Then how can you explain the fact that the Church had no anarchy during the Classical period, when the Articles were upheld as mandatory, the post-Chalcedonian councils were dismissed, and the "Holy Tradition" was rejected as a fiction? Or the presence of anarchy today, when there's people coming in with Roman Catholic influences similar to yours, while the Articles are neglected? I'd say that the current time, when the Romans are coming in with an alien theology, and our native Articles are neglected, is the prime example of anarchy.
Umm, perhps it had something to do with the Tower of London and enforcement of the Acts of Uniformity? I think there was releative unity in the Patristic Era even without the Articles.
This is the Solemn Declaration of 1893 which ANiC upholds SOLEMN DECLARATION 1893 IN the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. WE, the Bishops, together with the Delegates from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, now assembled in the first General Synod, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration: WE declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders; and worship One God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth. And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in his Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in 'The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons'; and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.
I have Roman Catholic influences? This is surprising news to me, lol. Other than saying that I attended a rather Anglo-Catholic parish while being a member of the United Methodist Church growing up, I don't think I've said anything remotely Roman Catholic. Given my stated stance on transubstantiation, the pope, baptismal regeneration, and the supremacy of Holy Scripture over tradition, I doubt the Roman Catholics would consider me a very good member of their camp. Isn't it funny how we paint our opponents as our nearest and dearest boogeymen regardless of what they ascribe to, I think it says more about our own beliefs (and prejudices) than it does about our opponents. I have nothing particularly against Roman Catholics, much less against Anglo-catholics (which are not the same thing you know), I just don't think they characterize where I am in my faith at this time. But call me what you like, I've been called much worse
Sorry my friend LL, I did not mean to put a label on you. It's just that concepts like the Holy Tradition, and the Seven Councils, exist solely in the Roman world, and enter the Anglican world solely through the efforts of the so-called Anglo-Catholics, who are really attempting to live a roman theology within the Anglican Church. That has always been their orientation since the beginning of their existence in the mid-19th century. Neither of those concepts are valid or hold water within Anglicanism proper. My goal was to point that out, not to address or infringe on you personally, so if you feel I've insulted you, I sincerely and truly apologize. My wish is that we break our proud hearts and submit ourselves humbly to the church. First of all, why did the Church even have Acts of uniformity, if it was inherently chaotic and designed for a-theological 'comprehension' as Celtic1 would have? You can see that it never wanted any such thing and unity was firmly and relentlessly enforced; chaos and anarchy being a modern development, and a result of non-enforcement. Non-enforcement, therefore, is a bad thing. Secondly, there was always room for other beliefs in England. It was legal to be a Roman until Romans started trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament, and it became again under the Act of Toleration, a feat which neither the Roman church, nor the Puritans at Salem, had accomplished. It was also always legal to be a non-conformist. Acts of Uniformity applied only to the Church proper. Just wanted to point that out. That's beautiful CA, I did not know the Church issued such a declaration and so close to our time. It is a truly wonderful Statement.
My friend highchurchman, Yes that was under Henry VIII, when we also saw a promotion of transubstantiation and other Roman views. Because Henry VIII was a Roman catholic until his death. Nobody can cite documents from Henry's era as supportive of Anglican theology. In the Convocation of 1571/1572, the only thing that was stated was that nothing had to be taught but was was held by the early fathers and ancient bishops. Which referred to the Patristic Era, and thus neatly correlates with the Four Councils. It couldn't have referred to Nicea II for example, because no theologians from the time of Nicea II (8th century) were generally referred to in the Anglican church as 'early fathers and ancient bishops'. If the Convocation has explicitly endorsed the whole Seven in some place that I missed, please cite the passage. Additionally, in the Articles we see that the Councils are not viewed as independent, but as subservient to Scripture. Instead of following a Holy Tradition that is parallel to and apart from Scripture, they subjected all to Scripture, by the judgment of which, many provisions of the later Councils are invalid. Thomas More died a commited roman catholic, loyal to the pope. Not sure why you quote him.
In the Convocation of 1571/1572, the only thing that was stated was that nothing had to be taught but was was held by the early fathers and ancient bishops. Which referred to the Patristic Era, and thus neatly correlates with the Four Councils. It couldn't have referred to Nicea II for example, because no theologians from the time of Nicea II (8th century) were generally referred to in the Anglican church as 'early fathers and ancient bishops'. If the Convocation has explicitly endorsed the whole Seven in some place that I missed, please cite the passage [/quote]. Richard Field on ECUMENICAL COUNCILS Most Anglicans have heard of Richard Hooker, author of Ecclesiastical Polity, and one of the great books of the Anglican Way. Not so many have heard of a personal friend of Hooker, Richard Field, who also wrote one of the great books of the Anglican Way, under the title Of the Church (1606-1610). In the Fifth Book in Of the Church (xlviii-lii) this learned author deals with Church Councils and, apart from desiring to confirm the Reformed Catholic Faith of Anglicans, he seeks also to answer the criticisms of Puritans and Roman Catholics. With respect to the first seven Councils of the Church he wrote: “…..therefore it is not to be marveled at if Gregory [the Great] profess that he honoureth the first four Councils as the Four Gospels; and that whosoever admitteth them not, though he seem to be a stone elect and precious, yet he lieth beside the foundation and out of the building. Of this sort there are only six; the First (Nicea I) defining the Son of God to be coessential, coeternal and coequal with the Father. The Second (Constantinople I, 391) defining that the Holy Ghost is truly God, coessential, coeternal and coequal with the Father and the Son. The Third (Ephesus 431), the unity of Christ’s person. The Fourth (Chalcedon 451), the distinction and diversity of His natures, in and after the personal union. The Fifth (Constantinople II, 553), condemning some remains of Nestorianism, more fully explaining things stumbled at in the Council of Chalcedon…. And the Sixth (Constantinople III, 680-1), defining and clearing the distinction of operations, actions, powers and wills in Christ, according to the diversity of His natures. These were all the lawful General Councils (lawful I say both in their beginning, and proceeding, and continuance) that ever were holden in the Christian Church touching matters of faith. For the Seventh, which is Nicea II, was not called about any question of faith, but of manners; in which our adversaries confess that there may be something inconveniently prescribed, and so as to be the occasion of great and grievous evils; and surely that is our conceit of the Seventh General Council, Nicea II; for howsoever it condemn the religious adoration and worshipping of pictures and seem to allow no other use of them but that which is historical, yet in permitting men by outward signs of reverence and respect towards the pictures of saints to express their love towards them, and the desire they have of enjoying their happy society, and in condemning so bitterly such as upon dislike of abuses wished there might be no pictures in the Church at all, it may seem to have given some occasion and have opened up the way unto that grow idolatry which afterwards entered into the Church.” Field then goes on to argue that there are no other General Councils rightly so-called. Obviously to get the full meaning of Field here we need to be sure we know how he used such expressions as – “inconveniently prescribed” and “our conceit.” But what is clear is that like his famous contemporaries ( Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes) and many divines to follow them, he had a great respect for the first Four Councils, highly regarded the next two, and was cautious about the Seventh. Peter Toon Prayer Book Society! [/quote] Additionally, in the Articles we see that the Councils are not viewed as independent, but as subservient to Scripture. Instead of following a Holy Tradition that is parallel to and apart from Scripture, they subjected all to Scripture, by the judgment of which, many provisions of the later Councils are invalid.[/quote] When did I ever say that the Councils were not viewed as independent, the Seven Councils interpret, explain and complete scripture. Should we leave them to be interpreted by everyone at his will! The base of our faith is Christ's revelation to the saints, i.e. the apostolic college and the first bishops. All the Councils consist of are bishops and their clergy! By the way, if you delve in to the State papers (Trials.) You will find that Cranmer and at least one other of the the reformation Martyrs affirmed the Councils before they died , it is most likely all three did.! Bramhall said,' We admit genuine ,universal Apostolical Traditions, such as the Apostles Creed.'. [/quote]Thomas More died a commited roman catholic, loyal to the pope. Not sure why you quote him.[/quote] Again you are talking rubbish, as C.B. Moss tells us in his masterly book, "The Christian Faith," 'Roman Catholic should properly only be used of the Roman Communion after Trent.' [Trent 1565 AD.] Any-way -around, what do you think is meant when we say,"I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,' which we do in all three creeds? Loyal or not he warned Henry of giving to much authority to the Bishop of Rome. He also conceded that the Councils authority was superior to that of the pope! Doesn't seem to loyal to me?