Words like Papal and Popery and Tiber -

Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by Silvan, Jul 22, 2021.

  1. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    426
    Likes Received:
    164
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    You seem to think that Romish is a derogatory term.

    But I have stated that the word Romish is a perfectly acceptable word as lo there it is in the Book of Common Prayer under the articles of Religion No22


    XXII. OF PURGATORY
    THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God

    And I pointed out to you that your Anglican badge says you agreed to the statement "I, A.B., Do here declare my unfeigned assent, and consent to all, and every thing contained, and prescribed in, and by the Book intituled, The Book of Common Prayer...."

    And that you must now agree that using the word Romish is quite acceptable and give it your unfeigned assent, and consent.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2021
  2. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    The word "Romish" occurs one time in the 39 Articles:
    For some reason, some apparently think that preferring an alternate rendering - such as Roman - would be tantamount to denial of the article's teaching, which in any event has various degrees of binding authority, depending on one's jurisdiction. The 39 Articles - which in their original form contain plenty of archaisms that would need to be updated if they were to be readopted - have not been binding on American Anglicans since the War of Independence, though doctrinal expositions based on the 39 Articles were part of standard seminary training in the Episcopal Church throughout the 19th century. In England they were only binding on clergy, not laity. They weren't drafted with internet forums in mind.
    https://yptheology.org/2019/06/03/d...thirty-nine-articles-in-the-episcopal-church/
     
  3. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Here are some other statements from the 39 Articles that I'll bet not 1 in 100 modern English speakers would readily comprehend:
     
  4. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    426
    Likes Received:
    164
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    Ahh but there is another group the articles are binding on. And that is those who claim the Anglican Badge on this forum. They are the ones with a blue stripe across their membership icon with Anglican written on it. Such as PDL has.
    Never underestimate the power and foresight of the Holy Spirit. Look at the forum list ---> Community pages--->Anglican orthodoxy, where you will find

    "I, A.B., Do here declare my unfeigned assent, and consent to all, and every thing contained, and prescribed in, and by the Book intituled, The Book of Common Prayer and......." (which includes the 39 Articles)

    And underneath that you will find thanks to the foresight of the Holy Spirit.

    Orthodoxy on Anglican Forums is defined in the above manner. (ie by agreeing to the above declaration)


    I'm saying you Invictus can find Romish offensive but by definition on this forum PDL can't.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2021
  5. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Only because I give zero thought to internet pledges. An online forum is not a real community. The Anglican Eucharist I receive every Sunday is as valid as anyone else’s. I don’t need any internet forum “pledge” to tell me that.

    Plus, American Anglicanism has never taken a fundamentalist stance toward the Articles. I see no need to be held to a different standard than what my baptismal vows require. That doesn’t mean I don’t take the Articles seriously. We’re just talking about a syllable here: Changing -ish to -an, to avoid giving unnecessary offense to our Catholic brothers and sisters. It doesn’t change the substance of the article. What’s the issue?
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  6. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    426
    Likes Received:
    164
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    Well that's all find and dandy and I don't have a problem with it. The issue is, if you did have an Anglican badge I think you would have to accept that Romish is an acceptable word. The worst that could happen to you, if you were at "fault" is the mods here could revoke your Anglican Badge if you had it, as has happened to another member here.
    This is a forum protocol issue rather than a purely religious issue.
     
  7. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I’m not concerned, and I wouldn’t be if I were a badge-holder. Questioning the fitness of an accidental archaism is a different thing from questioning the content of a substantial received doctrine. And, technically, the authoritative text of the 39 Articles is the Latin version, not the English. But I assumed you knew that already. :)
     
  8. ZachT

    ZachT Active Member

    Posts:
    261
    Likes Received:
    245
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    This is just rank pedantry from you @AnglicanAgnostic. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that "Romish" did not have an offensive connotation in the 16th Century. If it was offensive even then, it's clear that the mood and attitudes of the nascent Anglican Church towards the church they had just schismed from are not a binding attribute of Anglicanism, and it is permissible, and possibly expected, for an Anglican to cool their emotions over 450 years.

    You can accept and uphold the articles without needing to zealously defend the use of each individual word in the articles. Plainly, Article 22 is talking about purgatory, to uphold the articles you must reject that "Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints" have any standing in scripture, not that Romish is not offensive, nor that it is Anglican doctrine to be offensive to other churches.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  9. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    426
    Likes Received:
    164
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    Well you're absolutely right but 4 other people "liked" my comment. What annoys me is the forum's pedantry. When I searched for Anglican forums on the web, a statement use to come up on the search page to the effect of "discuss Anglican Apologetics" which is one of the reasons I joined. Discussing apologetics apparently doesn't mean saying, this compared to that is a contradiction. I got told off for that. I have to say pedantically I know this compared to that is not a contradiction but why is it so.

    The Anglican badge may be of no great importance to some people here, but just read the thread about Tiffy in the Court of High Commission forum sub group to see how highly some people regard this issue.

    Just some advice to people here don't take anything I say too seriously it's not as though Christianity is a life or death issue. :whistle: :D
     
  10. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I read it when I first joined. It was embarrassing and left me with no desire to ask for a badge even though I’m actually Anglican.
     
  11. ZachT

    ZachT Active Member

    Posts:
    261
    Likes Received:
    245
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The same with me. I still don't see the value of caricaturing those who do use the badge by using claims they obviously don't agree with. Just seems like 12 comments worth of wasted time.
     
    Invictus and Stalwart like this.
  12. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Yes, the Episcopal Church also never adopted the Athanasian Creed either, despite its big prominence in the 1662 BCP. And they also early in their history, not just a few years ago but more than a century ago, clearly flirted with the universalist/Origenist heresy. So a lack of defined orthodoxy (!), a proud rebellion against the Creeds, and a flirting with heresy make an argument that the Episcopal Church was doomed a long time ago. It’s not some recent development, although yeah the 1950s is when the wheels fully came off in a scary way. Anyway this isn’t the thread for that, apologies for taking things off topic.


    I for one am glad they did it, because when I first converted to Anglicanism 11 years ago, one of my biggest issues was a lack of clarity separating the orthodox from the not. Every other church has it’s version of it. The more I read from history, the more I see that Anglicans made more effort to effect that division than just about anyone, so I’m glad at least someone is doing it.o
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2021
  13. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,473
    Likes Received:
    1,090
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    can someone link me? i remember something about this from years ago but now cannot find it
     
  14. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    388
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    The Athanasian Creed - which I personally have no issue with, just to be clear, nor did Samuel Seabury and many other traditionalists - had been controversial in the Church of England throughout the 18th century (and long afterward). There wasn’t a broad consensus in favor of it, and that’s why American Anglicans chose to omit it once it came time to revise the Prayer Book for the former colonies. This was not part of some “revolt against the creeds”. American Anglicanism has always used the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds liturgically. They also adopted the 39 Articles as statements of historic Anglican belief and practice, though the extent to which they were binding on either clergy or laity was never clarified. Episcopal seminary training throughout the 19th century primarily and at times exclusively used dogmatic texts written in England that were expositions of the 39 Articles. It is the doctrine that was actually taught, and is what the people expected to hear. An alternative approach would have likely resulted in factionalism and mutual accusations of heresy, an outcome which no reasonable person desired. This was the Age of Enlightenment, after all. In short, American Anglicans got to make a number of improvements that many in the Church of England at the time also wanted to see, but were unable to bring to fruition. And that’s not just true of Anglicanism, or of America. The Athanasian Creed today is rarely recited in England anymore. The Roman Catholic Church began reducing instances in the liturgy when it is recited over a century ago (it used to be part of the Office of Sunday Prime); under the 1962 rubrics it is recited once, during Prime on Trinity Sunday. The Liturgia Horarum abolished Prime, so the Athanasian Creed is now never recited liturgically in a Roman Catholic parish. It has never been part of Eastern Orthodox practice, for obvious reasons. It has never been used in the rites of Baptism or the Lord’s Supper in any church that I am aware of, so subscription to it cannot be made the basis of either initiation of church membership or remaining in good standing. Even Thomas Aquinas used the Apostles’ and Nicene, but not the Athanasian, Creeds as the textual basis of his exposition of the articles of faith required for belief by every Christian in the Summa Theologiae. I think Christians should be familiar with the Athanasian Creed and recognize it as a historic statement of Christian belief that in no way conflicts with what they recite every Sunday, and am glad it was included - for the first time - in the 1979 Prayer Book. But if liturgical exclusion of it is to now be taken, in defiance of tradition, as a test of orthodoxy, then such a condemnation would affect much more than just the Episcopal Church.

    I am not aware of any time in which American Anglicans adopted universalism (though undoubtedly there have been Anglicans were universalists). Origen was not a heretic. His is one of those instances in which “Councils have erred”: he was condemned centuries after his death, on the basis of writings which turned out not to be his own. He was a Church Father, and was considered as such by the great champions of orthodoxy in the 4th century, e.g., Alexander, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2021
  15. PDL

    PDL Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    586
    Likes Received:
    429
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Church of England
    I do and it is.

    I would have no problem with the use of the word 'Romish' if someone were citing the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. I would object to its use outside that context. We may not agree with Roman Catholic doctrines but there is no need to use pejorative terms.

    I doubt that you would normally read and write in Elizabethan English so I see no need to use the term 'Romish' when the modern term is 'Roman'.
     
  16. PDL

    PDL Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    586
    Likes Received:
    429
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Church of England
    I can!

    I do not dispute Orthodox Anglican doctrine both required by this Forum and for the badge 'Anglican'. I do not dispute or disagree with the Thirty-nine Articles. However, I do not believe the Forum makes any requirement upon my continued membership or 'Anglican' badge contigent on my using Elizabethan English. If I were an English teacher I may quote Shakespeare verbatim but would discuss his works in contemporary English.