Are Anglicans protestants?

[7_Sorrows]

Yes, sadly, Anglicans are Protestants. Arguably, Henry VIII did more for Protestantism than Martin Luther ever dreamed of.

Not really. The Pope actually gave Henry VIII the title Defender of the Faith because the king sided with the Pope against Luther.
The king wanted to remain Catholic. He did not want to be excommunicated. He did not act on the spur of the moment. He tried going through a process of the Catholic church to get his first marriage annulled. He was king and needed an heir so he started his own church, was excommunicated and his life sort of spiraled downhill after that. It was Elizabeth that made the church of england more protestant. Then Mary became queen and she tried to make the church more catholic or catholic again. A lot of blood was spilled in england between the protestants and catholics.

 

[GKC]

Not really. The Pope actually gave Henry VIII the title Defender of the Faith because the king sided with the Pope against Luther.
The king wanted to remain Catholic. He did not want to be excommunicated. He did not act on the spur of the moment. He tried going through a process of the Catholic church to get his first marriage annulled. He was king and needed an heir so he started his own church, was excommunicated and his life sort of spiraled downhill after that. It was Elizabeth that made the church of england more protestant. Then Mary became queen and she tried to make the church more catholic or catholic again. A lot of blood was spilled in england between the protestants and catholics.

A few details:

It was the managers of the young Edward VI who pushed the CoE in the reformed direction. Mary followed Eddie, and shifted back to Rome, then Liz brought the CoE back to the center. And there was a little more to the Defensor Fidei title then the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum story (one of my favorite tales).

But you have the right idea.

GKC

 

[Mystophilus]

Sometimes I see places where it says Anglicans are not Protestants, but a distinctive branch of Christianity, but then other times I see places where it says that Anglicans are Protestants.

As GKC says, you should expect such variety when dealing with Anglicanism.

In general terms, I think that you can reasonably describe Anglicans as Protestants, even if we do not necessarily protest very much, because we are still not Catholics (although some of the Anglo-Catholics can blur that line quite well). However, lumping us with “all of those other Protestants” will get inaccurate very quickly.

Perhaps the Via Media is the Middle Way between Protestantism and Catholicism, or perhaps it is merely the imaginary central line of a scatter of positions on both sides.

Isn’t the full name of the Episcopal Church the Protestant Episcopal Church of America? Does that show Anglicans are Protestants?

The American Episcopalians only constitute about 2% of the worldwide Communion, which makes them a very small sample.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

:compcoff:

 

[GKC]

As GKC says, you should expect such variety when dealing with Anglicanism.

In general terms, I think that you can reasonably describe Anglicans as Protestants, even if we do not necessarily protest very much, because we are still not Catholics (although some of the Anglo-Catholics can blur that line quite well). However, lumping us with “all of those other Protestants” will get inaccurate very quickly.

Perhaps the Via Media is the Middle Way between Protestantism and Catholicism, or perhaps it is merely the imaginary central line of a scatter of positions on both sides.

The American Episcopalians only constitute about 2% of the worldwide Communion, which makes them a very small sample.

And, since 1964 (IIRC), the Episcopal Church has had two official names, per its constitution: The Episcopal Church (naturally) and The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Anyone want to guess why the double names (hint: there is more than one reason)?

GKC

 

[commenter]

But all Anglicans do not permit female ordinations. Motley, those Anglicans.

GKC

 

[ltwin]

The American Episcopalians only constitute about 2% of the worldwide Communion, which makes them a very small sample.

I think this is missing the point. It doesn’t matter how large the American church is. The fact is, from the 1780s to the 1960s, the official designation was exclusively “Protestant Episcopal”, though of course in everyday speech it was often just shortened to “Episcopal.”

Do you think the American Episcopalians in the 1780s just came up with this on their own? Of course not. They took it from their English counterparts, who considered their established church a Protestant Establishment. The Church of England is “The Protestant religion as established by law.” And the British monarch is asked, upon ascending to the throne, the following question:

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

The point about the Episcopal Church’s original name is that it illustrates that in the 1700s, Anglicans thought of themselves as Protestants without a second thought. Whether they were Anglicans in America or Anglicans in England, they naturally saw themselves as Protestant.

So, the obvious conclusion is that sometime at a later date, many Anglicans began to revise their history and attempted to change the perception of Anglicanism as something that was outside of Protestantism.

 

[commenter]

But all Anglicans do not permit female ordinations. Motley, those Anglicans.

GKC

That first sentence is debatable. One might argue that if you support the principle of Private Interpretation of Scripture, you also support, condone, make possible, all those movements that push that method to extreme, often contradictory conclusions. You can argue “I don’t agree with those who don’t follow Scripture rightly” but they could say the same about your position. Your defense of P. I. makes possible (validates) the snake handlers in Tennessee and the recent Presbyterian conference.

By the same token, there are those who support the principle of Private Interpretation of the Scripture/Tradition unity. For many years, this seemed more secure, less prone to wild variations away from doctrinal orthodoxy than Private Interpretation of Scripture alone. C. S. Lewis regarded Anglicanism as an imperfect system with self-balancing mechanisms that succeeded in the long run to maintain orthodoxy. Anglicanism had internal authority, or rather authorities, but not the single, worldwide Magisterium authority that another group has, so all Anglicans are “private” in that sense. You choose your own authorities, or at least, you choose to give a lot of weight to “A”, and less weight or relevance to “B”; someone else can do the reverse. Every vile church position since 1965 has been thoroughly wrapped in Anglican and other historic Christian quotes, even if it really came from the NY Times.

In Lewis’ lifetime being “private” (i. e., non-papal) wasn’t a big problem, as almost everyone in my second paragraph more or less followed orthodox doctrine anyway. Today, Anglicans in ACNA or the Continuum disagree with Private Interpretations taken by other Anglican bodies to positions on Ordination, and other things. But if you assert the right to P. I. for Scripture/Tradition, then in effect you unwittingly justify the right of other Anglicans to follow it to those other places. And maybe worse to come.

 

[GKC]

That first sentence is debatable. One might argue that if you support the principle of Private Interpretation of Scripture, you also support, condone, make possible, all those movements that push that method to extreme, often contradictory conclusions. You can argue “I don’t agree with those who don’t follow Scripture rightly” but they could say the same about your position. Your defense of P. I. makes possible (validates) the snake handlers in Tennessee and the recent Presbyterian conference.

By the same token, there are those who support the principle of Private Interpretation of the Scripture/Tradition unity. For many years, this seemed more secure, less prone to wild variations away from doctrinal orthodoxy than Private Interpretation of Scripture alone. C. S. Lewis regarded Anglicanism as an imperfect system with self-balancing mechanisms that succeeded in the long run to maintain orthodoxy. Anglicanism had internal authority, or rather authorities, but not the single, worldwide Magisterium authority that another group has, so all Anglicans are “private” in that sense. You choose your own authorities. Every vile church position since 1965 has been thoroughly wrapped in Anglican and other historic Christian quotes, even if it really came from the NY Times.

In Lewis’ lifetime being “private” (i. e., non-papal) wasn’t a big problem, as almost everyone in my second paragraph more or less followed orthodox doctrine anyway. Today, Anglicans in ACNA or the Continuum disagree with Private Interpretations taken by other Anglican bodies to positions on Ordination, and other things. But if you assert the right to P. I. for Scripture/Tradition, then in effect you unwittingly justify the right of other Anglicans to follow it to those other places. And maybe worse to come.

No, the first sentence is not debatable. Some Anglican jurisdictions do not conduct female ordinations. As you mention in your penultimate para.

And if one finds Anglicans straying into odd places (and one certainly does) one doesn’t go to those places, and goes elsewhere.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think this is missing the point. It doesn’t matter how large the American church is. The fact is, from the 1780s to the 1960s, the official designation was exclusively “Protestant Episcopal”, though of course in everyday speech it was often just shortened to “Episcopal.”

Do you think the American Episcopalians in the 1780s just came up with this on their own? Of course not. They took it from their English counterparts, who considered their established church a Protestant Establishment. The Church of England is “The Protestant religion as established by law.” And the British monarch is asked, upon ascending to the throne, the following question:

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

The point about the Episcopal Church’s original name is that it illustrates that in the 1700s, Anglicans thought of themselves as Protestants without a second thought. Whether they were Anglicans in America or Anglicans in England, they naturally saw themselves as Protestant.

So, the obvious conclusion is that sometime at a later date, many Anglicans began to revise their history and attempted to change the perception of Anglicanism as something that was outside of Protestantism.

That date was in the mid 1800s, and was related to both the Oxford movement and the Ritualists, in the CoE. It was also the sort of thing that had led to the departure of those who became the REC. And the name remained a point of discussion, until it was modified in 1964.

Revise, say some. Reinterpret, say others. Recover, even, is heard.

GKC

 

[7_Sorrows]

A few details:

It was the managers of the young Edward VI who pushed the CoE in the reformed direction. Mary followed Eddie, and shifted back to Rome, then Liz brought the CoE back to the center. And there was a little more to the Defensor Fidei title then the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum story (one of my favorite tales).

But you have the right idea.

GKC

Hi GKC. Why do I always feel I need to defend poor Henry VIII?
Thanks for including Edward. I was going to put him in, but I thought he was after Elizabeth. My history is not as good as yours!

May I ask what one of your favorite tales is?
I’m afraid I don’t know Latin.

 

[7_Sorrows]

And, since 1964 (IIRC), the Episcopal Church has had two official names, per its constitution: The Episcopal Church (naturally) and The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Anyone want to guess why the double names (hint: there is more than one reason)?

GKC

I would like to know why?

 

[Tomster]

But all Anglicans do not permit female ordinations. Motley, those Anglicans.

GKC

Just a question GKC and no rancor intended. I recently read somewhere, and for the life of me I can’t remember where, that female ordination within Anglicanism is now to be accepted as a truth to be accepted by all Anglicans.

If you have any information, official Church statements, etc. on this I would appreciate to hear it.

 

[GKC]

Just a question GKC and no rancor intended. I recently read somewhere, and for the life of me I can’t remember where, that female ordination within Anglicanism is now to be accepted as a truth to be accepted by all Anglicans.

If you have any information, official Church statements, etc. on this I would appreciate to hear it.

Fair question and no rancor visible but thanks for so stating.

There is no authority, anywhere, within Anglicanism, whether considered as the Anglican Communion merely, or the wider world encompassing the Continuum and the ACNA, able to make such a statement, or any statement, binding in any sense on Anglicanism, generally.

Certainly some of the autocephalous Churches comprising the Communion have made varying statements and follow varying practices, with respect to the subject. But there is no authority able to impose such a position, across the board, on the motleydom of Anglicanism.

GKC.

 

[Tomster]

Fair question and no rancor visible but thanks for so stating.

There is no authority, anywhere, within Anglicanism, whether considered as the Anglican Communion merely, or the wider world encompassing the Continuum and the ACNA, able to make such a statement, or any statement, binding in any sense on Anglicanism, generally.

Certainly some of the autocephalous Churches comprising the Communion have made varying statements and follow varying practices, with respect to the subject. But there is no authority able to impose such a position, across the board, on the motleydom of Anglicanism.

GKC.

Thanks GK.

“motleydom”

 

[GKC]

I would like to know why?

The most basic, and most obvious reason was the shifting emphasis on what constituted Anglicanism, as epitomized by the Oxford movement and the Ritualists, as they began to affect not only the CoE, but the wider world that included the Episcopal Church here. IOW, it was what one would expect, from how the major components within the Church waxed and waned. By the 60s, it was less of a hot button issue, and, typical Anglican fashion, the issue was set aside, by using two names in the Constitution.

The other point is related to more recent developments, in the polity of TEC, which was reflected in the decision that to call TEC the “anything” in the USA failed to take into account that TEC is not limited to the USA ( I lost track of how many other places TEC claims a presence; it was 16 countries last I looked and I think it is more than 20 now). This is related to the expansion of the Presiding Bishop’s office far beyond what was historically the case, and is why the Gracious Katherine is often seen carrying a patriarchal crozier. She has aspirations, possibly, to being styled an Archbishop. Hence, the name TEC is the preferred title, for an unexpected reason.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Thanks GK.

“motleydom”

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[7_Sorrows]

The most basic, and most obvious reason was the shifting emphasis on what constituted Anglicanism, as epitomized by the Oxford movement and the Ritualists, as they began to affect not only the CoE, but the wider world that included the Episcopal Church here. IOW, it was what one would expect, from how the major components within the Church waxed and waned. By the 60s, it was less of a hot button issue, and, typical Anglican fashion, the issue was set aside, by using two names in the Constitution.

The other point is related to more recent developments, in the polity of TEC, which was reflected in the decision that to call TEC the “anything” in the USA failed to take into account that TEC is not limited to the USA ( I lost track of how many other places TEC claims a presence; it was 16 countries last I looked and I think it is more than 20 now). This is related to the expansion of the Presiding Bishop’s office far beyond what was historically the case, and is why the Gracious Katherine is often seen carrying a patriarchal crozier. She has aspirations, possibly, to being styled an Archbishop. Hence, the name TEC is the preferred title, for an unexpected reason.

GKC

Thanks GKC! I think you should write a book GKC about the anglican communion and TEC. You have so much knowledge to share!

 

[Tomster]

Thanks GKC! I think you should write a book GKC about the anglican communion and TEC. You have so much knowledge to share!

Absolutely!

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC! I think you should write a book GKC about the anglican communion and TEC. You have so much knowledge to share!

That kind suggestion assumes that the knowledge I might possess is accurate, and reasonably comprehensive. I have seen a variety of opinions as to that, and I’m not always sure myself.

In fact I did want to write a book once. I was thinking of something along the lines of an alternate history SF, with some emphasis on the Roman period in Britain, and then on the analog ( in this alternate world) of the pre-dreadnaught period of European naval development. And ley lines would play a part.

Ah, well.

GKC