. This, Revelation, Scripture & Councils, is as I understand what is referred to as the Apostolic Succession whilst the bishops in general are looked on as either the descendants of the apostles, or as modern day apostles. Even so, they cannot make new doctrine, only explane ,interpret and confirm, Christ's revelation and generally organise and conduct their diocese.

" Who decides "the Church" has unlawfully ordained that which is contrary to God’s Word written; and what is the process to bring "the Church" in line with Holy Scripture?"
For the system to work, presupposes a well educated and vigorous clergy and laity having been taught the essentials of the faith, but definitely an episcopate based on Catholic Christian truths & principles who are prepared to enter the Church Councils with an open heart and a clear mind and are willing to commit themselves to speech! The fact is that while ultimately, the responsibility is on the shoulders of the episcopate, the clergy and laity have an interest and should be able ready and willing to voice that interest, but it must be a voice based on study and guidance.

 

Adam,
Excellent post and very helpful. Thanks so much for taking the time to answer.

When I add your post to Highchurchman's posts, Articles XIX. and XX. make sense to me. I think the biggest problem in TEC is that the Church, meaning "The Episcopal Church," has settled "Controversies of Faith" in a way that is contrary to Holy Scripture; but as you said, the Articles do not provide a process to deal with this. Evidently, our Canon and Constitution are not sufficient for the task either. Consequently, we have schism and law suits.

As for the interpretation of Scripture, both sides of the same-gender issues are appealing to Holy Scripture for justification. This is where Tradition, that has been handed down since Apostolic times, becomes so very important in guarding the deposit of faith to which the Church is entrusted. I think what we are seeing in TEC is a private and manipulative interpretation of Holy Scripture, which has led to heresy. It is a sad state of affairs.

 

Highchurchman,
Thanks so much for your comments.

I think you hit the nail on the head, as they say. First, TEC is creating "new doctrine" to promote the same-gender agenda, and this is contrary to Apostolic teaching.

Also, the Episcopate, which should be based on "Catholic Christian truths and principles" as you said, has failed.