Are Anglicans Protestants?

[later nonjuror]

That appears to be a rather evasive sentence.


That appears to be a rather evasive answer?

It isn't I can assure you!

The answer lies in the undoubted truth of the Catholicity of the traditional Church of England, being simply that part of the ,One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in England. There's only one Church and that is recognised by holding the Revelation of Christ,as recorded in Scripture and interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council and Catholic Orders. All others not holding to the above and claiming to be a Church are simply sects. (A sect is described in my Encyclopaidia as being a religious body having left the parent church on a single point i.e. the Baptists or Rome pursuing the unhistorical doctrine of the Jurisdiction of the papacy or indeed the Infallibility of the pope?)

Being a manifestation of the Church how could traditional Anglicanism,'Protest,?' It is not the whole Church simply a part of the whole. It could scarcely simply protest, rather would it join through participation in the ecumenical council to magisterially condemn the heretical doctrines.

Repugnant of Rome's practices?
Why not?

The practices of the Roman Church as mentioned above, Jurisdiction and Infallibility are not part o the teachings of the Catholic Church, ,the Body of Christ! THE SO-CALLED MAGISTERIUM ,regularly claimed by Rome are without Scriptural or Traditional Warranty.

 

[calluna]

That appears to be a rather evasive sentence.


That appears to be a rather evasive answer?

It isn't I can assure you!

The answer lies in the undoubted truth of the Catholicity of the traditional Church of England, being simply that part of the ,One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in England.

Undoubted, eh. The Roman 'church of antichrist' was illegal, to greater or lesser degree, in England for centuries. In fact, it is still prohibited for the UK monarch to be a Roman Catholic. Even today, Catholicism is associated by some British people with vaguely malign, even sinister foreign influence, and not without reason, the papacy having committed anti-English acts that would today put Herr Ratzinger behind bars.

 

[later nonjuror]

The Roman Church was never condemned as anti-Christ by the Church of England! It was so condemned by individuals who happened to be Anglican, that's another matter and stemmed from the revulsion felt by many at the cruel policies pursued not only by Romanist Governments but the Roman Church itself . The Inquisition is an example that comes to mind. The accusation of anti-Christ was ridiculed in the 17th, Cent, by Archbishop Laud, (the martyr, ) and other bishops. Apart from your self and some protestant friends, (Calvinists of the old school,) the term is not usually used.

The reason Romanists are barred from the throne reflects the behaviour of King James the Second, the only 'Romanist' King of England, in trying to subvert the fundamental laws of England and interfering in the freedom of the Anglican Church.

 

[calluna]

The Roman Church was never condemned as anti-Christ by the Church of England! It was so condemned by individuals who happened to be Anglican

So what came over you when you wrote: 'the undoubted truth of the Catholicity of the traditional Church of England'? If you knew that people doubted it, to put it mildly, why write it? Or have you been busily starting on your research since my last post?

All you have done is waste time, poster. Please post when you are competent to do so, not before; there are quite enough deliberate time-wasters on this site as it is, as I'm sure you realise.

 

[later nonjuror]

I'll pass your ill manners, and ask if you do not know that individuals are made members of Christ by baptism?" Whilst the Church is the body of Christ!

Therefore regretable though it may be the individual member might be misled, whilst the Body of Christ, (the Church,) through the Holy Ghost and the Ecumenical Councils is infallible.

For your information and future help, a large number of the Laudian Fathers all held that Rome was indeed a part of the Church.

 

[calluna]

a large number of the Laudian Fathers all held that Rome was indeed a part of the Church.

Laudian trash did so, yes, but that does nothing for this debate, like everything else you have posted. Take your impudence and bigotry elsewhere.

 

[later nonjuror]

Your slip's showing!

 

[calluna]

Catholicism is so farcical it has to rely on typos!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your slip's showing!

Is he wearing anything underneath it...

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

Genuine question, not being flippant.

The church of england was founded as a state religion (under Henry 8) that initially followed catholic practice, and was reformed later (under Elizabeth I).

It was never a 'protesting' church like the other reformed churches.

Are anglican's protestants in that sense. In the sense that baptists, puritains, etc are.

Personally and historically we don't refer to them as protestant, though we, Catholics typically in laymens terms do not make a distinction. But they were very distances from the reforms of Luther and Calvin, and maintain to a great deal many of the traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. Times have changed many things, however.

It depends on your definition of the word protestant. If you are using it historically, then no - anglicans are not. If you are using it in a politically incorrect way, then I probably wouldn't apply it to any denomination. And if you are using it in terms of Christians disagreeing with Catholic doctrine, then yes.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

The Roman Church was never condemned as anti-Christ by the Church of England! It was so condemned by individuals who happened to be Anglican, that's another matter and stemmed from the revulsion felt by many at the cruel policies pursued not only by Romanist Governments but the Roman Church itself . The Inquisition is an example that comes to mind. The accusation of anti-Christ was ridiculed in the 17th, Cent, by Archbishop Laud, (the martyr, ) and other bishops. Apart from your self and some protestant friends, (Calvinists of the old school,) the term is not usually used.

The reason Romanists are barred from the throne reflects the behaviour of King James the Second, the only 'Romanist' King of England, in trying to subvert the fundamental laws of England and interfering in the freedom of the Anglican Church.

Luther called the Pope the Anti-Christ! But typically the most hostile Christians towards Catholics are Calvinists and Evangelicals. Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans and Catholics are the closest in moral-teaching and doctrine today, then Anglicans. Baptists, Calvinists, Evangelicals are all typically taking anti-thetical positions against the Church, but to generalize is not completely fair as the diversity of protestant theology is vast and dynamic.

And yes, it is understandable that the Church of England would bar Catholics since it is an Anglican State. I can respect that, as I wouldn't want non-catholics telling me how to run the vatican.

 

[katholikos]

I believe that historically the Anglican church is a protestant church.

 

[Solaris]

existed before the Roman Catholic church was formed by the Emperor Constatine. It is quite clear in the Anglo Saxon Chronicals. What Henry did was to reassert the right of the English King to rule and not be subservient to a foreign King.

Genuine question, not being flippant.

The church of england was founded as a state religion (under Henry 8) that initially followed catholic practice, and was reformed later (under Elizabeth I).

It was never a 'protesting' church like the other reformed churches.

Are anglican's protestants in that sense. In the sense that baptists, puritains, etc are.