Posted on 08/20/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
J.I. Packer is apparently highly respected in the Evangelical wing (and I recall we have one of his books in the parish library). This doesn't sound like what little I've read of his, so I just have to wonder what's up. Or... maybe he genuinely dislikes Anglo-Catholicism, rather like David Virtue.
After spending all of my life as a Baptist, I switched to an Anglican Church and to me it is much more Catholic than Protestant! JMO!
The Orthodox need to answer that one, so I will ping a few. (We may have to wait a bit for an answer from K.)
I have also been told that they perceive some of the Orthodox phronema in Anglicanism. But again, that's for them to say.
ping
Thank you for the answer, Huber. Thank you for the Orthodox ping, sionnsar.
Freegards
I would say the same thing about the Lutheran church if I were raised a Baptist and then became Lutheran: “Much more Catholic than Protestant.” But the reality would be that it was founded and led by Protestants, grounded in Protestant doctrines, has deliberately NOT associated itself with the Catholic Church and DOESN’T want to be Catholic. That’s Protestant. That’s isn’t Catholic. It might seem more Catholic than Protestant to me if I started out from an extremely low church sect like the Baptists, but that wouldn’t change the fact that the Lutherans (and Anglicans) are still Protestants.
Even this Anglican parish is still PROTESTANT: http://www.s-clements.org/flash.html
They even say the Rosary!!! They’re still Protestant.
I think he either is out of his area of expertise or has let some sort of emotion cloud his judgment.
And you would be rather self-consistent in saying so.
The Deuterocanonicals were NOT formally recognized until Trent, AFTER Luther sided with the scholarly school of thought which rejected their canonicity. Until Luther various loyal Roman Catholic scholars doubted whether they should be included in the canon. The very reason they are called “deuterocanonical” instead of just canonical is because even Rome recognizes their 2ndary authority to the rest of scripture.
Also, the word “catholic” has the definition of “universal.” All non-Roman Catholic churches consider themselves a part of Christ’s universal church, as do of course the Anglicans. So yes, as they understand the term universal, Anglicans are Catholic. Of course those submitted to the Bishop of Rome say they alone are The one and only universal church.
To the rest of us this seems so much arrogant nonsense.
One would be well served not to dismiss J. I. Packer. This guy is an extremely well qualified and distinguished professor (well into his 90s now I believe) and is definitely an expert in Reformation history; he would be able to back up every assertion he makes. Packer has many volumes to his credit, including translations of reformation era books.
From what I know of the English Reformation, Anglican roots have more to do with a compromise between Lutheran and Reformed ideas—along with a heavy Roman Catholic appearance and polity...ALL very English of course, than the more commonly asserted via-media between Roman Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism.
It’s complicated—and varies a lot between parishes and provinces.
Like several other posts here, I'm trying to understand what you mean by the very broad word "catholic." Do you mean Roman Catholic?
Or catholic in the sense as part of the universal Church?
Celtic Christians definitely knew themselves to be in communion with the universal church, but as defined by Rome, that is under the control and submissive to the Bishop of Rome? Did not "Catholic" in the 5th Century mean something quite different than it meant just a couple hundred years later? Importantly to their day, they even used a different Church calender--which had to be worked out before the agreement at Whitby Abbey in AD 664, usually seen as when the Celtic/English Church formally submitted to Rome.
When I substitute "universal" for "Catholic" in your post it contradicts itself and makes little sense. When I substitute "Roman Catholic" for your word "Catholic" it also makes no sense. Perhaps you mean by "catholic" a pattern of worship?
Don't Anglo-Catholics consider evangelical Anglicans part of the Church catholic?
If by "Protestant" you mean the puritan/reformed wing of Anglicanism things make more sense. Last I checked though, the Puritans are all dead, or Presbyterian, which of course though sometimes difficult, shouldn't be confused.
Placed marked.
Look, he may be the second coming of Dwight L. Moody, but if he’s as ‘extremely well qualified and distinguished’ as you claim, then he is being deliberately disingenuous here (and his venomous tone would indicate that as well). That’s worse than being ignorant.
You wrote:
“The Deuterocanonicals were NOT formally recognized until Trent, AFTER Luther sided with the scholarly school of thought which rejected their canonicity.”
No. The case for the Deuterocanonicals was not CLOSED until Trent. The Church did not reckon that it needed a new official recognition of them, however, other than it had already provided at previous councils. Most people are not aware that the canon was already authoritatively stated at Florence 70 BEFORE the beginning of the Protestant Revolution:
[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].
Council of Florence, Eleventh Session, February 4, 1442
And that always struck me as familiar because of this from the regional council of Hippo in the 1050 years earlier:
Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are:-—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:-—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted. (Synod of Hippo, Canon 29, A.D. 393)
“Until Luther various loyal Roman Catholic scholars doubted whether they should be included in the canon.”
True. Some did. But the issue was already decided many years before.
“The very reason they are called “deuterocanonical” instead of just canonical is because even Rome recognizes their 2ndary authority to the rest of scripture.”
No. They are called Deutercanonical because of their place in a secondary canon (i.e. one that is drawn from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew mss.). That’s what the word actually means - secondary canon.
“Also, the word “catholic” has the definition of “universal.” All non-Roman Catholic churches consider themselves a part of Christ’s universal church, as do of course the Anglicans.”
Catholic Churches are Catholic. Those that are Protestant can not make a claim to that. Wishful thinking is not sunstantive.
“So yes, as they understand the term universal, Anglicans are Catholic.”
You mean like how you understand the word “Deuterocanonical” even though that isn’t what the word ACTUALLY means? So, we can all be whatever we want by just insisting on our own peculiar definitions of words and ideas? So you could be Lithuanian tomorrow if you wanted to be? And you could be a Buddhist if you wanted the day after? And a Martian next week?
Please come back to reality. Words mean things. Relativism helps no one cope with reality.
“Of course those submitted to the Bishop of Rome say they alone are The one and only universal church.”
And clearly they have a good claim to that while Protestants have none.
“To the rest of us this seems so much arrogant nonsense.”
It would I am sure. To a child being told he can’t do something or to a man mired in relativism and fantasies being told he can’t be something by just wishing it were so it would definitely appear like arrogant nonsense for someone to say, “No, that doesn’t work.”
Maybe, the nonsense here - and this might sting to hear it - is that you are telling me what’s what about an issue you clearly know nothing about. You can’t even get the definition of Deuterocanonical right. You mistakenly believe Trent defined the canon (first!) and that it did so because of Protestantism when the canon was already defined BEFORE Protestantism existed. You’ve probably never even known that the Church already had the issue discussed at regional councils a millenium before that. Yet, you feel, and that’s really the word for it, FEEL, that it is all so much arrogant nonsense.
Learn your facts and this will seem a lot less arrogant. Learn the truth and this will make a lot more sense to you.
Gee, maybe the problem isn’t us.
Catholic is meant in the sense of the universal Church, but also in the sense of a fully sacramental form of worship, the sense of a belief in free will and the sense of a continuity of traditional Christianity with a history of saints going back to classical times through the middle ages. A Catholic, whether Roman, Eastern, Celtic, Anglican or other would not subscribe to the doctrine of sola scriptura or double predestination and would believe the Eucharist to be the actual Body of Christ.
Celtic Christians definitely knew themselves to be in communion with the universal church, but as defined by Rome, that is under the control and submissive to the Bishop of Rome? Did not "Catholic" in the 5th Century mean something quite different than it meant just a couple hundred years later? Importantly to their day, they even used a different Church calender--which had to be worked out before the agreement at Whitby Abbey in AD 664, usually seen as when the Celtic/English Church formally submitted to Rome.
Absolutely!
When I substitute "universal" for "Catholic" in your post it contradicts itself and makes little sense. When I substitute "Roman Catholic" for your word "Catholic" it also makes no sense. Perhaps you mean by "catholic" a pattern of worship?
See above.
Don't Anglo-Catholics consider evangelical Anglicans part of the Church catholic?
I do not know the answer to this question, but it seems that it's more a question of how evangelical Anglicans see themselves. If they separate themselves and recoil against not just the Bishop of Rome but all things Catholic (as defined above), then there is a legitimate question of whether they have excommunicated themselves from the broader church. The continued use of the term "protestant" in self identification certainly implies that protestants are protesting against something. Does this protest amount to willful self-separation or do evangelicals believe that they have a common faith with Catholics and that they are collectively all part of Christ's church?
If by "Protestant" you mean the puritan/reformed wing of Anglicanism things make more sense. Last I checked though, the Puritans are all dead, or Presbyterian, which of course though sometimes difficult, shouldn't be confused.
Puritan was being used in its adjectival sense, similarly to the other terms in the same sentence.
Interesting. Sounds like Augustine, Luther, and perhaps Cranmer too were not catholic, in your definition.
This "Doctor" really retired and never missed it for a day.
My grandchildren are way ahead of me in the use of windows and, while I can still repair my desktop, my super duper laptop scares the daylights out of me. I have no idea how to begin making a hardware upgrade or repair nor am I interested. I purchase a depot repair contract from HP and let them handle it.
My point here is not to be contentious, rather the opposite.
I think it is one thing to say sacramentalism is the highest and best, most authentic to early Christian Catholicism, but another to say it is the only form of Christianity. One can think one is right—but not set the standard of who is part of Christ’ body as simultaneous to your theology.
It gets confusing to use “catholic” for “Church universal” AND a particular historic form of worship and belief. The Roman Catholics of course refer to “Catholic” as only those their denomination, however if “catholic” is to recover its original meaning of “church universal” we should use it only in that way.
Also, I’d wager that 99% of persons using the word “Protestant” today use it like those who coined it did, simply to distinguish those western Christians who were not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. No one I know of—and I think historically this is true from at least the 17th, if not the 16th Century itself, use “protestant” to mean people protesting anything. All the magisterial protestants and most of the more radical protestants too, regard themselves as part of the universal church, catholic...even while being not in communion with Rome, using the shorthand word for that concept, “Protestant.”
The world wide Anglican Communion includes many (many) evangelicals, many who vow every Sunday fidelity to the “holy Catholic Church” who also believe that scripture is the final and only inerrant authority (this doesn’t deny other authorities, like Tradition). To doubt that they are part of the Church universal I think is a serious problem.
The sacramentalist wing of the Anglican Communion needs to accept evangelicals as fellow Christians, even though they have disagreements with them...so should, and I think they do, the evangelicals to the Anglo-Catholics.
“Catholic” is defined in the Athanasian Creed. You seem to have grafted some additional definition onto that of the Church fathers.
Read the creed again: “And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;”
“we.” See that? “we”. Anglicans were not yet in existence nor was their sect. They were not part of that “we”.
Also, the Athanasian Creed is really about resisting the Arian crisis. It is not a complete statement of the faith. The Nicene Creed is much more detailed, for instance, and even that is not complete.
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.