Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic

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

It is important to draw a distinction between one's true theology and the theology that was expressed in the face of politics. Cranmer was a great liturgist, but his theology tended to shift at different stages of his career, sometimes on both sides of political pressures. While Luther's theology was probably not influenced by politics, per se, the opportunistic intervention of the German princes concurrent with Muslim incursions into the Holy Roman Empire ultimately precluded reconciliation and the possiblity for an ecumenical resolution of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Augustine? Surely you gest!

For the Orthodox, the issue of catholicity and apostolicity is at least as tied to the issue of whether or not the body confessed the Orthodox Faith as with the proper succession of bishops in right line from the Holy Apostles.

The Latin analysis of the defect in Anglican orders has no currency with the Orthodox—witness the union talks between St. Tikhon and Bp. Grafton of Fond du Lac in the early 20th century—and indeed there are many classical Anglicans (Thomas Ken, the Caroline Divines, and curiously, the Wesleys, come to mind) who evince a phronema closer to Orthodoxy than is found elsewhere in the West since the Latin schism.

But this is not to say that the Orthodox can regard Anglicanism as either apostolic or catholic, since has always been hard to tell whether Anglicans actually confess a faith beyond some minimal truths that broad-church latitudinarians (very like liberal protestant of all stripes), low-church evanglicals, and high-churchmen (whether of the Anglo-Catholic stripe or not) all agree on—and even harder since the latidudinarian wing had drifted into neo-pagan apostacy. Insisting on remaining in the communion of those who do not confess the Apostolic Faith is not a mark of apostolicity, even with a valid succession of consecrations, bishop-to-bishop back to the Apostles.

That being said, one Orthodox monk for whom I have great respect and affection has expressed the view that a particular minority among the Continuing Anglicans, the one body which has dropped the filioque to return to the Creed as confessed by the Orthodox, is the only Western confession with which it is worthwhile for the Orthodox to have an ‘ecumenical dialog’. (In charity to my separated Latin bretheren, I should point out that this view was expressed before the enthronement of Pope Benedict XVI.)

The ‘Deutrocanonicals’ were recognized by Carthage in the African Code of 419, which was given ecumenical force by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (the disciplinary sessions of which are called the ‘Quinsext’ or ‘Trullan’ Synod by Western commentators, though its canons were recognized as beloning to the Sixth Ecumencical Council by various Popes of Rome before the Latin schism). They have always been part of Christian Scripture from the fixing of the Canon.

The notion that Trent was the first ‘formal’ recognition is false protestant propaganda that is plainly disproved by the fact that the Orthodox, who regard Trent as an heretical conventicle held by the Latins, regard the ‘deuterocanonicals’ as part of canonical Scripture.

In regards to the 2ndary canon books (the meaning of deutero) what is formal recognition, or not, like oral tradition, always seem to me to be a bit squirrelly, emphasized and even revised according to the history accepted at the time. Besides that, as the life of Athanasius proved, Councils do, and have erred.

I for one believe in the official Anglican description of scripture from the 39 Articles:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

If that, or Cranmer himself, is not “Anglican” enough for some, oh well.

You wrote:

“‘Those groups’ is rather broad, could you refer to a specific case and we could discuss that one first?”

I probably could if I knew what your were quoting and thought it was worthwhile to look. At this point, I don’t see either one of those things. If you’re going to quote someone, posting more than two words would help.

“I find generalizations detract from real discourse.”

I have always found posting two words of someone’s comments and demanding further explication without having been provided the context to detract from real discourse. Generalizations, on the other hand, are usually easily dealt with.

Sorry Vladimir, I find your whole tone here rather confusing.

Vladimir wrote;
(Dragoon wrote earlier)"Those groups’ is rather broad, could you refer to a specific case and we could discuss that one first?”

I probably could if I knew what your were quoting and thought it was worthwhile to look. At this point, I don’t see either one of those things. If you’re going to quote someone, posting more than two words would help.

(Dragoon wrote earlier)“I find generalizations detract from real discourse.”

I have always found posting two words of someone’s comments and demanding further explication without having been provided the context to detract from real discourse. Generalizations, on the other hand, are usually easily dealt with.

Here is your post that I was responding to;

Vladimir wrote;
So where does that leave all of those self-admitted Protestant groups that cut the Deuterocanonicals from their new Bibles?

Might I suggest you apply your comments to your own posting. I am merely asking you to clarify your own question and explain which 'Protestant groups' and which 'new Bibles' you are referring to.

You're absolutely correct that generalizations are easy to respond to. It's also easy to unjustly slander and accuse using generalities, because we can lump disparate groups together as we choose. Truth though is better served by speaking clearly and clarifying exactly who and what we mean.

Both context and full earlier texts are available through use of the "To xx" link below the text, just in case you were unaware of this. As you yourself did not post my full previous posting, I find it strange that you place a load on others which you do not place on yourself.

Hi Al,

I guess in part it depends on what you think about the nature of God. If you believe in a God who took on human nature in the form of Christ, and spoke through Christ to all men, then would you not look to those Apostles and teachers whom Christ had sent forth?

It goes without saying that these Apostles who had walked beside Christ were all alive when they wrote the letters of the NT, and so would have been available as living sources to Christ’s words and teachings. Their letters (which were later gathered as the NT) would then have been copied and available after they each were killed for their faith.

It must have been a humbling and profoundly moving experience to meet and talk to someone who had lived and walked with Christ. It must also have been comforting to know that others who had witnessed and could corroborate their statements were still alive at that time.

You wrote:

“Sorry Vladimir, I find your whole tone here rather confusing.”

That’s okay because I’m not worried if you do.

“Might I suggest you apply your comments to your own posting. I am merely asking you to clarify your own question and explain which ‘Protestant groups’ and which ‘new Bibles’ you are referring to.”

Nah, not worth my time. If you do not know enough about this subject I can recommend a book to you. Read Gary Michuta’s book. I think the title is Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. http://www.handsonapologetics.com/WCBB_BLURB%20PAGE.htm

“You’re absolutely correct that generalizations are easy to respond to. It’s also easy to unjustly slander and accuse using generalities, because we can lump disparate groups together as we choose.”

Thankfully, I didn’t do that.

“Truth though is better served by speaking clearly and clarifying exactly who and what we mean.”

To those who are familiar with the topic my statements were both clear and distinct. Again, if you are unschooled on this topic, perhaps it is time you did some study?

“Both context and full earlier texts are available through use of the “To xx” link below the text, just in case you were unaware of this. As you yourself did not post my full previous posting, I find it strange that you place a load on others which you do not place on yourself.”

Clearly you need to study. If you want to consider that a “load” then that is your choice. In any case you need to start with the basics - as your requests to me make clear. What you find strange is of no concern to me. I have no reason to believe your conclusion as to what is strange is worthy of note by me.

And their words were passed down through apostolic succession as well as their written words.

How exactly are words passed on through ‘Apostolic succession’? Do the Apostles share with their chosen ‘successor’ secret knowledge/gnosis that is not available to other believers? Did Christ command his disciples to share secret knowledge with only a few, or did he instruct them to 'preach the good news to all creation' (Mark 16:15) and to 'make disciples of all nations' (Mt 28:19)

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.