Ah, well, yes and no. You can't really understand Anglicanism except as a mix of the two, with more or less "protestantism" in one place or another. That, and you can't really understand the "why" of that without a good grounding in English history, and the rationale (a mixture of religion and geopolitics and succession crises) behind the various wars fought between, say, 1400 and 1700.
Certainly in terms of polity and practice, Anglicanism is very much more Catholic than not. Anglicanism does, in fact, claim the Apostolic succession, and I believe that Rome accepts that to a point. As far as Anglicans are concerned, confirmed Catholics can be "received" into the Anglican Communion, whereas those from denominations must be confirmed.
In terms of theology, what passes for Anglicanism in one province may be much different than in some other province of the Anglican Communion. But no matter what province, you'll almost never see strict adherence to ideas like the "TULIP", which is the sort of thing that typically informs a real "protestant" viewpoint.
You wrote:
“Ah, well, yes and no.”
No. It is just “NO”.
“You can’t really understand Anglicanism except as a mix of the two, with more or less “protestantism” in one place or another. That, and you can’t really understand the “why” of that without a good grounding in English history, and the rationale (a mixture of religion and geopolitics and succession crises) behind the various wars fought between, say, 1400 and 1700.”
Thanks, I have all that. That’s EXACTLY why I know Anglicanism is Protestant. It has a tendency to claim some catholicity, but it possesses none.
“Certainly in terms of polity and practice, Anglicanism is very much more Catholic than not.”
Certainly not. Monarch as head of the Church? Not Catholic. Women priestesses and bishopesses (is that even a word?)? Not Catholic.
“Anglicanism does, in fact, claim the Apostolic succession, and I believe that Rome accepts that to a point.”
Nope. The Catholic Church, and some Anglicans to (before they converted to Catholicism), has always denied it.
“As far as Anglicans are concerned, confirmed Catholics can be “received” into the Anglican Communion, whereas those from denominations must be confirmed.”
That only hints at what we have, not at what Anglicans pretend to have. Donatists did the opposite. Augustine remarked that the Donatists refused to recognize Catholic baptism, while Catholics accepted the Donatists’ baptisms as valid. The Catholic Church always recognizes what is true even if it is not politically beneficial to it. So the Anglicans got something right on “receiving” Catholics? So what? That doesn’t prove that Anglicans have valid orders. It only proves that Anglicans recognize Catholics do.
“In terms of theology, what passes for Anglicanism in one province may be much different than in some other province of the Anglican Communion.”
Then how can they claim “catholic” as a mark of their sect? You’re proving my point for me.
“But no matter what province, you’ll almost never see strict adherence to ideas like the “TULIP”, which is the sort of thing that typically informs a real “protestant” viewpoint.”
No. TULIP is a strict Calvinist/Reformed approach. It is NOT the only Protestant approach. Anglicanism is a form of Protestantism. The Via media (which is a myth anyway) is Protestant, not Catholic.
Thanks for proving my point! I always like when someone who denies the truth goes so far to prove it!