 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Anglicanism Protestant, Reformed, Catholic?
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
The Anglicanism and Women Bishops thread seems to have become a thread about the nature of the Anglican Church, the definition of Catholic and the significance of the doctrine of Real Presence - so it's probably time for a thread about those.
I've made my position clear on the other thread (but will no doubt do so again on this one).
To start with, a few quotes.
quote:
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
All this I promise to do.
From the coronation ceremony
quote:
The Church of England, established according to the laws of this realm under the Queen's Majesty, belongs to the true and apostolic Church of Christ; and, as our duty to the said Church of England requires, we do constitute and ordain that no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold to the contrary.
Canon A1 of the Church of England
quote:
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in theSupper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
Part of Article XXVIII of the Thirty-nine Articles of religion of the Church of England
quote:
The doctrine of the church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thiry-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
Canon A5 of the Church of England
I appreciate that these are CofE rather than Anglican statements, but I'm hoping that those more familiar with worldwide Anglicanism will help overcome the deficit.
OK, lets go.
[ 10. March 2003, 01:29: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The Anglicanism and Women Bishops thread seems to have become a thread about the nature of the Anglican Church, the definition of Catholic and the significance of the doctrine of Real Presence - so it's probably time for a thread about those.
...and the Apostolic Succession, and approach to Sacred Tradition.
quote:
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
All this I promise to do.
From the coronation ceremony
Well there's a feat.
Can I ask when this was drawn up? Because if it was in the height of all the post-reformation political nonsense that went on and produced such drivel under the guise of furthering the mission of the Church, then I have no regard whatsoever to it. If Her Majesty does, then that's her personal, yes I did say personal, choice. (I'm pro-monarchy BTW, and see the relationship between church and state as useful, but I don't see that the monarch must be seen as she is within the church.)
What was drawn up as the sole result of political tensions in which the establishment of the church played a significant part is not to be given the same status as that which came about as a genuine attempt to discern God's will for the Church.
This is not just my personal standpoint on the issue. I'm sure nobody would disagree that this sort of political nonsense cannot be allowed to interfere with the church's mission.
1 point for Catholic.
quote:
The Church of England, established according to the laws of this realm under the Queen's Majesty, belongs to the true and apostolic Church of Christ; and, as our duty to the said Church of England requires, we do constitute and ordain that no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold to the contrary.
Canon A1 of the Church of England
I'm very happy indeed to accept that the Church of England is Apostolic, maintaining the Sacred link to the Apostles through the Historic Episcopate. I do not deny this claim to Catholicity at all.
2 points.
quote:
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
Part of Article XXVIII of the Thirty-nine Articles of religion of the Church of England
And this rules out the Real Presence how?
The argument is specifically dealing with Transubstantiation, with its scientific approach to a matter of Faith. Science and Faith go hand in hand, but each has its own issuies to deal with. The use of the rules of Faith in a scientific experiment would be silly. The 'accidents' and 'substance' approach to the Real Presence was merely an attempt to make said precept of the Faith 'fit' with the most popular scientific approach to matter.
This is what the article condemns.
BUT...
just because I agree with what the article says, it doesn't mean that I agree with the article itself. The thirty-nine articles are again a product of the politics of the day.
They were simply the English bishops' way of showing that they had authority to pronounce on doctrine independently of Rome; an authority I do not deny, and the Articles have 'borne witness to Christian Truth' in that respect. But as the majority of what is pronounced on in the Articles didn't actually need pronouncing on, they did more to establish political power, rather than to edify the Church, and are more a witness to Anglican heritage than an authoritative source of doctrinal belief.
quote:
The doctrine of the church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thiry-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
Canon A5 of the Church of England
See above. 3 points.
I really don't see where you're coming from Chapelhead. The Anglican Church is Catholic, not Protestant, and despite certain unsavoury elements at certain times in its history, never has been.
AD
[UBB tidied up]
[ 13 July 2002, 22:04: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
Sorry about the UBB above. Would appreciate a tidy-up. Thanks. x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hagar
Shipmate
# 1338
|
Posted
It seems to me that the definition of "Protestant" is those churches who protested against and separated from Rome. As such, the anglican church is definitely Protestant.
The fact that many anglicans choose to maintain many of the Roman Catholic traditions seems irrelevant to me. Furthermore, the fact that many Anglicans choose not to maintain many of these catholic traditions strengthens this postion. The idea that there are Anglican Catholics and Anglican Protestants in full communion with each other means, to me, that the Communion cannot be called Catholic. The most I can say is that some anglicans subscribe to the Catholic style of christianity while some do not.
I do not think there is an argument that the Anglican church can be considered a "Reformed" church.
PS,
Posts: 67 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hagar:
It seems to me that the definition of "Protestant" is those churches who protested against and separated from Rome. As such, the anglican church is definitely Protestant.
The term I use for such churches is non-Roman Catholic. 'Protestant' I use to refer to those who have protested against Catholicism. Therefore, by my definition, the Anglican Church is non-Roman Catrholic, but not Protestant. By your definition, it is Protestant.
quote:
The idea that there are Anglican Catholics and Anglican Protestants in full communion with each other means, to me, that the Communion cannot be called Catholic.
I do not think there is an argument that the Anglican church can be considered a "Reformed" church.
Is that paragraph itself not an argument that the Anglican Church is reformed. Where've you seen such a communion before we came along?
x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
A few more quotes:
quote:
protestant n a member of any of the Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome in the Reformation, or their later branches. (Oxford Paperback Dictionary)
quote:
In consequence, historians still argue whether, in making England Protestant during 1559, the queen and her advisers were ... (etc) Owen Chadwick in The Reformation
I do realise that some of the Tractarians and the Oxford Movement made the claim that the Church of England was not Protestant, only Reformed Catholic, but it really requires such a mangling of meaning ('words mean exactly what I want them to mean..') that although it has some attractions to me as an idea I can't see how it can be upheld.
The Church of England began in protest at the Catholic Church as it was (and with a capital C). It still (quietly and politely) protests against the Catholic Church as it is, insofar as there are doctrines and practices which it holds to which we do not - if there weren't, we would simply rejoin. It is therefore a protestant church. That doesn't stop it also being part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, a point which the Oxford Movement quite rightly re-emphasised.
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hagar
Shipmate
# 1338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
quote:
Originally posted by Hagar:
The idea that there are Anglican Catholics and Anglican Protestants in full communion with each other means, to me, that the Communion cannot be called Catholic.
I do not think there is an argument that the Anglican church can be considered a "Reformed" church.
Is that paragraph itself not an argument that the Anglican Church is reformed. Where've you seen such a communion before we came along?
x[/QB]
I suppose I always think of the "Reformed" churches as those who followed the Protestant mvt and thought that the protestants didn't go far enough. I'm thinking of the Annabaptists and the Mennonites specifically.
Taking the more general meaning, yes the Anglican Communion is a reformed church. However, by this definition the Roman Catholic is also a reformed Church since they went through their own reformations.
Posts: 67 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Apparently, the 'Reformation' can be split into three broad categories: the radical reformation (Anabaptists and Mennonites), the magesterial reformation (Luther, Calvin [Reformed], Zwingli et al), and the Catholic reformation (Roman Catholicism adopting ceratin reformation ideas).
Anglicanism is unique in that it attempted to remain 'Catholic' without being 'Roman'. It was evangelical in that it adopted Scripture as it's supreme authority. How about Reformed Evangelivcal Catholic? Who knows? Perhaps 'Anglican' could serve as a definition in itself.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
It does as far as I'm concerned. Welcome aboard. I like you already. xxx
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dks
Shipmate
# 2849
|
Posted
A couple of points:
1. There is no such thing as the 'Anglican Church' only the Anglican Communion and the various bodies that comprise it, such as the Church of England.
2. The CofE is protestant, but not in the anti-catholic sense. It never protested about Catholicism in general as some have stated, but did protest papal supremecy (the two don't always go together)
3. The CofE is reformed , but a reformed Catholic Church.
4.It is Catholic in it's worship and order, maintaining the historic episcopate and the sacraments. Basing it's position on that of the undivided early Church of the first five centuries.
Posts: 122 | From: Cardiff, UK. | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Angelus Domini' is doing a splendid job of defending the faith (thank you! no surrender!), but I feel moved to contribute anyway.
Yes, Anglicans are Catholic. Of course we are; we have all the stigmata. (Having a pope is not necessarily Catholic; the various Orthodox bodies seem to do quite well without one, and no one disputes their Catholicity.) Think about it: If we were Prots, would we have all these embarrassing bishops floating around?
I recently asked an RC priest friend if he could explain to me just exactly how Rome views us. He laughed, and said that they really don't want to spell it out, because we do occupy a unique position. But we are seen as basically Catholic, rather than Protestant, precisely because of the historic episcopate, three orders, primacy of the sacraments, and intent.
He had never actually studied the appropriately-named bull concerning Anglican orders, and when he did, he agreed that "there doesn't seem to be any substance to the argument." (He's young; he'll learn to think less for himself.)
And then there were the nuns at my husband's RC parochial school, who told the children that if they couldn't get to an RC church on holy days of obligation to seek out an Anglican same: "They're Catholic, too."
Finally, a few words on how the word "Protestant" seems to have evolved: At first, it was indeed a label for those who protested Roman Catholic excesses, no matter where they stood on other issues. With time, it was applied more to those who specifically denied the historic episcopate and the rest of it.
Today it seems to have shifted to a semi-pejorative term that refers to what the late H.L. Mencken would have called "wowsers." No reasonable individual, of course, wants to be lumped in with the likes of the Rev. Mr. Falwell and his ilk, so we have the entertaining spectacle of Methodists claiming NOT to be Protestants. (Some American Lutherans also want to be counted in the "Catholic" camp, but admit that their arguments break down on the three orders and historic episcopate.)
Rossweisse // who emphatically does believe in the Real Presence in the bread and wine, but who emphatically does NOT believe in transubstantiation
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Article XXXIV
Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.
Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.
Strikes me as a very Anglican approach, and qualifies the Articles themselves.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Probably all three, in parts. The thing about the Church of England (the Anglicanism I know) is that it contains congregations ranging from very conservative/reformed through to very catholic. This is part of its own uniqueness. Whilst one can look at 'official statements', the reality of Anglican congregational life in England is that church practices and beliefs vary immensely. The Church I attend is very much anglo-catholic, but towards the liberal end of anglo-catholicism (not FiF, inclusive). On, say, the sacraments, and the style of worship, a Roman Catholic friend of mine, on coming to Mass one Sunday morning with us, remarked that we made his church look like Methodists in terms of the ceremony and ritual.
Its also fair to say that 'real presence' rather than 'transubstantiation' is far more widely used within Roman catholic circles these days, as well as within high Anglicanism
![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
quote:
Originally posted by Hagar:
It seems to me that the definition of "Protestant" is those churches who protested against and separated from Rome. As such, the anglican church is definitely Protestant.
The term I use for such churches is non-Roman Catholic. 'Protestant' I use to refer to those who have protested against Catholicism. Therefore, by my definition, the Anglican Church is non-Roman Catholic, but not Protestant. By your definition, it is Protestant.
I think this is where the difference lies. The Anglican Church (or, if preferred, the Anglican Communion) is not protestant by your definition. But it can be anything I want it to be by my own definitions, Humpty-Dumpty style.
quote:
The word 'Protestants' was applied in political circles to the Lutheran signatories of the Protest made at the Diet of Speyer, ….. The term was soon applied to Lutherans in general and finally to all adherents of the Reformation including Anglicans and left wing groups.
JT McNeill, A new Dictionary of Christian Theology
quote:
The Protestant Reformation is the great dividing line in the history of England, as of Europe generally.
Part of the entry for 'England (since the reformation)' in The Catholic Encyclopedia
quote:
There can be no doubt that the English Reformation is substantially a part of the great Protestant Reformation upheaval of the sixteenth century, and that its doctrine, liturgy, and chief promoters were to a very considerable extent derived from, and influenced by, the Lutheran and Calvinistic movements on the Continent.
Part of the entry for 'Protestantism' in The Catholic Enclyclopedia
Would those who don't believe the Anglican Communion to be Protestant care to give a definition in general use (prefereably quoting sources) which would put the Anglican Communion outside the current use of the term Protestant?
Would they also like to say why it is not possible for the Anglican Communion (or some other bory) to be both Protestant and Catholic (ie, why these terms are mutually exclusive)?
It's late, so it's 'Goodnight' from me for the moment.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
I remember a sermon in my house church days explaining that we were not Protestant because we were no longer protesting against the Roman Catholic Church.
Anyway, one of the defining aspects of Protestantism seems to be the belief that the Pope is the Antichrist; Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Calixtus, Bengel, Michaelis, seemed to think so, as did Cranmer and many early Anglicans.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I remember a sermon in my house church days explaining that we were not Protestant because we were no longer protesting against the Roman Catholic Church.
I think that this might come as news to some ( ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ). If we have stopped protesting against the RCC then do we accept the authority of the Pope? Not that I believe accepting the Pope is any test of Catholicism - a straw man which has been set in in some posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Anyway, one of the defining aspects of Protestantism seems to be the belief that the Pope is the Antichrist; Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Calixtus, Bengel, Michaelis, seemed to think so, as did Cranmer and many early Anglicans.
I wouldn't put this as a 'defining' belief. The original 'protest' at the Diet of Speyer was to uphold the idea that governments of individual states should regulate religious affairs. In this sense the CofE could be seen to be faithful to the original protest.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
(Referring to the quote from the coronation ceremony.)
Well there's a feat.
Can I ask when this was drawn up? Because if it was in the height of all the post-reformation political nonsense that went on and produced such drivel under the guise of furthering the mission of the Church, then I have no regard whatsoever to it. If Her Majesty does, then that's her personal, yes I did say personal, choice. (I'm pro-monarchy BTW, and see the relationship between church and state as useful, but I don't see that the monarch must be seen as she is within the church.)
What was drawn up as the sole result of political tensions in which the establishment of the church played a significant part is not to be given the same status as that which came about as a genuine attempt to discern God's will for the Church.
This is not just my personal standpoint on the issue. I'm sure nobody would disagree that this sort of political nonsense cannot be allowed to interfere with the church's mission.
The coronation oath was first said by, I believe, Queen Victoria (I may be mistaken, however). As such it is not a result of any post-reformation fervour, but was drawn up once the Church of England was well established.
And if you can dismiss the reformation so easily, would you also dismiss the eleventh century and say that Anglicans and Catholics are Orthodox?
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
This is not just my personal standpoint on the issue. I'm sure nobody would disagree that this sort of political nonsense cannot be allowed to interfere with the church's mission.
Whether the coronation oath should be dropped is a subject that I think some would disagree with.
quote:
And this rules out the Real Presence how?
Fair enough, it rules out transubstantiation, but not real presence by some other means. Some other means is requred, however.
And much as some would wish to dismiss the 39 Articles, they are still part of the Church of England's teachings, as referenced in Canon Law and the Declaration of Assent.
quote:
I really don't see where you're coming from Chapelhead. The Anglican Church is Catholic, not Protestant, and despite certain unsavoury elements at certain times in its history, never has been.
I never said it wasn't Catholic. In fact, I have been arguing that it is Catholic against those who would say otherwise. But it is also Protestant (and Reformed). The two (three) are not mutually exclusive.
AD
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
Part of Article XXVIII of the Thirty-nine Articles of religion of the Church of England
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
[QB]And this rules out the Real Presence how?
The thing about Transsubstatiation and Consubstantiation is that it assumes an Aristotelian ontology/cosmology that we don't today assume because Einstein exploded it some time ago (amongst others, dating back centuries).
I think it wouldn't at all be "saying what you want it to say" simply to point out that, in light of modern science, the trans-/con- debate is a bit of a red herring brought on by the false categories of substance and accidents. If you don't assume that distinction, the issue becomes a non-issue.
And the best book I've ever found to explain (and demolish) the broader concepts involved was written by a Presbyterian (T.F. Torrance - Space, Time, and Incarnation) who has a sufficiently high view of the Eucharist that any good Anglo-catholic (or Roman, for that matter) could buy into it.
which is a long way of saying that, no, the Article doesn't in any way damage the doctrine of the Real Presence (because in the end, its an anachronism) and for that matter, no, I'm not just reading the Articles in a way that they mean what I want them to mean.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Hagar I have some sympathy with your views on Anglicanism. Being an Anglican and yet of the catholic variety who accepts the ordination of women I can see why the confusion occurs. Anglicans is schizoherenic multifacetted, if thats the way its spelt. We want to be all things to all people, protestant to the protestant, liberal to the liberal; refomed to the reformed and catholic to the catholic. Ok so what does that make us? Promiscuous? Does it make us a bastard religion? Does it make is protestant -yes and does it make us catholic - yes.
For as St Paul tried to bring people to Christ from where they are, I believe that Anglicanism tries to do the same. It will get it wrong at times, badly wrong. But at other times it allows people to hear the gospel, for whom some branches of the christian family have alienated or merely can't reach. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Degs
Friend of dorothy
# 2824
|
Posted
Thanks to this morning's 'posters'. You've saved me writing a dissertation!
Ran to my study last night to dig through books and old essays to post a reply to the early posts.
Must agree with Chapelhead.
These terms are not subjective. I can't use them just as I wish - except to use lower rather than upper case.
I am 'protestant' because I stand by the protest against Papal authority out of which the CofE was born.
I am 'reformed' because I stand by the reformation of ecclesial government and worship which resulted from that protest.
I am 'catholic' because I assent to "the Christian faith as revealed in holy scripture and set forth in the Catholic Creeds to which the historic formularies of the CofE bear witness." These formularies including the BCP, the 39 Articles of Religion and the Ordering of Bidhops, Priests and Deacons (the Catholic order of ministry).
So, as a Catholic I set my store by Scripture AND Tradition, and as an Anglican add to that mix my God-given Reason (God bless Richard Hooker).
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 2388 | From: a land that I heard of once in a lullaby | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Think about it: If we were Prots, would we have all these embarrassing bishops floating around?
maybe. Many scandinavian Lutheran Churches (and those in colonised lands that have scandinavian descent) never gave up their bishops, nor indeed their bishops in the apostolic succession/historic episcopate.
I say this as an Anglo-catholic, not to take apart your argument -- an honourable one made by many A-Caths for decades -- but to point out that it's not actually all that cut and dried and that anyone using it needs to think it through in detail. The real question isn't bishops, or even the apostolic succession, but how the context in which it's exercised might make the Anglican episcopate sufficiently different from that of those protestant Churches which have such things. (I can think of a number, but will leave the thread open for discussion ...)
Now, as for the topic in general: truth be told, we can't agree amongst ourselves about what we are. I tend to fall into the "independent category" fold, which i usually define with phrases such as "reformed catholic" or the like.
But, personally, I dislike labels. The main question to me is this: "Do we experience Christ at the Eucharist"? Do we take into ourselves, tangibly and empirically, the mystery of Christ's Body. If the answer to that is yes (and I've satisfied myself that it is for a book's worth of reasons), then what do I care what label we have?
Why define ourselves by other people's categories which we'll never quite live up to? "We're Catholic, but not that kind of catholic". "We're Protestant, but not that kind of protestant". Is it not better simply to say that Christ's Body is given to us in the Eucharist, God's grace is tangible in our sacraments (seven, I think - two dominical and five minor), and that our Church is in a direct line of continuity from that which was founded upon Christ in the Apostles?
If we can be comfortable in ourselves *as* ourselves -- i.e., as an authentic and authoritative iteration of Christ's body -- a comfort, I note, that the Catholics and the Orthodox have in spades -- then the labels everyone wants to apply to us will not be so important. What do I care if someone calls me a Protestant? I know where I stand in the grand scheme of things (including the grand scheme of Anglican history).
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
After-thought:
we get locked into this mentality whereby it's somehow important to us to explain -- i.e., justify -- why we're catholic or protestant but also why we're "not like Them" (whoever Them may be at a given moment). In this we all to often lose sight of the fact -- i.e., lose sight of the self-confidence, or perhaps more accurately the Spirit-confidence -- that it's an equally valid proposition to ask the Catholics or the Protestants to justify (if we must think in those terms) why they're not like us.
It's interesting, too, that this is a relatively modern phenomenon brought about a number of influences, but not least by that of Our Own Heroes, the Early Tractarians. (I've found that in any number of Anglo-Catholics, starting with The Great Newman Himself, there's this sneaking suspicion that the Romans might be right after all. One of these days, we really must purge that ourselves of that tendency or else lose our identity entirely.)
It's worth reading Hooker, if nothing else but for the simple fact that he didn't have this problem at all ... he was supremely confident that the Church of England, in rejecting what it did, and keeping what it did, was quite right to do so. Now, certainly, I don't agree with every bit of his theology ... and many of his Church/State justifications are now anachronistic. But the attitude: that I respect. If we can't trust and hope with humble confidence -- by which i do *not* mean arrogance -- that God in his Spirit led (and leads) us to the right thing, then frankly, we need to examin our conscience, asking ourselves specifically why we don't just go join with the Roman Catholics (or whoever), and have done with it.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
The Anglican church IMHO is very much it's own church and while it has in its history borrowed liberally from other traditions it could scarcely be said to lean towards any of them.
It's important to remember that to limit this discussion to theological principles misses the point. The Anglican church as a political creation first and formost, a vehicle for Henry VIII to get his divorce, and then as a means by which Elizabeth I could unify England in the face of threats from 'those fancy dans from over the Ditch'.
What then, is specifically Anglican? Well, although I dearly love the Anglican church the most predominant trait, certainly in the Anglican churches I've experienced (England, Scotland, South Africa and New Zealand) is the importance of outward conformity. In private you can do what you like. Catholics are saved by good works, Protestants by faith, but we are saved by good taste!
However this has given rise to a very liberal experimental and creative church that I take great pride and delight in. It's a church that I believe, more than other denominations allows people to ask the hard questions without being shocked. Just so long as they don't raise their voice doing so, and don't spill their tea into the saucer. That would be vulgar.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Santiago:
texas.veggie amen & amen - to both your posts!
You've hit the nail on the head.
Yes,I think so too.In some ways I find myself fairly High yet in others fairly Low.So I don't like labels either,I'm afraid
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
quote:
Originally posted by Santiago:
texas.veggie amen & amen - to both your posts!
You've hit the nail on the head.
Yes,I think so too.In some ways I find myself fairly High yet in others fairly Low.So I don't like labels either,I'm afraid
thank you both.
I'm going to get a little more personal here than I usually do on internet message boards. But I think it's a story worth saying.
in 1998, i had an epiphany ... an epiphany whilst sitting in a Roman Catholic Church in Paris at the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
I was over there at the world youth week events where the Pope was appearing. I'd got a good deal with a Catholic university group (£169 _in toto_ for travel, room, board, food, metro ticket), and decided to have m'self a pilgrimage with the Romans. A grand experience altogether.
Well, anyhoo, there I was worshipping with all those Papists (a term which I use amongst my RC friends with great affection) ... and there they were worshipping Christ in his Sacrament ... in a free(ish)-form service with all those twangy-keyboardy worship songs that we Anglo-Catholics have snubbed for years, not least because that's what Those Other Anglicans (the evos) sing in the Other Anglican worship services.
And it dawned on me ...
These people were worshipping God. Didn't matter how, liturgically. And it wasn't the form of worship that made them Catholic. It was their faith that, in this room, up there and that altar, was Christ in his Sacrament. And it was their absolute assuredness that this congregation in which they worshipped him was -- truth -- the Church of God. And I realised that the beauty is: if you're assured, from that, that you're Catholic, then suddenly you're freed to worship however the Spirit leads.
That's when it hit home: we Anglo-Catholics so often, many of us without even realising it, are secretly afraid the Romans are right when they tell us our orders aren't valid and that our eucharist is just juice and biscuits. So to make up for that, we pull out the bells 'n' smells and ring'em and burn'em for all they're worth. We show disdain for Those Other Anglicans (Who Aren't Really Us And Who Don't Really Understand How The Church Really Works). If we can just be high-enough, then we might just fool God into thinking that we're Real Catholics too.
And that, friends and neighbours, is the single most important difference between the Roman Catholics and so many (but obviously not all) Anglo Catholics. The Romans have no fear of taking what's good (or even what's mediocre) from the Evos, because they're doing so in the context of their absolute confidence in their catholicity. They have that *first*, *before* the bells and smells. When you're that confident, you're free to expand yourself. When you're not, you can only become narrower and narrower.
That day, I remembered a very powerful formative mystical experience of Christ at the Anglican Eucharist in my teenage years: the experience that led me from the Baptist to the Anglican Church. And I could not deny to myself that it was real. So why, I thought, should I ever deny that any part of the Anglican Church -- A-C, Evo, or otherwise -- is real? And, if indeed it was real, then what have I to be afraid of from other members of my Church with a different liturgical background and a different way of expressing God's truth, so long as we remain in dialogue?
From henceforth, it's been my great pleasure and honour to be an Anglo-catholic who has enjoyed all manner of Anglican worship. Indeed, it's God's great sense of humour that I later got my start in worship leadership and preaching in a hippie, alt-worship, evo service at my local parish. (A few of whose membership lurk around on these boards.)
Thus, if people must insist on a label, I tend to call myself "liberal Anglo-Catholic" or "socially liberal orthodox" (i.e., of the Rowan Williams type). or some such thing. In fact, I'll start training for ordination at Westcott House in around 9 weeks' time, if that gives you an idea of my Anglican Type. But I cannot identify myself as such to the exclusion of anything else, because one of these days I'm to be ordained as a priest of the Church in Wales: not just the Anglo-catholic Portion of the Church in Wales. Indeed, I'm to be a priest to the whole of the Anglican Communion, and I'm to go where I'm called. And if that means a "Protestant" parish, then I'd better be prepared to go serve, in confidence that God's there in *all* Anglican worship, or else I'd better be prepared to deny that I've experience God's Kingdom in microcosm in all Anglican worship and go running off to Rome or Constantinople as a matter of integrity.
-- Here endeth the lesson --
(Thanks be to God!)
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
bugger. that was my 100th post and i didn't manage to get the word "fuck" in somewhere. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Texas-veggie: "Indeed, it's God's great sense of humour that I later got my start in worship leadership and preaching in a hippie, alt-worship, evo service at my local parish. (A few of whose membership lurk around on these boards.)"
Oi! Who're you calling hippie/alt-worship/evos? the service sheet for tonight has me labelled "Officiant" ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
And I added to the atmosphere of the "Principal service" this a.m. by wearing an anklet with little bells on it. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
You are right, though, if a church defines itself by what it's not, it's on a loser. Life comes through positiveness and celebration of what we are in God. God does not care if we call ourselves protestant or catholic - God cares about how we relate to each other and to God, and if we are all the time dissing other sisters and brothers we are dissing God, and if we are being afraid of other sisters and brothers, we're not trusting God.
That doesn't mean we can't argue, disagree or even get angry with each other.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Oi! Who're you calling hippie/alt-worship/evos? the service sheet for tonight has me labelled "Officiant"
oh, g'wan, sweetie. you know you're a hippie. that's why we love you.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Article XXXIV
Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.
Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.
Strikes me as a very Anglican approach, and qualifies the Articles themselves.
That's like the Pope declaring infallibly that the Pope is infallible, and so isn't really worth discussing. I've already stated where these articles lie within the Church of England.
quote:
Originally posted by SpO-On-n-ng:
protestant n a member of any of the Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome in the Reformation, or their later branches. (Oxford Paperback Dictionary)
Dictionaries I think are inaccurately named, as they do not dictate what a word means, or how it is pronounced for that matter, they are supposed to be reflective. They are to reflect the widespread, most common uses of a word, as it develops in the spoken language. This idea that a word isn't a word until it appears in Oxford is nonsensical, as is the idea that the definition of a word can be made authoritative to the exclusion of others, if it appears in Oxford, (and the paperback edition at that ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ).
All that shows is that the compilers of the Oxford paperback, saw a widespread use of 'protestant' to mean non-RC.
To protest makes one protestant, in the widest sense of the word, which would make us all protestant. 'Protestant' has a specific meaning, which is 'that which is opposed to Catholicism'.
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Anyway, one of the defining aspects of Protestantism seems to be the belief that the Pope is the Antichrist; Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Calixtus, Bengel, Michaelis, seemed to think so, as did Cranmer and many early Anglicans.
Yes, but Cranmer also compiled the BCP, which loses him any credibility in my book.
I've read Santiago's and texas.veggies's posts, and they have touched me greatly.
I agree with a lot of what t.v says about AC's often feeling that we have to prove sth. And perhaps we do. When we're going to have people trying to rob us of our privileged Catholic status, then yes, my back will arch, I will defend my Catholicism as an Anglican.
Perhaps t.v, I'm not yet at that stage where I can be confident enough in my Catholicism to be Catholic rather than do Catholicism. And I'm happy to accept that. Perhaps one day I will arrive at where you are. But until I have my tambourine and guitar Exposition experience, I will be threatened by attacks on the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion, especially as I don't feel that as Anglicans we can actually afford to be as comfortable as Roman Catholics can.
You've made me realise as well that I don't need to continue with this debate. I know that I am a Catholic Christian, part of a Catholic branch of the Church, whatever anyone else has to sas on the matter.
Thank you.
x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
Angelus Domini. As someone who is looking to understand Anglicanism better, because we are discussing whether to come into a covenantal relationship with them, it would be very handy to know where to go to find out anything definitive about the Church of England. It seems you dismiss, the 39 articles, the BCP and Canon law. If these can't at least give me some picture of what Anglicanism believes (and on the whole I think they are pretty clearly Protestant, although allowing space for some Catholic beliefs) then I am in trouble.
If you are worried about belonging to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, well I believe Protestants belong to that as well, don't they?
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
I think Angelus that you missed my intention. The Church of England may have had excessively Protestant roots, but since then has taken a less Protestant route.
Weslian, the Church of Englands 'doctrine' is best defined by its common liturgy, which is no longer the BCP.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
If that is the case there is virtually no doctrinal difference between the Methodist Service Book (2000) and Common Worship! The Eucharistic prayers for example are virtually interchangeable, (just less references to Mary and the saints in the Methodist version)
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
Weslian, if I have come across as dismissing Canon law, then I apologise. That was certainly not my intention. The BCP we have learnt from, and it has its value as an historical document, and just that.
The thirty -nine articles, also of historical value, have NO doctrinal significance, except that they may be seen as bearing witness to Christian Truth because of the precedents they have set.
Full Communion with Methodism. I vote in favour x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
The 39 Articles are now considered "historic documents," at least in ECUSA.
Yes, in some senses we ARE "all of the above." But the Catholic part comes first and outweighs the rest. What's so hard about that?
Now shall I start a thread on whether it's insulting to call a Prot a Prot, and whence comes this Catholic envy on their part?
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
....and, incidentally, I do NOT favor full communion with any church body which does not formally endorse the Real Presence.
And before people start chucking prayer books (or Bibles, or "worship books," according to denominational preference) at my head, I think it's wonderful to welcome all baptized Christians to the altar rail. But I think we need to be a little more careful about formal relationships with pure Protestants, which the Methodists most assuredly are.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
But I think we need to be a little more careful about formal relationships with pure Protestants, which the Methodists most assuredly are.
On what grounds do you call Methodists pure Protestants?
They are not a denomination formed at the Reformation but one that split of from the Church of England (which you claim is not Protestant) in the 18th Century.
They maintain a belief in the Real Presence (okay probably not all of them, but then again nor do all Anglicans, and given the status of Wesley's hymns in Methodism and the fact that they are strong on the real presence, I'd say that arguably they have a strong emphasis on it than Anglicans do).
Admittedly they do not have the historic episcopate but there is certainly an argument for them being in the apostolic succession (I believe they are) - given that Wesley was ordained within the apostolic succession and if baptism can be adminstered by a lay person in an emergency then it seems odd that this principle cannot be applied to a priest ordaining in a bishop's stead.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Wasn't the Methodist movement started because our Anglican forebears were blind to what God was doing through the Wesleys and Whitefields, and others?
Weren't they refused permission to preach in churches, so they went out and preached in the open air?
I think of the Methodists having wonderful roots in a great Revival, not who laid hands on whom.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Carys, I'm sorry -- I don't mean to offend, but I really find this insistence that Methodists are somehow not Protestant totally bizarre. Yes, the Wesley gentlemen (happy?) themselves were Catholics, because they never left the Church of England. But are their followers Catholic? No.
Consider (ONE MORE TIME!) the stigmata borne by true Catholics:
1) The historic episcopate (formerly known as the "apostolic succession). This is passed down by the laying on of hands, from bishops in that succession. Do the Methodists have it? No. Do members of the Anglican Communion have it? Yes.
2) Intent. For an ordination to be Catholic, there must be the intent to ordain priests, not just "ministers." (ALL baptized Christians are ministers; only those ordained in the historic episcopate are priests.) Do the Methodists ordain in that intent? No. Do members of the Anglican Communion? Yes.
3) Sacraments. This includes the ordination of priests, as specified above, and a belief in the Real Presence in Holy Communion.
The other sacraments include penance (I have never heard of Methodists even offering the rite of reconcilation, much less taking anyone up on it -- and since they don't have priests, I don't see how they could have it in a Catholic sense), unction (also requires a real priest to be done in the Catholic sense), confirmation (again, the laying on of hands by a bishop in the succession of the historic episcopate), baptism (okay, all God's Trinitarian chillun got baptism), and marriage (ditto, although it is to be understood as a sacrament, and many Prots do not).
Anglicans have all of these sacraments in the Catholic sense. Methodists do not.
No, a denomination did not have to be there at the beginning of the Reformation to be considered Protestant by us today, unless you are operating in an extremely narrow, specifically history-oriented sense -- in which case they had to be there at Spires in 1529, and which REALLY makes the C of E exempt. I think that's a bit silly.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Incidentally, the terms "apostolic succession" and "historic episcopate" are being flung about in some confusing ways.
For centuries, the term "apostolic succession" indicated the belief that the laying on of hands and the line of bishops extended unbroken from Peter and the gang to the present.
In recent years, scholars have dropped "apostolic succession" in recognition of the fact that we do not have written records that go back to the very beginning to confirm this. We DO have them from the early second century (and the line is unbroken from that time). While the odds are very good that it really IS an apostolic succession, in the interests of Total Accuracy, we no longer call it that; we go with the phrase we can substantiate.
So I'm not sure how someone can claim that Methodists have the "apostolic succession" while admitting that they lack the historic episcopate. It's a bit like saying that someone is descended from the House of Windsor, but not the House of Saxe-Coburg.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
2) Intent. For an ordination to be Catholic, there must be the intent to ordain priests, not just "ministers." (ALL baptized Christians are ministers; only those ordained in the historic episcopate are priests.) ... Do members of the Anglican Communion? Yes.
errm ... correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Apostolicae Curae have a choice few words to say about this?
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
As an outsider, my perception of the Church of England (and I mean that rather than the whole Anglican communion, of which I know little outside the British Isles), is that during the reign of Elizabeth 1 it became a fundamentally Protestant church in its theology as well as its repudiation of the papacy. In the 17th Century, even so called highchurchmen like Laud were clearly Protestant in their theology and in the way they ordered their church life. (similar to episcopal Lutherans).
Was it not really the Oxford movement that began the repudiation of the protestant character of the Church of England. That was certainly what Newman thought he was doing.
Now we have a church that is Protestant by any understanding, and legally so in Britain or else the monarch would not be able to marry a member of the Church of England.
However, it retains and indeed since the Oxford movement has developed many Catholic traits so it can indeed be seen as Protestant and to a degree Catholic.
As a Methodist, I thank Carys for her special pleading, but I am quite happy to be thought a Protestant, although I do believe in the Real Presence, and as our doctrinal standards specifically refer to Wesley's Eucharistic hymns which explictly expound the RP, I think one can take that as fairly official Methodist doctrine.
I suppose for true Catholics it is a bit hard to take that Christ is really present in the bread and wine consecrated by a presbyter who has not been ordained by someone in the historic episcopate, but God is full of surprises!
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I'm Church of England, and most definately catholic. Gunner got it right in saying that the C of E is schizophrenic. Its both catholic and protestant depending on where you belong within it. In the 17th and 18th centuries it was at its msot protestant, but in the 19th century, Anglocatholicism started to ressert itself and continues to do so up to the present.
I think within the next ten years, the polarisation of fundamental beliefs will lead to a schism. The majority of the church will be reunited with the Methodists and will lean protestantward. A significantminority will schismate, either within a Third Province if we're lucky, or into some for of Continuing Church. Or it my collapse with a wholesale defection to Rome or Antioch.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I suspect PaulTH is right - though I suggest one should also add that there will also be departures from the evangelical wing in a similar fashion towards other churches.
Re the Oxford movement and the re-introduction of catholicity into the CofE - one of the most successful pieces of propaganda that came from this era was that from the movement itself to this effect. It annoyed the old high churchmen of the time immensely. For a full historical treatment of the different "tendencies" within the CofE, I recommend "The Panther and the Hind" by Aidan Nichols. On this subject specifically, read Andrew Louth. Both write from positions outside the CofE (RC and Orthodoxy).
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
'The term 'Protestant' derives from the aftermath of the Second Diet of Speyer (February 1529), which voted to end the tolleration of Lutheranism in Germany. In April of the same year, six German princes and forteen cities protested against this oppressive measure, defending freedom of conscience and the rights of religious minorities. The term 'Protestant' derives from this protest.It is therefore not stictly correct to apply ther term 'Protestant' to individuals prior to April 1529 or to speak of events prior to that date as constituting 'the Protestant Reformation'. The term 'evangelical' is used...to refer to the reforming factions at Wittenberg and elsewhere prior to this date. (Taken from: Reformation Thought: An Introduction by A. E. McGrath)
Therefore the term 'Protestant' like the term 'Christain' itself was coined by it's detractors. 'Protestant' was originally a term used by Roman Catholics in reference to protesting 'evangelicals'. Since then (like the term Christian itself) people have become comfortable with the label which has been attached to them. How many of us now would say, 'Don't call me a Christain, I'm a follower of 'The Way'. Similarly some people are happy to accept the label 'Protestant', others not. For me as an Anglican I would prefer to distance myself from the term. The conditions of the English Reformation were, in my opinion, sufficently different to warrant a different terminology. Anglicanism is unique; why do we feel the need to define it with reference to events across the channel hundreds of years ago. Anglicanism is so much mote tawdry than that! Let's celebrate our own dodgy roots without having to refer to anyone elses!
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dks
Shipmate
# 2849
|
Posted
The word Protestant is being used quite alot in this discussion. I feel there's no problem with it as long as we know what we were protesting against. In the case of the CofE it was papal claims and mediaeval abuses rather than historic Catholic doctrine.
Although it did outwardly develop a protestant ethos and character for most of the 17th and 18th centuries (with some exeptions eg.non-jurors), it's core documents and cannon's were still quite Catholic.
Indeed today in official RC documents they always refer to Anglicans and Protestants, noting a degree of seperation between the two.
Anyway, as for Methodist-Anglican reunion, I feel we need to take things very slowly. A number of issues such as the episcopate and the role of women need ironing out properly by the CofE before it commits itself to unity agreements.
Posts: 122 | From: Cardiff, UK. | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Can I just point out how utterly, utterly offensive it is to suggest that 'only certain unsavoury elements' of the CofE have really identified themselves as Protestant in past years?
Can I also state how utterly offensive it is to suggest that to complain about that is some kind of 'Catholic envy'?
I'm a Protestant, I'm proud to be a Protestant. I know the difference, I know the history. I still chose to be a Protestant.
Apologise (all of you) or see me in Hell.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
1) The historic episcopate (formerly known as the "apostolic succession). This is passed down by the laying on of hands, from bishops in that succession. Do the Methodists have it? No. Do members of the Anglican Communion have it? Yes.
Check out this page from the Porvoo declaration. It's hard going, but it has a different view of what the apostolic succession is, one which would certainly extend to Methodism. The fact that the succession through the historic episcopate may have been broken wasn't a barrier to Porvoo, so there is no logical reason for it to be a barrrier to inter-communion with Methodism.
quote:
2) Intent. For an ordination to be Catholic, there must be the intent to ordain priests, not just "ministers." (ALL baptized Christians are ministers; only those ordained in the historic episcopate are priests.) Do the Methodists ordain in that intent? No. Do members of the Anglican Communion? Yes.
Again, the same page from the Porvoo website sees no problem with ordinations by those who ordain as ministers; the description is that of setting aside someone in a particular role.
quote:
3) ...The other sacraments include penance ...unction .. ... and marriage
Anglicans have all of these sacraments in the Catholic sense. Methodists do not.
Article XXV is specific that they are not sacraments, though personally I agree that they have a sacramental quality. But I can't insist that the CofE as a whole sees them in that light. Indeed, the CofE currently has no rite of reconciliation other than the 'Visitation of the Sick', which a bishop recently described as being a rite where it would be a breach of contract if the sick person recovered - in other words it has a rite of extreme unction but not of reconciliation. Priests who offer it tend to use adapted Roman rites.
I have no objection to a Catholic interpretation of these things, in many cases I share it. But it can't be used as a way of defining 'us' and 'them', because 'us' already includes large numbers of priests, congregations etc who have an entirely non-catholic view of things. They have no right to say that the catholic approach is non-Anglican, but equally the catholic side of the communion cannot say that the protestant approach is non-Anglican. That's the tension of the via media.
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[QB]....and, incidentally, I do NOT favor full communion with any church body which does not formally endorse the Real Presence.
QB]
Can someone point me to where the Anglican Communion officially endorses that?
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
