Episcopal and Anglican, are protestant?

[The Barbarian]

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

I get that. Nor do many others, even some the Church considers to be valid.

 

[The Barbarian]

Anyway , I end where I began. I have utter contempt for Henry 8.
But not for anglicans.
...
We focus too much on division, not on what we share.

Amen, amen. Today's winner.

 

[Albion]

The question here was whether Anglicanism is Protestant or Catholic, and that was answered long ago.

 

[Silverback]

want to know[/QUOTEnormal

The Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States is the US branch of the Anglican communion. At one time they were known as the "Protestant Episcopal Church" they have dropped Protestant from there name. When I was looking for a church I seriously considered TEC, but it was just to liberal for me, I chose the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod instead.

The Book of Common Prayer is amazing, it contains the most beautiful liturgies ever written. However, they lost there minds and now like all the mainline denominations in the US preach social activism above all else, examples are: social justice, illegal immigrant rights, environmental justice, LGBT rights, refugee rights, woman's rights, and the list goes on.

While some of these are important, they should be secondary to preaching the gospel, and administering the sacraments.

Additionally, they have supported the ordination of homosexuals who are shaking up, as well as ordination of women. some of the leadership in the past has denied the virgin birth, and bodily resurection of Christ, gay marriage is fine, men wearing women's clothes and squatting on the toilet next to six year old girls in public restrooms is ok as well.

TEC has lost over 25% of it's members because of these issues, they even had to sell there national headquarters a few years back, and we're under sanction from the Anglican Communion for what really amounts to heresy...of course they used a different name.

I saw a video about "why I love The Episcopal Church" it never once mentioned Jesus Christ, or, the need for salvation, it was just all social activism...no gospel.

The other mainline denominations are just as bad, preaching anything and everything other than salvation by God's grace through faith.

 

[Basil the Great]

For many years, the Episcopal Church's official name was the Protestant Episcopal Church. That would seem to answer the question. However, I agree that they are in a very unique strain of Protestantism and they like to consider themselves as Catholics, along with the EO and RC, which is probably why they dropped the word Protestant from the title of their denomination maybe 50-60 years ago.

 

[Albion]

For many years, the Episcopal Church's official name was the Protestant Episcopal Church. That would seem to answer the question.

Actually, not.

Regardless of how we view Anglicanism and The Episcopal Church on the Protestant-Catholic scale, that name does not settle the issue.

Why was it chosen when the American Anglicans broke away from the Church of England (because of the Revolutionary War)??

In order to be as clear as possible as to what the new church was, Episcopal (meaning led by bishops) was part of the name since that distinguished Anglicanism from most of the usual Protestant churches--Lutheran, Baptist, Quaker, Congregationalist, and so on.

And Protestant was chosen in order to say that it was not the Catholic Church (which has bishops, too) or a branch of her. But there was no special theological declaration being made because of the word Protestant there.

In sum, this was the non-Catholic church that had bishops!

 

[Basil the Great]

Yes, Albion, I am sure that you are right. The Protestant label was used to distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholics. I had already guessed as much. Still, the use of the term would seem to mean something. Personally, I consider Anglicans to be Protestants for one main reason, as I have explained many times, and that is the famous Anglican line that goes something like this, "All that is necessary for salvation is contained in the Scriptures". As you know, Orthodox and Catholics reject such a view and they insist that Holy Tradition and Scriptures reveal what is necessary for salvation.

 

[Albion]

Yes, Albion, I am sure that you are right. The Protestant label was used to distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholics. I had already guessed as much. Still, the use of the term would seem to mean something.

You mean on the basic question of whether to classify Anglicanism as Protestant or Catholic? Well, there is no doubt, if that is the concern. It's Protestant.

The church is not Roman Catholic, and that is what history and most people customarily mean when they say Protestant (unless they are sharp enough to give some room for the Orthodox and a few others).

It's only when we get into doctrines and a close examination of concepts, blah blah, that it's said, not without good reason, that this is one Protestant church that is also Catholic, odd as that may sound.

 

[lambofgod43985889]

i think the bible anglicans use contain the apocrypha books

 

[Paidiske]

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

I'll give you the English, rather than the original Latin text:

The OATH.

"Ye shall swear to bear your Faith, Truth, and Obedience, alonely to the King's Majesty, and to the Heirs of his Body, according to the Limitation and Rehearsal within this Statute of Succession above specified, and not to any other within this Realm, nor foreign Authority, Prince, or Potentate; and in case any Oath be made, or hath been made, b y you, to any other Persdon or Persons, that then you to repute the same as vain and annihilate; and that to your Cunning, Wit, and uttermost of your Power, without Guile, Fraud, or other undue Means, ye shall observe, keep, maintain, and defend, this Act above specified, and all the whole Contents and Effectxs thereof, and all other Acts and Statutes made since the Beginning of this present Parliament, in Confirmation or for due Execution of the same, or of any thing therein contained; and thus ye shall do against all Manner of Persons, of what Estate, Dignity, Degree, or Condition soever they be, and in no wise do or attempt, nor to your Power suffer to be done or attempted, directly or indirectly, any Thing or Things, privily or apertly, to the Let, Hindrance, Damage, or Derogation thereof, or of any Part of the same, by any Manner of Means, or for any Manner of Pretence or Cause.

So help you God and all Saints."

It's basically saying that you can't have two masters; if you live and work and serve in England, you can't owe loyalty to foreign powers.

As far as that goes, while there might be reasons to say that's a problem, calling it "demonic" seems a far stretch.

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.

You can't sidestep the long tradition of the godly Prince, and of the authority of various emperors etc. exercised in the church, though. Remember that this is a time where there is no such thing as separation of church and state. Henry is reasserting an older position - generally somewhat eroded by his time - of the role of the civil ruler in church affairs. You might disagree with him, but if we look back to things like the investiture controversy, or indeed the role Constantine played in church governance, we can see that this tension is much older and more complicated than just Henry claiming to be "arbiter of truth."

i think the bible anglicans use contain the apocrypha books

We do generally read the deuterocanon. However, from our Articles of Religion: "the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."

 

[lambofgod43985889]

We do generally read the deuterocanon. However, from our Articles of Religion: "the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."

i think this is to play a dangerous game,because the line is too thin

 

[ripple the car]

We speak of "via media," or the middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism. In many places such as my parish, the church looks quite Catholic save for submitting to leadership by the papacy. In other places you will find Anglicans appearing much more Protestant in practice. Catholic visitors to my church often remark, "You guys are more Catholic than we are." Of course, they're talking about worship form and practice, not theological roots or allegiance to the Pope. Admittedly, it's confusing.

Interesting. I would maybe define a Protestant tentatively as one who believes that we are saved by faith alone through grace alone, and who adheres to Scripture rather than a tradition if that tradition can not be infered directly and clearly from Scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

i think this is to play a dangerous game,because the line is too thin

What do you mean?

 

[lambofgod43985889]

What do you mean?

1. there is a line
2. the line separates the healthy doctrine from heresy and idolatry
3. the further you get away from that line, the more safe are you from the danger of the devil

 

[Paidiske]

And you are suggesting that the deuterocanonical books promote "heresy and idolatry"?

 

[lambofgod43985889]

And you are suggesting that the deuterocanonical books promote "heresy and idolatry"?

Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?

i used the words like heresy and idolatry as an example of bad things

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm. As someone who does read them, I think they are no more problematic than other parts of Scripture, which can also be misused, misunderstood, and so on.

 

[lambofgod43985889]

Hmm. As someone who does read them, I think they are no more problematic than other parts of Scripture, which can also be misused, misunderstood, and so on.

i think different from you, i believe those book will confuse the believer, it will harm the believer and there is nobody, in the anglican doctrine, who could help the believer. this is what i believe, i don't mean to impose by force into anyone.

 

[Paidiske]

there is nobody, in the anglican doctrine, who could help the believer.

What do you mean by this?

It looks as if you're saying Anglicans don't have a sound theology or pastoral praxis.

 

[lambofgod43985889]

What do you mean by this?

It looks as if you're saying Anglicans don't have a sound theology or pastoral praxis.

do you use images of jesus crucified in your cathedrals?