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
Paul didn’t immediately go out preaching the word after his encounter. He spent much time with Peter and the others before being sent out. Yes, these men are called by God, guided by the Holy Spirit, and as far as seeing the Lord, which seems to be your litmus test, who are we to say that each pope hasn’t seen the Lord? Can you positively say that they haven’t?
Pardon me for being frank, but that is a rather stupid question. Of course, the head of all is Christ Jesus. The leader of the Church on earth is His vicar, the pope. Just as Jesus himself set up when He gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter.
I have a question for you. You say your litmus test is scripture. Are you a proponent of Sola Scriptura? If so, where in scripture does it say that scripture is the sole authority? And what did the early Church use for NT scripture since most of it was not yet written?
The scriptural justification for papal ‘vicarship’ is also questionable. It’s rather late and I’d rather not get into it now, but if you look at the Greek of the most commonly used supportive text, it does not refer to Peter as the ‘rock’ in a way that denotes that he is the physical rock (please correct me if I’m wrong).
It also ignores other scripture where Peter is chastised... for instance where Christ rebukes him with, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
(Mt 16:23)
Please note that I am not saying Peter is Satan... he remains an Apostle of Christ and one of the foundations upon which Christ spread his Good News.
As to ‘Sola Scriptura’, except in discussion with Catholics, the term never comes up. It is often used as some kind of condemnation... as if a it is somehow wrong to base your faith entirely upon the Word of God. What a sad thing when people use trust in scripture as an attack.
I do not look only at scripture however, and I think you'll find this true of even those who claim adherence to 'Sola Scriptura'. We all look at the writings and lives of Brethren in Christ, both past and present. For example, I usually have at least one missionary biography going at any given time, and also look at the writings of early Christianity (ie Tertulian, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, etc). More recent theologians and thinkers also top my reading list (ie. Ajith Fernando, NT Wright, John Dominic Crossan, etc). I should mention that merely because I read them does NOT mean I agree with everything they write.
I absolutely affirm though, that the highest authority is the Word of God contained in scripture. It is scripture that I use to measure the people that I read.
We are to use the Words of God to test the wisdom of man... not the other way around.
They don't contradict. In matters of the faith and of morals, the pope is infallible.
it does not refer to Peter as the ‘rock’ in a way that denotes that he is the physical rock
Petra vs. Petros, correct? IMO, that shows the importance of Peter against the importance of Christ. Obviously, Peter's importance pales in comparison. Now, that's just my opinion on "petra" vs. "petros" ... I'm sure the Church has an official stance on this, but you asked for my personal opinion when we began this and I'm offering that.
It also ignores other scripture where Peter is chastised
At no time does the Church deny that Peter was human and erred as humans do. A sinless life is not a requirement of an apostle. God does not called the qualified, he qualifies the called. Also, not long after being chastised, he also denied Christ 3 times as predicted. But read on ... he then became a pillar of faith.
What a sad thing when people use trust in scripture as an attack.
Wasn't an attack on my part. From reading your replies, you sounded as if that was something you held to.
We are to use the Words of God to test the wisdom of man... not the other way around.
Agreed. But God's word is not limited to the Bible. As scriptures says ... we will know them by their fruits.
In matters of the faith and of morals, the pope is infallible.
Why do you ascribe to the Pope infallibility, when you do not ascribe it even to Peter? If we look at the Apostles, they were far from perfect in matters of faith. They lacked the faith to walk on water, they ran from Christ when he was arrested, they denied him when questioned... so where does the idea that the Pope is infallible come from? Historically, there have been many Popes of poor and even depraved morality. I do not say this to condemn any Pope or Catholic believer, but to affirm that the Pope is just a man, subject to human failures... and must be accounted as one. There is only one who is perfect, and we should not credit men with the qualities that belong to God. To do so merely builds false idols.
But God’s word is not limited to the Bible.
Absolutely... but we use to scriptures to test whether something conforms to God’s Word.
His peace be with us all.
Regarding the Churh in matters of faith and morals, I do. Does that mean that Peter was perfect? Does that mean the popes are perfect? No ... they're sinners just like you and me and in need of a savior. It does not mean they can walk on water. And the infallibility does not apply to them personally. Only regarding the Church.
Up until now I've given you only my opinions. Now I am going to refer you to another source. Please follow this link to read more of the following snippet regarding papal infallibility.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
The following is also part of the linked article.
As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.
.
.
.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
(Al wrote) And the infallibility does not apply to them personally. Only regarding the Church.
This is parsing it quite a bit. Only God is infallible. To ascribe this characteristic to any man is biblically unsound, and I would argue a contradiction of one of God’s key commands... to place no gods before Him.
Does God guide His children? Absolutely. Does this mean that even in matters of faith and morals they are always correct? Certainly not.
You mentioned some who have cited Papal personal sinfulness, and your sources state
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability.
I would say both infallibility and impeccability are attributes we can only assign to God. No man can be 'perfect' in either sense of the word.
The very fact that there have been 'bad Popes' goes against one of the key arguments for Papal infallibility; namely that they have been given a special 'charism' by God.
Yet we are clearly told that faith without actions is dead (James 2:14-24), and even within Catholicism (please correct me if I'm misinformed) you hold that if a man is inwardly saved by grace, that this salvation is made complete and is shown outwardly by his actions.
Most certainly a 'mature' believer, one who is chosen to be a leader or elder within the church, is to be able to distinguish between good and evil (Heb 5:13-14), to put off their corruption, falsehood and unwholesome talk (Eph4:17-32). If the 'bad Popes' fell away or never had the Spirit of God, please look at what Hebrews tells us about this in chapter 6.
If you hold that the Pope is infallible, even only in matters of faith and morals, then I would respectfully ask you to consider... have you not made a man or a 'church' into your God?
I do not question whether you are a believer and follower of Jesus Christ, or whether any particular Pope was or is. Rather, as one Brother in Christ to another, I ask you to look upon what God tells us in His Word, and ask whether you and your church are in obedience to it.
May His Spirit be a guide to all those who call upon His name.
I’ve had more comments about ‘Protestant’ on this forum than I’ve ever seen any place else. What exactly do you think a ‘Protestant’ is?
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.