mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/19/85)
>>The following reflects the Official doctrine of the Episcopal Church in >>America. Although many Episcopalians like to ignore the Articles of >>Religion many (most?) diocess still require a candidate to affirm them >>before being ordained. > >[Bill Klein quoting the Articles of Religion of the Episcopal Church:] > >>XIX. Of the Church >>The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the >>pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered >>according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are >>requisite to the same. >>As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the >>Church of Rome hath errred, not only in their living and manner of >>Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. > >>XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers >>The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, >>as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain >>all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any >>thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore, >>whoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, >>we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated >>and ordered. I would like to add to Steve Westfall's reply to Bill Klein: First of all, one should pick up a 1979 prayer book and look at the table of contents, noting where the Articles appear. They are included under Historical Documents (which contains a number of other theological statements made throughout the centuries). Note the title: "Historical Documents". It was chosen quite deliberately. In fact, the church most specifically does NOT give doctrinal status to ANY of these documents (certainly not in the sense that the Romans mean the word). The Anathasian Creed, for instance, is no longer given the same doctrinal status that the Apostles and Nicene creeds enjoy; my source for this is the official prayer book commentary. That the Articles are included at all is yet another concession to church tradition. The Articles, it may be noted, are heavy with puritan theology, and church theology has increasingly diverged from them, especially since the Tractarians brought us back to a very sacramental outlook on the liturgy and other practices of the church. In the 1928 prayer book, for instance, they are relegated to an appendix. It is erroneous to think that prayer book mention of a practice implies doctrinal approval. The Prayer Book Society (which is demanding return to pre-1970s liturgical practices and to use of the 1928 book) has, for instance, alleged that the ordination orders are invalid because they mandate the ordination of women priests and bishops. Leaving aside the question of whether it is proper to ordain women, one may note that the orders in question DO NOT every discuss this question directly; the only statement they make is through the use of the italicized pronouns which traditionally signal that the appropriate number or gender is to be substituted. I fail to see how this constitutes approval of "priestesses" (by the way, if you ever want to make a female priest mad, call her a preistess! :-)) in any but the very weakest fashion. Moral: if you want to know church doctrine, don't ask a prayer book, ask a priest (and then ask 15 more, just to be sure). P.S. I don't believe that the nearby dioceses require a postulant to swear belief in the 39 Articles (this includes Washington, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Boston, and Northern Virginia; I don't know about Easton, and I can't keep track of the rest.). Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe