Posted on 08/20/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Anglicanism is the most debated form of Christianity. It is judged in a variety of ways not only by outsiders and spectators, but also by Anglicans themselves. Even for a person who has spent a great part of his life in the world of Anglicanism, it is not easy to disentangle the knot of misunderstanding about Anglicanism.
A first point of discussion is whether Anglicanism should be considered part of Protestantism. In many of its expressions, particularly among those who are called Anglo–Catholics, Anglicanism shows striking resemblance to Roman Catholicism. Today we can even find Anglican churches in which the interior differs in no way from that of a Roman Catholic church. Anglican churches in which The Lord's Supper is again considered the sacrifice of the Mass; in which the priest wears Catholic vestments; and in which nearly all the Roman Catholic devotions such as benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, recitation of the rosary, and veneration of Mary and the saints have been introduced.
However, by far the majority of Anglicans find this all as strange as does a Dutch Protestant. In any case, whatever judgement may be formed of Anglo–Catholicism from the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church, the official conduct of Anglican churches should not be measured by Anglo–Catholic criteria: this would, a priori, render a proper understanding of the activities of these churches impossible. As opposed to Anglo–Catholic Anglicans there are many other Anglicans whose vision of the nature of the Christian religion, the Church, the sacraments, and the gospel is typically Protestant. As a result of their insular formation many Anglicans scarcely know how much of the Reformation heritage they share in their faith, thought, and actions.
It may be true that Anglicans generally do not like to be called Protestant, and that Anglicanism as it presents itself today should not simply be considered part of Protestantism. On the Catholic as well as on the Protestant side there is a fairly recent widespread opinion that Anglicanism is closer to the Roman Catholic Church than to the Reformation. This notion had its origin in the nineteenth century Oxford Movement, which was a Catholicizing revival. It has left permanent traces in the total picture of Anglicanism today, but in the form it has assumed in later Anglo–Catholicism, it has remained a foreign and isolated element in the world of Anglican churches. [webmaster's note: John Keble's sermon that started all this, National Apostasy Preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, on July 14, 1833.]
As a result of the lively activity and propaganda displayed by Anglo–Catholicism for over a century, many people have come into contact with Anglicanism by way of Anglo–Catholicism. Consequently, many of these people have the impression that Anglicanism belongs in principle to the Catholic type of Christianity and that it has been influenced by the sixteenth century Reformation and Protestantism only accidentally and superficially.
Such a neo–Anglican vision is untenable. It is contrary to the historical facts, if all the facts, documents and data are taken into consideration. This neo–Anglican vision is based on a one–sided, arbitrary interpretation of the ecclesiastic and religious events which took place during the troubled and confused reign of Henry VIII. It also disregards the distinct Reformation characteristics of Anglican preaching and writing in the sixteenth century, to the present day. Moreover, it is based on serious misconceptions of the deepest essence of the Reformation, and of the real content, purport, and intention of the teaching and theology of the Roman Catholic Church.
On the other hand, in reaction to liberalism and lawlessness on the part of Anglo–Catholics within the Protestant Episcopal Church, many abandoned the denomination, and established independent jurisdictions which were staunchly Anglo–Catholic in theology and practice, but of a conservative nature in other respects. None of these independent Churches, however, are recognized by Canterbury or any other of the national Churches of the Anglican Communion.
Finally freed from the restrictions of Canon Law and church custom, these Anglo–Catholics were able to establish Tractarian parishes along ultra–Montagne ritualist lines, furnishing their own Romish clergy as well, most of who had not been ordained in the P.E.C.U.S.A. or trained in her seminaries. Ostensibly, they claimed to have broken with the mother church over the use of the 1928 BCP and the introduction of the 1979 BCP, which they regarded as heretical.
But instead of retaining the 1928 BCP, these Anglo–Catholic groups wasted no time in introducing a novelty of their own and insinuating it upon an often unwitting laity. The Anglican Missal, and Anglo–Catholic version of the Roman Mass in English, quickly supplanted the Book of Common Prayer in the majority of parishes of the splinter Churches, and in many instances its use was made mandatory.
Paradoxically, those who claimed it necessary to split from the P.E.C.U.S.A. because of the introduction of a new Prayer Book became the promoters of a liturgy completely foreign to orthodox Anglican usage. The Anglican Missal is not really a substitute for the Prayer Book, as it contains only the liturgy for the Mass and rites incidental to the celebration of the Mass, such as making "holy" water and prayers for the dead. Along with the introduction of the Missal, the Anglo–Catholic clergy convinced their lay constituencies that the Missal was really the 1928 Book of Common Prayer with "proper" rubrics added to restore "catholic" orthodoxy to the liturgy destroyed by the Protestant Reformation and to correct "errors and flaws in the 1928 BCP." Of course, since Anglo–Catholicism insists upon having the Holy Communion (Mass or Holy Eucharist, as they call it) every Lord's Day, gullible congregations were tricked into accepting this substitute for the Prayer Book without complaint. They were not even aware they had been robbed, given paste for the gem of our Protestant Anglican heritage.
When first introduced by Anglo–Catholic clergy (illegally) to American congregations, the Anglican Missal was publicly condemned by over thirty bishops of the Church and forbidden in their Dioceses. High Church bishops, such as Dr. Manning of New York and Dr. Parsons of California were very outspoken in their rejection of the Missal as a "perversion and misrepresentation" of the Prayer Book. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church soundly rejected the Missal and condemned its use as a threat to Anglicanism in the country.
The origins of the Anglican Missal, in its British and American versions, cannot be dealt with herein. It is sufficient to say that it has never been an approved service book of the Anglican Communion, and itself bears little relation to the Book of Common Prayer. Yet, because of the ignorance of Epicopalian believers, regarding their own precious Book of Common Prayer, even conservative churchmen have been duped into accepting a lie. In their desire to protect their orthodox Christian heritage, they have unwittingly sacrificed a priceless portion of that heritage.
Yes, the 1928 BCP may still be found in the pews of these Anglo–Romanist churches: this is the unkindest cut of all, as it is a bold sham. One poor lady was even told that the Missal was really the Sarum Use of Salisbury Cathedral, which her monsignor regarded as the "purist" liturgy of Christendom!
The notion of many Reformed Protestants that Anglicanism was never really "reform–minded" and thoroughly Protestant is, like the neo–Anglican vision, based on a one sided judgement which sees the situation only from a Puritan viewpoint. But, as is evident from classical sixteenth century Anglican theology, it is impossible to explain the struggle between Anglicanism and Puritanism under Elizabeth I as a secret nostalgia for the Roman Church, or as an attempt to arrive at a compromise without principle.
If the Anglican Reformation ran a different course from that of the Lutheran and the other Reformed churches, this must be attributed not to after effects of Roman Catholic influences, but rather to certain typically English circumstances, to certain traits in the English national Character, and to the practical, humanistic character of English religiousness.
The bishops who laid the foundations of Anglicanism during the time of Elizabeth I were not striving for an unprincipled compromise between Romanism and Protestantism. In their writings there is not a trace of Romish sympathies. When they battled Puritanism, they were concerned about protecting the Church against premature and shortsighted abolition and against disorder and liturgical dissoluteness. As far as the episcopal government of the Church, the liturgy, and the sacraments were concerned, it is out of the question that the Anglican bishops of the time included anything of a Romish origin. Elizabeth I had no other aim than to give the Reformation movement its own austere form and style. But the Anglican Reformation never reached a static position where nothing could be changed or revoked. More than did Lutheran and Reformed Protestantism, Anglicanism succeeded in realizing the universal Christian ideals of the reformers. Yet, it also preserved a certain openness to the Catholic and the Reformed interpretations of the the faith. It has taken seriously the principle "ecclesia catholica semper reformanda" - the church catholic, always reforming. By nature Anglicanism has a wide vision. Moreover, it has a great reverence for what has grown slowly, what has been tried, what has been generally accepted - in short, for tradition (not to be confused with the Catholic concept of tradition).
It cannot be denied that in the course of time the vision of the true nature of the Reformation and of Protestantism has for many Anglicans been clouded. The rise of a pietistic subjectivism and liberal individualism has influenced many Anglicans to view Protestantism as a negative, destructive force which lacks repsect due to age–old Christian tradition and community values. To a great degree, Anglo–Catholicism has succeeded in wiping out the last traces of Anglicanism being related to the Reformation. This has in turn produced a kind of ecclesiastical and theological schizophrenia within worldwide Anglicanism, leaving the Communion deeply divided and to a great degree incapable of dealing with the many divisive issues of twentieth–century Christianity.
Anglo–Catholicism, once embraced as a remedy against rationalism and humanism, has proved inadequate to the job. Historically foreign to the true tradition of English and American churchmanship, it has become exactly what it initially sought to combat: it is liberal, lawless, and radical in the extreme.
Anglicanism must be called back to its Reformation foundations and historic theology: without such a reclamation of its Protestant heritage, it is in danger of disappearing altogether. The ultimate decision for Anglican believers will not lie in choosing a Protestant or Catholic indentity, but in choosing between Papal and biblical Christianity.
---The Rev. Dr. James I. Packer is professor of Theology at Regent College, in Vancouver, British Columbia. He is also a senior editor, Visiting Scholar, and Institute Fellow for Christianity Today. This article is drawn from The Protestant Alliance
Since you offer no basis on which to evaluate your claims, you really don't bring anything other than shouting to this thread. Is that really what you want?
The burden to prove that Anglicanism is Catholic is yours.
Well, no. To review the bidding, you made the following (unsupported) statement: "Anglicans are Protestants. Period. There is no debate here. There are only dreamers who want to pretend that Anglicans aren’t what they are."
The burden of proof is on you, sir -- at least to define your terms, if not to defend your statement.
Since you've now confirmed your unwillingness and/or inability to back up what you say, I guess we can safely ignore your claims from here on out.
Thanks for playing.
BTW ... you're older.
Hmmm .... I wonder what they used as the primary source in the early decades/centuries before any of the New Testament was even written.
That would be the Old Testament Scriptures and, of course in the Diaspora, that would be the Septuigent. The Reformers, however, was fascinated with the new Hebrew learning and so deleted much of the Septuigent from their canon. The Reformers were so eager to get rid of the Vulgate and so caught up in the novelties of the new Scriptural scholarship, that they bought the bill of goods that Erasmus sold them: a Greek Testament based on inferior manuscripts. By and large the Vulgate in use in the 16th Century was a better translation than the vernacular translations based on the best Greek mauscripts available.
As for al_c, I suspect he was just pulling someone's chain. Certainly, he knows better. :-)
It is important to note that Catholicism in England pre-dated any missions from the Bishop of Rome and when Augustine of Canterbury arrived on a papal mission, he found many Celtic bishops who considered themselves fully Catholic and in full communion with the rest of the church. Catholicism in Britain pre-dated Papal claims in the same sense that it did in the eastern Orthodox world. The suppression of Catholicism by the protestants was not limited to severing ties with Papal authority but focused on the elimination of the sacramental form of worship, the Mass, the Saints, fasting, the Christian calendar - anything which the protestants linked to Catholic “superstitions”.
The point of this is that Anglo-Catholicism continued to exist under Protestant ecclesial rule and achieved a significant revival during the Oxford movement. Anglo Catholics and Anglo Protestants share many traditions from their common period, but it seems unlikely that their pathe will remain eclesiastically in common. With the current implosion of much of the Anglican communion the evangelical protestants are simply moving in one direction and the traditional Anglo Catholics in another.
So, if the author is simply arguing that the Church of England and Kate Schori and Vicky Gene's Episcopal Church are protestant, there is no argument. If he is arguing that the continuing Anglican churches are not part of the Anglican communion, he is also correct. We are not in communion with the CofE or TEC. However his claim that Anglicanism is not Catholic is simply historically ignorant. Only protestant Anglicanism is protestant, and even protestant Anglicans run the gamut from those who are similar to Luther to full bore Puritans to New Age Wiccans, Spongian agnostics and apparently, one Muslim priestess.
I yeild to your greyness, O.R.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Traditional Anglican Poster's Comment: [Simply a polemic? My Anglo Catholic perspective is in post 27 --Huber]
ROTFL Oh yeah? I can remember making fun of a young man in my subdivision loading animals onto a boat before he even got it down to the docks - and that was during my first retirement. You?
Tell that to John Henry Newmann, probably the most prominent Anglo-Catholic that Britain ever produced.
Different issue. The difference between Newmann's conclusion and that of the continuing churches is not along Catholic/Protestant lines but more along Catholic/Orthodox lines. To my knowledge, an Anglo-Catholic church, within the Apostolic succession but outside of both the Holy See and the Church of England did not exist in Newmann's time. While there are some doctrinal difference between Rome and the Eastern Churches in addition to that of Papal Authority (see "filioque"), each considers the other part of the historical and Catholic church.
Or would you call the Orthodox church "protestant"?
Well, when I was Episcopalian, I was taught that the Episcopal Church DID have a valid "Apostolic succession", and that church WAS the same as that which existed in Newmann's time.
And I never mentioned the word "Orthodox" at all. The Catholic church acknowledges that the Orthodox churches DO have a valid Apostolic succession.
Do the Orthodox/Oriental Churches consider the Anglo-Catholics to be Apostolic?
Freegards
Marking for later read.
Hi Alex!
So one could argue the validity of apostolic succession, but that is a historical rather than a theological argument, and certainly NOT a protestant argument.
In our case, we have only been independent from TEC, etc since 1977. The eastern church, which has been around for 2,000 years, doesn’t move that quickly. (How many years did it take from the Schism in 1054 until constructive dialog with Rome?)
This prof is a bit nutty on the issue of Anglo-Catholics.
I used to be one, so I'm apparently a good deal better informed than he is (or pretends to be). He glosses completely over the early history of Queen Elizabeth and the Anglican Church, and he misrepresents a good deal of later history (e.g. the Oxford Movement and the Tractarians).
He clearly has an axe to grind. I would not take him seriously if I were you.
The validity of apostolic succession is the one thing that constitutes a valid church. And the original argument was whether "Anglo-Catholics" were Catholic. Without a valid apostolic succession, the answer is simply "no, they aren't".
I'm not sure what this prof's particular motive is in publishing this screed, but he is totally dishonest about the historical background, and that's enough for me to write him off right away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.