Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic

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

[r9etb]

I don’t care if you can evaluate my claims or not.

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.

[al_c]

The Orthodox Church has already been ponited out and noted. All the others on your list I don't even consider to be worth categorizing as legitimate churches.

BTW ... you're older.

[al_c]

The Reformation was not a move away from scripture, but a call to return to it as the primary and in some ways sole source of Christianity.

Hmmm .... I wonder what they used as the primary source in the early decades/centuries before any of the New Testament was even written.

[RobbyS]

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.

[OLD REGGIE]

In the end though, is it the ‘denomination’ that we belong to which determines our salvation, or is it our knowing and being known by Christ, and our willing acceptance of Him as Lord and Saviour?

You are 100% correct in describing a Christian. I might substitute the word "God" for "Christ" but that's just me.

As for al_c, I suspect he was just pulling someone's chain. Certainly, he knows better. :-)

[OLD REGGIE]

BTW ... you're older.

MUCH older. Pay due respect Grasshopper.

[Huber]

The article is entirely a polemical red herring and the author throws around terms like “propaganda” while propagandizing for his own view. The fact is that the modern Church of England as established by Henry VIII clearly became increasingly protestant in its theology and worship for several generations and remains formally protestant. Presumably the majority of its national offshoots are ecclesially protestant as well. While there were a fair number of protestants in England during the Tudor period, protestantism was a top down imposition on the large number of Catholics who initially constituted the majority of the population. Times were tumultuous and freedom of religion did not exist in 16th and 17th century England. Consequently English and other British catholics had the option of leaving the country, going underground or adapting as best they could to the CofE.

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.

[al_c]

I yeild to your greyness, O.R.

[Huber]

Thanks to PAR35 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
Traditional Anglican Poster's Comment: [Simply a polemic? My Anglo Catholic perspective is in post 27 --Huber]

[Alex Murphy]

MUCH older. Pay due respect Grasshopper.

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?

[Wonder Warthog]

"However his claim that Anglicanism is not Catholic is simply historically ignorant."

Tell that to John Henry Newmann, probably the most prominent Anglo-Catholic that Britain ever produced.

[Huber]

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"?

[Wonder Warthog]

"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."

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.

[Ransomed]

Do the Orthodox/Oriental Churches consider the Anglo-Catholics to be Apostolic?

Freegards

[suzyjaruki]

Marking for later read.
Hi Alex!

[Huber]

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.

[Huber]

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?)

[AnAmericanMother]

Hoo boy!

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.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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."

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".

[AnAmericanMother]

I see you and I are travelling along the same lines here.

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.