Are the Articles an essential, definitive part of the fullness of Anglicanism?

Why the obsession with nailing this down, when our church gives us leeway for our own interpretation?

 

Hello, Madeline!

That's a good question. As I told CWJ, I would like our churches to move to reconciliation. And the teachings on the presence in bread is one of the main differences. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches and allows RC Transubstantiation, or that the food has both substances (Christ's and the bread's) that are swallowed (as Luther proposed), or that the bread otherwise actually, objectively, directly is/has Christ's body.

If the Churches were to reconcile or at least have a common understanding, what do you see as the best result with regard to the Articles and the real presence in bread?

 

I don't see any reason why they would be in violation. I believe for most Anglicans the Holy Eucharist is both Incarnational and Eschatalogical. In truth, I suspect that one of the difficulties the debate presents is that Anglican Theology in this area is more likely to focus on the Eucharistic action, taking, offering, breaking and distributing. A pattern we live out in the Eucharist, and take into our lives.

If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door,
you will not find him in the chalice
St John Chrysostom​

One of the sad things about the 16th Century was that there was a lot of posturing and drawing of lines and boundaries, and reactions to the lines and boundaries drawn. Martin Luther saw a Church now longer serving, but being served, and he took a position, Henry VIII felt called to serve a nation and found the Church stopping him and took and action, The Bishop of Rome reacted and responded and at Trent there was a holding of positions. The reason for quoting from Trent - which I rarely do - was to try and put this in context.

The Thirty Nine Articles represent, to my mind, one of the most cogent and well thought through responses to this Reformation/Counter-Reformation posturing. The Thirty Nine Articles do not ask us to stand up and defend them. They ask us to stand up for the Triune God, for the Incarnation, for the Passion and Resurrection, for the great Creeds, for the truth found in Scripture, for God who acts not simply in History but in our lives, and in our service today.

If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door,
you will not find him in the chalice
St John Chrysostom​

 

I would like to agree with you.

In that case, how would his teaching be consistent with the Articles' teaching that Christ's body is "eaten in only a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the [singular] mean of eating is faith") (Art 28); the teaching that "the Wicked do not eat the Body of Christ" (Art 29); and the contemporary commentaries from the 16th-17th centuries that find these Articles a rejection of Lutheranism?

Would one be using a method similar to Newman's reconciling his belief in Transubstantiation with Article 28?

 

What do you think of the GAFCON conference in 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Anglican_Future_Conference) that announced in its official declaration:
"We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion"?

 

I am not certain that there was an outright rejection of Lutheranism, however I do know that there was too much drawing lines and building fences.

JHN was quite nuanced in much that he wrote, and I believe he left the C of E because the C of E cold not let him be at home at home.

Of all points of faith, the being of a God is, to my own apprehension, encompassed with most difficulty, and yet borne in upon our minds with most power. People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe; I did not believe the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty in believing it, as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation. Apologia Ch 5​

GAFCON is an extremely difficult topic for me as an Australian Anglican in the Diocese of Newcastle. The Diocese of Sydney has been (and possibly still is) quite involved in GAFCON. The Archbishop of Sydney is the Metropolitan for New South Wales. The predominant themes of Theology in the Diocese of Sydney has been hard-line neocalvinsm and strongly anti liturgical for some time. Priests who hold a licence in Sydney must promise to not wear a chasuble, and many of them will celebrate in contemporary street wear. It is also true that the celebration of the Holy Eucharist may be very infrequent, on the grounds that it detracts from the ministry of the word. In quite a few places many members of the site here would have difficulty recognising the historic roots of the C of E. The more recently elected Archbishop of Sydney (after a hard fought election campaign) is more moderate and more recognisably Anglican, and I hold great hopes for better relations within the province and the national Church. The former Archbishop of Sydney is the General Secretary of GAFCON and on visiting the site just now I was astounded to see a photo of him in a purple clergy shirt - I don't believe I have ever seen that before. Accordingly I don't think I am in a position to talk about GAFCON. I would like to see greater efforts to bind us together than tear us apart on both sides.

 

Chasuble:
noun: chasuble; plural noun: chasubles

1. a sleeveless outer vestment worn by a Catholic or High Anglican priest when celebrating Mass, typically ornate and having a simple hole for the head. (GOOGLE DEFINITIONS)

 

The Ornaments rubric is normally seen as an authority on this issue. The term in the 1549 rubric 'a vestment' is understood to be a chasuble. There are not doubt a variety of styles and fashions however there are plenty of examples perhaps in art. Stigand and Becket may be two well know examples.

​

​

"And here is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth."

This first appeared in the 1559 edition of the Prayer Book of Elizabeth 1. Edward's reign began on the 28th day of January 1847, so the second year is taken to be from the 28th day of January 1548 to the 27th day of January 1549.

The 1549 Prayer Book was passed by parliament on the 21st day of January 1549. It contained this rubric

“Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion, the Priest, that shall execute the Holy ministry, shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say: a white Albe, plain, with a vestment or Cope. And where there may be many Priests or Deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the Priest in the ministration, as shall be requisite; and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, Albes with Tunicles.”​

This was replaced in 1552 with this rubric

“And here it is to be noted, that the minister, at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but . . . being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.”​

It would seem on the surface the restoration of the classic traditional vestments of the Church has some strong support, and certainly seems like a reasonable reading.

The canons of 1604 did not mention the vestment

In all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the holy Communion shall be administered upon principal Feast-days, sometimes by the Bishop if he be present, and sometimes by the Dean, and at sometimes by a Canon or Prebendary, the principal Minister using a decent Cope, and being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistler​

In 1662 the rubric was revised to read

“And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be RETAINED and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.”​

You may recognise that vestments, which not the same in style and shape as those used in the Eastern Churches are also not all that different, allowing for cultural variations. My feeling is that the vestment (chasuble) is worn quite widely through contemporary Anglicanism, not simply by those who would describe themselves as Anglo Catholic, or High Church (whatever that might mean). I think it is the vestment used at Ordinations in Australia in most Dioceses with the exception of Sydney where it is ecclesiastically illegal.

 

I can see three stages of changes. But since this is only an impression, please tell me how it compares with your understanding of the development of dress.

First, I imagine Jesus and the apostles wore an outer colored robe at the mystical supper(s) like they are depicted wearing in the earliest art. Or they dressed like rabbis commonly did in the 1st century. But ancient rabbis did wear different clothes than normal, like a prayer shawl.

Second, at some early point, at least at the beginning of the legalization of Christianity, clergy began to wear priestly vestments. The idea is that the Eucharist is a reflection of Christ's sacrifice which was in the model of the Old Testament sacrifices. And the Old Testament sacrifices were overseen by a priest. And so with the coming of sacerdotal thinking and rites came a reflection in priestly dress.


Bp. Augustine of Canterbury, 6th c. AD (PICTURE SOURCE: EPISCOPALCAFE.COM)


Royal Mail stamp

Third, during the Reformation, Cranmer took on the dress of a scholar (as I think Luther and Calvin did). As I understand it, this is because their approach to religion had a scholastic aspect that they wanted to emphasize. There was a special emphasis on Reason and on the Biblical teachings as distinct from the teachings and ritualism of the Catholic church.

Cranmer

And so clergy wearing a suit and tie or other nonclerical garb could be a reflection of this third stage, in accordance with what you have described in your province.

I think that some corrections could be made or what I just said could be fleshed out more.

 

T Shirt and thongs!

I think the 16-17th century saw the rise in the office as the English liturgical norm, as in it was at a civilised time 10.00 am matins. I think the 19th and 20th centuries saw the recovery of the Holy Communion as being more central and the most common principle Sunday service. I grew up in what was principally a surplice and stole parish, though I know the current priest wears a chasuble. For part of its life Anglicans have been fond of academic dress, of one sort or another, and they certainly have been amongst some of the best broadly educated clergy.

I think that part of the value of the Oxford Movement was the recovery of something of a sense of awe and wonder, and of the transcendence of God. The modern trend has been to amplify the immanence of God, possibly expressed as we moved from Eastward to westward positions. Of course for the EO it is not an issue because the doors and the iconostasis amplify the transcendence of God. Somehow we need to keep the immanence and the transcendence of God in dialogue.

Anywat the EO have it all over the Anglicans when it comes to liturgical garb!

 

I am sorry to say that this is a fanciful representation, made in faux-Byzantine style in just the last century or so, and has nothing in common with styles and vestments actually worn by the citizens of the ancient world.


Here is the actual painting of St. Augustine of Hippo, from the Lateran in Rome, 6th century AD:



And here is the painting of St. Ambrose of Milan from the 6th century AD, not from the 1980s:




And here is the painting of Christ himself, from 2nd century AD ancient tombs, without any beards or chasubles:

 

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Augustine of Hippo is not Augustine of Canterbury, and that the Christians depicted are not dressed for a liturgy.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is dressed like this when not serving Mass:
http://www.antiochian.org/sites/default/files/images/kallistos.img_assist_custom-200x267.jpg

The concept of the minister as a priest developed in the 2nd century:

The origin of the chasuble and the Eastern Phelonian is the paenula that civilians in the Roman empire wore before the legalization of Christianity. Living in the Roman empire, Christians wore the paenulas, and then it became formalized as part of their own liturgical attire.

Here you can see the stages of this development:


standard Paenula

Mosaic of Bishop Maximus from the 6th c.

Do you think Christ had a beard or shaved?

 

I dislike images of Lord Jesus where He is depicted as being pale skinned and blue-eyed. It's more probable that He was dark skinned and dark eyed like present day middle eastern people without Roman blood