|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why the CofE isn't Protestant
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
On the Mother Teresa thread, beginning about here, a tangent about the CofE, and therefore Anglicanism and Episcopalianism, is truly Protestant.
The Protestant Reformation began with a protest of doctrine. The English reformation began with a power struggle.
This answer on Quora, sums it up nicely:
quote:
Depends a great deal on what you mean by “Protestant”.
Many people use it to simply mean “any church that broke with Rome out of protest”. I disagree with that definition, since it would include the Orthodox, who quite clearly are not Protestant. It is, however, commonly used that way even within Anglicanism, so on that basis, Anglicanism is indeed Protestant.
A more precise definition would be “any church understanding itself to be a break with the Catholic past and/or a restoration of the primitive Church, with a confessional text as its doctrinal foundation”. The Lutherans would be the classic example of this (Confessio Augustana).
<snip>
Thus I would place Anglicans .... into a separate category of “Reformed Catholic”, not Protestant.
edited to fit within the quoting rules, the missing bits enforce the point
A horse does not become a zebra merely because the rider changes. Even should the horse later develop a few light stripes and a mohawk.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I grew up in the Protestant Episcopal Church. I have no idea when or why the word "protestant" was ditched. Some people protest to me that it is not protestant, but it used to proclaim itself protestant. Oh well.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
The Church of England describes itself as "reformed", "catholic" and "protestant" if that helps!
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Anglicanism is an interesting case because its Reformation happened in two stages.
For essentially personal reasons, Henry VIII decided to break with Rome; however he did so while remaining 'Catholic' in pretty much every respect except accepting the authority of the Pope. Remember that the 'Fid Def' 'Defender of the Faith' which our monarchs still claim was awarded to Henry for defending a Catholic doctrine against Luther.
There then followed some ups and downs. Edward VI was briefly king and with his Archbishop of Canterbury turned the CofE into a basically Protestant body though still with Catholic style Bishops. After Edward's death older sister Mary tried but failed to reinstate the RCC. Then Elizabeth became Queen and followed her mother's Protestantism.
The result was a Church with a Protestant creed (the '39 Articles') but much superficial external resemblance still to the RCC. Elizabeth wanted a body which was independent of Rome but she didn't want to follow the keener Reformers who eventually became Presbyterians and Cromwell's Independents (Congregationalists, now URC), and other Puritans.
Over subsequent centuries again there were variations with different monarchs, a few wanting Rome back, and allowing a more RCC like church, others still trying to follow Elizabeth's 'Middle Way'. From mid-19th C, with English Catholics 'emancipated', there was the move that eventually became the 'Anglo-Catholic/High-Church' movement - many of whom ended up going the whole hog and back to Rome.
Practical result - a Church with a Protestant statement of belief, which until recently at least ministers were theoretically required to adhere to, but with Catholic-like and Liberal wings. Evangelicals try to keep it Bible-believing, Anglo-Catholics seem to get more and more Catholic over time, and the Liberals continue to sabotage it by scrapping more and more of the biblical bits.
Is it Protestant? It was meant to be by Elizabeth, albeit moderate rather than Puritan - it's ended up msomething of an unholy mess with no clear stance on anything....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Didn't Elizabeth I drive a 'via media' coach and horses through the whole thing, to please nobody, and then impose it on the people? Only later were other denominations allowed to practice, afaik.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
So if Anglicans are not Protestant, where and when did Methodists become Protestant? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Our Supreme Governor had to swear an oath to confirm that she is a faithful Protestant ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Hmm. Legally, the Church of England is protestant. Here's the 1953 coronation oath (lightly adapted from the 1688 Coronation Oath Act) quote:
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Ironically of course some think the CofE was incompletely reformed, some in the Reformed tradition will not acknowledge the CofE as reformed, and the Roman Catholics don't think it's Catholic.
[ 13. September 2016, 19:00: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
By heavens, Steve Langton has posted something I actually agree with. I need to go and lie down.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
So if Anglicans are not Protestant, where and when did Methodists become Protestant?
Would everyone agree that they are? Deeply RC friend of mine once surprised me by saying 'Methodists? Oh, they have the Mass.' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Protestant Reformation began with a protest of doctrine. The English reformation began with a power struggle.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy. It is possible that none of the Lutheran princes who signed the protestation at the second Diet of Speyer were doing so as part of a power struggle. But I doubt it.
Meanwhile, in England Cranmer was apparently convinced of Protestant or Reformation doctrine before Henry threw over Rome.
quote:
quote:
Depends a great deal on what you mean by “Protestant”.
Many people use it to simply mean “any church that broke with Rome out of protest”.
A more precise definition would be “any church understanding itself to be a break with the Catholic past and/or a restoration of the primitive Church, with a confessional text as its doctrinal foundation”. The Lutherans would be the classic example of this (Confessio Augustana).
<snip>
Your source here is engaged in a bit of tactical redefinition. Firstly, he says 'many people' (citation needed) would give one definition which is clearly overly broad. (*) Then he gives a second definition, which is overly narrow.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives:
2a quote:
A member or adherent of any of the Christian churches or bodies which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the 16th cent., and of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them; (now also more generally) a member of any Western Christian church outside the Roman communion.
Which excludes the Eastern Orthodox, and also Le Febvrists.
Where your source is getting the 'confessional text as its doctrinal foundation' bit from, I do not know: it looks like a purely ad hoc stipulation.
Appeals to the primitive church are of no definitional use here, since all parties at the time claimed to be consonant with the practices of the primitive church.
Confusing matters, some early 16th century writers apparently used 'Protestant' specifically to mean 'Lutheran,' excluding Reformed (Zwinglians, Calvinists, et al). In that sense, the CofE is not Protestant, but neither is the Church of Scotland, nor the Baptists. The OED also gives examples of late 16th century and 17th century uses where 'Protestant' means 'member of the Church of England as opposed to nonconformists or puritans'.
The claim that the CofE is not Protestant is a polemical claim first made by the Oxford Movement in the 19th century. It has no merits beyond its use in the internal theological politics of the 19th century Church of England.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Didn't Elizabeth I drive a 'via media' coach and horses through the whole thing, to please nobody, and then impose it on the people? Only later were other denominations allowed to practice, afaik.
I'm a bit wary here and I'll try to limit myself to this one post on an aspect I deliberately left out initially. Yes, most of the Protestant denominations initially followed the RCC/Orthodox thing of being the state religion, only now of individual nations like England rather than of a wider empire and the states the empire later broke down into.
Yes, Elizabeth imposed her church on everybody and there were penalties for not conforming. That state of affairs carried on for a long time, interrupted by the Civil War. After the Civil War Puritans were pushed out of the CofE by the Act of Uniformity and non-conformists continued to be persecuted. There was a brief period of toleration under James II which was less about general religious freedom and more about James' desire to grant more freedom to Catholics.
After James the more positively Protestant King William thought it politic to grant toleration to other Protestants, though still with some restrictions. Catholics were not too severely persecuted but were only legally emancipated in the 19th C.
So yes, the CofE was Protestant but also very much 'Constantinian'. I will now leave that aspect alone....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Protestant Reformation began with a protest of doctrine. The English reformation began with a power struggle.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy. It is possible that none of the Lutheran princes who signed the protestation at the second Diet of Speyer were doing so as part of a power struggle. But I doubt it.
Not at all. Nearly every, if not every, early Protestant split had a power component. But not, only a power component. This is the case with Henry. Yes, there were anti-Rome sentiments, this is what helped the Protestant Reformation. Luther was not the first to think there were problems. It was probably inevitable that someone in the temporal vicinity would have done the same as he, his spark found plenty of fuel. It is also possible that this would have happened in England as well. But that is not what actually happened.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Oxford English Dictionary gives:
Remind me where the OED is written? The answer is part of the problem, IMO. England, and by extension the rest of the UK, is strongly vested in an anti-Rome predisposition. This is pervasive to the point that it influences thought at a subconscious level.*
IOW, identity is a larger factor than is often admitted.
*Though it has greatly lessened in modern times, it is a factor.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think we can reasonably accept that the CofE considers itself Protestant. Does it follow, however, that other churches in the Anglican communion are likewise Protestant?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
My totally unhelpful thought on this matter:
Any time someone tells you that Episcopalians or Anglicans "believe" or "are" one thing, they are making shit up. They may not realize that they are making shit up, but they are. Because I defy you to find one thing (down to basic stuff like the historical existence of a Rabbi we know as Jesus) that all Anglicans or Episcopalians believe or agree on.
But this seems like a fun discussion, so carry on...
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think we can reasonably accept that the CofE considers itself Protestant.
Self-definition isn't inherently accurate. Joshua Norton proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico. He, in fact, was neither of those.
No, I am not saying that Anglicans are mentally impaired. It is a hyperbolic example. And I just love that story.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Protestant Reformation began with a protest of doctrine. The English reformation began with a power struggle.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy. It is possible that none of the Lutheran princes who signed the protestation at the second Diet of Speyer were doing so as part of a power struggle. But I doubt it.
Not at all. Nearly every, if not every, early Protestant split had a power component. But not, only a power component. This is the case with Henry. Yes, there were anti-Rome sentiments, this is what helped the Protestant Reformation. Luther was not the first to think there were problems. It was probably inevitable that someone in the temporal vicinity would have done the same as he, his spark found plenty of fuel. It is also possible that this would have happened in England as well. But that is not what actually happened.
It is true that Henry would almost certainly have stuck on the Roman Catholic side if he'd had children. That is, however, not sufficient to make the Church of England not Protestant. It is equally true that Henry would almost certainly not have been able to leave Rome if the Protestant Reformation wasn't in progress. Henry was not the only personality involved: he needed people like Cranmer who were more committed theologically.
In any case, the changes to Church of England liturgy and practice under Edward (and others) are relevant. The horse-zebra metaphor is here misleading. (Frankly, almost all metaphors of the form 'animal a can't turn into animal b', are problematic.)
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Oxford English Dictionary gives:
Remind me where the OED is written? The answer is part of the problem, IMO. England, and by extension the rest of the UK, is strongly vested in an anti-Rome predisposition. This is pervasive to the point that it influences thought at a subconscious level.
IOW, identity is a larger factor than is often admitted.
Remind me where the Church of England is the established church?
The above may all be true, but that doesn't mean that 'Protestant' has some real true meaning unaffected by anti-Rome predisposition which the anti-Rome predisposition conceals.
There isn't a valid non-polemical meaning of the word 'Protestant' that covers the Church of Scotland but not the Church of England.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Not at all. Nearly every, if not every, early Protestant split had a power component. But not, only a power component. This is the case with Henry. Yes, there were anti-Rome sentiments, this is what helped the Protestant Reformation. Luther was not the first to think there were problems. It was probably inevitable that someone in the temporal vicinity would have done the same as he, his spark found plenty of fuel. It is also possible that this would have happened in England as well. But that is not what actually happened.
Phillip of Hesse, anyone?
English Reformers had a choice between a corrupt Church and a corrupt King who intended to reform the Church. And Henry, for all his faults, thought of the Reformation as something that happened when The King and The Parliament got together and asserted themselves, as the people who got to speak for England. For that matter Thomas More, and the Catholic martyrs of this period, died to insist that Pope Clement VII ought to be able to dictate and define Christianity. There isn't a Church, or ecclesiastical community, which isn't a combination of idealism, corruption and ambition.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Before you go away and lie down, mr cheesy, allow me to alleviate your dizziness by pointing out where Steve Langton's summary is inaccurate.
He's broadly on the money with the history, but I don't think he's right that Anglo-Catholicism is becoming increasingly 'Catholic'.
It seems to me that Oxford Movement style Anglo-Catholicism has had its day - at least here in the UK. It holds out in some beleaguered enclaves but it's certainly not on the rise. The more catholic-lite liberal catholic thing seems more prevalent and can appear more like Quakerism but with a better line in moderate ceremonial.
One could argue that much of Roman Catholicism has become more 'Protestant' in feel too.
Other than that, Steve Langton sums things up reasonably well but there are implicit value-judgements and polemics there too.
Which is inevitable given where he's coming from.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Furthermore, being Constantinian does not make one any more or less Protestant. It fits with the Treaty of Westphalia and to this member of the CofE, the Church of Sweden always looks far more erastian than even the CofE in 1750.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I suspect the assertion that it was all down to Henry's power struggles and an ego that would eventually be mirrored in the size of his belly are a grave over simplification of what really occurred. I know it is taught that way in school (or at least, was once), but even a basic reading today would suggest something altogether more nuanced with all manner of outside influences and interior faith wrangles at play. Henry certainly helped with its settlement and expansion, but his life and actions speak more of his ego than any great spiritual awakening. But perhaps I misjudge him.
In any case, it is factually so, both Protestant and Catholic even though neither of those terms specifically suit in all aspects. I've heard some attempt a rephrasing by suggesting 'Catholic and reformed', but I still think that falls into the same pitfalls. It's not 'Protestant' in the Continental zeal they experienced and in merry old England the counterparts were the dissenters. While I think Elizabeth was actually intelligent enough to understand all of the nuances, time would not be entirely kind to Anglicanism. Even a short time after she exits stage left you run into battles of making it more Protestant and then more Catholic and then more Protestant again, all mixed up with politics, paranoia and doctrinal squabbles. Today we are in an altogether more interesting place. Not a good place, but interesting, in respect of the fact we appear not to know what the hell we are at all anymore. I regularly meet Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Elims, Shakers, Quakers and fundamentalists of all shapes, sizes and colours who all seem to quite genuinely call themsleves 'Anglicans/Episcopalians'. It never ceases to amaze and I can't quite work our when it happened that the Anglican Communion went from a Protestant possibly Catholic (or the other way about or both) to a just about anything church. I think eventually we'll just dissolve like an aspirin in water.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Second post
Oh, and I forgot. There's another definitive way of spotting who's a Protestant and who isn't. Members of both the CofI and the various sorts of Presbyterians are all Orange. Members of the RCC are Green.
Lilbuddha, who you are most likely to get blown up by, when and for what, is pretty conclusive.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
Oh, and I forgot. There's another definitive way of spotting who's a Protestant and who isn't. Members of both the CofI and the various sorts of Presbyterians are all Orange. Members of the RCC are Green.
Lilbuddha, who you are most likely to get blown up by, when and for what, is pretty conclusive.
The enemy of your enemy makes for strange bedfellows.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Enoch:
quote:
Second post
Oh, and I forgot. There's another definitive way of spotting who's a Protestant and who isn't. Members of both the CofI and the various sorts of Presbyterians are all Orange. Members of the RCC are Green.
Lilbuddha, who you are most likely to get blown up by, when and for what, is pretty conclusive.
I hope to God that's a trolling post or a misjudged and poor attempt at a joke. The other possibility doesn't reveal your best side.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Fletcher Christian;
quote:
In any case, it is factually so, both Protestant and Catholic
There is an ambiguity here in the word 'Catholic'. Even we Anabaptists repeat a creed which in most versions includes the word 'Catholic' from a time when it referred not to one 'denomination' but to the idea of the church being 'kata holos'/universal. Use of the word 'Catholic' in Anglican contexts often carries that meaning rather than necessarily Roman Catholic.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
One could argue, Fletcher Christian, that as most, if not all, non-conformist or dissenting groups in the UK originally had Anglican roots - even if at a few steps removed - then it shouldn't be surprising to find such tendencies across the Anglican spectrum.
The breadth of Anglicanism is at once a strength and a weakness.
It does seem, though, that large swathes of Anglicanism aren't recognisably Anglican any more.
When did that happen?
Back in the day, even the most evangelical of Anglican churches 'felt' Anglican in some way. Now they just feel like some kind of mush.
But then, I think evangelicalism has largely lost its way more generally. Large swathes of it have descended to Hillsongs-esque dumbed-downery.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fletcher Christian is an Anglican cleric, Steven Langton. Church of Ireland. I think he'll have s pretty good idea what Anglicans mean when they recite the Creed.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Debates about Queen Elizabeth I's churchmanship are always fun, because people invariably read a meaning when we might have no idea for her preferences. Anglo-catholics/High church Anglicans cite her preference for crucifixes on the altar, but that could simply be her aesthetic preference and not necessary a "high church thing". Low church Anglicans cite the apocryphal story about her walking out of a Mass when the priest elevated the Host, but for all we know, she might have just had to get a breath of fresh air.
Perhaps what lesson is Anglicans don't tend to read systematic theology into everything they do. That distinguishes them certainly from some Protestant churches.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fletcher Christian is an Anglican cleric, Steven Langton. Church of Ireland. I think he'll have s pretty good idea what Anglicans mean when they recite the Creed.
OK, sorry Fletcher. But others in the conversation might not have realised, of course....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Fletcher, obviously (I hope), that was my poor attempt at wit, but there is an underlying point.
Words get their meanings from how they are used. One can only define Protestant or Catholic to mean something different from how either is usually used by Humpty Dumpty or 'no true Scotsman' type arguments. If a broad brush linguistic paintbrush colours some Orange and others Green, it is a bit of a nonsense for people whom normal use of language calls Protestant or Catholic to claim that somehow the way the language is used, may apply to everyone else but doesn't apply to them.
One can campaign to persuade people that some of the assumptions they may make from those categorisations are either wrong or should change, but one can't say that words don't mean how they are usually used.
That is so just as much for Anglicans who claim they aren't Protestants as it does to editing a Wikipedia entry to imply that Protestant is redefined so that it only really includes Lutherans.
[ 14. September 2016, 08:42: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fletcher Christian is an Anglican cleric, Steven Langton. Church of Ireland. I think he'll have s pretty good idea what Anglicans mean when they recite the Creed.
*sniggers at the idea that Anglicans have any kind of shared understanding of what they mean when they recite the creeds*
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Low church Anglicans cite the apocryphal story about her walking out of a Mass when the priest elevated the Host, but for all we know, she might have just had to get a breath of fresh air.
It might have been warm in the church, and she had a mild case of pneumonia.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Enoch:
quote:
One can campaign to persuade people that some of the assumptions they may make from those categorisations are either wrong or should change, but one can't say that words don't mean how they are usually used.
Personally I'd like to live in a world where religious and racial stereotyped language just isn't used and accepted. Unfortunately, you've made it plain and clear you think otherwise.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fletcher Christian is an Anglican cleric, Steven Langton. Church of Ireland. I think he'll have s pretty good idea what Anglicans mean when they recite the Creed.
*sniggers at the idea that Anglicans have any kind of shared understanding of what they mean when they recite the creeds*
Yes, but they will have an idea of what they're 'supposed' to mean ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Thank you, lilBuddha, for starting this thread; I began discussion on the Theresa thread but was too idle to begin a new one. Like many here I can't get my head round a definition of Protestantism that excludes the CoE. In addition, the article you quoted in the OP, seem to me to be fundamentally flawed. quote:
Depends a great deal on what you mean by “Protestant”.
Many people use it to simply mean “any church that broke with Rome out of protest”. I disagree with that definition, since it would include the Orthodox, who quite clearly are not Protestant.
Surely Rome broke from the rest of the early Church, in asserting the primacy of the Pope over the other great sees?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thank you, lilBuddha, for starting this thread; I began discussion on the Theresa thread but was too idle to begin a new one. Like many here I can't get my head round a definition of Protestantism that excludes the CoE. In addition, the article you quoted in the OP, seem to me to be fundamentally flawed. quote:
Depends a great deal on what you mean by “Protestant”.
Many people use it to simply mean “any church that broke with Rome out of protest”. I disagree with that definition, since it would include the Orthodox, who quite clearly are not Protestant.
Surely Rome broke from the rest of the early Church, in asserting the primacy of the Pope over the other great sees?
Strictly speaking 'Protestant' refers to a formal 'Protest' (or in our terms "Act of Witness") which was produced by a group of I think mostly German Lutheran Reformation leaders at an early date in the Reformation. From this 'Protestant' rapidly became a generic word for the Reformation movement and was used by the CofE to describe itself.
I don't know whether Elizabeth I would necessarily have accepted every word of the "Protest", but guess she would have been in general agreement with it and not averse to describing her church settlement in those terms.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Coming a bit late, just to comment on Fletcher Christian's quote:
"But then, I think evangelicalism has largely lost its way more generally. Large swathes of it have descended to Hillsongs-esque dumbed-downery."
Judging by the truly (negatively) awesome spectacle of the American evangelical sect's embrace of Donald Trump as a Christian, be thankful that your worst complaint is Hillsong-type music.
Do you have any version of Franklin Graham or Dr. James Dobson somewhere in the UK?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Meanwhile, in England Cranmer was apparently convinced of Protestant or Reformation doctrine before Henry threw over Rome.
That Cranmer had Protestant leanings is a bit of a so what? Henry needed legitimacy for his separation from the RCC and Cranmer gave him that.
Henry and Elizabeth were more concerned with power, looting RCC holdings in Britain and keeping church taxes, evinced by the relatively limited change during their lifetimes.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Surely Rome broke from the rest of the early Church, in asserting the primacy of the Pope over the other great sees?
I think stating it that way perhaps betrays a bias. ISTM, the most objective way to describe that would be a splintering rather than anyone group breaking away.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't know whether Elizabeth I would necessarily have accepted every word of the "Protest", but guess she would have been in general agreement with it and not averse to describing her church settlement in those terms.
IMO, more projection than history.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't think any historian would define Protestant as "a group that broke from Rome." It has definitely to do with the Reformers, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, those guys. Anybody who "broke" from Rome before then, whatever you want to say about them, weren't Protestants. Nor were all who came later Protestants -- the "Old Catholics" (1870) aren't Protestants either.
lilBuddha, the church did not "splinter" in 1054. It split neatly and cleanly into two pieces.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
lilBuddha, the church did not "splinter" in 1054. It split neatly and cleanly into two pieces.
Fair enough, just thought the 'broke away' thing off-base. If RA was being serious.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
lilBuddha, the church did not "splinter" in 1054. It split neatly and cleanly into two pieces.
Having previously split between the Western and Eastern churches on the one hand, and the various Oriental churches on the other, not very cleanly or neatly here.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Horseman Bree:
Coming a bit late, just to comment on Fletcher Christian's
quote:
"But then, I think evangelicalism has largely lost its way more generally. Large swathes of it have descended to Hillsongs-esque dumbed-downery."
Judging by the truly (negatively) awesome spectacle of the American evangelical sect's embrace of Donald Trump as a Christian, be thankful that your worst complaint is Hillsong-type music.
Do you have any version of Franklin Graham or Dr. James Dobson somewhere in the UK?
It wasn't me sir; honest!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Meanwhile, in England Cranmer was apparently convinced of Protestant or Reformation doctrine before Henry threw over Rome.
That Cranmer had Protestant leanings is a bit of a so what? Henry needed legitimacy for his separation from the RCC and Cranmer gave him that.
Henry and Elizabeth were more concerned with power, looting RCC holdings in Britain and keeping church taxes, evinced by the relatively limited change during their lifetimes.
That may be true of Henry (I think more precisely he allowed himself to be persuaded of whatever doctrines suited him); Elizabeth could have decided a Spanish alliance was worth a mass.
More importantly, I don't see why the motives of Henry and Elizabeth matter more than Cranmer's actual liturgies. That would be a genetic fallacy. It is the liturgy and practice and theology, and yes the self-definition, that decide what a religion is.
I return to the definitional point: what non-ad hoc definition is there that makes the Church of Scotland or the Methodists or the Baptists protestant, but not the Church of England?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I return to the definitional point: what non-ad hoc definition is there that makes the Church of Scotland or the Methodists or the Baptists protestant, but not the Church of England?
Not all words are well-defined in themselves. Contexts matter.
The line taken my "my" sort of member of the C of S was that the C of S was not protestant, sitting around waiting for a General Council or whatever to answer The Protest; but was Reformed as we had got up off our knees and sorted things out for ourselves, thank you.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I return to the definitional point: what non-ad hoc definition is there that makes the Church of Scotland or the Methodists or the Baptists protestant, but not the Church of England?
Do you think that's because the Anglican setup is very much glancing towards Rome (of course to a greater or lesser extent supported by individual Anglicans) and does see things like Apostolic succession and being part of the Catholic church as important..
..whereas the "true" Protestants disposed of all that nonsense and went off on their own with nay a backward glance at Rome.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha;
quote:
IMO, more projection than history.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
lilBuddha, the church did not "splinter" in 1054. It split neatly and cleanly into two pieces.
Fair enough, just thought the 'broke away' thing off-base. If RA was being serious.
Serious, if a little mischievous at the same time. It seems to me that the Orthodox have by far the greatest continuity with the early Church, and that the Great Schism came about because Rome introduced innovations that the rest of the Church could not accept.
However, one thing this thread has amply demonstrated is that we all read History through our own preconceptions. lilBuddah, please tell me what reasons you have for thinking that Elizabeth I would have been unhappy with the Protest, or the term Protestant.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Henry and Elizabeth were more concerned with power, looting RCC holdings in Britain and keeping church taxes, evinced by the relatively limited change during their lifetimes.
Henry, perhaps, but Elizabeth was raised as an 'evangelical' (16th Century England does not compute to modern England or Germany) which is to say a moderate Protestant and, therefore, followed such a course when she became Queen. She may well have been more moderate, than the actually existing Elizabethan settlement, but when she became Queen the people who were prepared to support her and work for her were somewhat more Reformed and were radicalised, in many cases, by exile in Switzerland during her sister's reign. Everything we know about her indicates that her protestantism was sincere. Why should it not be? Many of protestants who have ever existed have been protestants because that is the religion they were brought up in. Elizabeth was one of them, her brief flirtation with Catholicism under Mary was a result of the possibility that she would lose her head. It's entirely likely that she disagreed with it to start with and resented it subsequently.
In 1558 she could have surprised people, and declared as a Catholic and kept many of Mary's ministers in situ. There would have been advantages to this course of action. But she didn't. It's not as if she could not have ruled as an absolutist monarch as a result of this. I deduce, therefore, that she was loyal to the religion of her upbringing rather than embracing it from pure calculation.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
More importantly, I don't see why the motives of Henry and Elizabeth matter more than Cranmer's actual liturgies.
Because they created and maintained a separation. Cranmer was more instrument than inspiration. That he changed less than we would have seemed to want is more telling than that he changed some things.
quote:
It is the liturgy and practice and theology, and yes the self-definition, that decide what a religion is.
And by all this,* the CofE is Catholic. It is not without reason that one of the easiest sectarian shifts for a priest is between Anglican/Episcopal and RCC.
quote:
I return to the definitional point: what non-ad hoc definition is there that makes the Church of Scotland or the Methodists or the Baptists protestant, but not the Church of England?
I'll not claim to be an expert on Christian sectarianism. I've a passing familiarity with the CofE, the RCC and the Kirk.
Speaking of which, the Scottish Reformation began with a Reformer, not a male-heir obsessive. It reformed. The CofE initially did an ownership swap, it did not change shape initially. Not greatly thereafter.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
IMO, more projection than history.
You are projecting your interpretation of her motives.
As am I. However, I have no horse in this race. It is not part of my identity for the result to swing in either direction.
*Though it party self-defines as Protestant. Self-definition is only relevant as far as it matches reality. I could maintain that I am a successful Robert Wadlow impersonator, but a quick glance would challenge that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Didn't Elizabeth I drive a 'via media' coach and horses through the whole thing, to please nobody, and then impose it on the people? Only later were other denominations allowed to practice, afaik.
NB that the Via Media was intended to be between Wittenberg and Geneva, not Catholicism & Protestantism. In other words, the Via Media as envisioned by Elizabeth was incontrovertibly Protestant, the Church of England seen as an institution capable of comprehending a broad spectrum of Reformed identity while excluding Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
