On the Universal Customs of the Universal Church

0. Introduction. The Anglo-Catholic, Ritualist, High-Church, or Tractarian branches of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church believe, teach, and confess that the Church of England is a branch of the Church Catholic, and as such, is bound in conscience to observe the ancient and universal customs of the universal church (provided of course they be not contrary to the divinely revealed teachings on faith and morals), not only those which constitute divinely revealed doctrines on faith and morals, but even those ancient and universal customs which are nowhere essential elements of the divinely revealed doctrines on faith and morals, merely because they happen to be the universal customs of the universal church (which be not contrary to the divinely revealed doctrines on faith and morals). Such is the sense which these Anglo-Catholic high churchmen give to Article XXXIV: "Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the [UNIVERSAL, PERPETUAL, and UNIFORM] traditions and ceremonies of the Church [Catholic] which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by [the] common authority [of the entire Church Catholic], ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the [church catholic], and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren."

As it turns out, the number one reason that traditionalists in the Anglican Church give against allowing women in church choirs when it is too difficult or even impossible to prove from Scripture that the Divinely revealed Divine Law forbids women from singing in the capacity of members of church choirs is that the very idea of women in church choirs is contrary to the universal customs of the universal church Catholic; and that all and singular of the universal customs of the universal church Catholic, even if not specifically divinely revealed and prescribed by Divine Law, neither directly and word-for-word, nor deducible by good and necessary inference, nor deducible on the grounds of the Law of Nature and Reason, are still of binding obligation upon the Christian faithful.

That is exactly the SAME plea on which the Ritualists insist on the binding obligation of fasting communion and intoning the prayers in the parish churches.

“The English Church holds the custom of fasting reception of the Holy Sacrament to be binding, not for anything she herself has said, but because, AS PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, SHE INHERITS THE OBLIGATIONS OF A PRACTICE WHICH HAS UNIVERSAL TRADITION ON ITS SIDE” (The Practical Religion, p. 233).

https://books.google.com/books?id=X...memorial custom of the Church of God"&f=false:

“It has been hastily imagined by some in modern days, that our great liturgical revisionists of the sixteenth century designed to abolish the immemorial custom of the Church of God, alike in Jewish and Christian times, of saying the Divine Service in some form of solemn musical recitative, and to introduce the unheard-of custom of adopting the ordinary colloquial tone of voice. ... But such a serious and uncatholic innovation never appears to have entered their heads. The most that can be said of our English Post-Reformation rule on this subject is, that in case of real incapacity on the part of the priest, or other sufficient cause, the ordinary tone of voice may be employed; but this only as an exceptional alternative. The rule itself remains unchanged, the same as of old. ... The rubrical directions, 'read,' 'say,' 'sing,' expressed in the old technical language, are substantially what they were before.” (The Annotated Book of Common Prayer, page 57.)

Here is the question now posed: according to the teachings of the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the XXXIX Articles of Religion, the Homilies, the Church of England Catechism, and the Articles of Visitation, which side is right? The Ritualists who say that it is NOT lawful for the Church of England to abolish or abrogate or even deviate from any of those universal customs of the universal church catholic which be not contrary to the divinely revealed doctrines on faith and morals, or those, especially in the low-church, evangelical branches who say the Church of England DOES have the lawful right to deviate from, or even abrogate and overrule any universal custom of the universal church catholic which is not essential to the true and accurate meaning of the divinely revealed doctrines on faith and morals?

 

1. Theses on the Universal Customs of the Universal Church Catholic.

1.0: Definitions. A Dogma is a divinely revealed truth on faith or morals, which must be believed, and which cannot be doubted or denying without denying the Christian faith. Anything that goes contrary to a divinely revealed dogma on faith or morals is called Heresy; and everybody who doubts, denies, or contradicts even a single divinely revealed dogma on faith or morals is a Heretic.

A given universal custom of the universal church is Dogmatic if and only if the selfsame particular custom is either itself a divinely revealed dogma on faith and morals, or else a custom whose mere nonexistence is or can be proven to be a heretical action of commission or omission against the divinely revealed dogmas on faith and/or morals, or at least a sin against the universal and perpetual laws of Nature and Nature’s God: viz., had the custom not been one of the customs of the one holy catholic apostolic church, well then – whatever circumstances or events might have happened, which though they may happen to be true, yet are not immutably, irreformably, universally, and perpetually true – on account of the mere fact that she DIDN’T have the custom, either she would have ipso facto been guilty of heresy against the divinely revealed dogmas on faith and/or morals, and therefore would have automatically ceased from being the one holy catholic and apostolic church, or else she would have at least ipso facto transgressed against the Divine Moral Law. A Non-Dogmatic Universal Custom is a universal custom that is not dogmatic.

1.1: Et in Unam Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam. The Anglo-Catholic branch of the Anglican Church BELIEVES, TEACHES, and CONFESSES that there is but One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

1.2: Concerning the Infallibility of Divinely Revealed Dogmas of Faith and Morals. WE BELIEVE, TEACH, and CONFESS that all and singular of the dogmas on faith and morals, which God, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has supernaturally and/or miraculously revealed in the Holy Scriptures for standing use within the Church universal and perpetual are infallible, for neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, who has revealed them to the Church, can deceive nor be deceived.

1.3: Concerning the Immutability and Irreformability of Divinely Revealed Dogmas of Faith and Morals. Even the very papists themselves claim to BELIEVE, TEACH, and CONFESS that all and singular of the dogmas on faith and morals are immutable and irreformable.

1.4: Thesis on Facts proven at least partly from Dogmas. Either something that can be proven at least partly from the divinely revealed dogmas on faith and morals is also contingent on circumstances not intrinsic to the nature and reason of things or else it isn’t. If it IS thus contingent, then at least for the time being, it is a dogmatic fact, strictly binding in conscience in all cases wherein those accidental and adventitious circumstances exist or occur. But if it ISN’T thus contingent, then it is also a dogma on faith and morals, and therefore all exceptions on the grounds of such accidental / adventitious circumstances are not only null and void, but heretical against the dogma.

1.5: Divinely Revealed Dogmas of Faith and Morals Cannot Change their Meaning. Even the very papists themselves claim to BELIEVE, TEACH, and CONFESS that the true and accurate meaning of a divinely revealed dogma on faith and morals can never change.

1.6: All Exemptions from the Dogmatic Universal Customs of the Universal Church are Null and Void and also formally HERETICAL! Even the so-called "roman catholics" & "eastern orthodox" themselves teach that there is no dogmatic universal custom of the universal church that can lawfully admit of any papal or other ecclesiastical dispensation or indult, and the moment that even the pope himself grants such a dispensation/indult, the dispensation/indult is not only null and void, but formally heretical against the Faith, and all those who receive it believing that it lawfully grants them a singular and at least temporary exemption from the obligation of observing the dogmatical universal custom in its ordinary and prevailing form and according to the true and accurate meaning thereof are formal heretics and therefore not Catholic (nor Orthodox); and the pope (or any other ecclesiastical dignitary) that grants such a dispensation/indult is no longer Catholic (nor Orthodox nor Anglican), and therefore he automatically forfeits the office of the Papacy! Or else the “Roman Catholic” Church is a FALSE church!

1.7: On Exemptions from the Universal Non-Dogmatic Customs of the Universal Church. We BELIEVE, TEACH, and CONFESS, also in accordance with the XXXIV’th Article of Religion, that the universal church has authority to grant special exemptions from her own universal non-dogmatic customs.

Objection: The Church is Catholic, not only in space and over all persons who profess to be Christian at any given moment in time, but also over all time, present, past, and future ever since the Christian Church was first founded by Christ Himself. Therefore, not even the whole Church at any given time has the power to abrogate even one of the universal non-dogmatic customs of the Universal Church which have been in continuous unbroken perpetual existence up to that moment in time, any more than any of the universal dogmatic customs.

My question is, what do you members of the low-church evangelical branch of the Anglican Church have to say about this?

1.8: The Universality and Perpetuity of the Dogmatic Customs of the Universal Church. WE BELIEVE, TEACH, AND CONFESS that all and singular of the dogmatic customs of the universal church are universal and perpetual simply by virtue of being essential to the divinely revealed dogmas on faith and morals.

1.9: All Dogmatic Customs of the Universal Church are Fully Contained either Materially or Formally in the Scriptures. The Low-Church and Evangelical Branch of the Church of England BELIEVES, TEACHES, AND CONFESSES that all and singular of the dogmatic customs of the universal church are either specifically prescribed by the Scriptures, or may be deduced from good and necessary inference of the divinely revealed dogmas on faith or morals found therein written in the Bible.

 

ERRATA!

I have put forth a poll entitled: "Does the Church of England have the right to abolish the universal customs of the universal church?"

And the 4 possible choices are:

1. Never
2. Not unless the customs are repugnant to God's word written
3. Yes, provided that the customs are essentials of divinely revealed doctrine
4. Yes in all cases whatever

But in Choice #3, I have made a mistake. What I SHOULD have said, is: "Yes, provided that the customs are NOT essentials of divinely revealed doctrine".

 

3

 

So do you mean that I had posted 3 consecutive posts in a row, or are you voting for Option Number 3: Yes, provided that the customs are NOT essentials of divinely revealed doctrine? If so, then why?

 

3

Because Anglicanism not subservient of the Church Catholic, but rather is itself a particular instance of the Church Catholic.

 

So then, you are voting for Option #3: Yes, provided that the customs are NOT essentials of divinely revealed doctrine????

 

I agree with Stalwart’s reasoning:

 

Stalwart and Invictus, you both answered "3" to my question. Does this mean you both have chosen the third option, namely, the Anglican Church has the power to change or even abolish the universal, uniform, and perpetual customs of the universal church provided they be not essential to any divinely revealed doctrine on faith or morals??? Many ritualists and Anglo-Catholics have answered either the first or second option, saying that the Church of England either has NO lawful authority to change or overrule the universal, uniform, and perpetual customs of the universal church, or else the Anglican Church only has this authority when the custom of the universal church runs contrary to divinely revealed teachings on faith and morals.

 

Yes.

I consider the Anglo-Catholic position to be one of unwarranted revisionism.

 

That’s because there is no other universal church than a list of Particular Churches.

Now not every entity that calls itself “church” is one, obviously, but in its internal constitution, The Church is constituted of specific Particular Churches. That is simply its constitution, as seen from the sacred Scriptures, and from the Church Fathers. For example the Church that St Cyprian belonged to was The Church of Carthage. It didn’t answer to a higher authority, and was bound to others by the bonds of communion. In fact when the Bishop of Rome tried to decide their doctrine for them, St Cyprian sent him back packing.

This is the proper and original constitution of the Catholic Church.

That’s because they don’t believe that any modern Church except for Rome, at least certain not the Anglican Church, has a capacity to legislate as
a legitimate particular Catholic Church.

St Cyprian would be very upset with what gets done in his name in the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches.

 

Both of you have answered rightfully, for I have produced another Thesis to prove precisely that!

 

To the above I would add that Option 3 aligns best with the plain sense of Articles 20 and 34:

As a matter of history, more falls under this than many Anglicans would be comfortable with today (including those who are not Anglo-Catholics), and thankfully many of those matters have since become part of a settled consensus, but the English Reformation was a quite chaotic period, and the Articles give voice to the Reformation conviction that the Church has a rather wide latitude to alter what it deems necessary in order to maintain the proper administration of the Word and Sacraments, which is the true and proper end of everything the Church is called to do.

 

2. Why the Church of England has lawful de jure divino authority to overrule the universal non-dogmatical customs of the universal church.

How would we prove this? Solvitur ambulando (which is a Latin phrase meaning "it is solved by walking" - i.e. it is solved by practical demonstration).

Case I: Fasting Communion. Those who plead for fasting communion in the Church of England state that:

“The English Church holds the custom of fasting reception of the Holy Sacrament to be binding, not for anything she herself has said, but because, AS PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, SHE INHERITS THE OBLIGATIONS OF A PRACTICE WHICH HAS UNIVERSAL TRADITION ON ITS SIDE” (The Practical Religion, p. 233).

Answer: Messrs. Wright & Neill gave this answer to the Practical Religion:

'Here the whole of the first century’s tradition is ignored, and further a principle is laid down WHICH CANNOT BE ACQUIESCED IN. See Bishop Kingdon, Fasting Communion.'

Case II: Intoning the Prayers in Parish Churches. Those who plead for this usage contend that:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CVpKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2&dq="It+has+been+hastily+imagined+by+some+in+modern+days,+that+our+great+liturgical+revisionists+of+the+sixteenth+century+designed+to+abolish+the+immemorial+custom+of+the+Church+of+God,+alike+in+Jewish+and+Christian+times"&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjy_cvvpaXxAhUIOs0KHbcuBKMQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg:

"It has been hastily imagined by some in modern days, that our great liturgical revisionists of the sixteenth century designed to abolish the immemorial custom of the Church of God, alike in Jewish and Christian times, of saying the Divine Service in some form of solemn musical recitative, and to introduce the unheard-of custom of adopting the ordinary colloquial tone of voice. ... But such a serious and uncatholic innovation never appears to have entered their heads. The most that can be said of our English Post-Reformation rule on this subject is, that in case of real incapacity on the part of the priest, or other sufficient cause, the ordinary tone of voice may be employed; but this only as an exceptional alternative. The rule itself remains unchanged, the same as of old. ... The rubrical directions, 'read,' 'say,' 'sing,' expressed in the old technical language, are substantially what they were before." (%1)

Answer:

Are choral services in parish churches lawful? The several opinions of Sir R ... - Robert Joseph PHILLIMORE (Right Hon. Sir) - Google Books:

"It has been maintained by some modern writers (m) that the word “say,” imposes an obligation of intoning the prayers; except “in case of real incapacity on the part of the priest,” when, it seems, “the ordinary tone of voice may be employed.” The rubric, however, gives no room for an exception of this kind. [For NO exceptions to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the rubric can be allowed except what are expressly granted by the rubrics themselves, or such lawful governing authorities in Church or State who have lawful de jure authority to settle disputed and open questions regarding the true and accurate meaning and application of the Rubrics and of the Rites and Ceremonies of Public Worship in the Church of England; and all grants made by the governing authority must be strictly construed against the grantee.] Its direction is plain and positive: “the priest shall say.” If “say” means intone, the rubric requires this, and nothing else, “the priest shall intone.” And therefore, a person who is “physically incapable” of intoning is, by reason of that incapacity, inadmissible into holy orders. As matters now stand, if a candidate for orders, or a clerk presented to a benefice, were physically unable “openly, publicly, and solemnly to read the morning and evening prayers” (Stat. 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 4, s. 6), either from defective articulation, or from want of education, a Bishop ought to reject him (n). If the word “say” means intone, it would be a Bishop's duty to ascertain that every person nominated to a preferment is capable of singing a musical recitative, so as to be able to intone the service. Would a court of law sustain a Bishop who made this a ground for refusing to institute a clerk presented by a lay patron? Yet to this issue it would come at last, if the construction put on the word “say,” as necessarily meaning “intone,” be attempted to be maintained; for the rubrics command that such and such prayers SHALL BE “said.”"

Footnotes: (m): see %1; (n): "Bishop Jebb (Pastoral Instructions, 203) declared, “whatever might be their qualifications in other respects, those who are not qualified to perform Divine service in a devout, clear, and edifying manner, shall never be ordained by my authority.”"

Those who desire to restore the intoned or sung service in parish churches in the Church of England have appealed to the binding authority of Catholic tradition, but are willing to allow for exceptions in the case of "real incapacity on the part of the priest"; but the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer have NEVER historically allowed such an exception. For NO exceptions to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the rubric can be allowed except what are expressly granted by the rubrics themselves, or such lawful governing authorities in Church or State who have lawful de jure authority to settle disputed and open questions regarding the true and accurate meaning and application of the Rubrics and of the Rites and Ceremonies of Public Worship in the Church of England; and all grants made by the governing authority must be strictly construed against the grantee. "Its direction is plain and positive: “the priest shall say.” If “say” means intone, the rubric requires this, and nothing else, “the priest shall intone.”" Therefore: "No portions of the service of the Church shall be sung or intoned except such as are expressly authorised by the rubric (to be sung); and there shall not be introduced into the service, either on the ground of ancient usage, or because it has been adopted in some churches in England, or on any other pretext whatever, any ceremonial which is not directed or sanctioned by the Book of Common Prayer." - The order of the Bishop of Melbourne on August 29, 1865.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_5NdAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&dq="insubordinate"&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiooorD2N7pAhXjm-AKHfg8DXIQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q="female"&f=false:

If any improvement were necessary to make the whole army more efficient, such improvement could only be effectually introduced, as each regiment maintained that perfection of discipline to which it had attained. So in the Church of England, if any improvements are needful to be introduced, they can only be introduced, with any good effect, as the clergy continue in the spirit of ready obedience to those who are over them. In an army, suppose some rule or practice should be discovered in its written regulations which had long become obsolete, would any officer of his own will venture to revive it without any authority from his superiors? Yet, what do we see? Men who, in God’s sight, are bound to as strict obedience to their Bishops as any subordinate officer in a regiment to his Colonel; without any authority but that which, it is imagined, is derived from tradition written or oral, straightway taking upon themselves to introduce practices which have long been disused in that part of the Church of Christ where the providence of God has cast their lot.

The practice of intoning the prayers in the parish churches is also contrary to Queen Elizabeth I's injunction concerning reading and chanting in church:

[pt. 1]. Of the progress made in it till the settlement of it in the ... - Gilbert Burnet - Google Books:

"There two things much complained of; the one was that the priests read the prayers generally with the same tone of voice that they had used formerly in the Latin service; so that it was said the people did not understand it much better than they had done the Latin formerly. This I have seen represented in many letters; and it was very seriously laid before Cranmer by Martin Bucer. The course taken in it was, that in all parish churches the services should be read in a plain audible voice, but that the former way should remain in Cathedrals where there were great choirs, who were well acquainted with that tone, and where it agreed better with the music that was used in anthems."

Queen Elizabeth I's XLIX'th injunction (in the first year of her reign!!) concerning chanting and reading:

"Item, because in divers collegiate and also some parish churches heretofore there have been livings appointed for the maintenance of men and children to use singing in the church, by means whereof the laudable science of music hath been had in estimation, and preserved in knowledge; the Queen's Majesty, neither meaning in anywise the decay of anything that might conveniently tend to the use and continuance of the said science, neither to have the same in any part so abused in the church, that thereby the common prayer should be worse understanded of the hearers, willeth and commandeth, that first no alterations be made of such assignments of living, as heretofore hath been appointed to the use of singing or music in the church, but that the same so remain. And that there be a modest and distinct song, so used in all parts of the common prayers of the church that the same may be as plainly understanded, as if it were read without singing.' (1 Cardwell, Doc. An. 228.)"

Popish practices at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge. A reply to the Bishop of ... - Charles WESTERTON - Google Books:

"...the Rubrics affixed to the Book of Common Prayer, and deriving their legal force and validity from the statute of the 13th and 14th Charles II. chap.4, clearly distinguish such parts of the Book of Common Prayer, as are to be SAID, READ, or PRONOUNCED, from such as are to be sung; but there is no direction that the manner of performing any part of the service should be left to the discretion of the minister, and much less is there any direction in the Rubric that any portion of the Liturgy should be intoned; and I suppose it will be conceded that the act of intoning is neither reading, pronouncing, saying, nor singing. In fact, the intoning of the service was one of the earliest devices invented and resorted to by Romish malcontents, in order to assimilate the service of the Protestant Church to that of Rome"!!!

Case III: The Revival of Popish Recusant Eucharistic Vestments in the Church of England.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7itWAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&pg=PA17&focus=viewport&dq="old+state+of+things+long+before+prohibited+by+law"&output=text:

"Another gentleman, the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, admitted that he used the vestments. When asked on what grounds he justified such a practice, his answer was — “How I justify it would take a long time.” When pressed for an answer, he spoke of “the Catholic usage of the church.” The basis of action assumed by this gentleman is at least sufficiently indefinite, and wide enough to admit into the public worship of the Church of England any superstitious usage which he considers to be “Catholic usage.” Any custom generally practised in the eastern or western churches, although not specified in the Prayer-book, he considers himself at liberty to adopt. But what becomes of the Acts of Uniformity? Do they permit the use of any rites or customs, provided they be not such as are prohibited by the Book of Common Prayer? nay, they declare the use of any form which is not specified therein to be illegal——“If any manner of parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister that ought or should sing or say common prayer mentioned in the said book, or minister the sacraments from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist next coming, refuse to use the said common prayers, or to minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church, or other places, as he should use to minister the same, in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall wilfully or obstinately, standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, openly or privily, or matins, evensong, administration of the sacraments, or other open prayers, than is mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall preach, declare, or speak any thing in the derogation or depraving of the said book, or any thing therein contained, or of any part thereof, and shall be thereof lawfully convicted according to the laws of this realm by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by notorious evidence of the fact, shall lose and forfeit to the Queen’s Highness, her heirs and successors, for his first offence, the profit of all his spiritual benefices or promotions coming or arising in one whole year next after his conviction, &c. The chapter on ceremonies contains the following paragraph—“Let all things be done among you, saith St. Paul, in a seemly and due order. The appointment of the which order pertaineth not to private men; therefore no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter, any public or common order in Christ’s Church, except he be lawfully called and authorized thereto.”"

Near the end of the 19'th Century, the Anglican Archbishop of York testified that:

https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA88&dq="Errors+and+excesses+there+certainly+are+of+a+serious+kind"&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=jk0l2UAmaD0C#v=onepage&q="Errors and excesses there certainly are of a serious kind"&f=false:

"Errors and excesses there certainly are of a serious kind and much to be deplored, particularly in the great centres of population. . . . The Prayer-book as enacted by the Statute of Uniformity constitutes our orders and yours. . . . Any idea of reversing the position which was taken up at the time of our great awakening and deliverance in the sixteenth century has never entered any one's head. . . . All that is wanted is a more complete and more loyal conformity on all sides to the plain directions of the Book of Common Prayer. IT CANNOT BE PERMISSIBLE TO SAY one the one hand THIS PRACTICE IS AN ANCIENT USAGE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND WE ARE ENTITLED TO RESUME IT, or this is a remnant of Popery and we are entitled to neglect it. . . . He regrets that the prefaces to the Prayer-book are so little known and considered even by the clergy."

This means that the Church of England has every lawful RIGHT to change, question, relax, or abrogate even the most ancient usages of the Catholic Church provided that they be not essential to the Catholic faith. QED

I therefore vote for Selection #3: Yes, provided that the customs are NOT essentials of divinely revealed doctrine on faith and/or morals.

We therefore CONDEMN and REPUDIATE the following two popish and ultramontane propositions of the haughty and tyrannical "pontiff" Apostate Antipope Impious IX:

"Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmas of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic [BASIC] dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church." - Apostate Antipope Impious IX, Quanta Cura, n. 5.

“But the neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so the name and prerogatives of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object. Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867, answers this objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this evasion is. For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank.” - Apostate Antipope Impious IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra & Reversurus.

 

I was just going to post and enquire what this member is trying to achieve. He has informed the Forum he is a Seventh Day Adventist (SDA). I was, therefore, intrigued why he opened this poll and began a discussion between Anglicans about how they interpret Scripture, tradition and custom. I do know that SDAs interpret Scripture quite differently, which has led them to observe the Sabbath on Saturdays rather than Sundays. So, I am very pleased so see this encouragement from Admin to trea lighly.

 

You got that part right!

 

It should be noted that this text, and any others like it, are the opinions (albeit sometimes learned opinions) of some people, and that such opinions are in no way binding upon Anglicans or upon Christians in general. So, just because someone wrote their opinion that "the custom of fasting reception" is binding, does not make it so.

Roman Catholics subject themselves to their Magisterium in a way that could make those kinds of statements binding upon them, were it made in an officially sanctioned publication of the RCC. That's just one of the many reasons why Anglicans are not Romans. The Romans introduced many 'practices of tradition' which are unscriptural and false, none of which are binding upon Christians who rely upon the word of God first and foremost (and who utilize the earliest Councils and church writings simply as an interpretive aid).

 

This does raise the interesting question of just how much Anglicans are (morally? canonically? rationally?) obliged to accept from the pre-Reformation (Western) Church on topics like the Trinity or the Incarnation. The West went on defining and further clarifying those dogmas right up to the eve of the Reformation, because ideologies like Arianism took much, much longer to be absorbed back into the Catholic Church in the West than in the East. Logically, those developments make sense, and seem to me to be legitimate, perhaps even unavoidable, clarifications and implications of what was first defined at Nicaea. Should Anglicans accept them today?

 

Accept them as dogmas? No.

Accept them as man's logic and rationales, which can be considered (as one might consider any reasoning, in a non-binding way) when reading, relying upon, and understanding Scripture? Yes.