Hmmmn you made the claim for the CofE and it seems you were wrong. Once again you sounded so knowledgable and convincing but once again you were wrong
Wrong.
@rakovsky quoted two different things.
He quoted one webpage, "christianitystackexchange," in such a way to suggest that the COE still requires its priests and bishops to adhere to the 39 Articles. However, if you look at that website, you will find that it is NOT, in any way, an official page of the Church of England, or overseen by the Church in any way. It is a site where Christians from various backgrounds (primarily evangelical) ask questions, and answer questions. The "authority" is only what any particular person thinks.
In other words, it would be the equivalent of if someone quoted anything I wrote on this board, and claimed it was "Orthodox Christian Belief," just because they found it on a Christian website.
Imagine if someone quoted me saying, as I did in another forum, "not all transgender women are biologically men," and said, "See, it says so in a Christian forum. Therefore, the official Christian position is that transgender women are actually women."
I think you are well aware that that is not the "official Christian position."
Neither is anything from "christianitystackexchange" necessarily the official position of the COE. I'm not saying everything on that site is wrong. I'm simply saying you can't assume everything on it is true. It ain't the Bible.
The second quote is from the Church of England website. And it says, very clearly:
"The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England."
This does not imply that the 39A are mandatory for all priests and bishops. This does not mean that all members of the COE are required to accept them. This does not, in any way, affirm rakovsky's previous assertion.
All it does is say that there's nothing in the 39A that is contrary to scripture.
I have never claimed otherwise.
All I have said is that priests and bishops in the COE are not required to affirm them, nor have they been for almost 100 years.
And nothing rakovsky has provided contradicts this. As much as he/she may want to believe it otherwise, it simply isn't the case.
There are probably Anglican priests and bishops -- both in the COE and in all Anglican churches worldwide -- who absolutely affirm every one of the 39 articles, without reservation or hesitance. And I am not saying that there is anything in particular wrong with any one of the articles, or all of them as a whole.
I'm simply stating, for the 10th times or so, that the COE does not requires her bishops and priests to make an oath to them. The COE has loyalty to Christ alone, not to any creed, theological tenet, philosophy, or political view.
I don't know why this is so hard for y'all to understand. God gave you a brain. It would be nice to use it once in a while.