Posted on 06/29/2008 2:52:47 PM PDT by Huber
Can we uphold the 39 Articles and still include Charismatics and Anglocatholics in Communion?
On anglocatholics (if you mean theological anglocatholics as opposed to those who simply like high-church liturgy), see the comparison above between the Affirmation and the Declaration on the 39 Articles.
For anglocatholics, the 39 Articles (which were never “normative” or “confessional” for any jurisdiction except the CoE) have both historical value and theological merit, but that merit is subject to the correction and interpretation of Scripture, the Creeds, the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the consensus of patristic tradition. The Declaration, by contrast, appears to make the “39 Articles” second in authority only to Scripture (though it does not give, other than that, guidelines on their interpretation).
Remember, too, that Anglicanism existed before the 39 Articles. After Henry’s excommunication (1533) we have formulations of “Anglican” thought in the The _Ten Articles_, the _Bishop’s Book_, the _Six Articles_ and the _King’s Book_ which predate them and are far more “catholic”, as well as the proposed _42 Articles_ (more “protestant") before we got to the finalization of the _39 Articles_ in 1571—nearly 40 years after Anglicanism’s break from Rome, and well into the “second generation” of Anglicanism which had come under the influence of radical Calvinist refugees from the Continent.
Likewise, the 1662 BCP—which the Declaration makes normative—is a “protestant” choice from the Prayerbook tradition (if going for “early”, why not 1549 for example, from the first generation of Anglicanism?) and ignores the “corrective” influences of the Scottish Anglican right and BCP which was formative on the very first American BCP.
.
In short, for better or worse, by elevating the status of the 39 Articles, mandating them as an authoritative theological norm, and choosing the 1662 BCP as liturgical norm, GAFCON and the Declaration have put themselves firmly into the “protestant” side of Anglicanism.
Neither the 39 Articles nor the 1662 BCP have ever represented “all” of Anglicanism (Anglicanism predates them both); nor have they been normative for all jurisdictions of Anglicanism—and making them so represents GAFCON’s conscious selection of the non-catholic “wing” of a denomination which has always tried to include both protestant and catholic wings.
.
This isn’t to say that they’re wrong to do so. I’ve held for as long as I’ve been informed about Anglicanism that the “shotgun marriage” between protestant and catholic Christianity within Anglicanism is, ultimately, impossible if one is to have doctrinal and sacramental clarity.
And so I think it is a good thing that GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration are coming out clearly on “one side” of that divide and making it mandatory for their members.
But everyone should recognize that that is precisely what is going on—that it is one “side”—and that even if friendly toward (or, at very least, grudgingly tolerant of) some degree of “anglocatholicism” in its membership, the emerging definition and character of the movement is clearly and intentionally Protestant, and will, in all likelihood, include norms of both faith and order (in what is accepted and what is prohibited) that “theological anglocatholics” (as measured, for example, by the Affirmation of St. Louis) will not be able, without abandoning anglocatholicism, to accept.
.
So, no, I don’t think “anglocatholics” will find a home in GAFCON… but then, as I said, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The doctrinal and ecclesiastical clarity the movement is providing is a very salutory thing, even if it means that the “tent” it is pitching isn’t big enough to include all traditional “Anglicans” within it.
So even while I, myself, am an “Affirmation” Anglican rather than a “Declaration” Anglican, I think the Declaration is to be praised for moving toward that kind of necessary clarity. In the long run, better the clarity of being one thing or the other than attempting the continued, unsustainable incoherence of trying to be both.
.
pax, LP [140] Posted by LP on 06
No offense taken, and my gut tells me that the sentiment is possibly shared by some of the Global South Primates. However, some of our friends across the Bosphorus might take exception to your suggestion of Tiberian exclusivity!
This is why the Continuing Anglican movement predated the current Global South. The theological breaking point occurred sooner, and had to do with the sacramental nature of the priesthood.
You mean like a group defining itself as "The One True Church?" Umm, I think that would be both Rome and the Eastern Orthodox bodies. Perhaps what you meant was Protestantism allows the INDIVIDUALS to define their churches, and that would be a product of Protestant culture, yes, in the form of freedom of religion, first fully seen here in America. Why else would most of the cults have formed in the USA? WE ALLOW(ED) THEM!
Want to throw out all of the councils or 2 or 3, fine. Want to develop a new theology of Baptism, fine. Want to support and teach the heresy of Arianism, fine. Want to bless same, sex unions fine. Its your church, go for it. Many Protestants will say you are wrong, many will condemn with sound theology your teachings. But they remain yours and as such do not speak for any kind of “universal” Protestant church. Heresy is not driven underground it is just driven to the next block over.
This concept is totally foreign to Catholics and Orthodox.
Yep, and for well over 1000 years in places where they were in power, neither Church held religious freedom/tolerance in very high regard (if at all).
What you are saying would be originally true for non-magisterial Protestants...that is those never in allegiance to the governments back in Europe. The radicals of the Reformation (then called Anabaptists, or "other") were the first to demand freedom to worship as they pleased, but both the Catholics and the Protestants (in the form of Lutherans, Reformed (Calvinists/Presbyterians), and Anglican (the mix on the table) opposed this hyper-individuality, as they saw it...it was bad for society.
Magisterial Protestants however put first put holy Scripture as their final and foremost authority, then very quickly wrote (very similar overlapping-in-ideas) confessions and creeds, according to how the best scholars among them--relying on traditional and fresh interpretation--understood the Bible. Hence early on the magisterial Protestants took a CONCILIAR approach (not an individualistic approach) to understanding the Bible--their final authority. Now it is true that part of that conciliar approach was that the Bible is clear enough for the average adult reader to understand it's basic doctrines--hence bible reading and printing was first practiced (and permitted) and encouraged widely amidst the laity.
This worked fairly well up into the late Enlightenment (the 1700s) and that doggone freedom of religion thing, spreading from America back into Europe, allowed for unbiblical ideas to take root and grow.
With the later Enlightenment period German scholarship (initially) spread to the rest of European culture, dropping the inerrant nature and hence the final authority of scripture, substituting for it the All Knowing Human Mind, known as Reason in those days. Magisterial denominations were quick to take on this latest fashionable theology, that seemed to make a form of Christianity accessible to the skeptic, according the the Zeitgeist of the age.
On the other end of the spectrum, almost in reaction to this religious scientism, came the Pietists--wonderful at first, but who later became legalistic and spiritistic, not sticking to sound doctrine, a religion of the heart rejecting the head. This along with increasing religious tolerance and freedom, eventually resulted in the religious belief chaos in the Western Churches today.
I include in that chaos the Church of Rome...as there are as many competing (and conflicting) religious beliefs within the umbrella of the organizational Roman church as there are without in the wild world of Protestantism.
Still, the odd thing is, amidst those who truly do hold to the final authority and hence inerrancy of Scripture, there is a huge amount of commonality of doctrine. Otherwise, there would be no evangelical movement, no charismatic coalitions, and not even a Christian music industry...and certainly no GAFCON in Jerusalem.
Personally, I'd like to see a return to a more creedal Christianity, as I think our hearts need our heads, or else we bleed out and die. Modern evangelicalism is much too amorphous in my opinion, and needs to go back to its source, namely God's Holy Word.
What defines us is not the day to day whim of one man or movement within the Church.
Unless of course that one man happens to be the current Pope...(or perhaps for EO, a majority of Patriarchs)
We do not attempt to domesticate heresy. Those who dissent and leave (please do) do not just become another branch of the Church. They set themselves outside of the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Because once they have decided to define for themselves right doctrine and what it means to be Church. They have become just another branch of Protestanism. Which is varied enough, that no doubt someone will take them in and celebrate their liberation from the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
So lets see now, just define everyone who departs from your many specific beliefs as "Protestant" and that solves everything? So I suppose the great majority of self-professed American Roman Catholics (who depart from official Roman teaching in many various ways) are actually Protestant? What about over 90% of (formerly Roman Catholic) parts of Western Europe? Are the French now "Protestant?" A very weak, slippery and inaccurate definition.
Protestantism can never stop dividing. (Darn that dasterdly freedom of religion thing...it was MUCH better during the Inquisition...) At least now the majority of divisions are caused by orthodox Christians leaving denominations which have gone off the rails. That is why it is so important that GAFCON define what they believe is the legitimate expression of Anglican Christianty. It lets those who are honest start getting their luggage packed. Even so, I know some day there will be a new set of protesters in the GAFCON churches. And it will be deja vu all over again.
Yep, religious freedom does have it's downside...but Christ is still head of His Church--a Spiritual Body, composed of all true Christians, whatever the denomination.
“Yep, and for well over 1000 years in places where they were in power, neither Church held religious freedom/tolerance in very high regard (if at all).”
AR, you know history better than that. Orthodoxy, even Russian Orthodoxy, has been remarkably tolerant of “ecclesial assemblies” outside The Church and always has been.
“What defines us is not the day to day whim of one man or movement within the Church.
Unless of course that one man happens to be the current Pope...(or perhaps for EO, a majority of Patriarchs)”
AR, 100% of the Orthodox Patriarchs in agreement cannot proclaim anything and make it stick without the OK of the Orthodox laity. The rest of your post is breathtaking in its Western ethnocentrism. Protestantism is NOT the child or problem of Orthodoxy and laying a Roman strawman veneer over the Orthodox Church does nothing whatsoever for your arguments. It never ceases to amaze me that so many Protestants insist on applying their bogeyman opinions of th Church of Rome on Orthodoxy which has nothing and never has had anything to do with the complaints, justified or otherwise, which Protestants have against Rome. Orthodoxy is no more Greek speaking Roman Catholicism than it is an early form of Protestantism.
“As an aside, reading into your comments, I must respectfully suggest as a Tiberian that we do possess that same authenticity also found in Constantinople otherwise the primacy of Rome (even if only one of honor) would not still be recognized by all the ancient churches.”
I think you may have read something which isn’t in my post. I agree 100% with what you have written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.