Ha! I hadn’t thought of that. It’s self-refuting if it cannot itself be proven by Scripture, I suppose, which raises a further question. I am far from an Articles fundamentalist, but this one does have the merit of defending Anglicans from episcopal innovations and, more importantly, from punishment for failing to adhere to them.
And you are of course right about the sensus, duly corrected with thanks.
im a catholic and therefore a zealous proponent of episcopal innovations and punishments! whats the parable of chesterton ...a protestant is someone who takes the jewelled bible out of a procession and starts using it to condemn the procession, the incence, bells, icons, Blessed Sacrament, garmets, etc, all for being unbiblical. haha.
I’d say that I’m a Catholic, too, and that none of the glories you list are either innovations or unbiblical! The Spirit moves the Apostolic Church, but never in opposition to the Incarnate Word.
Note that the Article does not even go as far as to condemn extra-biblical teachings or practices: only to say that they cannot be insisted on as articles of belief. It’s a helpful safeguard, not a straitjacket.
There are, to be fair, other Articles I’d be less likely to cite…
Art 28 says the doctrine of transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of scripture" and art 31 says the Mass being a sacrifice is a "blasphemous fable" This is the heart of the catholic faith, the reason for our sacrificing priesthood. Jesus' Eucharistic Heart attested to by scripture apostolic tradition and countless miracles being insulted and denied here. If you identify as catholic its dishonest and false. Read apostolicae curae, the matter is settled.
Article 28 denies the precise definition of transubstantiation prevalent at the time said article was written, but by no means denies the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which is a doctrine evident in our liturgy; article 31 does not deny that the Mass is sacrifice, but that the sacrifice of Masses (sic) themselves rather than Christ's unique sacrifice of which they are the sacrament can remit "pain or guilt." To be fair, Rome was not of one mind on either of these subjects at the time of the Articles, and there have been theological clarifications and refinements on both sides since.
We're now at risk of simply recycling an argument that has been had for far more years and at much greater length than we can have here. All I can do re. the Articles is point to you Newman's comments on these two articles in Tract 90 (https://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/tract90/tract90-2.html#section9), which at least shows that they are a product of their history and not so straightforward in their meaning as they might seem. Further, since clergy in the Church of England have not been required to assent to the Articles for some years now, I cannot really say that they have held that much of a sway on me in any case.
Regarding the catholicity of the Church of England, if I did not honestly believe it to be a part of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church, I would be unable to recite the creeds we recite at every office of mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion, where we do indeed claim to be such. Apostolicae Curae was sharply rebuffed by very sound Anglican scholars, and their answer promptly ignored. There have certainly been dubious developments since AC in Anglican circles which question the validity of holy orders in some quarters, but AC is only settled if one believes in papal authority, since the argument it makes is questionable.
While I am a great admirer of Roman Catholicism, I think that the claim of absolute papal authority (regardless of the question of papal infallibility ex cathedra, which is another matter) overrides the unit of episcopate and people, i.e. diocese, which is the true mark of the Catholic Church. I would like to see a reunified church of East and West in which the Pope was primus inter pares among the other patriarchs, but Rome's current doctrine of the papacy is an impediment to this. In this, I am only saying what the Orthodox say.
So, I may be wrong and hence, as you say, false, but I am not being dishonest. My highest loyalty is to the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think that I am already in it, albeit in a defective part, but I am not convinced that Rome is much less defective. Were I to swim any rivers, I'd go further than the Tiber and cross the Bosphorus!
All this, I hasten to add, is written in charity and with the highest regard for the Roman Catholic Church.
When you recide the creed you cannot do so while claiming a unity of sense with the council fathers of nicea. You know this, but if you need not accept the 39 articles its not clear why its important for you to accept the sense of the text here. I guess its just historical ornamentation. St Athanasius was bannished from the roman empire for insisting that the arians accept the proper sense of the text of nicea before being admitted back into the church. So the proper sense was, at the time, important. Is the proper sense important to you? Are you an originalist about nicea? The council fathers could not have meant an invisible unity, catholic defined dogma moreover confirms ths, and even the reformers could not imagine this, as you must, as its the only possible unity you can claim to. Even deranged bigamist theologians like Karl Barth say the idea of an invisible unity is nonsense.
To say you are apart of the one, holy, catholic, church is about as meaningful for me to say I reside in pangea, while living in germany. I could try to generate a logical universe where that claim is meaningful, but what for? pangea doesn´t concretely exist, there is scant evidence that it ever did, and its unclear why or how its practically important or significant. for all practical intents and purposes, i reside in germany, submit to its laws, taxes, etc. Being in communion with the one church is a concrete, practical, and palpable reality, you are united in a common liturgy, submit to a common body of doctrine and a common authority.
Thus, I think it, for historical and theological reasons plainly dishonest for you to claim to be catholic. You reject the catholic faith, you are not in sacramental union with the catholic church, nor do you accept the catholic authority or even the authority of councils. Newman himself clearly didn´t see his own reasoning about the articles convincing enough to remain in the anglican communion. So you cite his reasoning here, long since jetissoned by him as being pursuasive, when convenient, and reject the settled reasoning of the church, along with its authority, according to wish, on account of various objections to the papal decision. The idea that we settle these things according to our own reasoning, is of course, as you know, nowhere to be found in the church fathers, who submitted to proper authority. There were well reasonied arian objecctions to the council of nicea, why not entertain those? I guess your only answer is that they had bad arguments. The traditional approach is that when the Holy Spirit teaches through the Church it is binding on all faithful, not binding if they find the reasoning convincing, which would open pandoras box so to speak. Interesting how the new "spirit" keeps insisting that protestants (and catholics i admit after the 60s) need believe less and less. The Holy Spirit works in the Catholic Church in the opposite way, by teaching more and more, and binding the faithful to these teachings. It cannot be the same spirit.
Eamon Duffy´s book "stripping of the altars" clearly captures the spirit of the english reformation as intended by the men who led it. Its clear they drafted these articles to be profoundly anti-catholic in spirit. the revisionist attempt by anglo-catholics to forget this is dishonest and disingenuous, and makes light all the thousands martyred for love of the rosary (carrying a rosary was a capital offense for a time in post-reformation england), Mass, true Priesthood, and Pope. But even without knowing the history and the theology of a figure like cromwell, the texts themselves are clearly written in an anti-catholic spirit. Anyone who knows that catholic teaching and believes it finds the formulations here utterly repugnant. The entire reason for the catholic priesthood is that priests offer a real sacrifice. To say its a sacrifice without merits being applied is typical anglican sophistry. Its to keep the name but to have hollowed it of all its practical meaning. How can you take pride in the tendency of anglicanism to view this sort of maneuver as a solution to legitimate doctrinal disputes? to keep the name as ornamentation, and reject the catholic or orthodox meaning that goes along with the name.
This sacrificing aspect being intentionally removed from the rite of ordination for anglican priests was the reason for the invalidity of anglican orders according to apostolicae curae. This makes a lot of sense. To claim to a real sacrifice with real effects in some way or another necessitates the doctrine of transubstantiation, as without a real substantial change, there can be no real sacrifice. To give the impression that this is some heavily disputed idea in catholicism is rediculous. The formulation of transubstantiation of course comes later and in the middle ages but even here, we have the wonderful legend for St Thomas hearing from Christ after he had written on this matter, "You have spoken well of me Thomas!"
As you mention, the Roman Catholic Church is very sick or perhaps even apostate. This must be granted out of love for the truth, but for me at least, its no reason to jetisson the sensus fidelium entirely. thank you for your thoughts and efforts to engage with me here. I enjoy the clash. Forgive me for any lack of charity in interpreting what you wrote or haughtiness in my tone.
Isnt the 6th of the 39 articles self-refuting?
Its sensus fidelium btw.
Ha! I hadn’t thought of that. It’s self-refuting if it cannot itself be proven by Scripture, I suppose, which raises a further question. I am far from an Articles fundamentalist, but this one does have the merit of defending Anglicans from episcopal innovations and, more importantly, from punishment for failing to adhere to them.
And you are of course right about the sensus, duly corrected with thanks.
im a catholic and therefore a zealous proponent of episcopal innovations and punishments! whats the parable of chesterton ...a protestant is someone who takes the jewelled bible out of a procession and starts using it to condemn the procession, the incence, bells, icons, Blessed Sacrament, garmets, etc, all for being unbiblical. haha.
I’d say that I’m a Catholic, too, and that none of the glories you list are either innovations or unbiblical! The Spirit moves the Apostolic Church, but never in opposition to the Incarnate Word.
Note that the Article does not even go as far as to condemn extra-biblical teachings or practices: only to say that they cannot be insisted on as articles of belief. It’s a helpful safeguard, not a straitjacket.
There are, to be fair, other Articles I’d be less likely to cite…
Art 28 says the doctrine of transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of scripture" and art 31 says the Mass being a sacrifice is a "blasphemous fable" This is the heart of the catholic faith, the reason for our sacrificing priesthood. Jesus' Eucharistic Heart attested to by scripture apostolic tradition and countless miracles being insulted and denied here. If you identify as catholic its dishonest and false. Read apostolicae curae, the matter is settled.
Article 28 denies the precise definition of transubstantiation prevalent at the time said article was written, but by no means denies the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which is a doctrine evident in our liturgy; article 31 does not deny that the Mass is sacrifice, but that the sacrifice of Masses (sic) themselves rather than Christ's unique sacrifice of which they are the sacrament can remit "pain or guilt." To be fair, Rome was not of one mind on either of these subjects at the time of the Articles, and there have been theological clarifications and refinements on both sides since.
We're now at risk of simply recycling an argument that has been had for far more years and at much greater length than we can have here. All I can do re. the Articles is point to you Newman's comments on these two articles in Tract 90 (https://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/tract90/tract90-2.html#section9), which at least shows that they are a product of their history and not so straightforward in their meaning as they might seem. Further, since clergy in the Church of England have not been required to assent to the Articles for some years now, I cannot really say that they have held that much of a sway on me in any case.
Regarding the catholicity of the Church of England, if I did not honestly believe it to be a part of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church, I would be unable to recite the creeds we recite at every office of mattins, Evensong and Holy Communion, where we do indeed claim to be such. Apostolicae Curae was sharply rebuffed by very sound Anglican scholars, and their answer promptly ignored. There have certainly been dubious developments since AC in Anglican circles which question the validity of holy orders in some quarters, but AC is only settled if one believes in papal authority, since the argument it makes is questionable.
While I am a great admirer of Roman Catholicism, I think that the claim of absolute papal authority (regardless of the question of papal infallibility ex cathedra, which is another matter) overrides the unit of episcopate and people, i.e. diocese, which is the true mark of the Catholic Church. I would like to see a reunified church of East and West in which the Pope was primus inter pares among the other patriarchs, but Rome's current doctrine of the papacy is an impediment to this. In this, I am only saying what the Orthodox say.
So, I may be wrong and hence, as you say, false, but I am not being dishonest. My highest loyalty is to the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think that I am already in it, albeit in a defective part, but I am not convinced that Rome is much less defective. Were I to swim any rivers, I'd go further than the Tiber and cross the Bosphorus!
All this, I hasten to add, is written in charity and with the highest regard for the Roman Catholic Church.
When you recide the creed you cannot do so while claiming a unity of sense with the council fathers of nicea. You know this, but if you need not accept the 39 articles its not clear why its important for you to accept the sense of the text here. I guess its just historical ornamentation. St Athanasius was bannished from the roman empire for insisting that the arians accept the proper sense of the text of nicea before being admitted back into the church. So the proper sense was, at the time, important. Is the proper sense important to you? Are you an originalist about nicea? The council fathers could not have meant an invisible unity, catholic defined dogma moreover confirms ths, and even the reformers could not imagine this, as you must, as its the only possible unity you can claim to. Even deranged bigamist theologians like Karl Barth say the idea of an invisible unity is nonsense.
To say you are apart of the one, holy, catholic, church is about as meaningful for me to say I reside in pangea, while living in germany. I could try to generate a logical universe where that claim is meaningful, but what for? pangea doesn´t concretely exist, there is scant evidence that it ever did, and its unclear why or how its practically important or significant. for all practical intents and purposes, i reside in germany, submit to its laws, taxes, etc. Being in communion with the one church is a concrete, practical, and palpable reality, you are united in a common liturgy, submit to a common body of doctrine and a common authority.
Thus, I think it, for historical and theological reasons plainly dishonest for you to claim to be catholic. You reject the catholic faith, you are not in sacramental union with the catholic church, nor do you accept the catholic authority or even the authority of councils. Newman himself clearly didn´t see his own reasoning about the articles convincing enough to remain in the anglican communion. So you cite his reasoning here, long since jetissoned by him as being pursuasive, when convenient, and reject the settled reasoning of the church, along with its authority, according to wish, on account of various objections to the papal decision. The idea that we settle these things according to our own reasoning, is of course, as you know, nowhere to be found in the church fathers, who submitted to proper authority. There were well reasonied arian objecctions to the council of nicea, why not entertain those? I guess your only answer is that they had bad arguments. The traditional approach is that when the Holy Spirit teaches through the Church it is binding on all faithful, not binding if they find the reasoning convincing, which would open pandoras box so to speak. Interesting how the new "spirit" keeps insisting that protestants (and catholics i admit after the 60s) need believe less and less. The Holy Spirit works in the Catholic Church in the opposite way, by teaching more and more, and binding the faithful to these teachings. It cannot be the same spirit.
Eamon Duffy´s book "stripping of the altars" clearly captures the spirit of the english reformation as intended by the men who led it. Its clear they drafted these articles to be profoundly anti-catholic in spirit. the revisionist attempt by anglo-catholics to forget this is dishonest and disingenuous, and makes light all the thousands martyred for love of the rosary (carrying a rosary was a capital offense for a time in post-reformation england), Mass, true Priesthood, and Pope. But even without knowing the history and the theology of a figure like cromwell, the texts themselves are clearly written in an anti-catholic spirit. Anyone who knows that catholic teaching and believes it finds the formulations here utterly repugnant. The entire reason for the catholic priesthood is that priests offer a real sacrifice. To say its a sacrifice without merits being applied is typical anglican sophistry. Its to keep the name but to have hollowed it of all its practical meaning. How can you take pride in the tendency of anglicanism to view this sort of maneuver as a solution to legitimate doctrinal disputes? to keep the name as ornamentation, and reject the catholic or orthodox meaning that goes along with the name.
This sacrificing aspect being intentionally removed from the rite of ordination for anglican priests was the reason for the invalidity of anglican orders according to apostolicae curae. This makes a lot of sense. To claim to a real sacrifice with real effects in some way or another necessitates the doctrine of transubstantiation, as without a real substantial change, there can be no real sacrifice. To give the impression that this is some heavily disputed idea in catholicism is rediculous. The formulation of transubstantiation of course comes later and in the middle ages but even here, we have the wonderful legend for St Thomas hearing from Christ after he had written on this matter, "You have spoken well of me Thomas!"
As you mention, the Roman Catholic Church is very sick or perhaps even apostate. This must be granted out of love for the truth, but for me at least, its no reason to jetisson the sensus fidelium entirely. thank you for your thoughts and efforts to engage with me here. I enjoy the clash. Forgive me for any lack of charity in interpreting what you wrote or haughtiness in my tone.