I meant no slight by what I said to you, I apologize if it came out like that. I merely asked what type of Anglican you are. For instance, Episcopalians are not bound to the same Formularies that ACNA is, and such is the same for the Continuum. I am in ACNA so that is why I appealed to what I did, I did not know if you were under the same standards I am - so that is why I asked. As for others on this thread, well they have their minds made up and I have mine made up. I never sought to convert anyone to anything, in fact it was the other gentlemen who attacked me for my beliefs and called them Un-Anglican so I had to take up the defense there, Apologia style, which ended unfortunately. I am normally much more amiable, but attacking my beliefs as if they are just made up or stolen from some Roman Catechism is not going to sit well with me, as I'm sure if I just claimed that other Anglican's views were made up whole cloth with no backing. I hope that makes sense. As to the matter at hand, you are right! It is not in the Jerusalem Declaration! I misspoke on that source, it is actually located in point 5 of the Fundamental Declarations of the Province of ACNA. I apologize for that mix up there, I knew it was back there somewhere! 5. "Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth, and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scripture." 2019 BCP pg. 767 Now you may ask what exactly the clause regarding agreeable to the Scriptures mean, which is fair. To give the most unbiased take I can, I think it is in regards to the Canons of Trullo that were appended to the 6th and 7th councils that banned Bishops from marrying, required Bishops to memorize the entire Psalter, and lastly de fide mandatory veneration of images. As expressed in the thread on Images, the Council viewed this as a Christological debate, can Christ be portrayed in images? The Council gave the affirmative Christological clarification there, but the canons saying you must de fide venerate the images was what this clarification sought to amend. The 6th and 7th councils were increasingly Eastern, and became more and more anti-Latin. So while the Latin Church accepts the Christology and the "gist" so to speak, of what they had to say doctrinally - the actual canons are not of any particular eccumenical quality. 1. You can't make canons banning things expressly permitted in Scripture (marriage of Bishops) 2. When the 6th council was accepted by the Latin Patriarch (Roman Pontiff), he rejected the Canons of Trullo and declared them void for the West. Hence why we Anglicans do not accept the canons, they are not scriptural and they were never accepted here in the west. I think this clears up much confusion about Nicea II and Frankfurt. Ultimately it doesn't matter which synod is which, and who accepted what. We affirm the same Christology that Christ can be portrayed and venerated properly speaking - as they pertain to the Christological Question at hand. I recommend St. John of Damscus On the Holy Images to see what I am meaning by Christological. Maybe we should open a thread about that (if there is interest) a cool liturgical tidbit, this is why we sing the Agnus Dei in Mass!! The Anti-Latins of Trullo banned Christ being depicted as a Lamb - so when the Pope read this he got quite upset! In the West, we often depicted Christ as a Lamb holding the banner of victory! So we sign O Lamb of God thrice to spite the Greeks, which I absolutely love!
Article XXI General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture. The articles are extremely consistent, that all things required of folk unto salvation are found in Holy Scripture. I think it is reasonable to read 'General Councils' as 'Oecumenical Councils'. The point was that the councils were not in great dispute, however there was an acknowledgement of the failing of some councils to have the full measure of Scripture. The core questions of the day were far more garnered up in the matter of what is required to be believed unto salvation.
While this is true, there are some speculations as to which councils this is referring to. Is this referring to the 7 Councils of the Undivided Church or the other Latin councils such as Florence, Basil, the Lateran Synods, and Constance. I am not making a judgement either way, I'm just saying there is a different way to look at this Article from a different angle. Article XX The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation. So the Church has legitimate Authority in Controversies of Faith, (i.e. General Councils), and the Church is the keeper of Holy Writ, i.e. Scripture. We see the Church's office here of "decree"-ing what the Scriptures say, applying them in Councils. The Article is saying the Church keeps Holy Writ, it has Authority to expound upon them in a Counciliar fashion, but it can not violate the office of the Church by having contradictory teachings. So when you have the context that Scripture is read in and with the Church's decrees upon it (Consensus of the Saints), then you see the measuring rod for things. While Rome throws out Scripture passages to support Papal Supremacy, we can clearly show that the Church before never expounded this teaching using those verses, and has used other verses to teach the exact opposite. Therefore the first Vatican Council is not a true council, and while it appears to be a General Council, it hath erred. I am deeply interested in other's take on this, what I provided is the standard Tractarian treatment on the subject.
I have clearly stated in other places that I am not an Anglo Catholic, though I do have a high regard for those who are. The possibility of Oecumenical Councils has not been conceivable following the events of the 16th of July 1054. In a brief moment following Vatican II the world held its breath and thought that might be possible again, and certainly we must be closer than ever, but we are not there yet. The East however is a little fractious of late, and the proposed pan-orthodox conference of a couple of years ago did not transpire. The Anglican Approach to Scripture There are many views about Scripture, and the Anglicans hold a wide variety of them. There are a number of things we hold as the Anglican perspective on Scripture. Sola Scriptura The classic position of the Reformers - often called Sola Scriptura is indeed quite close to the Anglican Position where on the Foundation of Scripture and informed by the Tradition including the Creeds, The Ecumenical Councils, and the writings of the Fathers, we may deduce what we believe. The real difference in the Anglican position is the strength that we would provide to Reason and to the informed conscience, in terms of what we accept. Solo Scriptura The more modern position of many new churches - often called Solo Scriptura, and often confused with Sola Scriptura, is based on the notion me and Bible and we will get it all right. There are a number of issues with this approach, including the absence of history, and the absence of learning from the witness of those who have done before us. Magisterium The teaching of the Catholic Church, probably somewhat changed since Vatican II saw the Church as the arbiter of the interpretation of Scripture. In a sense this is reflected we we speak of the Church being 'keeper of holy Writ' however that is maintained in check be the requirement of her role as 'witness of Holy Writ'. Authority Some Anglicans will argue that the Bible is Infallible, and some Anglicans will argue that it is Inerrant, but in truth the position of the Church and it's historic documents is that it is simply Authoritative. Our understanding of the Creeds and the Tradition is understood in light of Scripture and it is to Scripture that we must return to be on solid ground, mindful of Creeds, Councils and Tradition. It is a classic Anglican tension that provides that the Church be keeper of Holy Writ and that be bound by Holy Writ.
It is neither a dogma or a doctrine, it is a mere baseless assumption bordering on a gross presumption. It is an unnecessary and pious expression of overenthusiastic religiosity. .
I am definitely in a different category there. While I think the Church has a Charism of Infallibility, as St. Ireneus tells us in Against Heresies "Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift [Charisma] of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father." So I think the Church's divine office is to interpret Scripture but in doing so, it also binds later generations. This is where I differ from Rome, because if the Church used the Charisma to teach something, it can not contradict itself as that would be contradicting Scripture. The Roman Magisterium is much more "loose" in how it applies this office. So I personally think the Vincentian Canon of "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all" is key because the Church when teaching, must do so with Eccumenicity - Antiquity - and Consent- regarding the Holy Scripture and the Faith. As for the more Protestant Sola Scriptura, I think when understood correctly it is certainly a fine way of looking at things. I just do not see the Church historically using that system until the Reformation, so I am cautious in throwing out the Magisterium of the Church Catholic, and prefer to keep the Charisma of Truth in the Church, but it is only in service to and derivative from, Holy Writ. As a side, I hold that Scripture is Infalible and Inerrant as well as the Material Sufficiency of Scripture, of course in the context of the Regula Fidei.
You are mistaken. I never mentioned The Mother of Our Lord. I only mentioned pious but baseless assumptions and beliefs concerning the means and nature of her departure and exit from the affairs of this life. The FACT is we don't know what finally happened to Mary, other than she was delivered into the care of the favourite disciple Jn.19:26, and remained with the disciples in Jerusalem until after Pentecost. Acts 1:14. Specuations and assumptions are not facts and stating that fact is no unkindness. .
Thank you for that. Sorry I took it the wrong way. And thanks for showing that the statement comes from the 2019 BCP; I must confess I hadn't looked that far back in the book for anything. One of the people who had an instrumental role in designing the 2019, Fr. Mark Perkins, wrote an interesting piece on this: https://northamanglican.com/all-that-is-not-true-about-nicea-ii/ My take is that the Anglican Church traditionally referenced only the first 4 councils, and I get the impression that including the "Christological clarifications" of the next three in the BCP was probably a matter of compromise between various divergent views (some very traditional, some less so) within the relatively new ACNA. Be that as it may, Fr. Perkins seems to point out that these clarifications of the 5th, 6th and 7th councils are somewhat redundant in that they restate, with only minor clarifications, the statements of faith that arose out of previous councils. Thus I personally would sympathize with any Anglican who might tend to minimize or downplay the reference to these latter councils, especially in light of the wrong conclusions that were reached in some of them. After all, saying that we affirm some of the thoughts expressed in a council, but we reject the conclusions of the council, doesn't really engender confidence in that council overall, does it? Moreover, doesn't it seem to be a huge leap to get from "affirming the teaching," to relying on the council's output as authoritative or binding? As Anglicans, we can respect the bits of truth that were stated in the 5th, 6th, and 7th, but should we really be looking for any new or authoritative teaching within the output of those latter councils, especially since better sources exist for such teaching? A larger question also comes to mind. What about your citation of a "Pan-Orthodox Council" that took place long after the 7th council? You've held it up as having binding effect upon Anglicans, haven't you? Can you show some evidence as to why we should accept this idea?
It is interesting to note, that that article on the NAA was challenged pretty heavily over on Earth and Altar - the APA's equivalent of NAA. So i'll admit the issue is multi faceted, but I am not sure what Christology was determined at the 7th council other than the issue at hand, if Christ could be portrayed in images since the incarnation. I don't think there were any wrong conclusions with the Councils, but the Canons are problematic as they were not accepted in the West. Councils are multi-faceted and contain aspects such as minutes, dogmatic canons, ecclesiastical canons, pronouncements, anathemas, etc. I agree with the substance of the councils, but the canons are not binding since they contradict the Scriptures as interpreted by the Early Church (ie marriage of bishops and mandatory veneration of images). As for Pan-Orthodox synods, I don't think they are General Councils by any means. They aren't as binding as Nicea upon Anglicans for instance. But when a portion of the Catholic Church speaks, it behooves other brothers and sisters to listen. I never claimed they were binding upon anyone but Orthodox faithful.
Folks, please take the temperature down in these exchanges. A few posts had to be edited to remove disparaging remarks.
I take the point you make, though perhaps with some historical perspective I would be more likely to describe the Church as Indefectible. The Church may at times be wrong, wrong but not lost beyond all hope, wrong yet not absolutely. This indeed points to the idea of the Church as Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ.
Have you consulted with your rector for his view on these matters? Does he agree that Anglicans are under a Magisterium and that the Anglican Episcopacy has a spiritual gift (charism) of Infallibility? I have not gotten even a remote inkling of such beliefs from my rector or from members of this forum, and quite honestly if I thought it were true, I'd run from Anglicanism as fast as I could. These ideas really do sound Roman in characteristic (Old Roman, pre-Vatican I obviously) to me, and since you say you came out of EO I'm wondering what person or written works persuaded you of the several Roman-like concepts you've touched on in this thread? To the point of what Irenaeus wrote, we should not suppose that he meant to introduce such momentous doctrines of infallibility and obedience in one mere sentence, without expounding upon said doctrines at great length in the portions immediately preceding and following the sentence. Irenaeus might justifiably have been motivated to persuade Christians to listen with credence to those who ministered via apostolic succession and to not give credence to certain self-anointed, self-appointed false teachers. But I hardly think that he meant to lay down a principle for all time and for all of the church. One sentence in passing is not enough to support the notion that 'when the priest speaks, you must obey his binding words.' If we take Irenaeus' words as more than a 'word of wisdom' for those people in that time, if we take it as the foundational statement that allegedly proves the infallibility of the apostolic-successive episcopate and the existence of a binding Magisterium, then by logic every priest within the line of apostolic succession should be able to speak as a member of this Magisterium and should be believed and obeyed without question. It is patently obvious that this could not be so, for we see countless such priests advocating false and unBiblical ideas and doctrines. If, for example, a priest (properly ordained) tells his congregation that homosexual activity among loving partners is pleasing to God, does that become binding upon the parishioners? I think not. (edit: your post above, regarding indefectibility, came while I was typing. My typing is slow... what can I say?)
Roman alert. The Magisterium is a novel heretical concept that didn't exist before the 19th century. Literally the word was coined by a Jesuit in the 19th century and then injected into Roman teaching. Anglicans should never use this concept. What we have is the ecclesia docens, the Teaching Church, which has the authority to establish ceremonies and settle doctrines (Article XX). Bishops have no spiritual gift of infallibility whatsoever, primarily because nothing on the face of the earth has infallibility. All can fall, and have fallen, as history has taught more times than can be numbered. Any Christian who hopes to find infallibility as a ground for his confidence, is on a quick road to disappointment and atheism. The only way to avoid atheism is to build fallibility into Christian history, as Anglicans wisely have done. The bishops don't need to have infallibility to have authority, as our bishops have the ultimate and highest authority which cannot be negotiated with by lower ranks of the church. Thus we have the patristic concept of Church, while avoiding the modern egregious errors of the Roman sect.
Yes I have, in fact, I am leading a class in my parish about the Eccumenical Councils right now in Adult Christian Education. Tomorrow is the Council of Ephesus. I don't think you understood exactly what I was saying, so that may contribute to the confusion. I didn't say there was an "Anglican" Magisterium or a that Anglican Bishops have Infallibility. That is obviously false. However the Church Catholic has a Magisterium, or a teaching charisma. That is evident from Scripture, that is the role of the Church, to teach. To claim the Church doesn't teach the Truth would raise the question about why have the Church to begin with? I am not Roman Catholic, I have never been Roman Catholic, nor will I ever be Roman Catholic. I have read no Roman Catholic books regarding this issue. I have gotten my position from the Saints, from Oxford Divinity such as Pusey, Keble, Newman, Dix, Campbell, and others. As for Ireneaus, he was certainly teaching that the Church's office is to teach the Doctrine, and there is a gift of protection given to her by God to do so. Christ himself says the Spirit will lead into all Truth. That is what I am claiming, not that individual theologians, bishops, or priests exercise this office. This is given to the Church at large and is expressed in Concillar fashion via Eccumenical Councils. And no, that is a Non Sequitur here, just because the Church Catholic expresses this Charisma doesn't therefore mean each individual has the fullness of that ability on his own. It does not follow. I am not teaching that each Bishop is a Vatican I Pope. The Church's role in infallibility (indefectibility) comes only from Scripture, when interpreting it to fulfill the teaching office. It doesn't mean that any teaching whatsover is legit because a Bishop says so, that is wrong. When Bishops get together in Council from the whole church and teach doctrine from the Scripture that is not in contradiction to previous gatherings of that magnitude - and it is received by the fullness of the Church including Laity, then it is binding. This is nothing more than "Prima Scriptura" or Scripture first, then the Church interprets Scripture.
It is quite obvious that I am sharing the exact same teaching, using different language. If you were to actually read what I have composed, you would see that each response has been nothing but the Church can not remain in error when exercising the Teaching Ministry from Scripture with legitimate Vincnetian Catholicity. As for the body of this teaching as we have received it, it is what I call magisterium. The rulings of Nicea are not up for debate today. We don't need Bishops today to teach that Nicea is true to know it is true, we have past teaching on it that is just as important today. In other words, you could swap "magisterium" with "regula fidei" if it makes you a bit more comfortable, it seems everyone here is scared to death of anything "Roman" (God forbid!) Again, I have never once claimed individual bishops have any claim on being infallible, that is only given to the teaching office of the Church Catholic. I have stated above again, the word "Indefectibility" is probably better, so I use them interchangeably. As for calling the Roman Church a "sect" - I disavow entirely. It is a portion of the Catholic Church, even if in error. That is the Teaching of the Reformed Episcopal Church so that is what I'm going to go with.
Sorry, I was replying to how Rexlion put it, which was possibly a stretch given your underlying words. I don't disagree with that, but just would want to steer away from the word "Magisterium" then, because that word for most people differs from your usage in 2 significant ways: 1. It covers far more teachings than a 1700-year old council. 2. And most importantly, it is not a historic instrument, but an active and living instrument, which continually issues new doctrines. The Nicea "Magisterium" would be purely historic, which is really very different from how almost everyone uses the word "magisterium" today, as something continually active. Regula Fidei is a very specific term. It means literally the measure of faith, ie. the thing by which all other things are measured. That is only Scripture, such that even the Councils have to submit to Scripture and be regulated by it (rather than the other way around). An alternative to that is that some Church Fathers considered the Apostles Creed a regula fidei, because of some controversies then. I don't mind that usage for it, but it wouldn't have much use for today's context. It's just me, and I can accept many things which took origin under the Roman era, but I'm just acknowledging how toxic and debilitating Roman influences have been for the Anglican tradition. I was being hyperbolic.. But also, not really. Increasingly it is no longer a hyperbole. While it is a valid branch of the Church Catholic from the perspective of apostolic succession, it's increasingly very distant from the apostolic Faith. While, I don't accept the Reformational views of the Papacy as the Antichrist, still, Pope Francis is very close to being the forerunner of the Antichrist, and we should be preparing for a time when the Roman church is no longer considered a part of the Church Catholic.
I wanted to reply to this specific part of your post because I've been thinking along these lines myself, only with a wider scope. It seems to me that the developed world is in the process of barbarization. Not so much paganization, because the term "pagan" still implies a metaphysical understanding of the natural world. Instead, the industrialized technology-oriented nations of the world are simply amputating their spiritual sense entirely. What "religion" they have left is a sad, truncated, incoherent mishmash of ideology and pseudo-intellectualism. The moldering ghost of Marxism lives on in Critical Race Theory (embodied in Antifa), while the Gaia cult lives on in the modern eco-progressive movement. But mostly the rank-and-file citizens of the first world have adopted a spiritless technology-driven solipsism. The crash of marriage and childbirth rates (particulary after COVID) show this trend. For these people there is no past or future. Nothing is really real; what's "true" today might not be true tomorrow. It's not clear to me that institutional Christianity can survive in such a world -- one bereft of authority, of obedience, of respect for tradition, of wisdom painfully accrued over the ages. Christians have ignored catechism of the young for far too long, and now it's too late. Young people don't even know what they don't know. Christianity, to most of them, is just this funny little club that old people belong to. In fact, there's a growing chorus among Millennials and Zoomers that Christianity is inherently racist, sexist, and all other kinds of -ist. But the established Christian traditions -- RC, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. -- cannot fight back because they are so fractured themselves. The sex-abuse scandal has all but destroyed the Roman Catholic Church; it'll be a generation before it recovers anything like a fraction of its old authority or respect. Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and other Protestant churches are busy fracturing around issues like homosexuality and the meaning of "social justice". Satan has sown discord and is now reaping his harvest: broken churches, ineffectual clergy, confused believers, and growing masses of the unsaved. The Church catholic cannot bring God's message to the world until they repair themselves first. We have become soft and tentative, too accommodating of worldly social movements in the name of peace and "unity". We can see what this accommodation has bought us: discord, heresy, schism. We must re-orient ourselves as Christians. We no longer live in Christian nations, but rather in nations that are either indifferent to or actively hostile to us and our creed. We are dissidents -- not just against our governments, but against the culture itself. We must start catechizing believers again; not just children, but everybody, so that they can speak with confidence about what they do and do not believe. We have allowed ourselves to become weak in our faith. We will have to make ourselves strong again to survive what is coming.