Episcopal and Anglican, are protestant?

Chris V++ said:

So are the offshoots of the Anglican church, like Methodism, considered heretical or in schism, or is there a communion between Anglican and the Wesley inspired churches?

Click to expand...

They are not in communion although there have been periodic attempts or at least feelers along the lines of seeking some sort of reunion.

The Barbarian said:

That's the Roman Catholic position, too. But it's not quite that simple. All Anglican bishops, so far as I know, trace their orders from others leading back to the apostles. But lacking holy orders in the Catholic sense, they are different. I think in this, too, they are between Apostolic Christians and Protestants.

My thought is that God is pleased when we affirm our unity as Christians, and less pleased when we make distinctions among us.

Which I think all apostolic Christians do.

Click to expand...

But I think with that standard of Apostolic succession we consider it to be broken when those ordained under break off and leave from the Church they were under. Therefore, the Anglicans succession would be broken when they broke from the headship of the Catholic Church through which they received their ordination/succession. I believe the Catholics think that way too.

We have Armenians who chose to be under the Roman Catholic Church and they are Catholics. We have Armenians who are protestants that broke off from the Armenian Church and that includes those who were ordained priests and bishops in the Armenian Church, but once they break off they become protestants. None of these are part of the Western/Lutheran "protestant reformation". Then those who remain under the Armenian Church we call Armenian Apostolic (not Orthodox, even though we are technically "Orthodox"). But protestant is protestant.

Again, I'm more surprised by the number of Anglicans who bristle at being called "protestant" because first of all who cares and second of all their tradition has been that of being PROUD of being called "protestant". So I'm more amazed by the reaction of some Anglicans than anything else here.

ArmenianJohn said:

Therefore, the Anglicans succession would be broken when they broke from the headship of the Catholic Church through which they received their ordination/succession. I believe the Catholics think that way too.

Click to expand...

Actually, they don't. The official position of the RCC is much more complicated and controversial.

Albion said:

They are not in communion although there have been periodic attempts or at least feelers along the lines of seeking some sort of reunion.

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. So as far as the Anglicans are concerned, the Methodists etc. wouldn't have apostolic succession? If not, would that invalidate Methodist sacraments?

Willie T said:

I observed quite young: Robes, sashes, and hats, etc.= Catholic leaning.
Normal clothes= Protestant leaning.

Click to expand...

And Reformed ministers in Geneva gowns? Surely we're not going to say they have a "Catholic leaning"?

fhansen said:

Anglicanism would still depart from Othodox and Catholcism on justification though, right, as well as on some of the other Solas? Or is justification a doctrine that's necessarily agreed upon within Anglicanism?

Click to expand...

I would have to do an in-depth study on Catholic and Orthodox thought in order to be able to reply to this fully. I would say that Anglican thought on justification has been influenced by the Reformation, but whether it is so strongly influenced as to be irreconcilable with Catholic and/or Orthodox thought I couldn't say.

Anglicans do not typically hold to Sola Scriptura, though.

ArmenianJohn said:

Again, I'm more surprised by the number of Anglicans who bristle at being called "protestant" because first of all who cares and second of all their tradition has been that of being PROUD of being called "protestant". So I'm more amazed by the reaction of some Anglicans than anything else here.

Click to expand...

It's not that I "bristle" but I just don't think it's accurate. There are significant differences between Anglicans and even our closest cousins of the Reformation; and as I said up thread, I think it's fair to say that the Reformation profoundly shaped Anglicanism, but if you just said we were "Protestant" that would leave some things which would need significant explaining.

Chris V++ said:

Ok, thanks. So as far as the Anglicans are concerned, the Methodists etc. wouldn't have apostolic succession? If not, would that invalidate Methodist sacraments?

Click to expand...

Methodists are inconsistent about retaining the order of bishops, so that makes the question a bit more complicated.

The second question would depend on how one understood the validity of sacraments, and would be hotly disputed within Anglicanism.

Chris V++ said:

Ok, thanks. So as far as the Anglicans are concerned, the Methodists etc. wouldn't have apostolic succession?

Click to expand...

That's right. John Wesley was never made a bishop (to the best of our knowledge) and then it was his supporters and admirers who on their own started up what became the Methodist churches. Methodists have bishops, you know, but not in Apostolic Succession, and that seems just fine to every Methodist I know.

Of course, if there were something like a merger or pulpit and altar fellowship in our time, that problem would be solved easily in just the way that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) established full communion with The Episcopal Church.

If not, would that invalidate Methodist sacraments?

Click to expand...

Technically yes, but what we believe in that regard we don't like to beat other churches over the head with, so please don't take that "yes" as some kind of putdown of Methodism.

ArmenianJohn said:

Again, I'm more surprised by the number of Anglicans who bristle at being called "protestant" because first of all who cares and second of all their tradition has been that of being PROUD of being called "protestant". So I'm more amazed by the reaction of some Anglicans than anything else here.

Click to expand...

In Tyler, Texas, we occasionally attended an Episcopal Church (my wife is Episcopalian) which was, according to her, "high." But the Priest described Episcopalians as being in the Protestant tradition.

So at least some of them agree with on that point.

Albion said:

Methodists have bishops, you know, but not in Apostolic Succession, and that seems just fine to every Methodist I know.

Click to expand...

I once had a client which was a charitable organization for a Seventh-Day Adventist group. It was headed by a gentleman, who was referred to as "Bishop (last name)." I always thought Adventists did not have bishops.

Chris V++ said:

So are the offshoots of the Anglican church, like Methodism, considered heretical or in schism, or is there a communion between Anglican and the Wesley inspired churches?

Click to expand...

I don't know; I should ask my wife, who is an Episcopalian.

Albion said:

Actually, they don't. The official position of the RCC is much more complicated and controversial.

Click to expand...

That's more of a misleading statement. Anglican ordinations were declared null and void by the Catholic Church. They have about as much meaning as storefront church ordinations by pastors that consider themselves ordained by God.

It only gets 'complicated' when Anglicans get bishops from groups whose validity is in question to ordain their male clergy.

That doesn't mean Anglican validity is 'complex' anymore than any other protestant denomination whose 'pastors' are former Catholic clergy or were ordained by questionable Catholics or schismatics. In short, Anglican validity is not anymore complicated than any other protestant denomination.

Albion said:

I know. It is not uncommon for people who belong to one or another of the "Catholic" denominations to hold to the storyline they have been brought up with, come what may. We are still happy to give them the facts when they ask. As for asking them to appreciate the critical details in a complicated history, however...they almost never want to bother with that.

Click to expand...

With respect you never do give facts Albion: you give a sanitized anglican whitewash.

And since I have lived both sides of the fence I am not adhering to a "storyline" that I was "brought up with", since that was the anglican!

The anglican position is inconsistent and incoherent. Take on the eucharist: it cannot be both pneumatic and corporeal, and depending on where you go to in low chuch anglican even near "symbolic" will do as a eucharistic doctrine seemingly which is certainly protestant. In the real world there is but one truth. You do not get to chose what it is by choosing high or low church.

Also the anglican view on the succession is incoherent. Which is why the doctrine is also variable depending on who you speak to. It cut itself away from the root so parts of it drift.

I accept that for anglican to claim succession, it must defend the continuation in succession of those who repudiated their allegiance to those who ordained them. But it is ridiculous logic. And it can never excuse that those same people who took Henry 8 demonic oath then persecuted and murdered catholic priests who clearly did have valid succession. How does that work: at very least a church which claims succession, must respect others who have the same claim.

They clearly didnt as the brutal murders of catholic priests in the english martyrs show. Anglicans need to consider whether their historic actions speak louder than their subsequent words. It was a black period and For sure many within catholic church have committed their own outrages for which they are also culpable.
But the test of anglican "succession" fails in the failure to respect the same succession of others. In denying the succession of others during the reign of henry 8 they are denying their own succession by demonstrating their indifference to the meaning of it

Then is the question of the articles - how many are there? - history shows the man made tradition of the anglican church has varied over time. Articles Variable in number and content, drifting from near calvinist (so clearly protestant) to near catholic depending on the whims of the monarch. I repeat , there can only be one truth.

It is not a good foundation. And that lack of foundation is what sent many of us back to Rome looking for consistency.

I have much respect for my anglican brethren.
There are many holy folk amongst them, I do not prosyletize, or judge them, In the end its not me they must convince:

I just defend catholicism where it is attacked.

But consistency on doctrine is not an anglican strong suit, and the claims to succession are at very best tenuous : and not a good platform from which to preach holier than thou!, or to claim that "others" do not "understand". Understanding the anglican position on many issues relies on cognitive dissonance.

Mike, while there might be some reasonable criticism to be made of Anglicans, calling the oaths of our clergy "demonic" seems to me to cross a line on flaming.

It is true that Anglicans have preferred to leave many things not officially defined, in part to allow for a degree of latitude of belief and practice which other denominations find unhelpful. In my own experience of Anglicanism, I find it a strength, as it allows us to retain and benefit from the best of a rich variety of points of view.

In my own view, succession is not a critical issue for the life of the church today. But it remains simple historical fact that our bishops have clearly documented unbroken succession, hands-on-heads, all the way back to bishops whose status is not in dispute between our communions. And I think it distorts the historical reality to suggest that the leading Anglican clergy at the time of the break with Rome saw what they were doing as "repudiating their allegiance" to those who ordained them, rather than attempting to correct problems of local custom and governance. And while their persecution of those who remained more loyal to Rome was wrong, if we were all here to answer for the historical wrongs of those in our respective denominations, none of us would have an easy time of it.

As it stands today, Anglicans practice an orthodox Christian faith, and globally have many communities of extraordinarily vibrant worship and mission. We're not perfect, but I'd like to hope that our brothers and sisters in other denominations could respect the integrity and sincerity of our communions, and seek to engage with us with mutual respect and encouragement, rather than looking for what they can criticise.

I didnt say that Paidiske

I said the "oath of allegiance" of Henry was arguably demonic. The one Thomas More refused to take.

Not the orders of Anglican clergy.

I repeat...I have every respect for my Anglican brethren, and I dont seek to judge them. There are many holy folk, who put me to shame! But I find Anglican positions too inconsistent for me.

Paidiske said:

Mike, while there might be some reasonable criticism to be made of Anglicans, calling the oaths of our clergy "demonic" seems to me to cross a line on flaming.

It is true that Anglicans have preferred to leave many things not officially defined, in part to allow for a degree of latitude of belief and practice which other denominations find unhelpful. In my own experience of Anglicanism, I find it a strength, as it allows us to retain and benefit from the best of a rich variety of points of view.

In my own view, succession is not a critical issue for the life of the church today. But it remains simple historical fact that our bishops have clearly documented unbroken succession, hands-on-heads, all the way back to bishops whose status is not in dispute between our communions. And I think it distorts the historical reality to suggest that the leading Anglican clergy at the time of the break with Rome saw what they were doing as "repudiating their allegiance" to those who ordained them, rather than attempting to correct problems of local custom and governance. And while their persecution of those who remained more loyal to Rome was wrong, if we were all here to answer for the historical wrongs of those in our respective denominations, none of us would have an easy time of it.

As it stands today, Anglicans practice an orthodox Christian faith, and globally have many communities of extraordinarily vibrant worship and mission. We're not perfect, but I'd like to hope that our brothers and sisters in other denominations could respect the integrity and sincerity of our communions, and seek to engage with us with mutual respect and encouragement, rather than looking for what they can criticise.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

I didnt say that Paidiske

I said the "oath of allegiance" of Henry was arguably demonic.

Click to expand...

That wasn't really clear.

But I still think that's really not an okay thing to say.

It always seemed to me that Anglican priests were valid under apostolic succession as the Roman Catholic Church sees things, but I did some reading, and...

A controversy in the Catholic Church over the question of whether Anglican holy orders are valid was settled by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, who wrote in Apostolicae curae that Anglican orders lack validity because the rite by which priests were ordained was not correctly performed from 1547 to 1553 and from 1558 to the 19th century, thus causing a break of continuity in apostolic succession and a break with the sacramental intention of the Church. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican ordinals and deemed the Anglican orders "absolutely null and utterly void".[3] Some Changes in the Anglican Ordinal since King Edward VI, and a fuller appreciation of the pre-Reformation ordinals suggest, according to some private theologians, that the correctness of the dismissal of Anglican orders may be questioned; however Apostolicae curae remains Roman Catholic definitive teaching and was reinforced by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI.

Since 1896 many Anglican bishops have been consecrated by bishops of the Old Catholic Church. Nevertheless, all Anglican clergymen who desire to enter the Catholic Church do so as laymen and must be ordained in the Catholic Church in order to serve as priests. Catholics are, according to Ad Tuendam Fidem and Cardinal Ratzinger, obliged to hold the position that Anglican orders are invalid.

Catholics do not recognize the ordination of ministers in other, Protestant, churches that do not maintain the apostolic succession. The Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Finland have always maintained unbroken apostolic succession and their holy orders have never been dismissed by Rome. This is not the case for the Lutheran Churches of Norway, Denmark, and Iceland where there occurred breaks in succession.
Holy orders in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

How it is possible that some Lutheran ministers are valid priests and Anglican priests are not, is beyond my understanding, but there it is.

I think most Anglicans don't depend upon the Pope to determine if our orders are valid.

lambofgod43985889 said:

my conclusion they are not protestant
they identify between 2 branches

Click to expand...

They do -- and correctly so -- recognize that their place may be called a Middle Way or else both Catholic and Protestant. However, our friend Via Crucis was correct to note that when society, the people who compile statistics, researchers, writers, and other such people make classifications...

...It's either Protestant or something of their own.

The military until recently used Catholic or Protestant classification for their members. That was it, so far as the Christians were concerned. On the other hand, the United Nations Organization uses (or did) Catholic, Orthodox, ANGLICAN, Protestant, and one other (Mormon perhaps), and Rand McNally (the map makers) used something similar to that.

None of those organizations wants to get into the theological minutia involved when making a classification, although that is what we all do here when debating the matter.

Snoder said:

That's more of a misleading statement. Anglican ordinations were declared null and void by the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

No, I think my simple comment was correct.

You mention the Papal decree against Anglican Orders/Apostolic Succession, but you didn't mention that it was done strictly for political reasons not having much of anything to do with Anglican Orders. (Noticing that it took 300 years before the Papacy made its move about something concerning which the facts involved were known from the beginning might give you a hint).

Secondly, virtually every Anglican priest and bishop can trace his Apostolic lineage--the ordinations--through OTHER LINES of other churches which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as valid. This makes the whole issue of the validity of Anglican Orders moot anyway.

And thirdly, most Roman Catholic theologians today believe that the declaration against Anglican Orders was defective, wrong. Those who don't say this are saying that, even after all this time, it's impossible to know exactly what that declaration was all about, theologically speaking!

On its face, it's a ridiculous proclamation because the main complaint was that the Anglican Church began using a slightly modified version of the wording for ordinations...which, however, was taken from one used earlier by (you guessed it) the Catholic Church.

Paidiske said:

That wasn't really clear.

But I still think that's really not an okay thing to say.

Click to expand...

I am not after a punch up on this: but go and read the oath itself.

The king clearly sets himself as supreme over all matters spiritual and ecclesiastical: in short making himself the arbiter of truth in matters of doctrine. Yet Henry 8 was never ordained and certainly not in succession, so how can he claim to know or to be arbiter of truth? I can find references in the bible to defend the popes and apostolic succession claim to that power "the power to bind and loose" given to apostolic successors jointly, but also Peter alone.

I can find none prophesying a british king given that power who was not even in succession. And the fruits of that tree were not good!

The oddity is of course, he sets himself up as supreme arbiter just within the british kingdom. He seems to miss the obvious fact that there is only one truth everywhere. It cannot be different just in his kingdom, so how can he set himself up as supreme locally. It cannot make sense.

There is a sense in a monarch holding the title "defender of faith" - the present title- but not of supreme authority. And I clearly have justification to have reservations on that!

In the end what separates all christians is seemingly many doctrines, but in reality is only one: what is the arbiter of truth? How can I know what is true amongst competing interpretations?

Those who hold to sola scriptura miss the point completely. Many people reading the same passage come to poles opposite conclusions. But there can only be one truth. So scripture alone is not enough. The only way beyond that is tradition and authority.


Anyway , I end where I began. I have utter contempt for Henry 8.
But not for anglicans.
There are many holy people, but I find the dogma and doctrines both inconsistent and confusing: enough for me to move elsewhere. Others are welcome to believe what they will.

We focus too much on division, not on what we share.