Are Anglicans/Episcopalians Protestant?

[TexasBluebonnet]

They have no equivalent of nuns.

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

Hi, I've pretty much had my question answered which is why I haven't posted here again, but when I saw this I just had to reply. Yes, the Episcopal church does have nuns. How do I know this? Well, I attended a church service once and met one. Then I went home and looked into it. I don't think it's as big a thing as the Catholics have. I could be wrong on that, but yeah they do exist. Don't they have the same rule that they can't get married?

 

[Albion]

Hi, I've pretty much had my question answered which is why I haven't posted here again, but when I saw this I just had to reply. Yes, the Episcopal church does have nuns. How do I know this? Well, I attended a church service once and met one. Then I went home and looked into it. I don't think it's as big a thing as the Catholics have. I could be wrong on that, but yeah they do exist. Don't they have the same rule that they can't get married?

Yes, the Episcopal Church does have nuns and they operate almost exactly as the Roman Catholic nuns do.

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

Yes, the Episcopal Church does have nuns and they operate almost exactly as the Roman Catholic nuns do.

Wow. Bet that's a hard gig then. Thanks for the info !

 

[TexasSky]

Incorrect.



Uh huh...

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



Nonsense history.



Also incorrect.



Your conclusion is based however on faulty information.



In what way hwoever?

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



The Church there was never under the authority of Rome.



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



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.

I am sorry, my friend, but I am correct.

The man has gone to Seminary, and is ordained. He knows the doctorines of the Anglican church.

The definition of Protestant is any Christian chruch that separated from the Catholic church. It is not about being a Calvanist or not.

Anglicans separated from the Catholic Church.

The Anglicans have their own diocese which does not answer to the Pope in Rome.

Their priest DO marry. I know this for a fact.
In fact, the last priest at one of the Epsicopal churches in town was married, divorced and then married again.

The bishop is the father-in-law of a woman I work with.

They follow many of the sacriments of the Catholic Church, but they are NOT Catholics.

A very wonderful woman I know was forbidden communion by the Catholic church because she was divorced. (Her husband had an affair.) The priest of the Anglican church told her, "We are not Catholic, and anyone who believes in Christ is asked to join us at the Lord's table."

They DO recite the Nicene Creed, and they DO recite the Apostle's Creed, but they are NOT Catholic, nor does their diocese claim to be Catholic.

When asked about the part of the Nicene Creed that says, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church," they explain that "holy catholic," is not, to them, "Roman Catholic." The word Catholic, in literal translation, means "universal". The Anglican diocese teaches that they believe there is one body of believers in Christ, and this, to them, is the "holy catholic" church.

In regards to Anglican Nuns, perhaps I should be more clear. There are "monks" and "nuns" who have become Anglican, and continue to live their lives as monks and nuns. However, these are very rare, and the "monistaries" are even more rare. I am told that they were created to accomodate the needs of individuals who were once Catholic who wanted to continue with Catholic traditions. You will find, quite often, in an Anglican monestary, brothers who are married. Something you won't find in the average Catholic monestary.

While Anglicans may look to Rome for guideance, they do NOT answer to the Pope, or to the Vatican. Hence, again, they are Protestant, NOT Catholic.

And yes, the Anglicans were, once, ROMAN Catholic.

From a history of the Anglican church written BY the diocese.

"The name "Anglican" means "of England", but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians. The Anglican Church evolved as part of the Roman church."


"The Anglican church, although it has apostolic succession, is separate from the Roman church."

"The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome."

All churches that broke from Rome following Luther's Theses were called protestant churches.

 

[Albion]

Wow. Bet that's a hard gig then. Thanks for the info !

I'll bet.

I tried to locate the website of the All Saints Sisters of the Poor in Catonsville, MD because they are well-known. I couldn't find it, but here's another community:

http://www.stclarelittlesisters.org

They, the Little Clares, like some other women's orders, work in the churches. I think that the All Saints community is cloistered instead, living in their own monastery.

 

[Albion]

I am sorry, my friend, but I am correct.

The man has gone to Seminary, and is ordained. He knows the doctorines of the Anglican church.

The definition of Protestant is any Christian chruch that separated from the Catholic church. It is not about being a Calvanist or not.

Anglicans separated from the Catholic Church.

The Anglicans have their own diocese which does not answer to the Pope in Rome.

Their priest DO marry. I know this for a fact.
In fact, the last priest at one of the Epsicopal churches in town was married, divorced and then married again.

The bishop is the father-in-law of a woman I work with.

They follow many of the sacriments of the Catholic Church, but they are NOT Catholics.

A very wonderful woman I know was forbidden communion by the Catholic church because she was divorced. (Her husband had an affair.) The priest of the Anglican church told her, "We are not Catholic, and anyone who believes in Christ is asked to join us at the Lord's table."

They DO recite the Nicene Creed, and they DO recite the Apostle's Creed, but they are NOT Catholic, nor does their diocese claim to be Catholic.

When asked about the part of the Nicene Creed that says, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church," they explain that "holy catholic," is not, to them, "Roman Catholic." The word Catholic, in literal translation, means "universal". The Anglican diocese teaches that they believe there is one body of believers in Christ, and this, to them, is the "holy catholic" church.

In regards to Anglican Nuns, perhaps I should be more clear. There are "monks" and "nuns" who have become Anglican, and continue to live their lives as monks and nuns. However, these are very rare, and the "monistaries" are even more rare. I am told that they were created to accomodate the needs of individuals who were once Catholic who wanted to continue with Catholic traditions. You will find, quite often, in an Anglican monestary, brothers who are married. Something you won't find in the average Catholic monestary.

While Anglicans may look to Rome for guideance, they do NOT answer to the Pope, or to the Vatican. Hence, again, they are Protestant, NOT Catholic.

Much of that is true, but take all of it with a grain of salt. It is not so easy to explain all these things, especially to those who are not familiar with our church.

When the debate over Protestant or Catholic comes up, it always means this--what characteristics did the Church of England retain during the Reformation that the Continental Protestant churches did not?

No one thinks that we are Roman Catholic when the word Catholic is used.

 

[ContraMundum]

The man has gone to Seminary, and is ordained. He knows the doctorines of the Anglican church.

Me too. I disagree with your guy.

The definition of Protestant is any Christian chruch that separated from the Catholic church. It is not about being a Calvanist or not.

Depends. That would make the Orthodox "Protestant" then.

We are Protestant inasmuch as we have protested for the truth. Don't all Christians do that?

Anglicans separated from the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is in schism, not us. We define schism as departure from Catholic faith and order. Medieval additions and subtractions from the faith were the cause of the Protestant reformation- and the sooner people come to terms with that, the sooner we can get back together. BTW- the Orthodox would agree with us.

The Anglicans have their own diocese which does not answer to the Pope in Rome.

Nor did we before 664AD.

Their priest DO marry. I know this for a fact.
In fact, the last priest at one of the Epsicopal churches in town was married, divorced and then married again.

Praise God for that. Did you know that St Peter was married? Was he not Catholic because of that?

They follow many of the sacriments of the Catholic Church, but they are NOT Catholics.

Sure we are. Just not ROMAN Catholics. There are other rites within Catholicism, as Rome readily tells us many times.

A very wonderful woman I know was forbidden communion by the Catholic church because she was divorced. (Her husband had an affair.) The priest of the Anglican church told her, "We are not Catholic, and anyone who believes in Christ is asked to join us at the Lord's table."

Obviously, he meant "Roman" Catholic. That is easy to work out from my perspective. Often we use the term "Catholic" to designate Roman Catholic, even though there are many different kinds of Catholics.

They DO recite the Nicene Creed, and they DO recite the Apostle's Creed, but they are NOT Catholic, nor does their diocese claim to be Catholic.

Our Creeds tell us that we believe in the Catholic Church. You are contradicting yourself. Furthermore, our liturgy tells us that we are Catholic as does our dogmatics.

When asked about the part of the Nicene Creed that says, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church," they explain that "holy catholic," is not, to them, "Roman Catholic." The word Catholic, in literal translation, means "universal". The Anglican diocese teaches that they believe there is one body of believers in Christ, and this, to them, is the "holy catholic" church.

In other words, we believe we are Catholic.

In regards to Anglican Nuns, perhaps I should be more clear. There are "monks" and "nuns" who have become Anglican, and continue to live their lives as monks and nuns. However, these are very rare, and the "monistaries" are even more rare. I am told that they were created to accomodate the needs of individuals who were once Catholic who wanted to continue with Catholic traditions. You will find, quite often, in an Anglican monestary, brothers who are married. Something you won't find in the average Catholic monestary.

Nonsense. There are genuine, home grown monastic orders within Anglicanism that are not sheltered workshops for disgruntled Roman Catholics.

While Anglicans may look to Rome for guideance, they do NOT answer to the Pope, or to the Vatican. Hence, again, they are Protestant, NOT Catholic.

The claims of the Papacy that one must heed their commands is not a Catholic doctrine. We are the Catholics on this point.

And yes, the Anglicans were, once, ROMAN Catholic.

Prove it. Find me ONE Anglican document, even during the time when the church was under the dominion of Rome, that says "we Anglicans are Roman Catholics". Enjoy your hunt.

From a history of the Anglican church written BY the diocese.

"The name "Anglican" means "of England", but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians. The Anglican Church evolved as part of the Roman church."

The idiot who wrote that should be lovingly corrected, not knowing the basics of Anglican history.

"The Anglican church, although it has apostolic succession, is separate from the Roman church."

It still remains to be proven whether or not being organically part of Rome is being Catholic. This should be your goal to prove.

"The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome."

All churches that broke from Rome following Luther's Theses were called protestant churches.

Big deal. Who cares what we are "called" by our detractors. Like that matters to us.

 

[CatholicFlame]

Contra what I meant to say was, and I will try be more specific:

lets say the church all believes in something in year X.

everyone, all the whole church.

do you get what I am saying here?

then in year Y, one part of the church decides to change what they had believed to something else in year Y.

So then, they changed what they used to believe without any council. the rest of the church continued on.

But this new group decides by the decision of something other than a council to change.

Changes are fine, but can this church do so without a council of the church?

btw, changes cannot of dogma are never removed in the church though, can they? that seems to have never been allowed in the first 1400 years.

 

[PaladinValer]

I am sorry, my friend, but I am correct.

Nope!

The man has gone to Seminary, and is ordained. He knows the doctorines of the Anglican church.

And my cousin went through several years of Sunday School and received the Sacrament of Holy Confirmation in the Vatican Catholic Church and knows almost nothing of the doctrines of his church.

The definition of Protestant is any Christian chruch that separated from the Catholic church. It is not about being a Calvanist or not.

It is about doctrine as well as being "separate."

1. We are not Protestant in doctrine
2. We never separated from the Vatican.

Anglicans separated from the Catholic Church.

Why the Papal backing of the Norman Conquest? Not "Catholic" enough?

The Anglicans have their own diocese which does not answer to the Pope in Rome.

Perhaps you should look at my icon. I am Anglican, so please do not refer to me Anglican things as if I am not among them.

Their priest DO marry. I know this for a fact.
In fact, the last priest at one of the Epsicopal churches in town was married, divorced and then married again.

And when, might I ask, did I deny such a thing?

You might want to reread my reply. I responded with separate statements to separate areas of your post. While I am disappointed that you did not offer the same coutesy, I would appreciate you acknowledging my posting style and be sure to quote me in context.

The bishop is the father-in-law of a woman I work with.

And my former parish priest nearly became a bishop. My parish priest at college was the very reverend of the local deanery.

They follow many of the sacriments of the Catholic Church, but they are NOT Catholics.

1. "Sacraments"
2. We are Catholic, just not of Rome. Or are the Eastern Orthodox also not Catholic?

Catholic, despite many Vatican Catholics' claims of singular possession, isn't the "trademark" of just the Church centered in Vatican City. Being in Communion with the Holy See of Vatican City is not even a requirement in order to be considered Catholic, and most Vatican Catholics, including the Pope I daresay, would agree.

Proof?: I have two: the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church.

A very wonderful woman I know was forbidden communion by the Catholic church because she was divorced. (Her husband had an affair.) The priest of the Anglican church told her, "We are not Catholic, and anyone who believes in Christ is asked to join us at the Lord's table."

Here's the problem: you've committed the Fallacy of Equivocation.

Many people use the term "Catholic" to simply mean the Vatican Catholic Church. However, the word has multiple definitions. You have mistaken Catholic as in one who holds the faith and practice of the Early Church for Catholic as in the Vatican Church, just as many mistake mail for letters, bills, and credit card offers for mail as in a type of armor.

They DO recite the Nicene Creed, and they DO recite the Apostle's Creed, but they are NOT Catholic, nor does their diocese claim to be Catholic.

See my above.

When asked about the part of the Nicene Creed that says, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church," they explain that "holy catholic," is not, to them, "Roman Catholic." The word Catholic, in literal translation, means "universal". The Anglican diocese teaches that they believe there is one body of believers in Christ, and this, to them, is the "holy catholic" church.

Again, my above shows where you are in error. It is a simple one, easily made by anyone, and nothing to be terribly embarassed of.

In regards to Anglican Nuns, perhaps I should be more clear. There are "monks" and "nuns" who have become Anglican, and continue to live their lives as monks and nuns.

Excuse me; you're dead wrong.

There are SEVERAL orders of brothers and sisters that are completely Anglican, membered by folks who were never anything but Anglicans their entire lives.

And they are truly monks and nuns. They keep the hours. They live lives of poverty and charity. Etc. Etc. Etc.

But don't take my word for it.

Go to www.anglicancommunion.com and see for yourself. If you don't want to take my word for it, take it from the official website of my Anglican Church.

However, these are very rare, and the "monistaries" are even more rare. I am told that they were created to accomodate the needs of individuals who were once Catholic who wanted to continue with Catholic traditions. You will find, quite often, in an Anglican monestary, brothers who are married. Something you won't find in the average Catholic monestary.

Your friend is extremely and terribly misinformed. The fact that he has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders is something I find terribly disturbing.

While Anglicans may look to Rome for guideance, they do NOT answer to the Pope, or to the Vatican. Hence, again, they are Protestant, NOT Catholic.

Sorry, but that isn't a qualifier to being Catholic.

And yes, the Anglicans were, once, ROMAN Catholic.

Sorry, not true.

From a history of the Anglican church written BY the diocese.

"The name "Anglican" means "of England", but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians. The Anglican Church evolved as part of the Roman church."

Being a historian myself, that is, in whole, incorrect. While the word "Anglican" does mean "English" (it doesn't mean "of England," since England didn't exist more or less until after the arrival of the Angles and the Saxons), the Council of Whitby never actually put the Celtic Christians (Anglicans) under the authority of Rome, but, rather, made it so that they adopted many Roman customs.

"The Anglican church, although it has apostolic succession, is separate from the Roman church."

"The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome."

All churches that broke from Rome following Luther's Theses were called protestant churches.

Same Fallacy of Equivocation.

In addition, as to the last statement you made:

Protestantism rejects a lot of things that Anglicans accept, including, but not exhaustively:

1. Apostolic Succession.
2. Three orders of ordained ministry: deacons, priests, and bishops.
3. Deuterocanon
4. Seven Sacraments
5. Episcopal governance

How is my Anglican Church "Protestant"?

In addition, a further question: is this individual a member of The Episcopal Church or is this individual a member of a different body that claims the title "Anglican"?

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

So...if I'm understanding right then (and correct me if I'm not) but Anglicans are Catholic but not Roman Catholic?

 

[retexan599]

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

There is a legend which claims that Joseph of Arimathea came to England in A.D. 63, landing from a ship and settling at Glastonbury. He is said to have thrust his staff into the ground which eventually took root and produced a tree, the Glastonbury Thorn tree. It is said to bloom every Christmas in honor of the birth of Christ. A google search with the words glastonbury thorn tree joseph will produce a good return of information on the subject.

 

[ContraMundum]

Contra what I meant to say was, and I will try be more specific:

lets say the church all believes in something in year X.

everyone, all the whole church.

do you get what I am saying here?

then in year Y, one part of the church decides to change what they had believed to something else in year Y.

So then, they changed what they used to believe without any council. the rest of the church continued on.

But this new group decides by the decision of something other than a council to change.

Changes are fine, but can this church do so without a council of the church?

btw, changes cannot of dogma are never removed in the church though, can they? that seems to have never been allowed in the first 1400 years.

I totally understood that. No worries.

What I'm saying is that this scenario does not apply to the Anglican Church. It might apply to the JWs or someone else, but not to us. We have no new doctrines and only believe what we have received from the start.

So...if I'm understanding right then (and correct me if I'm not) but Anglicans are Catholic but not Roman Catholic?

Yep.

 

[ContraMundum]

There is a legend which claims that Joseph of Arimathea came to England in A.D. 63, landing from a ship and settling at Glastonbury. He is said to have thrust his staff into the ground which eventually took root and produced a tree, the Glastonbury Thorn tree. It is said to bloom every Christmas in honor of the birth of Christ. A google search with the words glastonbury thorn tree joseph will produce a good return of information on the subject.

Oh, good point. I forgot about that!

 

[PaladinValer]

So...if I'm understanding right then (and correct me if I'm not) but Anglicans are Catholic but not Roman Catholic?

This is correct.

To be "Catholic" means to uphold the universal (that is what the word "catholic" means, although when capitalized, the definition is widened thusly) faith and practice as the Early Church. It is, to quote the Nicene Creed, to believe in "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

What did the Early Church teach and practice? We can easily find these answers by simply reading what they wrote. And contrary to what many people think (not necessary you, Texas), we actually have a lot of their works, not including the Holy Bible.

In particular, the formulations of the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition are of supreme importance, standing side-by-side with the Holy Bible, and the list of condemned teachings and practices is of vital importance as well.

To be Catholic is to practice this religious life and to uphold these beliefs. And a simple observation of Christian bodies like my Anglican Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox (along with some others, even including a large minority of Lutherans [!]), will bring those with open eyes, ears, and minds to the conclusion that the "Roman" (really is a bad modifier; best called "Vatican" really, since all the Rites, including the Roman [aka Latin] Rite, are all united in the Holy See of Vatican City) Catholic Church isn't the only one that can validly claim to be Catholic.

The very fact that the Vatican Church recognizes the Holy Orders of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Old Catholic bodies, and a ever-growing number of Anglican Church and Continuing Anglican Church clergymen is testiment to the fact that even they don't claim to have a monopoly on the term. They may (and do) believe their's is the truest and fullest expression, but for them to call the Eastern Orthodox Church in particular a "valid church" is quite something.

Personally, I usually prefer the term "Apostolic" to refer to these Catholic bodies. Not only does it circumvent any possible misunderstanding (as clearly seen above), but it also stresses the "Apostolicness" of being Catholic as well since "catholic" simply means universal.

 

[Col]

So...if I'm understanding right then (and correct me if I'm not) but Anglicans are Catholic but not Roman Catholic?
Yep.

All the catholics I know, call themselves Catholics, not Roman Catholic. I think that they would be surprised and a little confused to hear that the C of E call themselves catholic. (not in the universal sense)

To use your logic, every denomination is Catholic as every denomination has something in common with Catholicism, no matter how small. But his is where the problems arise, as groups become selective as to what they include in thier faith stream, and then Christ's message becomes more and more diluted until it bears little resemblence to that passed on to the original church.

I know it is all semantics, however, one can't be both. You are either a "vegetarian" or not. You can't be a "vegetarian that also eats hamburgers"

I am also curious about long held grudges against the Catholic church. The dark ages are long gone and the Catholic church has moved on, it is the non-catholic faiths that are unable to get over the past and what has already been addressed by the catholic church.

What is stopping the C of E re-uniting with the catholic church, if as you say there is not much difference. I was wondering if you could tell me what are the "stumbling blocks" .

 

[ContraMundum]

All the catholics I know, call themselves Catholics, not Roman Catholic. I think that they would be surprised and a little confused to hear that the C of E call themselves catholic. (not in the universal sense)

I think the better educated Catholics would understand. They know Catholic means universal.

To use your logic, every denomination is Catholic as every denomination has something in common with Catholicism, no matter how small. But his is where the problems arise, as groups become selective as to what they include in thier faith stream, and then Christ's message becomes more and more diluted until it bears little resemblence to that passed on to the original church.

We qualify the term "Catholic" in both a narrow and a broad sense. Narrowly, it is churches with Catholic faith and order, and broadly it is all the saved of God.

What is stopping the C of E re-uniting with the catholic church, if as you say there is not much difference. I was wondering if you could tell me what are the "stumbling blocks" .

The C of E is only one of many Anglican bodies. Currently they have a few issues that would stop them being unified with Rome. That's probably best done on another thread. I'm not a member of the C of E so I can't answer for them.

 

[Anglian]

All have sinned?
PaladinValer writes:

What did the Early Church teach and practice? We can easily find these answers by simply reading what they wrote. And contrary to what many people think (not necessary you, Texas), we actually have a lot of their works, not including the Holy Bible.

The early Church taught and practised that women could not be ordained priests and that active homosexuality was, like fornication and adultery, sinful and that therefore anyone in an active homosexual relationship was in a state of sin. The Anglican Church seems doubtful in practice on this last point and has moved from the practice of the early Church on the first.

Now it may or may not be right in its thinking on this, but at what point did it become the practice of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for one of its components to make a unliteral change in something the Church has always held?

Contra implies that the Church in England was not under the jurisdiction of Rome before Whitby. This is not what Bede says, nor is it what the record shows. The Church in Britain had lost touch with the rest of Christendom and at Whiby agreed to come back into line with everyone else. Contra is, of course, right to assert that the early Church in Britain owed much to the East, but of course at that period there was no West and East in terms of the Church - just one undivided Church.

There is no record that Harold II was not a good Catholic, the Pope backed William because Harold was held to have perjured himself. From Whitby through to the Reformation the English Church was part of the Roman Catholic Church, and to ask someone to find a reference to this is surely disingenuous; it was the Anglicans and the reformers who started calling the Catholic Church 'Roman', so how would the medieval Church be found calling itself anything other than Catholic? Every Archbishop of Canterbury received the approval of Rome. Henry II and King John both submitted to Rome's punishment for their insubordination and an Englishman actually became Pope.

At the time of the Reformation the English Church tried to claim that it was simply reforming the Catholic Church, but this comes back to the initial question. At what point in the history of the Church has it been acceptable for one part of it to make unilateral changes?

As Professor Duffy's Stripping of the Altars makes plain, the reformation was hardly a pain-free exercise, and many Englishmen and women remained attached to what they considered the old faith. Elizabeth I, as a sensible woman, tried to find a moderate middle position between the excesses of her half-brother's reign and that of her half-sister. But to portray the Anglican Church before the Reformation as not part of the Roman Catholic Church would be to go a little too far - if that claim is being made.

Equally, to suggest it is Protestant and Catholic is to demonstrate either the breadth of the Anglican Church or its doctrinal and theological incoherence. Newman and Manning both found it impossible to support the Via Media position they effectively created - Newman himself admitted it had never actually existed on the ground. If the essence of Protestantism is the exercise of private judgement, then the Anglican Church is Protestant in essence - with many of the Creeds of the Catholic Church for those who wish to emphasise that part of their heritage. It would be wrong to deny that the Anglican Communion has both a Roman Catholic and a Protestant heritage. That has traditionally been one of its great strengths in terms of keeping together. I would wish it well in staying that way.

Of course, over the period of time since the Reformation the Roman Catholics have developed a number of doctrines with which the early Church would also have taken dispute. The Primacy of Rome was never taken to mean Infallibility, and as has been said, in pronouncing on this, and on a disputed dogma such as the Immaculate Conception, Rome has made matters difficult for itself by also, unliaterally, declaring something to be universal.

The ecumenical councils of the undivided Church were not presdied over by the Pope, nor was his word law. There are some signs that the present Pontiff sees some of these problems. I would wish him success in finding a resolution of them.

The facts would seem to be that both the Catholics and the Anglicans have made enormous contributions to Christian witness in the world, and the Orthodox would do well to admit this. At the same time the disunion into which we have fallen does none of us any credit - and when the Orthodox go on about having changed nothing, they risk creating a mythical infallible tradition to rival the Roman Pontiff's Infallibility.

For a faith founded on the call to repentance, how hard we Christians seem to find it to have the humility to admit that all have sinned, that all have something to contribute to the fulness of the Faith, and that the sooner our hierarchies get to talking seriously about what does divide us and what actually needs to divide us when understood aright, the sooner we can witness to His love 'as one'.

Anglian

 

[ContraMundum]

The early Church taught and practised that women could not be ordained priests and that active homosexuality was, like fornication and adultery, sinful and that therefore anyone in an active homosexual relationship was in a state of sin. The Anglican Church seems doubtful in practice on this last point and has moved from the practice of the early Church on the first.

That's a generalisation, and I think you should retract that or clarify it. Many of us totally reject such innovations and make it clear.

Contra implies that the Church in England was not under the jurisdiction of Rome before Whitby. This is not what Bede says, nor is it what the record shows.

Proof? We've discussed this ad-nauseum with the nay-sayers. We'd be happy to discuss not just what Bede says, but what archeology and tradition says.

The Church in Britain had lost touch with the rest of Christendom and at Whiby agreed to come back into line with everyone else.

While this is true, it is a false assumption that the previous unity via contact with the wqider church implied submission to Rome. This is another issue altogether. While intercommunion was obvious with all the Catholic Church, submitting to the later idea of the Supermacy (note the word, not primacy) of Rome is not something found in the Anglican church before the Middle Ages.

Contra is, of course, right to assert that the early Church in Britain owed much to the East, but of course at that period there was no West and East in terms of the Church - just one undivided Church.

This requires a lot of qualification. The "undivided" church is an imprecise descriptive. Unity then was experienced in far more diversity than in later eras. There was much division in the early church, esp over the calendar and icons etc. Then we have liturgical diversity and local customs as well. Rome (later) demanded uniformity based on its own praxis. Let's be realistic here.

There is no record that Harold II was not a good Catholic, the Pope backed William because Harold was held to have perjured himself.

Ever read Hillaire Belloc on this? I don't think he agrees, IIRC.

From Whitby through to the Reformation the English Church was part of the Roman Catholic Church, and to ask someone to find a reference to this is surely disingenuous; it was the Anglicans and the reformers who started calling the Catholic Church 'Roman', so how would the medieval Church be found calling itself anything other than Catholic?

Apparently, the use of accurate terms is disagreeable to you. Indeed, the church was called "Catholic", until Rome found unique doctrines that set it apart from the universal church. Obviously, a change in practice warrants a change in nomenclature by observers. I see nothing wrong with this, and in fact, think it is wisdom.

Every Archbishop of Canterbury received the approval of Rome.

...because the See was created by Rome. No problem.

Henry II and King John both submitted to Rome's punishment for their insubordination and an Englishman actually became Pope.

...after Whitby.

At the time of the Reformation the English Church tried to claim that it was simply reforming the Catholic Church, but this comes back to the initial question. At what point in the history of the Church has it been acceptable for one part of it to make unilateral changes?

All authority is founded in scripture, is it not? St Paul commands separation from error. The East did it because they claim Rome erred, and then we did for the very same reasons. Considering that you have an Orthodox icon, what's your problem?

But to portray the Anglican Church before the Reformation as not part of the Roman Catholic Church would be to go a little too far - if that claim is being made.

I didn't and won't make that claim- after Whitby and before Henry XIII it was part of Rome's political-ecclesiastical empire, ecclesiastically at least.

Equally, to suggest it is Protestant and Catholic is to demonstrate either the breadth of the Anglican Church or its doctrinal and theological incoherence. Newman and Manning both found it impossible to support the Via Media position they effectively created - Newman himself admitted it had never actually existed on the ground.

Newman's theses was rubbish, and the other Oxford Fathers knew it. Manning is hardly a good example for this position, BTW. His sermon on the Gunpower Plot demonstrated his loyalty to the C of E and his devotion to the separation from Rome. Then he converted, for reasons that weren't all that good and showed a fickle underbelly. I say good riddance to both of them.

If the essence of Protestantism is the exercise of private judgement,

God forbid.

then the Anglican Church is Protestant in essence - with many of the Creeds of the Catholic Church for those who wish to emphasise that part of their heritage. It would be wrong to deny that the Anglican Communion has both a Roman Catholic and a Protestant heritage. That has traditionally been one of its great strengths in terms of keeping together. I would wish it well in staying that way.

True, but it's not that bad.

Of course, over the period of time since the Reformation the Roman Catholics have developed a number of doctrines with which the early Church would also have taken dispute. The Primacy of Rome was never taken to mean Infallibility, and as has been said, in pronouncing on this, and on a disputed dogma such as the Immaculate Conception, Rome has made matters difficult for itself by also, unliaterally, declaring something to be universal.

True.

The ecumenical councils of the undivided Church were not presdied over by the Pope, nor was his word law. There are some signs that the present Pontiff sees some of these problems. I would wish him success in finding a resolution of them.

Amen.

The facts would seem to be that both the Catholics and the Anglicans have made enormous contributions to Christian witness in the world, and the Orthodox would do well to admit this. At the same time the disunion into which we have fallen does none of us any credit - and when the Orthodox go on about having changed nothing, they risk creating a mythical infallible tradition to rival the Roman Pontiff's Infallibility.

Interesting comment. Not to mention the staunch nationalism and obsession with juristictions found in Orthodoxy.

For a faith founded on the call to repentance, how hard we Christians seem to find it to have the humility to admit that all have sinned, that all have something to contribute to the fulness of the Faith, and that the sooner our hierarchies get to talking seriously about what does divide us and what actually needs to divide us when understood aright, the sooner we can witness to His love 'as one'.

Anglian

Amen.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Contra,

I suspect we are not far apart on many things, so let me try to answer, as well as I can, your queries and comments:

That's a generalisation, and I think you should retract that or clarify it. Many of us totally reject such innovations and make it clear.

Which is the generalisation? The early Church did not permit married priests? I thought that was pretty well-established. That the Anglican Church speaks with an ambiguous voice of gay clergy? I have just finished listening to the senior episcopalian bishop in the USA saying that we shouldn't concentrate on such matters, what mattered was worshipping together. Just finished reading reports of Rowan Cantuar having a private meeting at which the eucharist was celebrated with gay clergy, and which he had not had the courtesy to ask the bishop of London's permission to hold despite the fact that it was held in the latter diocese. The view of the African Anglican hierarchy would seem somewhat at variance with those of the many of their American colleagues. Is that not ambiguous?

Proof? We've discussed this ad-nauseum with the nay-sayers. We'd be happy to discuss not just what Bede says, but what archeology and tradition says.

If you read, say, Peter Salway's new Oxford history you'll find plenty of up to date evidence. What he shows was what one might expect, which is that before 410 the British Church accepted Rome's jurisdiction in the same way as the Latin West (a point also made by Peter Brown). Of course things get a little hazy after that - but there is no sign that the so-called 'Celtic' Church had any difficulty accepting the Synod of Whitby. Their differences were those which one would expect of any Church that had lost contact with the rest of Christendom. Of course the Victorian English wishing to provide their Church with a precursor chose to romanticize the so-called 'Dark Ages', but more recent history suggests they went a little far.

You write:

While this is true, it is a false assumption that the previous unity via contact with the wider church implied submission to Rome. This is another issue altogether. While inter-communion was obvious with all the Catholic Church, submitting to the later idea of the Supermacy (note the word, not primacy) of Rome is not something found in the Anglican church before the Middle Ages.

I'd suggest this misreads what was being said, and oddly enough in the way the Romans do. BY submission to Rome all that was meant was what happened at Whitby. Of course we would be in agreement in saying that does not mean a recognition of Rome's universal jurisdiction; this is the Roman equivalent of the Anglican romanticism described above!

You write:

This requires a lot of qualification. The "undivided" church is an imprecise descriptive. Unity then was experienced in far more diversity than in later eras. There was much division in the early church, esp over the calendar and icons etc. Then we have liturgical diversity and local customs as well. Rome (later) demanded uniformity based on its own praxis. Let's be realistic here.

Of course I agree with this. But one has, in fairness, to recall that things in the Latin West were different from what they were in the east. It was in the latter, more urban, more literate and more prosperous that there was more diversity. The poorer, (post 410) more rural and less literate West was more uniform and more inclined to look to Rome. It was Rome's attempt to enforce this on everyone else which helped cause schism; of course, if Rome had just been willing to allow diversity rather than insisting that its innovations should be accepted by all, we might have had a happier outcome.

You write:

Ever read Hillaire Belloc on this? I don't think he agrees, IIRC.

I don't think you'd find any professional historian quoting Belloc. If you read Ian walker's recent biography or any of the work of Ann Williams you'll find a more realistic and less romantic view.

The point here:

Apparently, the use of accurate terms is disagreeable to you. Indeed, the church was called "Catholic", until Rome found unique doctrines that set it apart from the universal church. Obviously, a change in practice warrants a change in nomenclature by observers. I see nothing wrong with this, and in fact, think it is wisdom.

was simple. In the middle ages the Catholic Church did not describe itself as Roman, so if you ask anyone to find a document from that period saying 'Roman Catholic' they can't. To say that`Rome set itself apart from the universal Church is, of course, an Anglican and Orthodox point of view; just as the Roman contestation that we broke off is also a point of view. On that you pays your money and you takes your choice. The Oriental Orthodox tend to take a less hard line of these things than the EO, not having inherited the habits of an imperial Church; it is a wonder what 1600 years of persecution does to a Church!

All authority is founded in scripture, is it not?

No. St. Paul and St. John both make it clear that scripture and tradition have to be received together. The Orthodox and the Romans, using the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian both claim to be THE Church. The Romans at least recognise the Orthodox as sister Churches; the Orthodox seem not to have a clear view of Rome. The Anglicans, bless them, have a branch theory which no one else believes. It might be more Christian if they all admitted that they have all sinned on this - not a bad start to amendment of life, as Our Lord was in the habit of pointing out.

I didn't and won't make that claim- after Whitby and before Henry XIII it was part of Rome's political-ecclesiastical empire, ecclesiastically at least.

As long as you meant Henry VIII, we agree here!


You write:

Newman's theses was rubbish, and the other Oxford Fathers knew it. Manning is hardly a good example for this position, BTW. His sermon on the Gunpower Plot demonstrated his loyalty to the C of E and his devotion to the separation from Rome. Then he converted, for reasons that weren't all that good and showed a fickle underbelly. I say good riddance to both of them.

That's a bit sad. Newman was one of the giants of the nineteenth century, and Manning a great pastoral cardinal; if Anglicanism could afford to lose men of that calibre it was very fortunate.

I'm a great admirer of Anglicanism, and Launcelot Andrewes is one of my favourite reads, but in ordaining women it committed the same error as Rome in declaring Papal Infallibility. Both positions may or may not be defensible, but to adopt them unilaterally is to widen the divisions between us all.

The Orthodox could make a start by acting on the results of the various dialogues over the years, and if someone could persuade those Holy Fathers on Athos not to insult the EP every time he talks to Pope Benedict, that wouldn't be bad either.

As I said last time, a Faith founded on repentance has an obvious way forward - if our stiff-necked pride could stop crying 'heresy' about ecumenism and engage in dialogue about whether what divides us really does so.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[Secundulus]

Which is the generalisation? The early Church did not permit married priests?

The early church did permit married priests. Celebacy did not become an official discipline until nearly 1000 years after Christ founded the Church.