|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Church of England (and therefore Anglicans) are Protestants??
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP: is it a question of this ..
If you're an Anglican and see the Pope as simply another Christian in the sense of the priesthood of all believers (albeit with a title) then you're a Protestant. If you see him as someone rather more important than that, you're a Catholic (almost certainly Roman).
With you up to the second pair of brackets. The Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the western church, and could reasonably be regarded as first among equals among the Patriarchs. What he is not is infallible (no matter how narrowly defined), nor does he have the right to dictate doctrine to the church - those decisions rightly belong to the ecumenical councils, which haven't occurred for some considerable time. As the Roman Catholic Church requires me to assent to doctrines that are not held by the universal church, and has excommunicated my forbears (and officially continues to deny me communion) on those grounds, I am Catholic but not Roman Catholic.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mudfrog many thanks for your reply.
First of all let me assure you that I mean no disrespect to the uniform of the Salvation Army.
I see it (of course this is just my opinion !) as an outward and visible sign of full acceptance of the teachings of the Salvation Army and an indication of one's determination to live within the disciplines of the Salvation Army
I fully agree with you that if I were to come up along to the Citadel,'dress up' in the uniform
and 'march around' with the corps that could be construed as mocking the Salvation Army.
Can you see that sometimes Catholics feel that there are people who come to a Catholic eucharist,as fellow Christians,as honoured guests,but who say ,'well the Mass is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit,we don't accept what the Catholics teach about the eucharist, we don't think you need to 'dress up'
and 'march around' in processions ?'
Can you see that sometimes Catholics feel that they also are being mocked and derided when people who do not share the intimacy of the faith,want to take part fully in that most intimate of rites,without sharing fully in the beliefs ?
It's the same with those who mock the Catholic church for claiming to be the 'one,true church'
Don't we all believe that our particular denomination is part of the 'one true church' If not,why be a member of the particular church ?
All the churches which have their origins in the Protestant Reformation have either split from the Catholic church or split from a church which had already split from the Catholic church.
So it is not illogical to claim that the 'one,true church' finds its visible presence in the body generally known as the Catholic church.
60 years ago few Christians attended the services of other denominations.Now it is relatively commonplace. I applaud that and continue to work for unity.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... Don't we all believe that our particular denomination is part of the 'one true church'. If not, why be a member of the particular church?
All the churches which have their origins in the Protestant Reformation have either split from the Catholic church or split from a church which had already split from the Catholic church.
So it is not illogical to claim that the 'one,true church' finds its visible presence in the body generally known as the Catholic church. ...
There is a fundamental and important difference between believing one's own ecclesial community is part of 'the one true church' and believing/proclaiming/insisting that it is the whole of 'the one true church'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP: is it a question of this ..
If you're an Anglican and see the Pope as simply another Christian in the sense of the priesthood of all believers (albeit with a title) then you're a Protestant. If you see him as someone rather more important than that, you're a Catholic (almost certainly Roman).
If you don't see the Pope as a Christian then perhaps you are a Strict Baptist or Brethren!
In which case I am 'catholic' - I see the Pope as one of the 4 partriarchs of the universal church, I accept him as the successor of Peter.
My church (Anglican) has no holy orders or other sacraments apart from what we received from Rome and kept when we left.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
My point is simply that with formulas being so different, can we say with any certainty that baptism x is invalid because formula y wasn't used?
No, which is why we conditionally baptize such people.
I see no reason why Baptists can't do the same with adult converts, either. Do a conditional baptism by full immersion complete with adult profession if faith.
Yes, it still carries the implication that they don't think infant baptism is real, but if they're wrong about they, they don't fall into the error of attempting to baptize twice.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
In our church very often the babies are baptised but also children teenagers and adults. It's an English church very different from Baptist churches when they have a lots to put them in water.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Enoch - I agree with your statement which would carry even more weight were it to be true,with regard to what is commonly called the 'Catholic church'.
I quote from the authoritive Catechism of the Catholic Church.
(I know it has often been quoted before but people like to maintain their traditional beliefs about the Catholic church,particularly those who are not linked in full communion with what is commonly called the 'Catholic church')
Catechism question Who belongs to the Catholic church ?
Catechism Answer 836
All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. And to it,in different ways,belong or are ordered :the Catholic faithful,others who believe in Christ,and finally all mankind,called by God's grace to salvation.
838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian,but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.
Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptised are put in CERTAIN,although imperfect, COMMUNION with the Catholic church.
839 ,840 and 841 speak about relations with Jews and Muslims
842 speaks about the Church's bond with non-Christian religions
All nations form but one community.This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the earth.All share a common destiny,namely God.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In Kerygmania the question was raised as to the Protestantism of the Church of England; with one or two expressing surprise. I was going to post this there as a response but the hosting decision says I'm not allowed.
Is the following from the Coronation oath enough to settle the matter?:
quote:
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the 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?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
The problem is that when 'Protestant' meant something else when it first came into use. It was basically given to those who protested the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement of the Edict of Worms, which constituted religion through force. Of course that means that the word 'Protestant' became rather ironic in England or Norway (where I live), as they both became protestant through governmental force.
Now, on the other hand, it has become a term for 'everything that happens not to be Roman Catholic, Old Catholic and Orthodox,' and it is often assumed, mostly by Roman Catholics, Old Catholics and Orthodox, that all 'Protestants' are the same. I, for instance, have much more in common with Roman Catholics than I will ever have with Anabaptists or a Pentecostals.
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
I once heard it put that Anglicans are Reformed but not Protestant, while Lutherans are Protestant but not Reformed. I think that is about right.
If you use the historic definition of 'Protestant,' yes. Not by the modern one.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Lutherans do not claim to be Catholic that is your oddity not theirs!
Clearly you haven't met many Lutherans. We do claim to be Catholic. Confessio Augustana is basically a defence of why we do.
I know that there are some 'Lutherans' around the world, esoecially in the US, who say they aren't Catholics, but that is just because they have forgotten that they are Lutherans.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Tradition shows that we have ordained priests since at least the 2nd Century.
I would say that Tradition (and Scripture and history) show that the church has ordained presbyters since the earliest days of the church. It wasn't until centuries later that the Greek or Latin words for "priest" in the sacrificial or intermediary sense (ἱερεύς/hiereus or sacerdos) began to be applied to the presbyterate.
That is not entirely true. When St. Paul describes his mission, in Romans 15:16, he doesnt use the noun ἱερεύς, but he does use the verb ἱερουργέω (in participle form). That means to act as a priest, to minister in the manner of a priest, to minister in priestly service. And to act as a priest is to act in sacrificial or intermediary manner.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
<snip>For the longest time Lutherans have resisted being called Protestant.<snip>
Which is a bit odd since the term appears to have originated with Lutherans.
Well, yes, but the word has now gotten a whole different meaning. It wasn't a doctrinal term historically. It didn't necessarily say anything about theology. And as a matter of fact; no historical Lutheran would - given the historic definition of 'Protestant' - be OK with Anabaptists or Pentecostals being labelled as 'Protestants.'
But now that would seems weird. That is the reason I do not self-identify as Protestant. I am a Catholic Christian, a priest in the historical Church of Norway, dating back to, roughly 995.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The standard Cof E baptism from Common Worship is
quote:
... in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
Not only would it be beyond the pale to use a different formula but I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
And yet the Early Church's formula seems to have been "Jesus is Lord."
The seemingly you should be able to substantiate that.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Of course, there are those of us who both insist on the integrity of the Eucharist (no grape juice, no Ribena, no cake, no general meal) but also feel that the RCC are misguided on their Eucharistic stance. I can affirm everything about RC Eucharistic theology, so why can I not say as much to a priest and therefore be able to receive the Host at Mass?
Because the unity is corporal, not an intellectual idea.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
'Protestant' is not a very useful term. Once (if ever) you agree that the Church of England is or is not Protestant you still haven't said anything much about it.
For most English speakers 'Catholic' is the name of a church - the Pope's church. 'Protestant' is a designation for a number of churches that separated from Rome at or after the Reformation - imcluding Anglicans - but differ in many respects from each other.
It's a bit like British politics. 'Conservative' is the name of a party (whatever else it might mean). The 'Left' isn't a party but a disparate group of non-Conservatives.
And the right wing of 'the Left' includes some who could have been in the left wing of the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party includes some who could have been on the right wing of the Left. And of course the right and the left wings of 'the Left' have little in common with each other.
As soon as you agree the Church of England is or is not 'Protestant' you have to start explaining what it is all over again.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
