Book of Common Prayer

[gurneyhalleck1]

And it points to the incoherence of Anglicanism IMO, that the 39 Articles are taken very seriously in some circles, thrown up into the air as trifles in others. I just think it's strange. But then again, Anglicanism isn't confessional like Lutheranism. Anglicanism is intentionally vague on just about anything. It's like a shape-shifting elasomorph. You can't get a grip on it. My old rector talked about how "Catholics abused the Eucharist and started adoring it" and yet he had a reserved aumbry (sp?) which held the consecrated Host. I asked him about it and pointed out the 39 Articles were against reservation and yet he said, "now that people no longer abuse the Eucharist with benediction and adoration in the Anglican Church, it's ok to reserve it for the sick and infirm who need it taken to them, etc." Picking and choosing the 39 Articles? But then again, it's just as odd to me as how Anglicans at my former parish wouldn't allow the Eucharist to be elevated due to the 39 Articles and yet they'd all bow to the brass cross as it came down the aisle held by the acolyte? It's ok to bow to a hunk of brass but not the Body of Christ Himself? Weirdsville IMO...or the parishoner, Kim, who told me in a discussion, "My husband and I are both Anglicans. I consider myself a catholic, he considers himself a protestant. It works." I thought, "no, it isn't working?" LOL...

My biggest concern with Anglicanism, that made me abandon her more than once despite my love for the people, clergy, and liturgy, was the political aspect of it. The 39 Articles represent a constantly-shifting set of oddities and contradictions over a period of many years. The Articles themselves show shifting positions that resemble a religious stock market. In Henry's time the Church of England had the desire to align with German Lutheran princes so they had some protestant undertones in the ten articles. the 1539 Articles, six or so they had, were more Calvinistic by design. In Edward's day the 42 articles Cranmer cooked up in the basement were uber-Calvinistic, protestant all the way. Then down the road Matthew Parker tamed them down a touch with a twist of Elizabethan middle-way political brokering. I thought, "is this the sign of a legitimate catholic church that it deviates back and forth between extreme calvinism and quasi-catholic sacramentary theology?" I needed Dramamine from the shifts in position. It was like watching the Democrats with the health care bill and their back-and-forths spinning me silly.

And the process was so political, for obvious reasons, that I fail to see how Christ Jesus can ever be political. The 39 Articles were mandatory and one had to adhere to them in 1571 after it was made a legal requirement and then the Test Act made it mandatory for civil servants to follow the 39 Articles to keep their jobs in the late 1600's. Priests and other clergy are required to agree with the 39 Articles in the Church of England though many deviate.

The 39 Articles are the closest thing to a coherent Anglican statement of faith, theology, and praxis and yet even the articles are considered, "hey, if you like it, follow it, if you don't, don't!" It's wishy-washy just like the "all may, some should, none must" confession approach. It's like tofu. You can never tell really what this faith tastes like?

Anglo-Catholics give the wabbly statement that the 39 Articles were just political or optional or never normative/important anyway in order to Catholicize themselves and behave like Catholics. Evangelicals disregard the 39 Articles when ordaining women and the Episcopal Church disregards all the articles and the Bible itself. A religion based on a political settlement and debate is spooky and tough to grab onto. I can only imagine being a part of a religion that has had Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi putting their mark on it. Terrifying! And really the monarchs and parliament of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries were no better!

Originally Posted by GKC

Speaking of the primary author of the original BCP, " He had one sincere interest, an exercise in which he was supreme, the construction of English prose. We owe to his pen as fine as English as has ever been written".

Belloc, speaking of Cranmer (the silver-tongued schismatic as we call him), HOW THE REFORMATION HAPPENED, chap II, p.104.

In all my years as an Anglican, I've never seen one reference to the Articles, in a normative sense. There is a reason for that. But then, I also pick my company carefully.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

[GKC]

You've been in Wiki, haven't you? I recommend something more like A.C. Jennings ECCLESIA ANGLICANA

Too long to deal with the day before Christmas. But...find me something Calvinistic in the 6 Articles (The Bloody Whip with 6 Strings). I dare you. For that matter, point out teh Calvinism in the 10.

The 42 were originally 45, in Cranmer's draft; his attempt to shove things as far over reformed as he could. And were offered, but not adopted by Convocation, during Edward's reign; the most reformed period in the CoE.

The 39 were Elizabethan fiddling with the 42, moving away from more Calvinistic positions; Elizabeth struck one out herself. The first form of them was 38, one was restored a few years later, after ELizabeth's excommunication.

And all were aimed at the current religious issues of the day; the 10, the 6 and THE KING'S BOOK being more or less Henry's thoughts (esp. the 6). The 42 being Cranmerian, the 39 an attempt to balance (the Elizabethan via media the CoE between the perceived excesses of both scholasticism, and, more pressingly, that Calvinistic fervor, on the part of the clergy. For whom the Articles were binding, and for no one else. Outside the CoE they are binding on none who do not affirm them. And, I warrant, I could find some Articles that you would affirm.

Do try to remember the distinction between Anglicanim, and the CoE. Only one is Erastian, and can pass laws, requiring stuff.

And you missed the 13, and the 11.

Merry Christmas.

GKC

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1

And it points to the incoherence of Anglicanism IMO, that the 39 Articles are taken very seriously in some circles, thrown up into the air as trifles in others. I just think it's strange. But then again, Anglicanism isn't confessional like Lutheranism. Anglicanism is intentionally vague on just about anything. It's like a shape-shifting elasomorph. You can't get a grip on it. My old rector talked about how "Catholics abused the Eucharist and started adoring it" and yet he had a reserved aumbry (sp?) which held the consecrated Host. I asked him about it and pointed out the 39 Articles were against reservation and yet he said, "now that people no longer abuse the Eucharist with benediction and adoration in the Anglican Church, it's ok to reserve it for the sick and infirm who need it taken to them, etc." Picking and choosing the 39 Articles? But then again, it's just as odd to me as how Anglicans at my former parish wouldn't allow the Eucharist to be elevated due to the 39 Articles and yet they'd all bow to the brass cross as it came down the aisle held by the acolyte? It's ok to bow to a hunk of brass but not the Body of Christ Himself? Weirdsville IMO...or the parishoner, Kim, who told me in a discussion, "My husband and I are both Anglicans. I consider myself a catholic, he considers himself a protestant. It works." I thought, "no, it isn't working?" LOL...

My biggest concern with Anglicanism, that made me abandon her more than once despite my love for the people, clergy, and liturgy, was the political aspect of it. The 39 Articles represent a constantly-shifting set of oddities and contradictions over a period of many years. The Articles themselves show shifting positions that resemble a religious stock market. In Henry's time the Church of England had the desire to align with German Lutheran princes so they had some protestant undertones in the ten articles. the 1539 Articles, six or so they had, were more Calvinistic by design. In Edward's day the 42 articles Cranmer cooked up in the basement were uber-Calvinistic, protestant all the way. Then down the road Matthew Parker tamed them down a touch with a twist of Elizabethan middle-way political brokering. I thought, "is this the sign of a legitimate catholic church that it deviates back and forth between extreme calvinism and quasi-catholic sacramentary theology?" I needed Dramamine from the shifts in position. It was like watching the Democrats with the health care bill and their back-and-forths spinning me silly.

And the process was so political, for obvious reasons, that I fail to see how Christ Jesus can ever be political. The 39 Articles were mandatory and one had to adhere to them in 1571 after it was made a legal requirement and then the Test Act made it mandatory for civil servants to follow the 39 Articles to keep their jobs in the late 1600's. Priests and other clergy are required to agree with the 39 Articles in the Church of England though many deviate.

The 39 Articles are the closest thing to a coherent Anglican statement of faith, theology, and praxis and yet even the articles are considered, "hey, if you like it, follow it, if you don't, don't!" It's wishy-washy just like the "all may, some should, none must" confession approach. It's like tofu. You can never tell really what this faith tastes like?

Anglo-Catholics give the wabbly statement that the 39 Articles were just political or optional or never normative/important anyway in order to Catholicize themselves and behave like Catholics. Evangelicals disregard the 39 Articles when ordaining women and the Episcopal Church disregards all the articles and the Bible itself. A religion based on a political settlement and debate is spooky and tough to grab onto. I can only imagine being a part of a religion that has had Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi putting their mark on it. Terrifying! And really the monarchs and parliament of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries were no better!

[Usbek de Perse]

Originally Posted by GKC

The Book of Divine Worship is a slightly revised version of the BCP; Rite I of the 1979 Book. The 1928 Book would have been better.

GKC

Agreet on 1928! My ECUSA church does the majority of its services from 1928, and our modern service is Rite 1 of 1979.

This may be an interesting stumbling block for British Anglicans.

I am not sure that British Anglicans will like a derivation from the US prayerbook.

The US Prayerbook was derived from the BCP of the Scottish Episcopal Church. A significant difference is in the Prayer of Consecration. In the US 1979 BCP, the sequence is Sermon, Creed, "Prayers of the People", General Confession and General Absolution, and the Peace. Next you have the offertory, and the Sanctus followed by Prayer of Consecration and the "humble mumble" (we are not worthy so much as to gather the crumbs from under thy table....), followed by distribution of the elements.

In the C of E, they do the Consecration, then the General Confession and Absolution, humble mumble, and epiclesis. In my opinion, its all higgeldy-piggeldy. But that is how the 1662 prayerbook has it.

[gurneyhalleck1]

I like Wikipedia, yes, but most of my Anglican history has come from "The Cleaving of Christendom" by Warren Carroll, The Study of Anglicanism by Sykes and Booty, A History of the Church in England by Moorman, and a few other books like the MacCullough book on the Reformation and the Thomas Cranmer one, both of which I've read. I use Wikipedia mostly at school with my students for projects, etc.

The fact that there is Geneva-style Reformed taint in any of the Articles or in Anglican teachings should be troubling, period. Debating the finer points is perfectly ok with me but the overall point I'm trying to make is that the 39 Articles are riddled with Protestantism, with a dash of liturgy thrown in. The heart of what it means to be an Anglican is protestant. And the idea that the Church of England must abide by the Articles but the rest of the Anglican world didn't care is a thin one in my book---a cheesy way for anglo-catholics to convince themselves that they're catholics and not protestant. Doesn't wash with me. The 39 Articles are the core of Anglican belief, not just the CofE. That's just rationalizing. The Church in America was very respectful to the articles and there are sermons about them outside the British Isles that can be found and read extolling their importance. And many Anglicans in the current "realignment" will tout them as the heart and soul of Anglican ethos. I think they are as well. If they are not, then what is? The closest thing to coherent theology and belief I've seen in Anglicanism is the articles. To ignore them is a buffet mentality....debating which ones were Reformed or how many there were at each juncture is immaterial to me. The overall point is the fact that anglo-catholics choose to ignore them. To ignore them is to ignore what Anglicanism really is...protestant through and through.

Originally Posted by GKC

You've been in Wiki, haven't you? I recommend something more like A.C. Jennings ECCLESIA ANGLICANA

Too long to deal with the day before Christmas. But...find me something Calvinistic in the 6 Articles (The Bloody Whip with 6 Strings). I dare you. For that matter, point out teh Calvinism in the 10.

The 42 were originally 45, in Cranmer's draft; his attempt to shove things as far over reformed as he could. And were offered, but not adopted by Convocation, during Edward's reign; the most reformed period in the CoE.

The 39 were Elizabethan fiddling with the 42, moving away from more Calvinistic positions; Elizabeth struck one out herself. The first form of them was 38, one was restored a few years later, after ELizabeth's excommunication.

And all were aimed at the current religious issues of the day; the 10, the 6 and THE KING'S BOOK being more or less Henry's thoughts (esp. the 6). The 42 being Cranmerian, the 39 an attempt to balance (the Elizabethan via media the CoE between the perceived excesses of both scholasticism, and, more pressingly, that Calvinistic fervor, on the part of the clergy. For whom the Articles were binding, and for no one else. Outside the CoE they are binding on none who do not affirm them. And, I warrant, I could find some Articles that you would affirm.

Do try to remember the distinction between Anglicanim, and the CoE. Only one is Erastian, and can pass laws, requiring stuff.

And you missed the 13, and the 11.

Merry Christmas.

GKC

[GKC]

The heart of Anglicanism includes the Articles. For those Anglicans who affirm the Articles. Which, in part, as I said, you do too. For those Anglicans who do not affirm the Articles (per se), they are historical documents. The heart of Anglicanism, tout court, are the Creeds and the Anglican liturgical expressions. It will do you no good to try to foist these Articles upon us. We do not accept them. Some of them have a Geneva-style Reformed taint to them. Happened a lot, back in the day. Can't be having that.

Moorman is good. So is Wakeman or Carpenter. Sykes I don't know.

And also, Hodie Christus Natus Est, frater. Try and argue with that one.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1

I like Wikipedia, yes, but most of my Anglican history has come from "The Cleaving of Christendom" by Warren Carroll, The Study of Anglicanism by Sykes and Booty, A History of the Church in England by Moorman, and a few other books like the MacCullough book on the Reformation and the Thomas Cranmer one, both of which I've read. I use Wikipedia mostly at school with my students for projects, etc.

The fact that there is Geneva-style Reformed taint in any of the Articles or in Anglican teachings should be troubling, period. Debating the finer points is perfectly ok with me but the overall point I'm trying to make is that the 39 Articles are riddled with Protestantism, with a dash of liturgy thrown in. The heart of what it means to be an Anglican is protestant. And the idea that the Church of England must abide by the Articles but the rest of the Anglican world didn't care is a thin one in my book---a cheesy way for anglo-catholics to convince themselves that they're catholics and not protestant. Doesn't wash with me. The 39 Articles are the core of Anglican belief, not just the CofE. That's just rationalizing. The Church in America was very respectful to the articles and there are sermons about them outside the British Isles that can be found and read extolling their importance. And many Anglicans in the current "realignment" will tout them as the heart and soul of Anglican ethos. I think they are as well. If they are not, then what is? The closest thing to coherent theology and belief I've seen in Anglicanism is the articles. To ignore them is a buffet mentality....debating which ones were Reformed or how many there were at each juncture is immaterial to me. The overall point is the fact that anglo-catholics choose to ignore them. To ignore them is to ignore what Anglicanism really is...protestant through and through.

[gurneyhalleck1]

Usually your reason and logic are outstanding but here is the one big chink in your Anglican armor where you always try to insert a square peg into a circlular one. It makes little sense. "Foist upon thee?" Not at all. The Articles were not just historical documents. I suppose a Calvinist that doesn't want to stick to his religion could say the Westminister Confession is just icing on the cake or window dressing, optional. Or a Lutheran could say the Large and Small catechisms are paltry and the Augsburgh Confession a trifle. The articles were the closest thing Anglicanism ever got to a confession of faith and doctrine. To disregard the Articles, which I find absurd, shows a desire to take a denomination that is already bereft of any hard doctrine or beliefs and try to trim off even more coherent confessional truths to the point that it's a completely fill in the blank comfort zone religion. Some regularly argue on the internet that they're no longer legally binding to the Anglican and that they are just inspirational or historical pieces. I always wonder at what point these important guideposts became optional. I always thought the Articles were ‘for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true religion’. Apparently at some point avoiding diversities of opinions ceased to be a worry and a myriad of contradictions became en vogue.

I notice that evangelical Anglicans have little problem with the Articles and they respect them. And for that I do have my own respect for vangies in Anglicanism. But the anglo-catholics who admire the Tractarian Oxford dons hate the protestant roots of their religion, want to convince themselves that they catholics and the Articles represent a stumbling block. Like the Democrat who loves gun control feels when he sees the second amendment. Bottom line is what amount of importance do the Articles play? None? Some? Cafeteria buffet? Why would the Cranmerian articles have been brokered into the 39 with such care to navigate a via media between extremist reformed theology and hard right Catholic sacramentarian views? Since the 39 Articles are the said code of the via media, rejecting them is rejecting the notion of the via media. .

If they are "just" historical documents, that's fine, too. The history of these articles points to the reformed tradition and protestant theology overall. It points to a church that rejected the very pillars of the anglo-catholic ethos. Even if they are no longer valid or useful it shows the truth of Anglicanism's past. And it gives more fuel to the fire that Anglican orders, if they did have proper or passingly-decent form, really did have a reformed protestant intent behind them and thus a misunderstanding of what the Mass and the sacraments really were. The articles are revealing and prove the chain links that link Anglicanism in 2009 to Anglicanism in the 16th Century are rusty ones indeed.

Part of the problem is the "it depends on whom you ask!" answer that Anglicans readily use, which I feel is a cop-out. JI Packer has described Anglicanism as catholic, canonical, creedal and comprehensive. Packer claims that the Articles help keep the canonical nature of Anglicanism in tact.

Stephen Sykes, John Booty, and Jonathan Knight's modern classic "The Study of Anglicanism" says, "Led by the Holy Spirit, she has borne witness to Christian truth in her historic formularies The Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles of Religion..." For these Anglican scholars the Articles are inspired by the Holy Spirit. And when I have read numerous old sermons and writings from Project Canterbury I have read the same sentiment from many other important Anglicans. My own rector and bishop certainly would've had a seizure if you told them the Articles are just nice historical memorabilia for the museum of Hooker and Andrewes.

As I said before, the Church of England uses fealty to the Articles as part of the ordination oaths to be taken. Some anglo-catholics argue, "well heck, the Articles are part of a priest's life, they are optional for lay folks." That argument is thin as rice paper to me. Am I to believe that a priest of a parish must believe Article IV of the resurrection of Christ but his congregation can disregard it? Only in Anglicanism would the lay folks and the priest be expected to have different theology.

And why is the Book of Common Prayer so sacrosanct in Anglican circles, treated like a holy book itself, and yet the very Articles that lay within its pages are just historical? The Bible is also historical and secularists constantly take that angle. Anglicans, of the liberal persuasion, will allow a female to be ordained or a couple of gays to get married at their church but if someone recommends changing anything in the BOCP he'll get mobbed and hanged. I just wonder why one historical book is hands-off while another important code of faith is just window-dressing and an anglo-catholic would passionately get angry that a person is 'foisting' the Articles on him just by indicating that those Articles should be abided by the faithful Anglican?

I would agree that there is a "taint" on the Articles. I would say also that the "taint" is still there and has never left not just the Articles but the Anglican Church's reasoning and illicit worship. Newman came to the conclusion that the church he was in was not catholic no matter how much he powdered it with incense, Latin, confessionals and Marian devotion. History is a part of what it means to be a catholic (small c) so to see a Reformed taint on the Articles and Anglican teachings in general should lead one not to continue to just surgically remove the ugly warts but to bail on the whole cancer...

As for the Hodie Christus Natus Est, frater unto us the Christ is born, brother, I don't see the puzzle? Some sort of Latin type of calculating pi? 3.14....
[

[GKC]

If you regard it absurd to recognize what the Articles were, historical documents formulated to address the theological issues of the day, primarily for political purposes, pray do so. And the Articles were not statements of required beliefs, they were statements of the limits of what it was permitted to teach. By, in essence, the government of England. Hence their application to those civil servants, the clergy of the CoE.

And also recall that (as I say, occasionally) I don't try to make anyone think like an Anglican. Merely to show how an Anglican can think. And, by the same token, I am unlikely to be instructed by a non-Anglican, as to what an Anglican can believe.Or, by any, Anglicans included, as to what an Anglican must believe, outside the Creeds. My interest in what others think of what Anglo-Catholics think, of the Articles is not infinitely elastic.

As to Hodie...have you googled it?

GKC