However to say that Anglicanism is without dogma is wide of the mark - not least the 39 articles that clergy should assent to at ordination and induction into parishes.
How could he have responsibly been ordained if he did not agree with these delightfully protestant articles?
Methinks he was part of the problem every bit as much as those he castigates.
Let the Catholics go - the Anglicans are better off without them subverting it's historic statements of faith.
“However to say that Anglicanism is without dogma is wide of the mark - not least the 39 articles that clergy should assent to at ordination and induction into parishes.”
You have said eloquently in a few sentences what my original rambling response did not say half so well in many. Anyhow, The 39 Articles are indeed Reformed in dogma, but do modern Anglican clergy pledge to uphold them? I know there is something called the Reformed Episcopal Church that uses the articles in their statement of faith, but in all my years as an Episcopalian, I never once heard these nearly Calvinistic points of doctrine discussed.
You wrote:
“However to say that Anglicanism is without dogma is wide of the mark - not least the 39 articles that clergy should assent to at ordination and induction into parishes.”
“should”? That’s the problem right there. Anglicans have no real dogma. What ‘dogma’ they have was handed them by a monarch and the parliament. It can change any minute of any day. That’s not dogma.
“To: GonzoII
Fr Longeneker’s analysis of Anglican clergy is pretty much spot on.
However to say that Anglicanism is without dogma is wide of the mark - not least the 39 articles that clergy should assent to at ordination and induction into parishes.
How could he have responsibly been ordained if he did not agree with these delightfully protestant articles?
Methinks he was part of the problem every bit as much as those he castigates.”
Modern Anglicans (and Episcopalians) pay about as much attention to the 39 Articles as Congress does to the Constitution.