Posted on 08/20/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Anglicans are Protestants. Period. There is no debate here. There are only dreamers who want to pretend that Anglicans aren’t what they are.
If it’s not a Catholic Church, it’s Protestant. End of story.
Correct. I was raised in a church of "Anglo-Catholic" leanings and taught that the Anglican Church was truly apostolic. Fortunately, late in adulthood, I discovered that that was simply wrong. After much study, like John Henry Newman, I became Catholic (Thanks be to God!).
... or Orthodox.
True, what is fascinating about this article is that I pick up a fear by the author that High Church Anglicans are slipping towards reunion.
Kind of interesting.
Good point!
Here’s one that’s pingworthy.
Noted.
There is the special use Anglican rite in the Catholic Church.
Metaphysical & New Age. Protestant?
Greek Orthodox. Protestant?
Russian Orthodox. Protestant?
Unitarian. Protestant?
Scientology. Protestant?
Christian Science. Protestant?
(Just to mention a few "Churches")
Oh Al! You poor man. I'm afraid you are becoming dotty in your old age.
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.
Nope.
I think there may be a bit of confusion over what a ‘Protestant’ is. 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. (Feel free to correct me if you believe I’m wrong on this, but explain why)
Groups that seek to ‘rewrite’ or create their ‘own’ Bible are not Protestant. I would question whether they should be called ‘Christian’, since a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, and groups which seek to add/change His teachings are no longer following Jesus, but rather their own leader/prophets, etc.
They have every right to exist and people have every legal right to follow whatever religion they choose, but if a group does not follow Christ, it is strange and in many ways deceitful for them to seek to use His name.
Reg, I understand your point that ‘not Catholic’ does not automatically = Protestant, but many of the groups you cite should not be considered ‘Christian’.
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 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!
Gee--that was one of the first things Martin Luther did. So I guess that means that the Lutherans and all those spinoffs from them "are not Protestant".
You haven't made a "point." You've made a claim, which you have not supported.
For example, what, in your view, defines "Protestant," or "Catholic?" You haven't said. How can we evaluate your claims without knowing their basis?
You wrote:
“You haven’t made a “point.” You’ve made a claim, which you have not supported.”
Then thanks for proving my unsupported claim!
“For example, what, in your view, defines “Protestant,” or “Catholic?” You haven’t said. How can we evaluate your claims without knowing their basis?”
I don’t care if you can evaluate my claims or not. Anyone who thinks Anglicanism somehow is and is not Catholic at the same time is not able to evaluate much of anything. The burden to prove that Anglicanism is Catholic is yours. To prove the opposite is not my burden. Can you for instance prove that women priests are a Catholic idea? Can you prove that women bishops is a Catholic idea? If not then you’re doomed to failure anyway.
Have a nice day!
You wrote: “Groups that seek to ‘rewrite’ or create their ‘own’ Bible are not Protestant.”
So where does that leave all of those self-admitted Protestant groups that cut the Deuterocanonicals from their new Bibles?
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.