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
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.