Episcopal and Anglican, are protestant?

[Paidiske]

do you use images of jesus crucified in your cathedrals?

Well, I haven't seen many of our cathedrals, but the one in my diocese has a mosaic of the crucifixion on the east wall, yes. I've often reflected on it (I used to work in the cathedral here) and found it a helpful prompt to prayer and meditation.

(Not a great picture of it but the best google let me find quickly).

 

[lambofgod43985889]

Well, I haven't seen many of our cathedrals, but the one in my diocese has a mosaic of the crucifixion on the east wall, yes. I've often reflected on it (I used to work in the cathedral here) and found it a helpful prompt to prayer and meditation.

View attachment 260787

(Not a great picture of it but the best google let me find quickly).

i am taught that god dislikes images, for me jesus is alive and glorified, not nailed on a cross anymore.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex. 20:4-6)

 

[Paidiske]

That is a fair enough opinion, but it doesn't invalidate Anglicanism as a whole (nor is this thread really the place to rehash the arguments for and against iconoclasm).

 

[lambofgod43985889]

That is a fair enough opinion, but it doesn't invalidate Anglicanism as a whole (nor is this thread really the place to rehash the arguments for and against iconoclasm).

rehash, iconoclasm...

those words are unfair to me, kinda meaning i am wrong for talking about jesus crucified in a huge picture that maybe if wouldn't be there it would be better.

 

[Paidiske]

rehash, iconoclasm...

those words are unfair to me, kinda meaning i am wrong for talking about jesus crucified in a huge picture that maybe if wouldn't be there it would be better.

I'm suggesting it's off topic to this thread.

You're welcome to the opinion that we shouldn't use artwork in our worship spaces, but I'm suggesting that it's a stretch to write off Anglicanism as a whole because of that one thing.

 

[Mountainmike]

Here is the oath I see quoted:

I [Name] do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience, that the Kings Highnesse is the onely Supreame Governour of this Realme, and all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, as Temporall: And that no forraine Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiorities, Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme. And therefore, I do utterly renounce and forsake all Jurisdictions, Powers, Superiorities, or Authorities; and do promise that from henchforth I shall beare faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Highnesse, his Heires and lawfull Successors: and to my power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Priviledges, Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highnesse, his Heires and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crowne of the Realme: so helpe me God: and by the Contents of this Booke

That is what Thomas more refused.

Demanding all recognise Henry as the supreme authority ecclesiastical. All who disagreed were murdered. My view that is demonic.

Mainly because henry wanted to redefine adultery in his terms, not Gods:
And the hypocrisy over his attitude to succession is seen, that others who had valid succession were murdered.

As I said - I have utter contempt for Henry, and every respect for anglicans.

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.



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."



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."

 

[Paidiske]

All who disagreed were murdered. My view that is demonic.

The martyrdoms I can agree were demonic. The oath itself not. It's interesting that we found different texts but they're basically saying the same thing; you can't have two masters, and foreign powers don't have jurisdiction here. Henry never functioned as if he were pope but exercised his governance with and through church structures in his realm.

 

[Mountainmike]

The martyrdoms I can agree were demonic. The oath itself not. It's interesting that we found different texts but they're basically saying the same thing; you can't have two masters, and foreign powers don't have jurisdiction here. Henry never functioned as if he were pope but exercised his governance with and through church structures in his realm.

If the act had confined itself to matters of state , fine.

It didn't, it set Henry up as the supreme authority ecclesiastical As well.
God grants that. Not a king.

That is why Thomas More refused it.
Henry was not even ordained, and sought to subvert gods law on adultery.
" those things that are caesars" etc.

 

[Paidiske]

If the act had confined itself to matters of state , fine.

It didn't, it set Henry up as the supreme authority ecclesiastical.

But at the time, that was a matter of state.

The main point remains. Calling the practices of another church - including the oaths required of its clergy - "demonic" is really not okay.

Henry was not even ordained, and sought to subvert gods law on adultery.

Henry was a really sophisticated thinker and ruler, and I don't think it does him justice to boil the whole issue down to adultery. A large part of the issue was the pressure he felt to prevent the realm from falling back into civil war after his death.

It is, however, also worth noting that the Anglican church as it is today stems from the Restoration under Charles II, and not directly from Henry's time, anyway.

 

[seeking.IAM]

do you use images of jesus crucified in your cathedrals?

My church has both crucifixes and crosses. I do not think display of a crucifix is the litmus test of Catholicism, but if it was I suppose this would be another example of "via media."

 

[Snoder]

No, I think my simple comment was correct.

Ordinations in the Anglican communion aren't any more valid for the Catholic Church on account of simply being Anglican. They aren't protestants plus. There isn't greater validity on account it was done by someone that identifies with a particular denomination. That Anglicans bring in bishops whose apostolic succession remains undecided to ordain priests raises the question of whether or not said priests might have valid orders.

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).

It had nothing to do with political reasons. The declaration of the invalidity of orders was based on the theological understanding of the nature of ordination which became so novel that any hint of validity no longer existed. It was as if an organization married men to their cars that made it clear they knew nothing about the nature of the sacrament of marriage.

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.

I have no doubt that Anglicans continue the tradition of ordination from those that originally were actually ordained by the Catholic Church, but who lost the sacrament with the changes to understanding of the sacrament itself. A Catholic bishop can become senile and attempt to ordain puppies at a local shelter.

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!

Most Catholic theologians? That's such a vague term that it means nothing. Did the undefined theologians that identify as Catholic have a synod? Most Catholic theologians would tell you that the teaching authority of the Church is in the bishops, as that is the teaching of the Church.
Theologians do not speculate as to the motives of declarations as that does not pertain to moral or canonical theology. That's for the peanut gallery that subsists in protestant blogs.

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.

You are actually saying that the Anglican modified something which came from the Catholic Church.

 

[Snoder]

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.

The worst thing about Christianity today is the belief that the entire Christian experience and generations upon generations of faithfulness is worthless and circumstantial. Christianity and its Churches are not the property of those that live today.

In my own view, succession is not a critical issue for the life of the church today.

If your Church ordains whatever may come I would understand that.

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.

Henry VIII was insane.
Dear Rome - Please permit me to marry my brother's wife as they did not have relations.
Dear Henry - We believe you. It's okay to marry Catherine.
Dear Rome - Four out of the five babies I made with my wife have not made any living boys. Clearly, this was because I married my brother's wife.
Dear Henry - We already determined your brother and your wife didn't do anything adult.
Dear Rome - How dare you.
Dear Rome - I am the finally authority on religious matters in England.
Dear Henry - Calm down.
Dear Rome - I will kill anyone that defies me as the final authority on all religious matters. I will start bringing in protestants to lead the Church in England.
Dear Henry - Calm down.
Dear Rome - I have replaced the Pope for the people of England.
Dear Henry - Calm down.

As it stands today, Anglicans practice an orthodox Christian faith,

If you think women dressing as priests and homosexual bishops is orthodox Christianity.

 

[Paidiske]

If you think women dressing as priests and homosexual bishops is orthodox Christianity.

We don't "dress as" priests. We are priests.

The litmus test of orthodoxy on CF is adherence to the Nicene Creed, which Anglicans certainly do.

 

[The Barbarian]

The litmus test of orthodoxy on CF is adherence to the Nicene Creed, which Anglicans certainly do.

And that's what really counts. Christians disagree on lots of things, but in the end, we are Christians.

 

[Albion]

As I said - I have utter contempt for Henry, and every respect for anglicans.

Most Anglicans have a low opinion of Henry also.

That's if they give him much thought at all. I never, ever hear his name mentioned in church circles.

And why would it be any different? He didn't found a new church like Luther, Calvin, and even Wesley (in a roundabout, unintended way).

I am often struck, when I visiting one of those other churches, how these founders are lionized, have choirs or other things named after them, etc. Absolutely nothing comparable to any of that applies to any Anglican church of my acquaintance.

 

[Albion]

Ordinations in the Anglican communion aren't any more valid for the Catholic Church on account of simply being Anglican.

Yes, but that's the Catholic Church. It can scorn the clergy of any other church if it chooses, and that's an "in house" position. It doesn't have anything to do with the validity or invalidity of those other churches and their lines of Apostolic Succession, if any.

The Catholic Church also refuses to call "non-Catholic" denominations by the word church!

The topic here is not about what the Catholic Church wants to think of other Christian churches, however. No more than the fact the Jehovah's Witnesses consider both the Catholic Church and the Anglican churches to be Satanic. So what?

 

[Mountainmike]

I can only repeat- his oath of allegiance I consider demonic. So did Thomas more. The refusal to take his man made oath sent many to their deaths on his instruction. So not very Christian then!

I did not conflate that with the practices of another church. I can only repeat I have every respect for Anglicans. Not for Henry or his custodianship of that church.

Henry's prime motivation was an heir: and in assuming he had to "fix it himself" he was denying Gods providence in deciding who was granted children.

Even Elizabeth in her old age was given a child. He should have trusted God not himself, and accepted God's decision that he should be without heir if that was his destiny.

Anyway... I have made the point. No point in repeating it.

But at the time, that was a matter of state.

The main point remains. Calling the practices of another church - including the oaths required of its clergy - "demonic" is really not okay.



Henry was a really sophisticated thinker and ruler, and I don't think it does him justice to boil the whole issue down to adultery. A large part of the issue was the pressure he felt to prevent the realm from falling back into civil war after his death.

It is, however, also worth noting that the Anglican church as it is today stems from the Restoration under Charles II, and not directly from Henry's time, anyway.

 

[Pedra]

The religious traditions, ceremony, garb, veneration of religious images & a priesthood is not found in the early assemblies of believers in the Bible.

 

[Albion]

The religious traditions, ceremony, garb, veneration of religious images & a priesthood is not found in the early assemblies of believers in the Bible.

Neither are most of the customs, ranks of ministers, and attire of any other church.

 

[Pedra]

Neither are most of the customs, ranks of ministers, and attire of any other church.

There are definitely differences in that category among protestant denominations.