Uh...nobody allied with anybody, and it's not an Anglo-Catholic principle. Not sure where you're coming from here?
Stalwart, I would really appreciate any comments you have on my new thread: Article XIX. Of the Church & Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church. This is probably the best place to answer the issue of the Church to avoid derailing this thread.
Just because some Anglicans in the Communion invoke saints doesn't make it an Anglican practice. Some Anglicans allow lay people to consecrate the elements in Communion, that doesn't make lay celebration an Anglican thing. Some Anglicans "marry" sam-sex couples, that doesn't make same-sex blessings an Anglican thing. Saying "Anglicans do X, therefore X is a sound practice" is a silly argument. You've got to prove from our authoritative sources that it's an acceptable practice.
I agree. [Edited to add: Hackney, would you also comment on my thread: Article XIX. Of the Church & Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church.] Thanks, Anna
What I find just totally bizarre in some of the arguments being used is that we can look at the other articles and they related to a subject and then go onto to talk about that subject: - article number - subject - article text So in the quote below number 1 is about Faith in the Holy Trinity and the text relates to where the article describes faith in the Holy Trinity... So we go on through the articles and we see the same pattern, but when we get to the article 22. On Purgatory that then becomes a broad statement and not one pertaining to Purgatory.... :think: I might sound like a broken record here, but sorry I just don't get where some of you are coming from..... maybe the rule of life about simplicity with me is causing some kind of logic fog.....
Hackney, I thought you'd be the first to answer the questions in the thread: Article XIX. Of the Church & Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church. Since you are a defender of the 39 Articles, your comments are very important in the discussion. I look forward to hearing from you. Anna
Anglicanism forbids the invocation of Saints? Read "A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine .." Google Books, pg 178. Bishop Brett in his correspondence with the Orthodox Bishops says, " We cannot doubt of their,(the saints,) praying for us. And, if they pray for us, is it unlawful for us to pray that God would hear their prayers for us?" Is it a corruption in a liturgy to have such a petition in it? "I can by no means think so!".......The Apostle speaking of our praying one for another, adds,' that the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much; Now I cannot doubt their effectual fervent prayer for their brethren on earth availeth much; consequently , that it is lawfulfor any private Christian, or any congregation of Christians to pray that prayers may be available to them in this particular. We know well that there is but one Mediator betwixt God and man, the man Jesus Christ; but then we know also that this must be understood of one mediator of Redemption, because God has so often commanded us to pray for one for another, that is to be intercessors or mediators of intercession for others. There are many other Bishops of undoubted probity mentioned, stalwart Anglicans who lived in an age when the Church fought against Dissenters on both sides, Roman & Protestant, to preserve the truth, to establish clarity and preserve the faith. Archbishop Bramhall, Thorndyke, Forbes of Edinburgh and a load of others. As for the 39 Articles? They were again, only a line drawn in the sand beyond which the wild men were advised not to travel. Our faith comes from antiquity it is the distillation of two thousand years of Catholic teaching or belief. .Owing to an overdose of strong tea, this was posted on a wrong site,or thread, I apologise!
Brett was a Non-Juror. I'd be interested in seeing any quotes from Bramhall. Here's another piece from Bishop Hall of Norwich http://books.google.com/books?id=vR...ge&q=joseph hall invocation of saints&f=false
Read the wiki Article on the history 39 Articles ...very interesting. It would appear from the history that perhaps XXII is a ban on invocation of the saints on the whole as opposed to just when discussing purgatory. Although it did seem to go back and forth at the beginning of the split from Rome. On a side note if one was to look at Wesley's/Methodists Article of Religion it appears he/they were referring to the general sense of invocation of the saints. Wesley was an Anglican himself.
Hackney, The problem is that not even all the sites you link on your blog agree with your interpretation of Article XXII., or even the history behind it. You have a link to Conciliar Anglican who does not agree that Article XXII. forbids invocation of the Saints. That's why I asked how you "vet" those you link in your blog, to which you gave no answer. Edited to correct Article number from XIV to XXII. Of Purgatory (thank you Gordon )
I must have missed something I didn't think Article XIV had anything to do with the invocation of Saints.
I wasn't trying to be snide at all my point is that there is not only one way to interpret the 39 Articles and that has been proven many times over the centuries since their inception. You can bring out all the quotes by different people in favour of your interpretation and as we have seen HighChurchman can bring out all the quotes by different people who favour your interpretation. I am concerned though that you find it necessary to attack people who don't agree with you.
You have outlined exactly my point none of us see the same thing in exactly the same way or read the same thing and get from it exactly the same thing. Everything we experience through our senses if filtered by our upbringing, our belief system, our culture, am I in a good mood today, am I in not such a good mood today etc. etc. etc. It is exactly the same thing I have been saying to brother Consular - 'the truth is the truth no matter what you, I or anyone else believes is the truth... and you post pretty much highlights exactly that. PS... based on my reading of Article XXII my faculty of reason indicates to me that the authors meant the invocation of Saints to buy time off in a place 'Purgatory' that we don't believe in is forbidden in the church.
If both accept the Articles as binding; it is the interpretation of the Articles that will cause a difference in "adherence." Since you and Hackney have made such an issue of the importance of the Articles; I'm really trying to understand their meaning and importance. Yet, getting a direct answer to my questions seems next to impossible. I've pretty much given up on getting any help with my questions on Article XIX. Of the Church & Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
Gordon, You are right. Thanks for catching that. I just corrected my post. It should be Article XXII. Of Purgatory. At least someone is reading my posts. Thanks, Gordon, Anna