Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic

Virtue Online ^ | August 15, 2007 | James I. Packer

[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

[al_c]

Did I say there was anything secret about it?

[DragoonEnNoir]

True, you did not... but you did imply that it was handed down to a few, as opposed to their written words.

Please explain then how you do see it, and my apologies for any misconceptions on my part.

[al_c]

I implied that it was handed down through tradition as well as by written word. Tradition was followed by the word. And what started out as a few has grown to worldwide.

[DragoonEnNoir]

What does ‘handed down by tradition’ mean though? Do you merely mean that word of moputh preceeds the written word, or what exactly?

[al_c]

Preceded. Past tense. The Bible as we know it didn’t exist in the early years of the Church.

[DragoonEnNoir]

Preceded. Past tense. The Bible as we know it didn’t exist in the early years of the Church.

So you're using the term Apostolic succession to only refer to the early years of the church, prior to the collection of the NT letters?

[al_c]

Nope. From the beginning to present time. That includes the early years AND after the NT letters were collected into one.

[DragoonEnNoir]

The question then is;

How do you see Apostolic succession functioning today? (Plase be specific)

[al_c]

The short answer is that apostolic succession is alive and well in the RCC continuing today with Benedict XVI.

[DragoonEnNoir]

That’s not what I mean though...

What I mean, is HOW do you see Apostolic succession as taking place. Is it merely a matter of human succession, or is it something more? Is Apostolic succession merely saying that someone was chosen after the previous person died? Is there a passing on of spiritual ‘power’, and if so, where is this discussed in scripture and what form do you think it takes?

At a fundamental level, how and why is Apostolic succession important?

[MEGoody]

Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic

Who cares? I don't see this categorization being relevant to how Jesus will receive us in eternity.

[al_c]

I started typing a reply to you before lunch, but upon returning I found this post. This thread is dead except for the two of us, so please refer to this one and I think your questions will be answered.

God bless.

[DragoonEnNoir]

Thanks Al,

But I’m not really asking on a historical level. I’m asking for your personal views, since you seem to place a lot of value on Apostolic succession. I just wondered what it meant to you personally.

The RC places a lot of stress upon Apostolic succession in general as a mark of being the ‘true church’, but I often find the justification for it is rooted more in the traditions of man than in the teachings of Christ.

By this I mean that it places a lot of stress upon physical human succession, and very little upon the work of God through his Holy Spirit.

Christ tells us that John the Baptist is the Elijah that was to come (Mt 11:14, Mk 9:12-13, Lk 7:26-28), even though he was not physically Elijah. Saul/Paul was made an Apostle to the gentiles, though he had never seen Christ before His resurrection. It is also written that ‘out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham’ (Mt 3:9), when the Jews placed their faith in their physical descent.

Too much stress can be placed upon a tradition. Yet the God we worship is a God for whom nothing is impossible, and whose ways are not our ways.

God's peace and grace be with you also, and with all who call upon Christ as Lord.

[Huber]

Thanks to TheDean for bringing this to my attention:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5299/

A Statement from the Rev. Dr. James I. Packer
Vancouver British Columbia, Canada
August 24, 2007

Regarding the article, “Anglicanism: Protestant and Catholic, August 15, 2007”

This piece is not by me. It contains information, which was new to me. Its source is identified as the Protestant Alliance, a body with which I have no links and of which I know nothing. It has apparently been on the Internet for a number of years anonymously and to have my name attached to it with the date, August 15, 2007, is, simply, a mistake.

The views expressed do not match my present attitude towards Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

I ask that no one be misled into supposing that this piece, which clearly was written by someone in the Episcopal Church, is connected with me in any way.

[Huber]

Thanks to TheDean for the ping.

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
[Please see post 94. Apparently this article was falsely attributed to the Rev. Dr. James I. Packer and has actually circulated on the internet for several years. According to Rev. Packer, the source of the article is "The Protestant Alliance" regarding which he has no additional information --Huber]

[Gman]

From Matt Kennedy:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5300/

Retraction and Apologies to the Rev. Dr. James Packer

Last week I posted an article purportedly written by Dr. James I Packer entitled: Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic.

It was sent to me, with attribution, by two independent trustworthy sources.

It turns out that the article was not written by Dr. Packer. It has, apparently, been making the rounds for some time.

I apologise to my readers and to Dr. Packer for posting this article under his name and take full responsibility for it. I ought to have checked on this more diligently and thoroughly and regret that I did not.

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, how about that!

Sure does explain why a respected scholar's name was signed under a farrago of nonsense . . . . and snippy nonsense at that.

I'm relieved for Dr. Packer's sake!

[al_c]

Understood. No time to respond today, but I will be back to you with my personal views. Have a great day.

[al_c]

Thanks Al, But I’m not really asking on a historical level. I’m asking for your personal views, since you seem to place a lot of value on Apostolic succession. I just wondered what it meant to you personally.

The RC places a lot of stress upon Apostolic succession in general as a mark of being the ‘true church’, but I often find the justification for it is rooted more in the traditions of man than in the teachings of Christ.

By this I mean that it places a lot of stress upon physical human succession, and very little upon the work of God through his Holy Spirit.

I promised a response when I had the chance ... here it is at last.

From 1 Thessalonians:
And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received it not as the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe.

As I stated in a previous post, the early church had no written bible and taught by word of mouth. This is the way it has been handed down through the centuries. And it is not just men. These men (the Church) are being guided by the Holy Spirit. That is our belief.

I'd also like to call your attention to the book of Acts when the remaining apostles voted to fill the spot once held by Judas. If there was no intention of continuing the line of apostles beyond the original 12, then there would have been no reason to replace Judas.

The RCC does not stress the human succession so much as the succession of men chosen by God through His Holy Spirit to lead the flock.

That, in a nutshell, is my view on this subject.

God's peace be with you.

[DragoonEnNoir]

Thanks Al for your response;

(Al Wrote) As I stated in a previous post, the early church had no written bible and taught by word of mouth. This is the way it has been handed down through the centuries. And it is not just men. These men (the Church) are being guided by the Holy Spirit. That is our belief.

I'd also like to call your attention to the book of Acts when the remaining apostles voted to fill the spot once held by Judas. If there was no intention of continuing the line of apostles beyond the original 12, then there would have been no reason to replace Judas.

The RCC does not stress the human succession so much as the succession of men chosen by God through His Holy Spirit to lead the flock.

Absolutely Godly men have and continue to be guided by the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that their every word or thought is of God though. There is a reason that not everything written by Godly men is considered scripture.

On Apostolic Succession, please note though that in addition to the 12, Paul (as well as Barnabas) is also recognized as an Apostle. What marks an Apostle though? Some of the scriptural marks of an Apostle are;

a) They have seen the Lord
(choosing a replacement for Judas) it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us (Acts 1:21)
Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (1 Cor 9:1b)

b) they are called by God (Luke 6:13, Gal 1:1), and as such are filled with the seal of Holy Spirit, and are to baptize and teach obedience to all God's Word.

c) God attests to their preaching with miraculous signs (Mark 16:20, Acts 5:12, 2 Cor 12:12)

I've only really highlighted the first one though... they have seen the Lord. To be discipled by an Apostle does not mean that one becomes an Apostle, nor does being selected by 'Apostolic Succession' make a person into an Apostle. The succession that is meant is not one of lineal physical descent. To my knowledge, newly elected Popes do not make the assertion that they have seen Christ as Paul or the Twelve did.

Paul himself presents an additional dilemma. The RC assertion that Apostolic Succession only occurs within the RC church denies the evidence of scripture. Not only was Paul made an Apostle away from the 12, but we are also told that the Holy Spirit "blows wherever it pleases" (Jn 3:8). If we are to stress the "succession of men chosen by God through His Holy Spirit", then we should be careful not to limit the Holy Spirit by our human understanding.

The Holy Spirit of God will choose people to lead His church... let us be careful to look for them wherever God places them, and not only where we 'expect' them.

Let God be true, but every man a liar (Ro 3:4)