Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Is Anglicanism Protestant, Reformed, Catholic?

Thread: Purgatory: Is Anglicanism Protestant, Reformed, Catholic? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000126

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

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 ]

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

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 ]

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Sorry about the UBB above. Would appreciate a tidy-up. Thanks. x

Posted by Hagar (# 1338) on :

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,

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

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

Posted by SpO-On-n-ng (# 1518) on :

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.

Posted by Hagar (# 1338) on :

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.

Posted by mt_tomb (# 3012) on :

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.

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

It does as far as I'm concerned. Welcome aboard. I like you already. xxx

Posted by dks (# 2849) on :

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.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

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.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

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]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

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.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

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.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

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]

). 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.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

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

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

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.

Posted by GUNNER (# 2229) on :

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]

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

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]

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

Bidhops? Bidhops? Perhaps I'm not as cathlic as I thought! [Embarrassed]

BISHOPS!

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

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).

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

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.

Posted by Santiago (# 2824) on :

texas.veggie amen & amen - to both your posts!

You've hit the nail on the head.

As one old enough to know better, I've spent far too much of my ministry as a(n) (Anglo) Catholic priest worrying about what other people thought I wasn't, instead of celebrating what/who I am.

"Send down the Holy Spirit upon your servant for the office and work of a priest in your Church"

That's what the bishop prayed at my ordination.

No labels - a priest in GOD'S CHURCH.

Posted by Timtim (# 2643) on :

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.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

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

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

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!)

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

bugger. that was my 100th post and i didn't manage to get the word "fuck" in somewhere. [Devil]

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

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!]

And I added to the atmosphere of the "Principal service" this a.m. by wearing an anklet with little bells on it. [Yipee]

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.

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

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. [Wink]

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

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]

).

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

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

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?

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

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.

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

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)

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

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

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

....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.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

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

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :

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

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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.

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

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?

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

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!

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :

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.

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :

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

Posted by mt_tomb (# 3012) on :

'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! [Wink]

Posted by dks (# 2849) on :

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.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

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.

Posted by SpO-On-n-ng (# 1518) on :

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 [Wink]

- 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.

Posted by Sean (# 51) on :

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?

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :

If you are going to use Reformed as a title then use it properly please otherwise I will feel quite entitled to use Anglicanism to refer all churches originating in the England.

Reformed is a title applied to a world wide family of churches, including many Presbyterian and Congregational churches. If you do not believe me please look us the web site for the World Alliance of Reformed Churches http://www.warc.ch/ . Yes it is in Geneva so no prizes for guessing one theological influence but look closer before you jump to conclusions.

The biggest member by far in the UK is the Church of Scotland.

This is also the Reformed as in United Reformed Church.

Jengie

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
angelus domini said The Anglican Church is Catholic, not Protestant, and despite certain unsavoury elements at certain times in its history, never has been.

Well well a personal attack against me or is it?

AD do you consider me to be an unsavoury element?

If not please reconsider your earlier post and then apologise.

I understand that you might have a narrow view of Anglicanism and that is fair enough but I am definitely Anglican and protestant although I am normally use the label evangelical.

I would also suggest you study a bit of history as well.

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

I, too, consider myself a Protestant, and the CofE church I attended for a number of years, and in which we got married, was also definitely Protestant (as of course is the Baptist church we currently attend). So I would join with Wood and Nightlamp in a call for an apology from Angelus Domini.

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

I posted earlier in this thread:

quote:
The Anglican Church is Catholic, not Protestant, and despite certain unsavoury elements at certain times in its history, never has been.

To which Nightlamp has replied:

quote:
Well well a personal attack against me or is it?

AD do you consider me to be an unsavoury element?

No Nightlamp, I don't consider you an unsavoury element.

I must explain that comment. I've posted elsewhere, regarding my site, that in places I've worshipped, including my current parish which claims to be Catholic in Tradition, Catholicism is suppressed. We will deliberately omit Marian Feasts from the Calendar, and many many other elements of, not Protestantism, but active anti-Catholicism.

As a Catholic Christian, this often not just upsets, but also frustrates me. Because a lot of what had been posted on this thread and it's parent thread reminded me so much of debates I've had to have over liturgy, (even to get an indoor procession on Corpus Christi in a Catholic Parish), I got into that state of anger and frustration which led to the birth of my site, and I acted upon that by inserting certain terms and phrases into my posts here.

It was unsuitable in Purgatory, and even more so within a Christian context anyway. And so I apologise for the above, and other phrases, and any offence cause thereby.

It wasn't a personal, but rather a general attack, but I apologise Nightlamp. Thanks for not taking this to Hell.

from me x

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Alaric the goth, you got in as I was typing. I hope my above post helps. Wood, I had already left this thread before you posted, I hope you didn't think I was ignoring you.

It wasn't my intention to offend, honestly, but I'd be lying if I were to say that I didn't know that that would be the result.

Don't hate me, pleeeeeeeeease. AD

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

Do you consider anglican protestants to be an unsavoury element with me as the lone exception?

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

No Nightlamp. I said that it was a general attack, not to excuse me from attacking people, but to point out that I wasn't singling anyone out, as you seemed to feel from your previous post.

I do not consider any Protestants to be unsavoury elements by virtue of the fact that they're Protestant. I got aggravated by what reminded me of anti-Catholicism, and I reacted by attacking Protestants. I am sorry for that and have apologised.

That's what I was trying to say above. If I didn't express myself clearly, then I'm sorry.

AD

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
angelus domini' said It wasn't my intention to offend, honestly, but I'd be lying if I were to say that I didn't know that that would be the result

Mmmm I suggest AD that you reread this. You are saying I did not intend to offend but I knew it would; a slight contradiction?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Um, maybe it might be wise to accept the guy's apology at this point?

I think it's retraction enough. Do watch what you're saying, though, AD.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

It's [Cool]

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Not a contradiction. It's an explanation of what I was thinking.

Before I clicked on 'Add reply' I was aware that that slur would offend, but to offend was not the reason I posted it.

Yes, the knowledge that it would cause offence should have been sufficient to move me to change the wording of that sentence, but at the time, I didn't respond in that way. That is not my attempt to excuse myself for posting it, just an explanation of why I did it.

AD

Posted by Dorothy's Friend (# 2824) on :

angelus domini, stop digging! The hole's big enough already! [Smile]

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[QB] 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.
QB]

Point of information, Methodists are ordained either as deacon or presbyter. You are quite right, ALL baptised Christians are ministers. Those ordained with the Holy Spirit, by the Conference acting as our corporate bishop are presbyters or deacons.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

now I'm confused, and I half started this - or maybe 1 eighth - by protesting :-) against what Rossweise and AD said in the other thread.

I didn't want to be angry with them, I wanted to point out that they were being silly. No-one could seriously call the CofE other than "Protestant" and I would imagine that anyone doing so was merely trying to draw people's attention to some of the odder things about it.

Now I find that Rossweise thinks the word "Protestant" is pejorative! I can honestly say that I have never heard it used like that in my life except by Northern Irish Catholics. And not very many of them either.

On the other hand, here in sunny England (well, it is today), there still are a few who don't like the word "Catholic". Mostly people who don't seem to be any kind of professing Christian at all - though you do meet quite a lot of out and proud ex-Catholics who will rant about the iniquities of Rome till the early hours. My Dad was one. He thought the church was basically a device for separating the poor from their money and for keeping the working class in line.

I don't think I've met anyone who, if you said "I'm a Catholic" in a social context, would think anything but Rome. When people first hear (or pay attention to) the words of the Creeds as used in Anglican services - for example visitors at a baptism, or at a Christmas Eve service, who would not normally attend worship - they seem to universally startle at the word "Catholic". Everyone "knows" that the "Catholics" are Rome and the that the CofE E is Protestant. Even my own daughter who has attended church with me almost every Sunday of her life asked me why we used the word Catholic, when she was about 9 or 10 years old and should have known better!

On those sort of circumstances I look on our use of the Creeds as (amongst many other things) expressing our solidarity with Rome - an impaired solidarity (though the impairment is more their fault than ours - we are as much heirs to the ancient church as they are, and they have introduced more novel doctrines than we have since - but a real one.

I'm perfectly happy - proud - to be a Protestant. And Catholic as well. It is just a pity some other people don't recognise us as such.

As for "Reformed" - well the CofE certainly uses the word of itself, and certainly was a Reformed church in its theology (when it had one...) But once upon a time "Reformed", "Evangelical", and "Protestant", all meant interchangeably much the same thing, now they have developed specialised meanings. So in the senses in which those words are used in British English nowadays, the CofE is always and undeniably Protestant, often Evangelical, but not really Reformed.

Though it is nearer than some think - and was even nearer in the past. We are Episcopal - but not Episcopal in the sense that the Roman Catholics are. An Anglican bishop does not (usually) appoint priests in his diocese and can (almost never) force them to move when they are appointed. (This is changing these days with the greater use of suspended benefices).

The day to day government of a parish is usually entirely in the hands of the incumbent priest (i.e. presbyter) rather than the bishop, with some input from (traditionally) the churchwardens and (these days) the Parish Council, who are elected by the people and at least in that sense form an elder ship. When a parish is vacant it is not usually the bishop who chooses the new minister but the patron - traditionally a lay role - and the Parish Council have the right of veto. Which these days, in practice, means they often, perhaps normally, advertise for a new vicar and interview candidates.

And of course the bishops themselves are appointed by the Crown, which in practice means by civil servants chosen by the Prime Minister, although Margaret Thatcher started a rather irritating habit of choosing her own men whatever anyone else said.

So the government of the CofE is, at the parish level, in the hands of the priests, and at a wider level, in lay hands. Which is at least arguably Presbyterian :-)

Of course in the historical meanings of the words all true churches are Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical; and most of them are Reformed

[Angel]

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Some words from +Charles Gore that tickled me:

quote:

But that great and deep purpose of the real Presence has had its very roots cut in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. According to this doctrine the Divine Presence, the presence of our Lord’s Body and Blood, is so attached to, and I should say subjected to, the material accidents, that it is a necessary consequence of the doctrine that, as soon as the accidents begin to change, that is to say after a few minutes, as soon as digestion begins in the communicant—(it is an extremely disagreeable subject, but it is absolutely necessary to face it)—there is a reconversion of the material [35] elements into their original nature of bread and wine, now in process of digestion, and the Divine Presence wholly ceases.. I have endeavoured elsewhere to prove that this is in fact the authoritative Roman teaching, and I am sure that if you ask any sufficiently instructed Roman Catholic theologian, he will admit it.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

In terms of worship, though, much of the CofE is Catholic: our church certainly is ( incense, processions, High Mass for saints days, rosary, benediction....)

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

<< errm ... correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Apostolicae Curae have a choice few words to say about this? >>

...none of which stand up to informed, intelligent inspection...

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

What a curious place this is, full of some Christian posters who use filthy language (and we're not even in Hell!) and others who demand personal apologies for things that are not attacks, personal or general.

I do not think the term Protestant is a pejorative. This is a silly thing of which to accuse me. I will assume that someone has somehow misunderstood.

I also do not think that any one group can claim full ownership of the term "reformed."

I do not think any of the High Church party here have attacked anyone personally. I think things are being read into posts that are not there. Perhaps some people are a tad bit hypersensitive. Not that I mean to criticize them for it, of course!

In any case, since I hate to give offense unintentionally, I do apologize -- most fulsomely -- to any and all who have somehow found things in my posts by which to be offended.

And I will continue to refute Humpty-Dumptyism where'er it rears its cracked head.

(That was NOT aimed at ANY individual, here or elsewhere, real or fictional, on this board or in some alternate universe, Screwtapian or otherwise.)

Rossweisse // sheesh!

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
When people first hear (or pay attention to) the words of the Creeds as used in Anglican services - for example visitors at a baptism, or at a Christmas Eve service, who would not normally attend worship - they seem to universally startle at the word "Catholic". Everyone "knows" that the "Catholics" are Rome and the that the CofE E is Protestant.

- having a cynical moment -

actually i think you give the general public these days too much credit for knowledge of Church history and divisions.

To wit: I always get the feeling that they reckon 'Catholic' means Rome and that the C of E is just the good, old, farty C of E that's always been there in this country.

It's not quite the same distinction.

- end of cynical moment -

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
An Anglican bishop does not (usually) appoint priests in his diocese and can (almost never) force them to move when they are appointed. (This is changing these days with the greater use of suspended benefices).

That statement is not necessarily true and depends entirely on the provincial Church's governing canons. It's true enough for the C of E, but here in Wales, it's considerably more autocratic.

It's also the case that the PM appoints bishops only in England. AFAIK, they're elected everywhere else, usually by a representative synod comprising laity and clergy.

Bear in mind, though, that political distinctions are not necessarily synonymous with distinctions of order: e.g. a canon (Anglican) or monsignor (Roman) is still a priest, ordained as such and carrying out the sacramental duties of the priest. Similarly with a bishop, whether elected or appointed: he's still doing the same sacramental jobs. Likewise, whether he appoints vicars or merely confirms them, it's under his jurisdiction and licence -- and in the name of his ministry (hence, the term vicar = vicarious) -- that they act.

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
<< errm ... correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Apostolicae Curae have a choice few words to say about this? >>

...none of which stand up to informed, intelligent inspection...

just pointing out that there's more than one opinion on this matter ... informed or not, it's still the working policy of the Roman Church.

not that I agree with it, of course! I'm just saying, tread carefully and remember that you and I understand perfectly well what it feels like to the Methodists when the likes of us try to say the same thing to them!

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
What a curious place this is, full of some Christian posters who use filthy language (and we're not even in Hell!) and others who demand personal apologies for things that are not attacks, personal or general.

You forgot the ones on their high horses. No, wait...

quote:
I do not think any of the High Church party here have attacked anyone personally. I think things are being read into posts that are not there.

Even AD recognised that some of the things said on this thread were offensive - and he had the humility and decency to apologise, too.

quote:
Perhaps some people are a tad bit hypersensitive. Not that I mean to criticize them for it, of course!

Funny how hypersensitivity is always the accusation levelled at the victim. Or maybe it's an excuse for being offensive.

quote:
In any case, since I hate to give offense unintentionally, I do apologize -- most fulsomely -- to any and all who have somehow found things in my posts by which to be offended.

Or: "I'm so sorry you're not smart enough to understand me properly."

This is what I personally found offensive:

quote:
Posted by Rosswisse sometime yesterday: 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.

Note: 'it seems to have shifted to a semi-pejorative term'.

Only among bigots. Your experience is clearly limited to your own country. You should be aware that Things Are Different Elsewhere.

quote:
And I will continue to refute Humpty-Dumptyism where'er it rears its cracked head.

What a daft phrase. If you mean you'll stick to refuting what you see as ecclesiology you see as soft-headed and not rigorous enough, you're in good company.

Because frankly, it's my life's work, and it's why I'm here, sunshine.

Posted by dks (# 2849) on :

Sean, the doctrine of the real presence is affirmed in 'the Eucharist:sacrament of unity', a report by the house of bishops (of the CofE) published in 2001.
It is also affirmed in the porvoo agreement with the Lutherans.

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

I wasn;t aware of that, but thank you.

Here's a link to it if anyone wants to have a read. It's quite uplifting actually.

xxx

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :

Wood - are you sure you've got the hang of this thing yet? You must have been around long enough to know that tolerance and inclusiveness is a great virtue among us Anglicans. So great, in fact, that we can't just go round squandering it on any old Tom, Dick or Harriet. No sirreeeee.

Ian

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Merseymike said In terms of worship, though, much of the CofE is Catholic

No it isn't. Some of the CofE is but marginally more is probably somewhere between protestant and pentecostal.

Most of the church england is uncertain where it is and wishes to remain there.

Posted by Sean (# 51) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dks:
Sean, the doctrine of the real presence is affirmed in 'the Eucharist:sacrament of unity', a report by the house of bishops (of the CofE) published in 2001.
It is also affirmed in the porvoo agreement with the Lutherans.

Thanks

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Rossweisse And I will continue to refute Humpty-Dumptyism

Mmm then you might want to reread some of your own posts and do a bit of refuting of some of things said there.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Wood, seemingly determined to pick a fight, writes, << Or: "I'm so sorry you're not smart enough to understand me properly." >>

And then he calls me a "bigot." Oh, my...look to the beam in your own eye, bucky: << Only among bigots. Your experience is clearly limited to your own country. You should be aware that Things Are Different Elsewhere. >>

No, sir, I have lived abroad extensively, including -- as it happens -- in Merrie Olde. I am happy to say that my months there were unencumbered by such religious hostility as I have encountered here.

<< Because frankly, it's my life's work, and it's why I'm here, sunshine. >>

Wood, I'm very sorry, but it does seem to me that you are misusing your authority as a host.

Because I am not daft, soft-headed, a bigot or any of the other Hellish (I am reading the board rules aright, am I not?) personal insults that you somehow feel entitled to fling at me, I will withdraw from this conversation. And in future I will consider the source when reading your self-serving posts.

Rossweisse // see how these Christians love one another!

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Nightlamp says, << Mmm then you might want to reread some of your own posts and do a bit of refuting of some of things said there. >>

Oh, I think not.

But thank you for at least being succinct and not calling names like your sibling in evangelicalism.

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Because frankly, it's my life's work, and it's why I'm here, sunshine.

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Wood, I'm very sorry, but it does seem to me that you are misusing your authority as a host.

Rossweisse, how is Wood misusing his authority as a host here? He has stated that his life's work is refuting something-or-other (sorry Wood, you use these long words, and lose me completely!), and if that's what you're meaning by the humpty-dumptyism phrase, then you're both attempting to do the same thing.

Personally I thought Wood had a job out there in the Real World(TM), but I'm probably wrong [Wink]

By the way, on this board (Purgatory) he is a shipmate, not a host.

Viki

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Most of the church england is uncertain where it is and wishes to remain there.

At last, the CofE that I recognise and belong to. I was beginning to think that I was in the wrong place!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[HOST MODE]

OK, things are getting a bit over-heated here.

First, Rossweisse and angelus domini' have posted comments about Protestants that have been read as being insulting to Protestants. angelus domini' has graciously apologised for those comments and I think Rossweisse should do likewise. In case there's any confusion, here's an example of the sort of comment I'm refering to

quote:
Rossweisse, 13th July 22:22:
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.

Which can easily be read as equating "Protestant" with the views of Jerry Falwell or that anyone who doesn't agree with Falwell yet still wishes to be called a Protestant is being unreasonable. It shouldn't need explaining why that is offensive.

Second, Wood, though quite legitimately taking offense at such comments and the lack of a decent apology for them I feel your comments to Rossweisse over stepped the line for reasonable debate in Purgatory.

There are two options open here.
1) A round of apologies and a continuation of reasoned discussion here
2) You can start a new thread in Hell and take your argument there

In either case I don't want to see any more comments here along the lines I've outlined above.

Closing point of information. Rossweisse, Wood is not a host on this board, he hosts Urban Myths. As such here he is just another Shipmate, albeit one who's been around long enough that he should know what is and isn't acceptable here.

Alan
Purgatory host

[/HOST MODE]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Alan, I thought I already had apologized to all who took offense, but I now do so again.

I was trying to explain one meaning that term HAS taken on. To those who misunderstood my intent, further apologies.

I post here on Purgatory precisely because I don't want to get involved in unpleasant personal attacks. But Hell does have a way of invading other spaces!

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

OK. First point, Alan and Viki are both quite right. I'm not the host of this board, I'm the host of the UM board, and I have no authority here. Here I stand or fall on my own merits in debate.

I apologise for going over the bounds of reasonable debate. My anger ran away with me.

I apologise for calling Rossweisse a 'bigot'. I apologise for reading her post as a 'non-apology'.

The 'it's my life's work, sunshine' statement was an admittedly slightly flippant swipe, and I retract that.

I never called Rossweisse soft-headed - as Viki has pointed out. I did not call her 'daft' - I quite rightly called the term 'humpty-dumptyism' a daft phrase. This is an attack on the issue, not the person, and well within the rules of civilised debate.

There. No provisos, no excuses.

However, I would rather that this be retracted:

quote:
And in future I will consider the source when reading your self-serving posts.

Or, at the very least explained.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Most of the church england is uncertain where it is and wishes to remain there.

Nightlamp, that is probably the best description of the CofE I have heard - thank you. [Big Grin]

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

Absolutely,Nightlamp,Ann,Chapelhead.....Of course it might be worth pointing out that even those of us who lean towards the High or Low Church can also be eclectic.Joking apart it's certainly possible to be a Reformed Catholic and combine what are traditionally thought to be Low and/or High Church views in one person.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
so we have the entertaining spectacle of Methodists claiming NOT to be Protestants.

Actually we don't. Weslian has said he does regard himself a Protestant, it's me who is saying that Methodists aren't (pure) protestants and I'm an Anglican.

I started doing this because Anglicans were claiming not to be Protestants but regarding Methodists as Protestants - which I felt to be somewhat inconsistent given that Methodism is not a Reformation denomination but derives (primarily) from Anglicanism - which people were saying wasn't Protestant. Interestingly in a discussion with a friend (son and grandson of the manse, admittedly from the lower end of Methodism) on this subject on Saturday night, he was happy to call Methodism Protestant - partly because there are more non-Anglican influences on it, especially perhaps on the non-Wesleyan traditions (various varities of Methodists united in 1932) and partly because he saw the relation of Methodists and Anglicans as somewhat analogous to that of the Lutherans to Rome. I think there is something in this although I'd also say there are also ways in which Methodisim is to Anglicanism what Anglicanism is to Rome.

I think it is also forgotten that Methodism is almost as broad a church (at least in the UK, I'm less sure about the UMC in America, although I get the impression that she is 'lower'/ more 'protestant', but that is a very subjective impression) as Anglicanism. It lacks the extremes at both ends that Anglicanism possesses, but there is a very definite spread of high to low, compare seasick and Weslian on the ship for a start. Thus, as in Anglicanism, I suspect those at the lower end are more likely to regard themselves as Protestants whilst those who are higher - like high Anglicans - would not see themselves as such. Rossweise you think Methodists claiming not to be Protestants is an entertaining spectacle - I suspect that to at least some Roman Catholics Anglicans claiming not to be Protestants is similarly entertaining.

To be honest, although I am a moderately high Anglican and personally more Catholic than Protestant [1], I think it is futile to try and claim Anglican is not Protestant. It's origins are in the Protestant Reformation. I know that some people claim it as Reformed but Catholic rather than Protestant, but to me that has more problems because although I know that this use of Reformed is not the same as the one Daisymay pointed out above, I am aware enough of this meaning (which I translate generally as Calvinist) and that I do not fit it, to be wary of using the word. It is perhaps not as Protestant as many others of the denominations which split from Rome at the time, and retained more of the 'Romish' elements (sorry I can't think of a better way to put it, but liturgy, vestments, 3 fold order, (high) view of the sacraments) but it was still protesting at elements of Roman doctrine and practice.

However, having said that I tend not to consider the word at all helpful. For a start, it is defining ourselves as what we are not which I don't think is entirely productive. Secondly it is rooted in the debates and differences of the Reformation and times have changed greatly. Then, Protestantism includes so many different traditions by now that I'm not sure how helpful it is to lump them all together. Fourthly, because of the situation in Northern Ireland, which is not religious by now, but tribal, but it shows how the word can be a barrier.

[1] I've been known to say 'I'm Catholic but not a Protestant'.

Carys

P.S. back on p. 1 SpO-On-n-ng wrote

quote:

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'd disagree with with your reading of Article XXV. It calls them the '5 commonly called sacraments' but never says explicitly whether they are or aren't, so both views are Anglican!

Secondly, if you look at the MWB you will (I believe) find rites for all of the 7 sacraments even though they aren't all explicitly described as sacraments, and I know at least one Methodist who regards them all as sacraments.

Posted by mt_tomb (# 3012) on :

In a post by Rossweisse who suggests that the 'real presence' is a Roman Catholic doctrine.

quote:
This includes the ordination of priests, as specified above, and a belief in the Real Presence in Holy Communion.

Nope. You mean 'transubstantiation' not the 'real presence'. The 'real presence' is the Lutheran stance, and therefore thoroughly Protestant, which states that the bread and wine remain present in the sacramant and are not transubtantiated.

The Roman Catholic view is transubstantiation. This is the idea that the wine and bread actually cease to be present at the point of consecration. All that remains are the 'accidents' or the 'shell', 'husk', or 'outer breadly shape' but not the essential breadliness. One thing is for sure Roman Catholics do not accept that bread and wine is really present in the host.

They say that the substance of the host has been replaced. The substance has been trans formed.

Lutherans however maintain the 'real presence' of the bread and wine.

However, you will also be interested to know that Luther also believed in the actual presence of Jesus in the sacrament. He denied that the bread was replaced (transubstantaited) but he affirmed that Christ was really present 'in or under' the bread and wine of the sacrament.

If as a Roman Catholic you believe that the bread and wine don't really disappear to be replaced by another substance , namely Christ, but do actually remain present with Christ, then you in fact hold to a protestant, not a Roman Catholic, view of the sacraments.

mt_tomb

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Your understanding of what 'Real Presence' means is very different from mine. To me 'Real Presence' means that Jesus is really present in the host, not that the bread and the wine are really present. However, it does not specify the mechanics of how he is present. Thus it is a term which covers transubstantiation and consubstantion (the Lutheran position I believe) and probably various other things - including 'It is the body and the blood but the mechanics are beyond us'.

Carys

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Mt. Tomb writes << In a post by Rossweisse who suggests that the 'real presence' is a Roman Catholic doctrine. ...>>

Ah....no. Not at all. I said it is a CATHOLIC doctrine, not ROMAN Catholic. I am well aware of the RC doctrine of transubstantiation, but not all Catholics subscribe to same.

I believe in the Real Presence, not in physical transformation. With Elizabeth I, I do not much care how the Real Presence manifests itself; I am content that it simply Is.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

A little selective (but not, I hope, biased quoting.

quote:
By the end of the Middle Ages, this philosophical interpretation of the eucharist [transubstantiation] was so commonplace that is was assumed by many to be Catholic dogma.

...

An Alternative to transubstantiation was consubstantiation…

...

…Martin Luther adopted this theory, for which he was condemned at the Council of Trent.

...

The Roman Church insisted on the validity of the traditional doctrines of the real presence of Christ and the sacrificial nature of the mass. The Anglican church has tolerated both Catholic and Protestant interpretations of the eucharist.

J Martos 'A new dictionary of Christian Theology'

I realise that this is only a dictionary, and therefore may well will be dismissed by AD (as he dismissed dictionaries earlier), but it's difficult to know what to post.

If the dictionaries are wrong, if the coronation oath is wrong, and hence the Supreme Govenor of the CofE is wrong, as is the ABofC (who, presumably, administers the oath), as is the CofE itself (as the coronation oath is part of the CofE's state liturgy), the Catholic Encyclopedia I quoted from earlier is wrong and every other book I can find which comments on the subject is wrong then where do we go? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on :

From a historical perspective, it seems hard to view the CofE (at least) as being anything but Protestant. Perhaps "political" Protestantism isn't the best yardstick but it roots the CofE very much within the Protestant camp over many centuries. Elizabeth I assisted the Dutch against Philip V (not initially an anti-Catholic revolt I know, but these things snowball..). The Stuarts get a bit confused, but after 1688 the country is vehemently Protestant with the Act of Settlement and the Test Act entrenching this. Indeed the whole concept of Britain as a nation afer the Act of Union with Scotland is that of it being a bastion of Protestantism against the Catholics on the continent (managing in one ideal to combine religious bigotry with xenophobia. Hoorah for us!)
Interestingly mind, the Test Act was meant to exclude dissenting protestants as well as Catholics from the vote. One of the defining elements of the CofE at this time being to stand as a bulwark against the twin perils of Romanism and Calvinism et. al. (Then, as now, of course people on different wings were trying to drag it in one direction or another.) All this may have been necessary because of the essential weakness of Britain at the time (dynastic insecurity, foreign threats, James II on the loose etc).
This, to me, sort of defines where the CofE has come from: definately Protestant, but of peculiar kind that could make it being catholic (with a small 'c') as well.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

The Church of England never relinquished the historic episcopate/apostolic succession, nor the three orders of clergy, nor the belief in the Real Presence, nor the other sacraments. Hence, the Anglican Communion is, and has always been, Catholic -- even while it was protestant and reformed.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

For fun, here's the little verse on communion that was attributed to Elizabeth I

quote:
Twas God the word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it;
And what the word did make it;
That I believe, and take it.

Posted by Benedictus (# 1215) on :

Much earlier in this thread two people agreed the Anglican Church was Protestant by one of their definitions of that term, and Catholic by the other person's definition. It turned out their understanding of the Church was quite similar; their primary disagreement was in definition. In the recent posts I notice, for example, a tendency to equate "Catholic" with "Roman Catholic" which some of us may not agree with, as in the statement that transubstantiation is a Catholic doctrine. I've also seen some people identify "Protestant" as a theological position, others as a historical or political term.

Perhaps it is again time to define the words on which we're basing this discussion.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Thank you, Louise! I think Great Elizabeth put it very well.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Picking up Jengie's point.

What of the term 'Reformed' of'reformed'.

It suggsts to me a church that has, in some significant way, changed - or possibly a church that exsts as a result of the reformation. But following the reformation wasn't there something known as either the counter-reformation or the Catholic reformation? Does the RCC have a claim to describe itself as reformed?

What do people make of this word?

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

quote:
Originally shouted by Queen Elizabeth 1st:
Heave it higher sir priest, I would see my God!

I agree that there seems to be some confusion here about the Real Presence. This doctrine is the Catholic understanding that in the Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ become really and truly present.

Transubstantiation is one attepmt of explaining exactly how this happens in the light of the scientific understanding of matter that prevailed when this doctrine was formulated, (and is an explanation which I reject,). Consubstantiation is another such explanation.

I reject transubstantiation, firstly because its scientific basis is no longer assented to, even by the scientific world; and secondly, because it limits the great Mysteries of God to the confines of our scientific understanding.

As Christians, we believe that God is the eternal being who creates all that is, seen and unseen. It isn't relevant to the Faith for us to know exactly how God went about doing that, and we don't know. If science wants to find an explanation, then fine; but it isn't essential that we know.

In the same way, we believe that Christ rose from the dead, but we don't claim to know exactly how this happened; the exact physical processes that his body went through, and we don't need to. It is a Mystery of the Faith.

So why try to explain away the Mystery of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We know what it is: the Body and Blood of Christ. God has revealed this to us. We don't need transubstantiation or any other attempt to explain the Mystery away. Surely that's what faith's for.

mt_tomb states that the Real Presence is the Lutheran stance. Many of the Lutheran Churches do hold to this stance, but it is also that of many other wings of the Church, including the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England. (see document linked to above)

The doctrine of the Real Presence is not that the Eucharist is a mere reminder of the Sacrifice of Christ; but a memorial (anamnesis), or re-presentation (making present) of that sacrifice, which transcends the boundaries of time. And so we do not claim that Christ is repeatedly sacrificed on altars all aroud the world, (for that would be silly), but that the Mass is a gateway for us to take part in that eternal sacrifice, offered once, for all on the altar of the cross.

AD x

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Angelus Domini:

quote:

Originally shouted by Queen Elizabeth 1st:
Heave it higher sir priest, I would see my God!

According to Dom Gregory Dix that particular line was quoted by Cramner as an example of the sort of thing he was trying to do away with (IIRC). It is difficult to imagine Elizabeth I saying, let alone shouting, anything of the sort.

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

I must admit I don't have this information first-hand. It was a priest-friend of mine (and fellow shipmate) who told me about this. It was his way of illustrating the continual belief in the Real Presence in the CE in the most unlikely souls.

I was glad to discover that her Majesty would utter such words, and I have no difficulty believing that the same person who wrote the poem quoted above by Louise could believe in the Real Presence.

AD x

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mt_tomb:
In a post by Rossweisse who suggests that the 'real presence' is a Roman Catholic doctrine.

quote:
This includes the ordination of priests, as specified above, and a belief in the Real Presence in Holy Communion.
Nope. You mean 'transubstantiation' not the 'real presence'. The 'real presence' is the Lutheran stance, and therefore thoroughly Protestant, which states that the bread and wine remain present in the sacramant and are not transubtantiated.

The Roman Catholic view is transubstantiation. This is the idea that the wine and bread actually cease to be present at the point of consecration. All that remains are the 'accidents' or the 'shell', 'husk', or 'outer breadly shape' but not the essential breadliness. One thing is for sure Roman Catholics do not accept that bread and wine is really present in the host.

this is a few decades out of date, i'm afraid.

AFAIK, no serious catholic scholar takes too seriously the Aristotelian system upon which the 'substance' and 'accidents' distinction can be made. (It's neither biblical nor scientific, but an import from greek philosophy that never fit terribly well with scriptural cosmology.)

take that kind of epistemology away, and the RC, Lutheran, and Anglican views are pretty much the same, as was concluded by the Anglican-Roman Catholic Internatioal Commission some twenty years ago.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

I am not Catholic. I am not Protestant. I am Anglican. Uniquely, ingeniously, happily and fully Anglican. Not only do I not need to describe my tradition with reference to others, I happen to think that my tradition is a bloody good one has a lot to give to and show Christendom and the world.

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.

Actually, I would say that the fact that "protestant" Anglicans and "catholic" Anglicans are in full communion with each other makes our Communion the most catholic one there is.

Anglican ecclesiology is a unique and holy gift we should proud of and try to explain, not fob off into the reductionism of sectarian labelling.

Are we so afraid of sounding jingoistic that we shrink from asserting and affirming what we believe to be true?

HT

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
This is a few decades out of date, i'm afraid.

AFAIK, no serious catholic scholar takes too seriously the Aristotelian system upon which the 'substance' and 'accidents' distinction can be made. (It's neither biblical nor scientific, but an import from greek philosophy that never fit terribly well with scriptural cosmology.)

Take that kind of epistemology away, and the RC, Lutheran, and Anglican views are pretty much the same, as was concluded by the Anglican-Roman Catholic Internatioal Commission some twenty years ago.

Indeed, although transubstantiation is still very much a red herring (did I use that correctly?) in the Roman Catholic Church, at least at its official level. The majority of Roman Catholics I presume, as you say t.v, would affirm the Real Presence but wouldn't be so keen on the idea of transubstantiation. On the essentials of the doctrine of the Real Presence, I am sure the groups you mention above can agree.

x

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Regarding H.T.'s latest post:

H.T. IS THE MAN!

Greta

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

Absolutely,Greta.....I nearly started clapping at the monitor!!

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :

The "double miracle" of transubstantiation says that the first miracle is the transforming of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. The second miracle is that they still appear as bread and wine.

I think that over defines things, as Catholics are prone to do. I, as an Anglocatholic, most certainly believe in the Real Presence. But it's a mystery. To put so many intricacies into a doctrine, and then expect people to believe it as an article of faith is preposterous.

Posted by hologram angel (# 2834) on :

My question is this:

The Protestant Church in England at the time of the reformation was comprised of Lutherans and Calvinists-ie the two extremes of contemporary Anglicanism. The 39 articles were written as a compromise between these two strands. So how do they meet teh needs of the contemporary Anglican church, with its ever increasing diverity between the liberal and conservative extremes?

Answers on a postcard please!!!

1i think it's important to differentiate between the protestant church of England that drew up the 39 articles and the Anglican church today. For example to protestant church present in England was Lutheran or Calvinist, which forms the extremes of Anglicanism, and yet the contemporary Church Of England seems to fall between these two extremes. My question is if the 39 articles are based upon the church present in England 400 years ago (ie a compromise between the two) how do they meet the doctrinal needs of a church so vastly different today?

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Most excellently put, HT

Together now...

quote:
All
He is an Anglican!

BOAT
He is an Anglican!
For he himself has said it,
And it's greatly to his credit,
That he is an Anglican!

ALL
That he is an Anglican!

BOAT
For he might have been a Methodist,
A Lutheran or Calvinist,
Or perhaps Salvationist!

ALL
Or perhaps Salvationist!

BOAT
But in spite of all temptations
Of other denominations,
He remains an Anglican!

ALL
For in spite of all temptations, etc.

Posted by Dorothy's Friend (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Originally posted by Angelus Domini:

quote:

Originally shouted by Queen Elizabeth 1st:
Heave it higher sir priest, I would see my God!
According to Dom Gregory Dix that particular line was quoted by Cramner as an example of the sort of thing he was trying to do away with (IIRC). It is difficult to imagine Elizabeth I saying, let alone shouting, anything of the sort.

Dom Gregory does refer to Cranmer's parody of veneration of the host, but seems to think that his chaplain, Becon, also had some influence on his writing.

I don't see what that has to do with Elizabeth I's belief in the Real Presence.

I have no problem with the idea that she believed it, and I have no problem with the thought of her shouting out.

'Timid' is not a word that springs to mind when thinking of Elizabeth I! [Wink]

Posted by Dorothy's Friend (# 2824) on :

Bravo Chapelhead. [Yipee]

Bravo.

Worthy of the masters themselves. [Sunny]

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Originally posted by Angelus Domini:

quote:

Originally shouted by Queen Elizabeth 1st:
Heave it higher sir priest, I would see my God!
According to Dom Gregory Dix that particular line was quoted by Cramner as an example of the sort of thing he was trying to do away with (IIRC). It is difficult to imagine Elizabeth I saying, let alone shouting, anything of the sort.

I looked up 'elevation' in the index of 'The Shape of the liturgy', and found the reference you make.

Although Cranmer was seemingly trying to do away with this, it was because of the exclusion of the laity from any sort of participation in the Mass. I like Dix's condemnation of this, and his explanation of it having led to the terms 'saying' ang 'hearing' Mass. The laity were so desperate to hear the priest because that's all that was left for them to do.

Hence the hysteria at the elevation, and the running around the church to see the elevation at different chapels. Surely the appreciation of the elevations today springs from a healthy devotion to Christ in His Sacramental Presence, and not because it's the nearest we get to taking part in the liturgy, throughout which Christ's Sacrifice is present.

Elizabeth I was expressing her devotion to the Real Presence of Christ, in whatever deficient way was allowed her at the time. Thank God for liturgical reform.

"Blessed and praised be Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar!"

AD x

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

One wonders if the people of the reformation were as keen on the changes in the English Church as the the reformers were. Reading Duffy I expect not.

Anglicanism was birthed with Protestent Bishops and Catholic Laity.

Compell them to come in indeed.

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
Indeed, although transubstantiation is still very much a red herring (did I use that correctly?) in the Roman Catholic Church, at least at its official level. The majority of Roman Catholics I presume, as you say t.v, would affirm the Real Presence but wouldn't be so keen on the idea of transubstantiation. On the essentials of the doctrine of the Real Presence, I am sure the groups you mention above can agree.
x

Actually I gather that the official level is the bit that plays down or dismisses altogether the concepts (NB: I specifically did *not* say doctrine) of substance and accidents. I rather suspect that it's retained mainly because of popular culture ... which, although not unimportant, is not the basis upon which ecumenical decisions and the like are made.

in the ARCIC studies, certainly, transubstantiation was relegated to a single footnote.

not that there aren't some outstanding differences in approach between RC and C of E, but transsub. is not necessarily one of them.

I tend to take the Orthodox view of the Real Presence as Holy Mystery: when we take communion, we take into ourselves the Body of Christ. Full stop. Beyond that, it's very difficult to say how. (Which, notably, is why the Orthodox also view transubstantiation with suspicion ... though I suspect that you'd be pretty hard pressed to say that their view of the Real Presence wasn't as high, if not higher, than the Romans!)

Someone else in a previous post said it just right: transsub. is a way of explaining the doctrine of Real Presence. They're not synonymous

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Would that be this post, texas.veggie? [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
I agree that there seems to be some confusion here about the Real Presence. This doctrine is the Catholic understanding that in the Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ become really and truly present.

Transubstantiation is one attepmt of explaining exactly how this happens in the light of the scientific understanding of matter that prevailed when this doctrine was formulated, (and is an explanation which I reject,). Consubstantiation is another such explanation.

I reject transubstantiation, firstly because its scientific basis is no longer assented to, even by the scientific world; and secondly, because it limits the great Mysteries of God to the confines of our scientific understanding.

As Christians, we believe that God is the eternal being who creates all that is, seen and unseen. It isn't relevant to the Faith for us to know exactly how God went about doing that, and we don't know. If science wants to find an explanation, then fine; but it isn't essential that we know.

In the same way, we believe that Christ rose from the dead, but we don't claim to know exactly how this happened; the exact physical processes that his body went through, and we don't need to. It is a Mystery of the Faith.

So why try to explain away the Mystery of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We know what it is: the Body and Blood of Christ. God has revealed this to us. We don't need transubstantiation or any other attempt to explain the Mystery away. Surely that's what faith's for.

mt_tomb states that the Real Presence is the Lutheran stance. Many of the Lutheran Churches do hold to this stance, but it is also that of many other wings of the Church, including the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England. (see document linked to above)

The doctrine of the Real Presence is not that the Eucharist is a mere reminder of the Sacrifice of Christ; but a memorial (anamnesis), or re-presentation (making present) of that sacrifice, which transcends the boundaries of time. And so we do not claim that Christ is repeatedly sacrificed on altars all aroud the world, (for that would be silly), but that the Mass is a gateway for us to take part in that eternal sacrifice, offered once, for all on the altar of the cross.

AD x

AD xxx

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelus domini':
Would that be this post, texas.veggie?

AD xxx[/QUOTE]

ah. so it would.
<sheepish look> <- NB, there is no UBB smiley for the sheepish look.

Posted by angelus domini' (# 2343) on :

Glad to see we're in agreement t.v. No need to look sheepish. [Big Grin]

I'm sorry for my lack of diplomacy. I'll work on it. [Wink]

AD xxx

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Hooker's Trick puts it rather brilliantly: *I am not Catholic. I am not Protestant. I am Anglican. Uniquely, ingeniously, happily and fully Anglican. Not only do I not need to describe my tradition with reference to others, I happen to think that my tradition is a bloody good one has a lot to give to and show Christendom and the world. *

Amen, and thank you for the best-phrased, most truthful and most all-around satisfactory post I have read on this site or any other for many a day. A tip of the winged helmet to you!

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Amen, and thank you for the best-phrased, most truthful and most all-around satisfactory post I have read on this site or any other for many a day. A tip of the winged helmet to you!

hear, hear!

Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :

[QB]Hooker's Trick puts it rather brilliantly: *I am not Catholic. I am not Protestant. I am Anglican. Uniquely, ingeniously, happily and fully Anglican. Not only do I not need to describe my tradition with reference to others, I happen to think that my tradition is a bloody good one has a lot to give to and show Christendom and the world. *

QB][/QUOTE]

All it needs is a bit of the catholic, liberal evangelicalism that the Methodists offer [Wink]

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Dorothy's friend:

quote:
I don't see what that has to do with Elizabeth I's belief in the Real Presence.

I have no problem with the idea that she believed it, and I have no problem with the thought of her shouting out.

My point not that Elizabeth I did not believe in the real presence. My point was that I found it difficult to imagine that as an evangelical protestant (in the 16th century sense, rather than the modern sense!) I find it difficult to imagine her expressing a belief in the real presence according to the forms of pre-Reformation Catholic devotion.

Pedant is my middle name.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0