Are Anglicans/Episcopalians Protestant?

[TomUK]

The CoE was a Catholic Church who allowed the King's wife to give a protestant element into the worship.

SInce the Church was more controlled by its national leader rather than the Pontiff.

So i think altho they originated from Apostolic roots, they removed themselves from their only Successor.

Which wife are you talking about here? You're understanding of Anglican history seems a bit skewed.

 

[CatholicFlame]

Well I guess the word is defined as people who protest?

I think that is it

 

[WarriorAngel]

Which wife are you talking about here? You're understanding of Anglican history seems a bit skewed.

His wife who took over after his death.
His first wife was Catholic, so no issues with Rome.

Hey, i am following the information provided by Anglicans.

Is there another history?

What do you mean thier only successor?

There are exact [SIZE=+0]successors...such as James, Peter and a few more chairs who have roots to an APostle.[/SIZE]
Being that the CoE was from Peter's chair, and they broke off, they do not have an Apostolic chair.

 

[CatholicFlame]

Tom or Angel, my history is not that good. When the Anglican church began, what were they protesting exactly?

 

[CatholicFlame]

wow, Angel, that is cool. I had thought that was what apostolic succession meant but this is the first time it is being spelled out to me.

So each apostle had a successor.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Tom or Angel, my history is not that good. When the Anglican church began, what were they protesting exactly?

The Church was a Bishoprick of the Catholic Church which came under the control of the King.

When the King broke away from Rome, the Church followed.

So the priests and Bishops were ordained Catholic, and did receive ordinations of the Church, but because they broke off Rome, they are considered illicit.

However; some sects of the Church have been discussing reunification, and some who have returned to the Catholic Church are reordained as Catholic.

wow, Angel, that is cool. I had thought that was what apostolic succession meant but this is the first time it is being spelled out to me.

So each apostle had a successor.

I am unsure how many had a chair.
Peter did, naturally.

And an EO can probably give more detail than me on the 4 chairs that succeeded in the East.
James I know was one.

I have to go look it up.

BTW, as the Pope is a successor, as so are the Patriarchs of the EO, and the OO succeeded from Mark, i do believe.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Andrew was one.James was one...but i cannot find the rest.

 

[PaladinValer]

My brother in law is a minster in the Episcopal faith. They are protestant. They are not Catholic.

Incorrect.

However, several Catholics attend Episcopal churches, and they do share many of the same practices. Epsicopalians do not answer to the Pope. Their ministers marry. They have no equivalent of nuns.

Uh huh...

With all due respect, you might want to double check your information.

The CoE was a Catholic Church who allowed the King's wife to give a protestant element into the worship.

Nonsense history.

SInce the Church was more controlled by its national leader rather than the Pontiff.

Also incorrect.

So i think altho they originated from Apostolic roots, they removed themselves from their only Successor.

Your conclusion is based however on faulty information.

The Church was a Bishoprick of the Catholic Church which came under the control of the King.

In what way hwoever?

Not in the way you think. Think more...St. Constantine.

When the King broke away from Rome, the Church followed.

The Church there was never under the authority of Rome.

So the priests and Bishops were ordained Catholic, and did receive ordinations of the Church, but because they broke off Rome, they are considered illicit.

...except that we were never Roman to begin with

However; some sects of the Church have been discussing reunification, and some who have returned to the Catholic Church are reordained as Catholic.

There is no "sect" of the Anglican Church discussing reunification with Rome. You are talking about the "Traditional Anglican Communion," which is not the same as the Anglican Church. They are a body which broke from the Anglican Church.

 

[CatholicFlame]

What do you mean Paladin that the Anglican Church was never part of the Roman Catholic Church before the church began?

Do you mean to say that they have a line of succession back to the apostles apart from the line through the chair of St. Peter?

 

[ContraMundum]

The Anglican church was not in communion/under the power of Rome until the Synod of Whitby in 664. The church had existed from the 1stC and appears to have had more in common with the Eastern Church than the West in many instances.

Even after Whitby, the church was largely self-governing until the Norman Conquest- Rome's de facto military take over of the church and the state.

 

[CatholicFlame]

Do you know which apostle came to england and established the church there in the 1st century by any chance?

 

[ContraMundum]

There are exact [SIZE=+0]successors...such as James, Peter and a few more chairs who have roots to an APostle.[/SIZE]
Being that the CoE was from Peter's chair, and they broke off, they do not have an Apostolic chair.

You're getting confused here. You're confusing Apostolic Succession with the Five Patriarchates. The succession from the Apostles comes from any of the Apostles- not just from five of them (and besides, the See of Alexandria came from Mark- not one of the 12!). The succession of the Apostles comes from Christ, but the five Patriarchates come from politics and the good order of the church. Simply put, when the ecumenical councils occured, those churches (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch) had more influence than others and were seen as leaders in the church and centres of unity.

We all can have Apostolic Succession today from any of the Apostles, including Matthias and Paul.

 

[CatholicFlame]

But wait,

what happens if let's say an apostle comes and he builds the church somewhere. Then the church grows and stays in union with all the church for a while. and then that same church decides to not be in union with the whole church all of a sudden?

Aren't they no longer holding the apostolic succesion at that point?

What I mean to say is isn't apostolic succession also a matter of remaining one in the doctrines of the whole church?

 

[ContraMundum]

Do you know which apostle came to england and established the church there in the 1st century by any chance?

Tradition says St Paul.

Certainly the Anglicans started very early, as we have the witness of an early church well before the martyrdom of St Alban.

 

[CatholicFlame]

I wouldn't be surprised if St. Paul did start the church there, although my history in this area is very poor.

But what do you think of my question about being one with the whole church though?

 

[ContraMundum]

But wait,

what happens if let's say an apostle comes and he builds the church somewhere. Then the church grows and stays in union with all the church for a while. and then that same church decides to not be in union with the whole church all of a sudden?

I don't that's ever happened, so the scenario is fictitious. The discussion could turn to the matter of what constitutes true Christian unity at this stage, but let me just add that the Anglican doctrine of Church polity and unity is the same as the Orthodox. To change the topic to what constitutes unity, catholic order and valid ministries is another keetle of fish altogether.

We would argue that we have never intended to leave the church, but have recaptured the doctrine of unity and fellowship given to us by the Apostles and lived by us for 600 years before Whitby and the later Norman Conquest. We believe in autocephalous churches in communion with each other, rather than the model promotoed in the middle ages by the Papacy. (I know the Papacy has recently changed and matured on this- and thank God for that).

 

[CatholicFlame]

No hold on, I think you might have understood what I meant.

For example, say that the whole church believes something all together in year X.

Then one group changes what they believe in year Y while the rest of the church remain believing X.

So then, isn't the church that changed without the rest not in union with the church as they had been previously?

 

[ContraMundum]

No hold on, I think you might have understood what I meant.

For example, say that the whole church believes something all together in year X.

Then one group changes what they believe in year Y while the rest of the church remain believing X.

So then, isn't the church that changed without the rest not in union with the church as they had been previously?

Well, I think you would need to qualify that a lot. Depends again on what "unity" means. How much unity is enough and on what issues?

Anyway, it's not really applicable here, as we would say that at the time of the Renaissance reformation the Anglican church did not throw out anything it didn't receive from the Apostles, but rather made them the prime focus of our faith. The argument is that Rome had changed the doctrines during the Middle ages, and that the Reformation was necessary to clean house.

 

[Albion]

No hold on, I think you might have understood what I meant.

For example, say that the whole church believes something all together in year X.

Then one group changes what they believe in year Y while the rest of the church remain believing X.

So then, isn't the church that changed without the rest not in union with the church as they had been previously?

Hi, CatholicFlame.

I agree with Contra that a lot of qualifying of words or terms you used would be necessary for there to be a good, sound reply. However, if I go by just what you wrote, I'd have to say this--

First, this (below) was said to be fictitious by Contra, but we can also say that if you have the Anglican church in mind with it, that this is not the history of our church. It might be said of some other churches, but not the Anglican churches. IOW, maybe it's just moot as far as your question to us goes.

what happens if let's say an apostle comes and he builds the church somewhere. Then the church grows and stays in union with all the church for a while. and then that same church decides to not be in union with the whole church all of a sudden?

Second, in the first paragraph (at top) where you ask about a group--later called a church--changing beliefs, I immediately thought of all the Reformation era changes that the Roman Catholic Church has also adopted, if however more recently. For example, congregational singing and other participation such as with lay readers, the priest standing so that the people may see his action at the altar, communion in two kinds, the Mass in the language of the people, and such non-liturgical matters as Bible study groups.

Maybe we're ALL Protestants!?

 

[Colabomb]

For the record, Anglicanism is diverse, VERY diverse. And Don't let one Anglican's (Paladin specifically) understanding of an issue speak for the whole of us.