Extra-Mural Anglicans & ICONS

A discussion starter

When Episcopalians left the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. in 1977 over the ordination of women and the imposition of a new prayer book, they committed themselves to the St Louis Statement as a formulary and formed the Continuing Anglican Church (which has sadly known schism since then – ACA, ACC, PCK etc.).

They put into their formulary, a doctrine which had never been present as an official doctrine in Anglican Formularies before -- the veneration of icons, as set out by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II) of AD 787. Of course, there had been in anglo-catholic parishes the veneration of icons since the late 19th century, but this was a practice that was extra to, and not an essential part of, the Anglican Way.

None of the Formularies of the Anglican Way (Articles, BCP & Ordinal), the Canons or the Constitutions of the member churches of the Anglican Communion of Churches go beyond stating their full acceptance of the dogma of the first four Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus & Chalcedon) and their general acceptance of the teaching of the fifth and sixth Councils (Constantinople II & III, 553 & 681) which only deals more fully with the Christology of the earlier Councils (that Jesus is One Person made know in two natures).

Certainly little was truly known in the 16th century about the seventh ecumenical Council and accurate details of it only began to be made available in the mid 17th century. However, had its decree been accurately known to the Protestant Reformers, we can safely say that it would not have been accepted by them, or by such theologians as Richard Hooker, in terms of a required doctrine. In fact, there is no difference in doctrine between the decree on the veneration of icons from the seventh Council and the decree on the same subject from the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, and they rejected the decree of Trent.

Reformed Catholics (Anglicans), Lutherans and others have always found the distinction in the Decree of 787 between the worship, and the veneration, of images/icons difficult to accept. This is usually because, while the theory in terms of the conceptual distinction is sound, the practical application so easily goes wrong in the devotions of ordinary folk, and veneration seems to become actual worship. For this reason, with the general biblical theme of the abomination of idol worship as background, Anglicans in general have not been drawn into the veneration of icons, even though they have a great affection for religious art.

Returning to the Episcopalians who became extra-mural Anglicans, it may be claimed that what they did in 1977 in their St Louis Statement was to take the doctrine & practice of many anglo-catholics (which doctrine and practice were not required by them of other faithful Anglican churchmen) and (without thinking it all through?) to require them by all in the new jurisdiction and denomination – the Continuing Anglican Church. Thereby they effectively cut themselves off from not only the Anglican Communion but also future union with evangelical Anglican, and middle of the way, Anglican jurisdictions; further, they created what may be called a new brand of Anglicanism, which cannot any longer be called “reformed Catholic” in the sense this term has been understood and used within the Anglican Way since the Elizabethan era.

If the Continuing Anglicans, the successors of those who met at St Louis in 1977, do not intend to work towards union with other extra-mural Anglicans (e.g., the Reformed Episcopal Church) but intend only to pursue some kind of acceptance by Rome or by an Orthodox jurisdiction then they will do well to keep the commitment to the seventh council in their formulary. However, if they see themselves genuinely as Anglicans and envisage in God’s good providence some kind of cooperation with other extra-mural Anglicans and eventually parts of the present Anglican Communion of Churches, then they need to declare that the St Louis Statement is NOT a formulary and is not binding but is merely recommendatory or advisory. Such a position would allow them to continue to venerate (not worship) icons and yet at the same time not expect others to do so! For there is no reason why anglo-catholics and evangelicals and those in the middle cannot be together in a truly comprehensive, biblically-based Anglican jurisdiction which takes the dogma of the Councils seriously!

[I have discovered a few copies in pristine condition of my book YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER. JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE TEACHING OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 1996. In it, I describe the doctrines and canon law of the 7 councils. If anyone wishes a copy please send message to peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk ]

=====

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)