Anglican "Formularies" with Bp. Chandler Holder Jones 

It's a good question! These questions are slightly above our pay grade but we are big supporters of G3 unity and pray that it will happen sooner rather than later. Of course, we should say that we are already unified insofar as we are in communion with one another. But it will be nice when we're institutionally unified too!

Matthew, I tried to reply to you from my personal account but it looks like it got filtered out by RU-vid. Certainly, doctrine develops and sometimes those developments do not accord with how some previously thought. A good example of this is Ante-Nicene and Nicene/Post-Nicene Christology. In the particular example of icons, Dr. Ortlund is right to point out that icon veneration developed (though sometimes I think he overstates his point). I think the point is that we accept the conclusion of the Council. We don't think the Councils are inerrant in their reasoning or the historical data they cite.

@@thesacramentalists9855 - My question would not regards the affirmation of the legitimacy of icons, but the anathemas that attend that affirmation. Because of how they frame it as a theological issue, the 7th Ecumenical Council stipulates that one must venerate them with bowing and kissing, and with affection, otherwise one is accursed. If Anglicans accept and affirm the 7th Ecumenical Council, just how are these anathemas understood?

​@@pastorjoshuaschooping4702 Sorry, we didn't see this reply. I believe the anathema would be directed against those who intentionally refused to show veneration towards an icon. In other words, simple carelessness is not being condemned (though that's not ideal); it's active rejection of icons. Specific ways of venerating icons vary by tradition.

Your position of Justification is not necessarily a make or break for most Anglican churches. Though Continuing Anglicans tend to be more Catholic and do not necessarily hold to justification by faith alone.

A modified form of the Athanasian Creed (i.e. minus the filioque) is included in a Russian Orthodox Psalter, so there is some sense in which it is accepted.

@@pastorjoshuaschooping4702 That's interesting. Thank you.

Sadly, it appears that, at the moment, our closest parish is St. Mark's in Vero Beach.

This is a prime example as to why I'm hesitant to leave Roman Catholicism and believe it's the true church, as one of the marks of the true church is the Great Commission. I'm sure you'd have absolutely no issues finding a Catholic church near you.

We are not. Frs. Wesley and Creighton are priests in the Anglican Province of America (APA) and Fr. Hayden is a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC). Fr. Creighton currently serves at an ACC parish.

The truth of the matter is that being in breach with the successor of St. Peter does not deny a Church Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church's stance towards the Orthodox Church is a great example of this. The fact is that we can trace our Episcopal lineage to the Apostles because we are a part of the Catholic Church.

Anglican Episcopal lineage was intentionally breached at the Reformation, when the Eucharistic priesthood was repudiated, and the words, form and intention of ordination were changed. This breach of the Apostolic Succession can not be restored merely by desire, or an act of will of some Anglican priests; that is why some seek the participation of an Old Catholic (Dutch) bishop at their ordinations, as the latters' orders remain valid and authoritative outside of communion with Rome.

@@user-dq6kr2gd1y The Anglican episcopal lineage was not breached because it was not repudiated. This is the point decisively made in Saepius Officio which cites a number of compelling evidences to support that fact (more evidence than is cited in Apostolicae Curae). But yes, the "Dutch Touch" decisively solves the issue and makes the original comment moot.

Why then did Anglican priests anxious about their place in the Apostolic Succession, appeal to the supreme authority of Pope Leo XIII for recognition of the validity of their orders, only to have them declared "utterly null and void", after Rome's diligent examination of the issue?

@@user-dq6kr2gd1y That's not really the context of Apostolicae Curae. It was a joint venture from a Roman Catholic and Anglican for the sake of unity. Further, under Cardinal Reginald Pole, England was (a) absolved of all ecclesial sins committed under the reigns of Henry and Edward and (b) priests who were ordained during that period were allowed to serve as priests in the Roman Catholic Church without any sort of re-ordination. Further, if you check out our episode with Fr. Becket Soule, you'll hear his personal experience which is that he was conditionally ordained in the Roman Catholic Church because they believed his Anglican orders to be valid. Also, you should read John Jay Hughes' book Absolutely Null and Utterly Void. I'm not sure an objective assessment of the process could be called "diligent examination," especially given the reasons cited in the Bull itself which do not reflect Anglican theology, a point harped on at length by Archbishops of Canterbury and York in Saepius Officio.