Are you an Anglican?

[EvAng]

Do you consider yourself an Anglican? Which of these do you adhere to?

[Colabomb]

you forgot the poll.

[EvAng]

you forgot the poll.

Whilst you were posting this I was creating the poll :)

[Colabomb]

:p

[Wigglesworth]

Do you consider yourself an Anglican? Which of these do you adhere to?

I'm not an Anglican, so I didn't vote in the poll. I do adhere to the creeds.

The [Polish National Catholic] Church recognizes the four (4) ecumenical creeds. These creeds are those which are held in common by the Greek, Latin, and Evangelical Protestant Churches. These four commonly held ecumenical creeds are: the Apostles' Creed; the Nicene Creed; the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed.

From: Creeds of the Church (http://bvmc.org/history/creeds.html)

[Secundulus]

Since I am the only one so far who has voted against the 39 articles I will be specific. I disagree with this one and think it is a gross oversimplification that trivializes what was originally the center of Christian worship.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

[Inside Edge]

It's a bit of an odd question given the breadth of Anglican experience. I adhere to the creeds; but I'm pretty sure me and someone like Contra have a different understanding of what it means to adhere to the creeds.

And depending completely on your interpretation/slant of the articles, I may or may not agree with them (in their entirety).

I do attend an Anglican Church regularly; I am an involved member of my parish; I recently went through the Confirmation process; and regardless of the answer to any of those questions, I would consider myself Anglican.

[Fish and Bread]

I forgot to do multiple checks while voting, so my vote is a bit off. Is this really necessary anyhow? What's the point?

[EvAng]

What's the point?

The point is to find out how best to define "Anglican" since PV wishes to exclude all non-nicene Anglicans from STR.

I would love for you to be able to post in STR. :hug:

Thanks for your input.

[Fish and Bread]

The point is to find out how best to define "Anglican" since PV wishes to exclude all non-nicene Anglicans from STR.

I would love for you to be able to post in STR. :hug:

Thanks for your input.
Thank you. I appreciate that. :) I guess I am a little touchy about the situation. I'll be really relieved when this process is finished and we can get on to discussing Christian/Anglican topics. :)

[Diane_Windsor]

Other---I just like voting in polls :P

[Colabomb]

Other---I just like voting in polls :P

:P

[karen freeinchristman]

Other---I just like voting in polls :P
:D You trouble-maker, you!

btw - I love your avatar! :thumbsup:

[AngCath]

What if one agrees with the Apostles and Nicene Creed but disagrees with the Athanasian (which is a theologically Western Creed and STR has several EO leaning members)?

[EvAng]

What if one agrees with the Apostles and Nicene Creed but disagrees with the Athanasian (which is a theologically Western Creed and STR has several EO leaning members)?

Then they can post their position. This is not a poll to decide anything official but just one to see the make up of STR at the moment.

[PaladinValer]

The point is to find out how best to define "Anglican" since PV wishes to exclude all non-nicene Anglicans from STR.

Where?

I want you to quote me saying that. Otherwise, I want a formal retraction and recantation out of you. This is slander and I will not tolerate it.

[Colabomb]

Evang, PV and I chat on IM (I'd like to add you as well btw if you have one) and I can assure you it is not his wish to kick all non-nicene Christians off the board.

What he wants (and it is debatable how workable this is), is to give debating Rights only to nicene Christians, and giving debating privilages to non-nicenes.

While I do not think it works as well as he says it does, I can assure you his goals are not so nefarious.

[Colabomb]

And PV, please calm down a little. Calling for a formal recantation can only inflame the situation.

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

I've heard a lot of people in STR say they disagree with the 39 articles, but I wonder what percentage of the Communion agrees/disagrees with the 39 articles?

[RadixLecti]

Where?

I want you to quote me saying that. Otherwise, I want a formal retraction and recantation out of you. This is slander and I will not tolerate it.
It's technically not "slander" although it may be "libel" ;) :D.

[ebia]

I've heard a lot of people in STR say they disagree with the 39 articles, but I wonder what percentage of the Communion agrees/disagrees with the 39 articles?
I wonder how many people in the pews have actually read them, or figured out what they are saying. I suspect to most people they are a quaint historical bit in difficult langage at the back of the prayerbook.

FWIW, I didn't vote on the 39, only on the creeds. I don't think the 39 reduces well to a yes/no answer. I'm more than happy with most of them, while recognising that some are very much a product of circumstances of their time. However, I can't honestly say I'm happy with all of them. Does anyone take all of them seriously - eg 35 - or do we all interpret/ignore the ones that don't fit anymore.

[PaladinValer]

Evang, PV and I chat on IM (I'd like to add you as well btw if you have one) and I can assure you it is not his wish to kick all non-nicene Christians off the board.

Thank you for defending me and proclaiming the truth.

What he wants (and it is debatable how workable this is), is to give debating Rights only to nicene Christians, and giving debating privilages to non-nicenes.

Which could only happen if I believed that non-Nicenes should become members. And I do, just not full members.

While I do not think it works as well as he says it does, I can assure you his goals are not so nefarious.

Oh it can work; the bugs just need to be worked out.

And PV, please calm down a little. Calling for a formal recantation can only inflame the situation.

Perhaps there's a reason why I did?

It's technically not "slander" although it may be "libel" ;) :D.

Same thing in meaning :P

[Albion]

Since I am the only one so far who has voted against the 39 articles I will be specific. I disagree with this one and think it is a gross oversimplification that trivializes what was originally the center of Christian worship.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Hmmm. That's one that I appreciate the most.

We all disavow the Roman idea of Transubstantiation, don't we? Well then, that's not an issue.

So, do the elements cease to be bread and wine? I don't think so, which is what this is saying. It does not reject Real Presence at all, although some people seem to think that this is the meaning.

And then, the idea of not worshipping with the host APART FROM the liturgy. That seems eminently prudent and a guard against idolatry, little different from how the last Ecumenical Council had to distinguish between images as idols and images as inducements to devotion.

Well, that's just another viewpoint presented, nothing intended to start a long discussion.

[DeoJuvante]

We all disavow the Roman idea of Transubstantiation, don't we?
Er, no.


So, do the elements cease to be bread and wine?
Don't know; don't care. Declaring that they do or don't seems completely unnecessary and takes the focus off of the Real Presence, which is the most important thing about the Eucharist.

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

I wonder how many people in the pews have actually read them, or figured out what they are saying. I suspect to most people they are a quaint historical bit in difficult langage at the back of the prayerbook.
.

Good point.

[Albion]

I wonder how many people in the pews have actually read them, or figured out what they are saying. I suspect to most people they are a quaint historical bit in difficult langage at the back of the prayerbook.

That's what their detractors have told them repeatedly, but I think more people are aware of the Articles than what is supposed to be an improvement over them, i.e. the Ecumenical Councils, some strained "branch theory" of catholicity, or the Tracts for the Times from which every Anglo-Catholic thinks he's taking his marching orders, except that he's never read them.
;)

[SirTimothy]

I'm generally happy with the 39 articles. Also the creeds. My main objection to the 39 articles is article 35. I have NO clue what the second book of Homilies says, thus I'm not sure I'm willing to give my assent to it.

[Colabomb]

And I believe in a broader canon.

I can submit to a notion of predestination, depending on the definition. But I won't accept Calvinistic Predestination.

[SirTimothy]

Meh. The canon of the 39 articles I can accept. I can accept the article on predestination, so long as I'm not required to interpret it the Calvinist way.

[Secundulus]

I have read and also understood the articles. I actually agree on the more Calvanistic ones such as the one on pre-destination. I just don't totally agree on what it says about the Eucharist.

[Secundulus]

I'm generally happy with the 39 articles. Also the creeds. My main objection to the 39 articles is article 35. I have NO clue what the second book of Homilies says, thus I'm not sure I'm willing to give my assent to it.

Here are the Homilies.

http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/index.htm

[Albion]

Meh. The canon of the 39 articles I can accept. I can accept the article on predestination, so long as I'm not required to interpret it the Calvinist way.

Read that article very carefully, Timothy. You'll find that it carefully avoids the orthodox Calvinist view. This has been attested to by some of the most Protestant, Evangelical Anglican bishops around.

[SirTimothy]

Read that article very carefully, Timothy. You'll find that it carefully avoids the orthodox Calvinist view. This has been attested to by some of the most Protestant, Evangelical Anglican bishops around.

I agree. Like I said, so long as I'm not required to add extra interpretation onto it, I'm very happy with asserting that it is valid doctrine. I do have issues with one or two of the interpretations of it which read far deeper into the text, which I have seen posted here as the 'true interpretation of the article on predestination' here.

[Albion]

I agree. Like I said, so long as I'm not required to add extra interpretation onto it, I'm very happy with asserting that it is valid doctrine. I do have issues with one or two of the interpretations of it which read far deeper into the text, which I have seen posted here as the 'true interpretation of the article on predestination' here.

I understand, but I can't imagine being asked to read anything more into it! The usual plea that we Evangelicals make is just the reverse--DON'T read into the Articles a la Cardinal Newman, but just take them in their normal, customary, and obvious meaning. In this case, the way you are reading is apparently the normal way, but you know that the title of that particular article tends to make people decide what's in it before reading carefully. Not so with some of the others.

[PaladinValer]

EvAng, I am still waiting for you to quote me saying such.

[ebia]

That's what their detractors have told them repeatedly, but I think more people are aware of the Articles than what is supposed to be an improvement over them, i.e. the Ecumenical Councils, some strained "branch theory" of catholicity, or the Tracts for the Times from which every Anglo-Catholic thinks he's taking his marching orders, except that he's never read them.
;)
Quite possibly.

[ebia]

To the Americans who are happy to affirm the 39 - is the slightly modified 39 in your prayerbook that you affirm, or the one that appears in the English 1662?

[Colabomb]

I guess they would affirm the altered, as most of them don't have much use for the queen lol.

[AveMaria]

I guess they would affirm the altered, as most of them don't have much use for the queen lol.

Well, she does wear some lovely hats . . . :)

[Albion]

To the Americans who are happy to affirm the 39 - is the slightly modified 39 in your prayerbook that you affirm, or the one that appears in the English 1662?

You say "slightly altered," which I'd agree is correct, but you ask as though it is not slight. Whatever, I'd answer that it's the American version that is affirmed, obviously, but that the differences are so small that I can't imagine it being much of an issue. Other than the omission of the Athanasian creed in the article on creeds, there are a couple of changes of a political nature that no one could consider retaining. Because one of those was the whole of one of the articles, however, it would be fair to say that we only have 38 articles (if you don't count the explanation about removing it which constitutes the new article)!

[ebia]

You say "slightly altered," which I'd agree is correct, but you ask as though it is not slight. Whatever, I'd answer that it's the American version that is affirmed, obviously, but that the differences are so small that I can't imagine it being much of an issue. Other than the omission of the Athanasian creed in the article on creeds, there are a couple of changes of a political nature that no one could consider retaining. Because one of those was the whole of one of the articles, however, it would be fair to say that we only have 38 articles (if you don't count the explanation about removing it which constitutes the new article)!
I agree that the changes aren't exactly affecting core doctine but:
a. when you ask anyone outside the US to affirm the articles in their entity, then they are being asked to affirm those political statements, which haven't been removed even here.
b. can we ignore the other articles which are clearly very much about their time (eg the one about homilies)?
c. the fact that one part of the communion has a sligly different set of articles and nobody much notices kind of undermines the idea that they are an absolute requirement of anglicanism. (I've rewritten that point about 4 times and I still can't get it to say what I want - hopefully you get the gist.)

[Albion]

I agree that the changes aren't exactly affecting core doctine but:
a. when you ask anyone outside the US to affirm the articles in their entity, then they are being asked to affirm those political statements, which haven't been removed even here.
b. can we ignore the other articles which are clearly very much about their time (eg the one about homilies)?
c. the fact that one part of the communion has a sligly different set of articles and nobody much notices kind of undermines the idea that they are an absolute requirement of anglicanism. (I've rewritten that point about 4 times and I still can't get it to say what I want - hopefully you get the gist.)

You've raised some good points and I hope short answers will do (since I've already messed up and lost the posting of better ones).

I would assume that it has to be the country of one's own church we are talking about. As I understand it, the differences the world over are few and not very critical. In the case of the article about the homilies, that article itself states that it is for that time. No other one does. This means that people who try to justify dismissing the articles altoghether because they allegedly, were meant for that time only when they clearly do not say that except with the homilies usage, are not speaking with the facts on their side. On that particular issue you raised about "entirety" when there are indeed slight differences, perhaps we'll have to put it to the critics in a different way. I'd never thought of it as you brought it up here.

[AngCath]

It seems I have neglected to vote!

I agree with the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds

I abstained from the rest.

[ebia]

You've raised some good points and I hope short answers will do (since I've already messed up and lost the posting of better ones).

I would assume that it has to be the country of one's own church we are talking about. As I understand it, the differences the world over are few and not very critical. In the case of the article about the homilies, that article itself states that it is for that time. No other one does. This means that people who try to justify dismissing the articles altoghether because they allegedly, were meant for that time only when they clearly do not say that except with the homilies usage, are not speaking with the facts on their side. On that particular issue you raised about "entirety" when there are indeed slight differences, perhaps we'll have to put it to the critics in a different way. I'd never thought of it as you brought it up here.
Thanks.

Does anyone know - are there any provinces except the TEC/ECUSA where the articles are not as they appear in the 1662?

[SirTimothy]

Thanks.

Does anyone know - are there any provinces except the TEC/ECUSA where the articles are not as they appear in the 1662?
Now here's for a fun fact, my province does not have its own authorised prayer book, so we use a mix of 1979 BCP (TEC), CW (UK), and BCP (1662), so theoretically, BOTH sets of articles are authorised...