I intentionally left them off the list . Two things that cause big trouble (in my opinion) are 39 Articles disputes and "not a real Anglican" nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, you're an Anglican if you identify as one and attend a church that identifies as such. Not all of those churches require subscription to the 39 Articles. And that doesn't make one a a non-Anglican, because we share all of these other distinctives and beliefs. I'm fine with Anglicans who do subscribe to them, and whose theology is defined by them. They just aren't the boundaries of Anglican belief. I do respect the Articles and their place in Anglicanism, however.
Totally agree with what you are saying DK, the reason for my last post what because the 39 Articles are included in the BCP.
How so brother? Yes I can call myself a horse but I don't look like a horse and I don't contain that which makes me biologically a horse, I am just a nutter who maybe needs to be committed, and not a horse. PS.... I am not a horse, don't tell anyone else but I think I am a wolf...
Did the creeds only unify or did they cement opposing parties? Chalcedonians vs Non-Chalcedonians? A schism that has yet to be healed.
From a position of an Orthodox christian, the non-Chalcedonians are wrong though... Orthodoxy is defined by chalcedonian christology.
Well that is difficult to say. For all intents and purposes the matter has been discussed in depth and both sides (EO and OO ) agree that the Oriental Orthodox are just as orthodox. There are agreed statements but it hasn't gained any traction as yet when it comes to reestablishing full communion. It appears that both sides were saying the same thing but the nuances of language and political bologna exacerbated the situation. They get along much better now and they do commune each others members when appropriate.
I suppose the non-Chalecdonians believe the same thing about the Chacedonians... here in lies the problem...
Personally, I think what makes one distinctively Anglican is a willingness to embrace the sufficiency of the scripture, the historic episcopacy, the creeds and (at least the first 4) councils; finds comfort in the use of the "prayerbook" style of worship; and is open to the guidance gleaned from the 39 articles and the homilies. Everyone colors these sources of identity differently and gives varying degrees of weight to each, but I've yet to meet anyone who would dismiss these entirely and completely who still calls themselves Anglican. But then, maybe I'm just sheltered.
Could the Lambeth Quadrilateral be our formula of concord? Sufficiently broad and yet solidly orthodox...
That sounds fine to me... At the end of the day I think the purpose of this thread was to try and lay down what appropriate boundaries are for posting in here, and I think I understand what Admin is trying to get at. A number of people have walked away because of the recent plethora of posts in here which were calling anyone who didn't hold to Calvinistic Theology a heretic, so Admin is trying to guage when and what should be closed down immediately. So that said, the Lambeth Quadrilateral, mutual respect, and keeping a topic on topic and in line with our base line could be the starting point. If someone came on and wanted to push the pros and cons of underwater basket weaving they could be told that is not the place for those types of discussions, unless of course Admin added a general section.
I'm not a Calvinist, but I'm not Anglo-Catholic either. Ive rarely visited here lately because of the large number of AC's on here. If I believed in praying to Mary, saints, and icons I'd run towards EO or RC especially considering the awful mess the Anglican Communion is.in especially here in US. I believe that Anglicanism is Reformed and Catholic, ie 1662 BCP and 39 Articles. On here there could be forums just for inquirers and another that is just Anglican and then another for Christians in general.
So you don't feel you can associate with your Anglican brothers who identify as Anglo-catholic? I have enjoy talking with Calvinists, arminians, Lutherans et al. What is so repulsive about ACs that you don't want to engage them in online conversation?
I am very comfortable with dialoguing with Lutherans as long as we remember that we are dialoguing with Lutherans. Here are these, and here are those. Unapologetic identities. Who in good conscience could be okay with making lutherans a legitimate variant of the episcopal church or anglicanism?
Ive experienced similar in the TEC. But my problems stemmed from the liberalism that has taken over in the church. I don't see how that translates to not wanting to converse with ACs even if you don't share all their beliefs. Is it an issue "of my way or the highway"?