Ecumenical Plans for 500th Reformation Day

[GKC]

Historically, yes. Confessionally, not really. We aren’t bound by the Articles, which are Protestant though relatively mild by sixteenth-century terms.

Also, I am not interested in defending the Episcopal Church, or even Anglicanism, except insofar as it is slandered in particular respects.

Edwin

I often agree.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Historically, yes. Confessionally, not really. We aren’t bound by the Articles, which are Protestant though relatively mild by sixteenth-century terms.

Indeed. Even as I was asking the question, it occurred to me that the *real *question might be whether we distinguish two separate categories – one being called “protestants” and the other something else like “liberal neo-protestants”.

Also, I am not interested in defending the Episcopal Church, or even Anglicanism, except insofar as it is slandered in particular respects.

Edwin

Fair enough.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Here is some more food for thought [pun not intended] regarding the Holy Eucharist and how both Catholics and Lutheran find concensus:

1. While the Council of Trent defended the practice of adoration of the
   Blessed Sacrament, it took as its starting point that the primary purpose
   of the eucharist is the communion of the faithful. The eucharist was instituted
   by Christ to be consumed as spiritual food.49

1. The question of the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s
   Supper is not a matter of controversy between Catholics and Lutherans.
   The Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue on the eucharist was able to
   state: »The Lutheran tradition affirms the Catholic tradition that the
   consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but rather
   by the power of the creative word are given as the body and blood of
   Christ. In this sense Lutherans also could occasionally speak, as does
   the Greek tradition, of a change« (Eucharist 51).50 Both Catholics and
   Lutherans »have in common a rejection of a spatial or natural manner
   of presence, and a rejection of an understanding of the sacrament as
   only commemorative or figurative« (Eucharist 16).51

 

[House_Harkonnen]

lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf

I’m reading through this Catholic-Lutheran document. Interesting statements:

I plan on carving some pumpkins and going out with my kids to beg the neighbors for candy.

 

[JonNC]

I plan on carving some pumpkins and going out with my kids to beg the neighbors for candy.

Are you going to try to get 95 pieces?

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Are you going to try to get 95 pieces?

Jon

I, uh, err, can’t.

I’m on a diet of worms.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I, uh, err, can’t.

I’m on a diet of worms.

 

[Contarini]

Indeed. Even as I was asking the question, it occurred to me that the *real *question might be whether we distinguish two separate categories – one being called “protestants” and the other something else like “liberal neo-protestants”.

Certainly our lack of confessionalism makes Anglicanism, as a whole, more “liberal” than other Protestant traditions, but only relatively. GKC, for instance, is not by any definition a liberal, it seems to me, and he isn’t bound by the Articles either.

This isn’t really about liberalism in the modern sense at all. It’s better described as “creedalism” as opposed to “confessionalism.” Anglicans take the ancient Creeds very seriously, and the confessions of the Reformation era much less so.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Certainly our lack of confessionalism makes Anglicanism, as a whole, more “liberal” than other Protestant traditions, but only relatively. GKC, for instance, is not by any definition a liberal, it seems to me, and he isn’t bound by the Articles either.

This isn’t really about liberalism in the modern sense at all. It’s better described as “creedalism” as opposed to “confessionalism.” Anglicans take the ancient Creeds very seriously, and the confessions of the Reformation era much less so.

Edwin

I agree with Contarini.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Certainly our lack of confessionalism makes Anglicanism, as a whole, more “liberal” than other Protestant traditions, but only relatively. GKC, for instance, is not by any definition a liberal, it seems to me, and he isn’t bound by the Articles either.

I don’t think lack of confessionalism necessarily makes Anglicans liberal, but I do consider the EC-USA to be liberal. (They certainly make the CoE look conservative.)