are anglicans protestant?

[RadixLecti]

To be fair, it's nearly impossible for religion to stay static. You try to keep the spirit of your founder, but the critical issues change and the terms change.

I think that's a good distinction. While I personally wouldn't say that Anglicanism has ever been without a catholic nature, I think anyone who's being intellectually honest must admit that there are times that protestantism has had a very strong influence in Anglican thought, and then there are other times that the influence of protestantism has been very weak.

Under Henry VIII the church was nearly Roman Catholic but without the Pope. Then under Edward VI, Cranmer introduced many protestant (even Calvinist) influences. The CofE went back to the Pope, only to split from Rome again when Elizabeth I came to power and re-introduced much of Cranmer's protestant doctrine. The church moved closer to catholicism during the time of Richard Hooker and the later Caroline divines only to later experience a resurgence of Anglican puritainism. Then of course with the influence of the Oxford movement the concept of Anglican Catholicity reached its high point in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, only to subside in influence with the rise of Anglican evangelicalism. . .

For example, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession appears to be something that Anglicans have always held (as far as I know), but the level of emphasis that we place on it now seems to be something that developed during the Oxford movement. I think that you could make a case that the doctrine is implied by the Ordinal of the 1662 BCP. Other than that, I think the only other definitive statement of the importance of Apostolic Succession as an Anglican doctrine is found in the Lambeth Quadrilateral, which wasn't drafted until the late 19th century. Nevertheless, the Quadrilateral is considered an authoritative statement. I'm not suggesting that the doctrine of AS was not there in the past, but it seems that the influence that people placed on it after the Oxford movement was much greater than it was before the movement began.

I think the question of whether or not Anglicanism is protestant depends on how you define "Anglicanism," which is a concept that varies greatly depending on the time in history that you examine it. I think it would be really easy to say that the Anglicanism of ca. 1730 was generally Protestant, and it would also be easy to say that the Anglicanism of ca. 1890 was generally catholic, etc.

 

[Bostonman]

Just to butt in with a clarification people might find useful, taken from the OED (via the Etymonline listing for "Protestant," would post a link but I have too few posts to do so)

In the 17c., 'protestant' was primarily opposed to 'papist,' and thus accepted by English Churchmen generally; in more recent times, being generally opposed to 'Roman Catholic,' or ... to 'Catholic,' ... it is viewed with disfavour by those who lay stress on the claim of the Anglican Church to be equally Catholic with the Roman.

So there are a few relevant binaries:
- "protestant" vs. "papist": in this sense the Anglican Communion is "protestant"
- "Protestant" vs. "Roman Catholic": again, although slightly less distinctly, Anglicans would be Protestant (simply because not Roman Catholic and not Eastern or Oriental Orthodox)
- "Protestant" vs. "Catholic": lex orandi, lex credendi, and we believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church"; the only issue here is maybe the capitalization of Catholic? Which some might read as implying RC.

One can, therefore, be protestant and catholic, and maybe even Protestant and Catholic! But not really "Protestant and Roman Catholic" or "protestant and papist."

 

[Dewi Sant]

Just to butt in with a clarification people might find useful, taken from the OED (via the Etymonline listing for "Protestant," would post a link but I have too few posts to do so)
So there are a few relevant binaries:
- "protestant" vs. "papist": in this sense the Anglican Communion is "protestant"
- "Protestant" vs. "Roman Catholic": again, although slightly less distinctly, Anglicans would be Protestant (simply because not Roman Catholic and not Eastern or Oriental Orthodox)
- "Protestant" vs. "Catholic": lex orandi, lex credendi, and we believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church"; the only issue here is maybe the capitalization of Catholic? Which some might read as implying RC.

One can, therefore, be protestant and catholic, and maybe even Protestant and Catholic! But not really "Protestant and Roman Catholic" or "protestant and papist."

Excellent clarity

Though there are those who accept the term 'Anglo-Papist' to be applied to themselves.

 

[Bostonman]

Though there are those who accept the term 'Anglo-Papist' to be applied to themselves.

Sidebar: what is the difference in beliefs/practices between an Anglo-Papist and Roman Catholic, with the exception of the institutional affiliation? I'm assuming the former accepts papal supremacy/infallibility, rather than just a first-among-peers status, and I would guess Mariology and eucharistic theology aren't issues.

Just curious because I'm not particularly familiar with the position.

 

[Basil the Great]

The bottom line is that the Anglican Communion holds to the belief that "all that is required for salvation is contained in the Scriptures". It is this tenet, in the final analysis, which makes them Protestants. Also, the original name of the Episcopal Church was "the Protestant Episcopal Church". I rest my case, as a deceased friend of mine used to say.

 

[PaladinValer]

The bottom line is that the Anglican Communion holds to the belief that "all that is required for salvation is contained in the Scriptures". It is this tenet, in the final analysis, which makes them Protestants. Also, the original name of the Episcopal Church was "the Protestant Episcopal Church". I rest my case, as a deceased friend of mine used to say.

That isn't the actual quote:

"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."

Note what I bolded.

 

[RadixLecti]

The bottom line is that the Anglican Communion holds to the belief that "all that is required for salvation is contained in the Scriptures". It is this tenet, in the final analysis, which makes them Protestants.

Just as a point of clarification. What would a Roman Catholic hold to as necessary for salvation that they would say does not come from the Scriptures?

 

[Albion]

Just as a point of clarification. What would a Roman Catholic hold to as necessary for salvation that they would say does not come from the Scriptures?

Traditions, of course.

 

[RadixLecti]

Traditions, of course.

But are those traditions things that they say are necessary for salvation? I think that they even say that Christians of Protestant denominations can still be saved outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

But are those traditions things that they say are necessary for salvation?

To RC's, yes. You aren't allowed to blow off an obligatory doctrine without committing grievous sin.

I think that they even say that Christians of Protestant denominations can still be saved outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

That kind of talk is predicated upon us not being fully aware of our moral obligations, something like the Pope's speculation about pagans who may be saved even if they don't ever hear the name of Jesus Christ--so long as they do sincerely try to follow the dictates of whatever religion is theirs.

 

[RadixLecti]

To RC's, yes. You aren't allowed to blow off an obligatory doctrine without committing grievous sin.



That kind of talk is predicated upon us not being fully aware of our moral obligations, something like the Pope's speculation about pagans who may be saved even if they don't ever hear the name of Jesus Christ--so long as they do sincerely try to follow the dictates of whatever religion is theirs.

So would that mean that in Roman Catholic theology RCs can't be saved if they reject any of the dogmas of the RCC, even if they're not related to salvation? Would someone who is otherwise a good Roman Catholic be in risk of damnation if they beleive everything that the RCC teaches except the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility etc.?

 

[Albion]

So would that mean that in Roman Catholic theology RCs can't be saved if they reject any of the dogmas of the RCC, even if they're not related to salvation? Would someone who is otherwise a good Roman Catholic be in risk of damnation if they beleive everything that the RCC teaches except the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility etc.?

Sure. Remember that it's not your relationship to God, accepting Christ, etc. that, in itself, saves. We've been ridiculed here regularly for saying anything close to that. It's a process; you work on your salvation throughout life, etc. is what we're told (and correctly, according to Catholic theology).

You must be right with God, i.e. not in a state of mortal sin, at death. So if you flout the obligatory doctrines of your church, it's a serious sin, and if you aven't repented of it and sought absolution before death....

 

[MKJ]

So would that mean that in Roman Catholic theology RCs can't be saved if they reject any of the dogmas of the RCC, even if they're not related to salvation? Would someone who is otherwise a good Roman Catholic be in risk of damnation if they beleive everything that the RCC teaches except the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility etc.?

It is really difficult to answer this question - what do you mean by "rejection"? Is the person obedient even though he doesn't believe whatever teaching is in question? Is he doing his best but just can't understand?

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Catholic theologian who would assert that an obedient Catholic that just could not see how a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception could be true is going to be damned for it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review