C
Contarini
Guest
:When people convert, they should take on the characteristics of the church they are converting too:
I’m not sure how this is relevant in this thread, which concerns an Anglican body not in communion with Rome. Perhaps you are thinking of the “Anglican Use” Catholics. At any rate, since I disagree strongly with what you’re saying, I’ll address it. Your argument would work if the Catholic Church were just another sect. But it isn’t. It claims to be, well, Catholic. That means that it is not a particular set of “characteristics” but rather the universal home of all Christians. The only things we should have to give up when converting to Catholicism are heresy and sin. In practice, I’m not sure that’s true, which is the single biggest reason why I have not yet become Catholic.
Oat soda, the “third branch” claim dates back mostly to the 19th century, though some earlier Anglicans made somewhat similar claims. The argument is that the Protestant changes made under Edward and largely reinstated under Elizabeth did not destroy the Catholic essence of the Church of England. My problem with that argument is that often it downplays just how Protestant the Elizabethans were. The leaders of the C of E in the late 16th century unquestioningly considered themselves to be part of the same religion as continental Protestants. Initially, they would also clearly have ranged themselves with the “Reformed” over against the “Lutheran” wing of Protestantism, and to some extent that attitude persisted into the 17th century. However, with the work of Richard Hooker at least we begin to see a tendency for Anglicans to distance themselves from the Reformed tradition, which was becoming increasingly hardline on issues of liturgy and church government and so on. John Donne in the early 17th century placed Anglicans somewhere between Lutherans and Reformed (in other words, still more Protestant than the Lutherans, particularly with regard to the Real Presence and confession). But at the same time it was becoming common to speak of Anglicans as the happy medium between the “Romanists” and the Puritans. Also, politically the Stuart monarchs often sought close alliances with the French and other Catholic nations, and the last two were Catholics themselves (Charles II secretly on his deathbed, according to common report; James II openly). Of course this provoked the “Glorious Revolution,” which reaffirmed the Protestant character of Anglicanism and gave England political ties with Protestant nations like the Netherlands, Hannover, and later Prussia. But the seeds had been laid in the 17th century for the idea that Anglicanism is not “really” Protestant. And there’s a lot of truth to this, in the sense that our doctrine and polity have always been loose enough for a good deal of Catholic belief and practice to survive. And, of course, we do have episcopal succession, even if you guys have chosen not to recognize it . . . .
In Christ,
Edwin
I’m not sure how this is relevant in this thread, which concerns an Anglican body not in communion with Rome. Perhaps you are thinking of the “Anglican Use” Catholics. At any rate, since I disagree strongly with what you’re saying, I’ll address it. Your argument would work if the Catholic Church were just another sect. But it isn’t. It claims to be, well, Catholic. That means that it is not a particular set of “characteristics” but rather the universal home of all Christians. The only things we should have to give up when converting to Catholicism are heresy and sin. In practice, I’m not sure that’s true, which is the single biggest reason why I have not yet become Catholic.
Oat soda, the “third branch” claim dates back mostly to the 19th century, though some earlier Anglicans made somewhat similar claims. The argument is that the Protestant changes made under Edward and largely reinstated under Elizabeth did not destroy the Catholic essence of the Church of England. My problem with that argument is that often it downplays just how Protestant the Elizabethans were. The leaders of the C of E in the late 16th century unquestioningly considered themselves to be part of the same religion as continental Protestants. Initially, they would also clearly have ranged themselves with the “Reformed” over against the “Lutheran” wing of Protestantism, and to some extent that attitude persisted into the 17th century. However, with the work of Richard Hooker at least we begin to see a tendency for Anglicans to distance themselves from the Reformed tradition, which was becoming increasingly hardline on issues of liturgy and church government and so on. John Donne in the early 17th century placed Anglicans somewhere between Lutherans and Reformed (in other words, still more Protestant than the Lutherans, particularly with regard to the Real Presence and confession). But at the same time it was becoming common to speak of Anglicans as the happy medium between the “Romanists” and the Puritans. Also, politically the Stuart monarchs often sought close alliances with the French and other Catholic nations, and the last two were Catholics themselves (Charles II secretly on his deathbed, according to common report; James II openly). Of course this provoked the “Glorious Revolution,” which reaffirmed the Protestant character of Anglicanism and gave England political ties with Protestant nations like the Netherlands, Hannover, and later Prussia. But the seeds had been laid in the 17th century for the idea that Anglicanism is not “really” Protestant. And there’s a lot of truth to this, in the sense that our doctrine and polity have always been loose enough for a good deal of Catholic belief and practice to survive. And, of course, we do have episcopal succession, even if you guys have chosen not to recognize it . . . .
In Christ,
Edwin
