I have just read an interesting post on Virtue on line. There has been much discussion of the inclusion of the 39 articles....one writer insists that the phrase in article 28, where it states clearly that “ the Lord’s Supper by Christ’s ordinanace was not reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped” ..., means that the Lord Jesus Christ did not institute the practice but there is nothing wrong with it !

I think that shows that GAFCON is seriously undermined by its inclusion of Anglo-Catholics who are undermining the articles in their historic conrtext and how they were unequivocally understood for the first 300 years of Anglicanism, by both low and high churchmen.

Signing agrements which you do not mean...isn’t that the very charge levelled at the liberals in TEC?

Will the voice of PROTESTANT Sydney please speak out!

For years you have been the Protestant conscience of Anglicanism, showing up the novelty of Anglo-Catholicism....

By the way how do you get those nice blue boxes?

Do you mean these ones?

In 2 ways.
One is to highlight what you have written in the “post reply” section, then select the quote box above it.
The other way is to type in [ then q then u then o then t then e then ], then type or paste the quoted bit, then when you finish it type [ then / then q then u then o then t then e then ].

Robert, are you wanting to stir us into a frenzy over incorrect views of the Lord’s Supper on the eve of the pope arriving in Sydney? :-)

No I am not in the pay of the Vatican...but I do see a paradox...lip service to the 39 articles and anarchy.

Surely if reservation and worship of the elements is heresy, why is GAFCON inclusive of such views.

Bishops Schofiled and Iker signed the declaration, and went home to violate the articles!

Hence statements of the authority of the articles are not worth the paper they are written on, whether they are drawn up in Jerusalem or Wogga Wogga.

My point is not Roman Catholic Jesuitical undermining it is common sense logic.

I’m not sure that posting these problems here regarding Anglo-Catholic’s and Evangelicals here is going to achieve much.

The fact that most Sydney Anglicans do not agree with Roman Catholic and in turn Anglo-Catholic views is as present as ever it was, especially in light of WYD.

If you want to ask how Peter Jensen can in good conscience sign a declaration with an Anglo-Catholic then you really need to ask Peter Jensen not anyone else.
However I do remember seeing a document on the Gafcon website which called for continuing discussion and debate over the differences between conservative Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals, which I think stresses the fact that both groups are still cleary aware of their differences.

I must confess to being a bit perplexed by the place the the 39 Articles in the current debate.  I understand that they were the basis of what became the Anglican Church and that the constitution of (almost?) every Anglican Diocese is based on an acceptance of them and the BCP along with the Scriptures and the ancient creeds of the church as the source of all we need to know to be the church of God.

When I read them in this modern world they seem to me to be a very dated document, just as the Nicene Creed is a very dated document.  The Nicene Creed is full of theological declarations that were the product of the theological controversies of the 4th century.  Similarly, the 39 Articles are, it seems to me, full of theological declarations that were the product of the theological controversies of Elizabethan times.

There are a number of Articles and statements within Articles that are clearly anti-Catholic which is not surprising given the history, but these days, while we have differences of opinion about particular practices or beliefs we generally regard one another as Christians, albeit from different traditions.  To do otherwise would be to be completely sectarian - “We Anglicans are the holders of the truth and all others claiming to be Christians are wrong.”

So, while I respect the 39 Articles as formative in the Anglican Tradition I am not sure how normative the particular interpretations of various theological dogmas that they give should be.  Article 34 expressly permits the authorization, change or abolition of any ceremonies or rites that have developed over the years, and I think in lots of ways the church has moved on from that anti-Catholic dogma. 

This is not to say that we as Anglicans can’t have different practices.  Clearly we do, but we don’t normally use them as the basis of saying that our church is True and theirs isn’t.

To do otherwise would be to be completely sectarian - “We Anglicans are the holders of the truth and all others claiming to be Christians are wrong.”

But then again, apart from church governance and baptism (which to me are secondary or even tertiary issues) I and I would assume most other Anglicans in Sydney would feel they could stand shoulder to shoulder with any bible believing Presbyterian, Baptist or Independent Evangelical. 

To stand up and still believe that the reformation happened for a reason, that there are real theological issues which separate Protestants from Catholics, and to draw attention to the fact that these issues still exist, is not to be a sectarian (if it is done lovingly).

Maybe this is the wrong thread, but one interesting thing that came out of this whole GAFCON discussion in a UK/US context, was that highlighting the real differences of opinion between GAFCONites does not make GAFCON any less valid. 

Strangely enough, one prominent Anglican Bishop (who as far as I know haven’t posted on this forum ever) was in the one breath claiming that the GAFCON alliance was too broad to be successful and hold as a united movement together, but in the next breath saying that the Anglican church (which is broader) should be united.

It seems to me that in these debates, the people who want the anything goes status quo (or reform from within existing structures) will point to GAFCON and say look how fragile that alliance is on Women’s ordination, real presence etc.  But then they won’t be concerned if that many different views are held within the Anglican church itself. 

It is strange that people who seem to never want to draw a line in the sand are lecturing those who want a line drawn in the sand for drawing the line a bit more broadly than they would do so if it was only up to them.

One can have differences, but to sign a declaration which imples that you accept the statement that the articles have authority and are true, is down right hypocrisy if you then purposefully ignore them.

It’s like a liberal reciting the creed and not believing in the resurrection.
I
t says to the homosexual, “ these people dissemble truth when it suits them.”

What I love about us “protestants” is that we’re so good at finding things to disagree about with others and continually close ourselves off from those with whom we disagree. The most succesful are the “non-denominational” churches who, ironically, have managed to form 1-congregation denominations!

Seriously though, it is difficult to talk about “THE Anglo-catholics”. Like it or not, things are NOT often as clear cut as this, particularly within North American orthodox anglicanism (though no doubt, in other places as well). For example: what about Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh? He clearly has a commitment to Christ, the Gospel and Historic Orthodox Christianity. But he wears a mitre, robes and has a high view of the Church. Should we seek to “cut off” the Pittsburgh diocese because of this? This issue is complex, and I think we need to recognise that and be careful. Certainly, the 39 articles are clear about the Lord’s Supper (its basically the Calvinist view not Zwinglian, guys), so those who “sign” up should, SHOULD know what they’re getting into.

*Sigh* I think we have bigger fish to fry.

Bishop Duncan is NOT an Anglo-Catholic. The issue is one of the Gospel. The gospel according to Anglo-Catholicism is contradictory to that of Evangelicalism. If the bread and wine do not become the body of Christ, the worship of it is idolatry.

I see this from the perspective of a Roman Catholic. I do not believe Anglican ministers ( of any Churchmanship) have the authority and power to confect the Euchariist, but I do see the consequences of the theology. My point is valid..how can an Angllo-Catholic Bishop subscribe to the declaration, admit the Articles are correct and carry on reserving and worshipping the sacrament?

Gafcon claims to serve TrUth ..this is an issue oif truth.

Who said life was neat and tidy?

However God’s authority and order are so..if you are following his divine plan of the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, teaching consistantly the same doctrine for 2,000 years.

God gives the same certainty that the believers in Acts had, that they are receiving the true revelation and its authentic revelation.

He that hears you , hears me...go therefore into all th world teaching....and lo I am with you EVEN unto the end of the age.

Robert ian Williams,

Do you ever sleep?

Mr Williams
the church of Rome did not teach transubstantiation until the 12th Century. Read your own encyclopedia

The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274),

Until then the question of the real presence in the Eucharist was quite undefined.

Cranmer relied upon the doctrine of Ratramus (9th Century) (so did your “blessed” John Fisher) in arguing for a different understanding of the Eucharist, indeed his assertion at his trial was to the effect “show me where the Roman teaching was held before the 10th Century” his accusers were silent. They had no answer. There is none.

What do you mean by “confect’ the Eucharist?

I’ll deal with your other slurs later, when I am less heated.

But this is a most unsuitable discussion for the prayer request forum, perhaps it simply shows the church of Rome’s high handedness and lack of consideration for people.

Peter Kirsop - 07 July 2008 07:09 PM

What do you mean by “confect’ the Eucharist?

I think Robert meant “conduct”.  He seems to type very quickly and doesn’t display the OC tendencies that some of us have (self included) for proof reading our replies before posting.

. . . this is a most unsuitable discussion for the prayer request forum

Good point Peter.  It was probably innocent enough.  I’ve only just worked out that if you start a new topic while you’re in a particular forum, then that’s where the new topic will be.  I wonder if a moderator or administrator can move threads like this to a more appropriate forum?
Bob

RESPONSE TO PETER......

Transubstantiation was no more invented in the thirteenth than the HOLY TRINITY was in the fourth century. The doctrine was belived and dogmatically defined at that date.

Confect is a theological term used as regards eucharistic consecration...although i admit my typos are shameful, and I have been trying to improve.

St John Fisher believed all Catholic doctrine defined before his martyrdom in 1535 and would have accepted the doctrinal definition of 1215..otherwise he would not have beeen made a Saint..

Why can’t anyone honestly deal with my question about the deceit of allowing Anglo-catholics to sign, and then go their merry way and cionytinue practising the rituals and doctrines condemned. In OLD NORTH WALES we calal that hypocrisy.

Read Ignatius a disciple of St John… who speaks “ Make ceratin all observe one common eucharist, for there is one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrfice...look at those heretics who abstain from the Eucharist because they will not admit it is the body and blod of our saviour..cica 115 AD

Sir
there is a very great deal of difference between the doctrine of Transubstantian and the Real Presence the first is a popish invention of the middle ages (again I draw your attention to your own encyclopedia and to Cranmers comments( and the second a belief of the early church.
Find some evidence that the doctrine of transubstantiaon with its reference to accidents remaining the same but with the change in the substance and so on was held - in substance if not in words before the milddle ages. then the question you ask might be relevant. A

And do so in another part of this forum.

Mods please move this from the prayer room where I go to see what petitions people ask me to bring to the throne of grace not to read some nasty and untrue slurs.,

I am even angrier.,

I note Mr Wiilliams makes no apology for bringing his nasty and untrue slurs in a place dedicated to prayer.