tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294180508947136086.post5405356474074234421..comments2024-03-12T00:12:01.203-04:00Comments on The Old High Churchman: The Reformed Face of Anglicanism+ Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15593635840263637835noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294180508947136086.post-17235691356070021192012-09-26T19:58:34.842-04:002012-09-26T19:58:34.842-04:00This is an excellent article, with which I am in p...This is an excellent article, with which I am in perfect agreement. Thanks, dear bishop, for writing and sharing it.Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294180508947136086.post-85931188745763204532012-08-22T17:21:57.826-04:002012-08-22T17:21:57.826-04:00I'm afraid I'm one of those Anglicans who ...I'm afraid I'm one of those Anglicans who finds the reformation to have been an unnecessary unpleasantness best undone as soon as possible, a "reform of the reform" sort of bloke.<br /><br />As Vernon Staley states:<br /><br />_The Catholic Religion_<br /><br />A MANUAL OF INSTRUCTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE Anglican Church<br />11th Edition, A.D. 1900<br /><br />By The Reverend Vernon Staley<br /><br />Part Fourth<br />APPENDIX<br /><br />CHAPTER I, THE XXXIX ARTICLES, page 383-384<br /><br />The Thirty-nine Articles are not Articles of Faith like the Creeds, and they are not imposed on members of the Anglican Church as necessary terms of communion. The clergy only subscribe them, and the sense in which the subscription is understood, has been stated by Archbishop Bramhall as follows; “We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, ‘without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastic persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the proper list of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.” (1) Bishop Bull wrote similarly, “The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity.” (2)<br /><br />“The Articles are to be subscribed to in the sense intended by those whose authority makes the subscription requisite.” (3) It must always be remembered that the same Convocation, in the same set of Canons which first required subscription to the Articles, in 1571, enjoined that preachers should only teach “that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and that which the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected out of the same doctrine.” “It seems” says Mr. Keble, “no violent inference, that the appointed measure of doctrine preached, was also intended to be the measure of doctrine delivered in the way of explanation of doubtful passages in formularies.” (4)<br /><br />It is quite evident, therefore, that the Articles would be understood by the clergy who first subscribed them as Articles of Peace for the preservation of unity. They were not religious tests, or Articles of Faith; they were made as comprehensive as possible, and they were to be interpreted and understood in accordance with the general rule of Catholic tradition, i.e., in the Catholic sense. (5)<br /><br />(1) Works, vol. ii, pp.201, 476.<br />(2) A Vindication of the Church of England, xxvii.<br />(3) Keble’s Catholic Subscription to the xxxix. Articles, p. 13.<br />(4) Ibid., p. 15.<br />(5) “I understand by the Catholic sense, that sense which is most conformable to the ancient rule, ‘Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab amnibus.’” Ibid., p. 14.Fr Richard Sutter SSMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213143948829442186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294180508947136086.post-47506196587862091312012-08-05T01:51:33.639-04:002012-08-05T01:51:33.639-04:00Thanks for this! This is how my friend and I have...Thanks for this! This is how my friend and I have been explaining Anglicanism to others for a while. "It's the Via Media between Calvinism and Lutheranism." That realization is what led me from the Lutherans (who I couldn't quite agree with on a few theological points) to Anglicanism. Those Lutheran things that I did agree with work quite well for me as an Anglican. And I recognize that some of the strong Calvinism that I see in some Anglicans is not the only position within Anglicanism, yet, like you just said, it is a part of it.<br /><br />My struggle in speaking about Anglicanism's Calvinistic aspect is that I have encountered a few too many Calvinist Anglicans who tend to act as though Anglicanism is simply Presbyterianism with bishops. This is, of course, what you are not saying, but that is what always comes to mind when I think about this...<br /><br />I think the huge key to the struggle is to realize that, for all of us, that the theology of the Articles feel more like boundaries in how they are written. They don't lay down a hard and fast rule with regard to precise points of theology in some places. For example, the article on predestination very much avoids even hinting at double predestination, while holding to single predestination (which is the Lutheran position and many Calvinists), but not denying that you can believe in the double version. I also found it historically interesting that there was the willingness at one point for Anglicans to drop the 29th article about the unfaithful not eating the body and blood of Jesus when there was still hope for a Lutheran/Anglican confederation in order to not offend the Lutherans. That spoke volumes to me about how the early Anglicans viewed the mode of Christ's presence (i.e. that there was room for a more Lutheran view of the Supper along side the more Calvinist view).<br /><br />Thanks for the good article!J.L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13978510948065137234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294180508947136086.post-64014086549016645192012-08-04T11:03:09.187-04:002012-08-04T11:03:09.187-04:00Great post. Thanks for sharing. I've been an...Great post. Thanks for sharing. I've been an Anglican for about 7 years and have just come recently to many of the same conclusions as you regarding the Reformed face of Anglicanism.<br /><br />Blessings!Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18383939064230832392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294180508947136086.post-50457449182815526982012-08-04T09:21:24.727-04:002012-08-04T09:21:24.727-04:00It seems to me that Elizabeth I's subtle, but ...It seems to me that Elizabeth I's subtle, but substantively significant, changes to Cranmer's drafts of the Formularies pulled the Church of England back from Cranmer's Calvinism to a more broadly Lutheran position. <br /><br />But, having said that, the question still remains whether Sixteenth Century Lutheranism, especially as embodied in the Anglican <br />Formularies, is meaningfully different from the "consensus patrum" of the ancient Church. I have in mind Osiander and the Finish View of Luther, whose emphasis on union with Christ is thoroughly patristic, synergistic, and which has an exemplary embodiment in our liturgy: "that we ... may ... be ... made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him ...." <br /><br />Thus, while I disagree strongly with that majority strain of Anglo-Catholicism, which quite ahistorically and unsuccessfully attempts to read Medieval Latin Scholasticism back into Anglicanism, I have great sympathy for that species of catholic Anglicanism that seeks to go behind the Great Schism and that reads our Formularies in the light of St. Vincent's Canon. In sum, I am inclined to agree with the Caroline Divines that Anglicanism qua Anglicanism is not what has become confessional Calvinism, Romanism, or Lutheranism.Death Bredonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09551340241330202420noreply@blogger.com