Episcopal Church: What happened?

[Anna_Scott]

I KNOW that Anglicans and Episcopalians don’t consider themselves protestants, but they are protestants, nevertheless. . . .

How many Protestants do you know who believe in the Communion of the Saints, The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and requests for her Intercession?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .We’re talking about a protestant church here and they splinter all the time like mad anyway.]

iloveangels,
So, really, there’s no way to win in your eyes, apart from our entering into Communion with Rome. If we stay in TEC, we’re ridiculed. If we leave TEC, we’re ridiculed.

Again, kick us when we’re down. It’s easy to do from your arm chair.

Anna

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t think you are right about your definition of Protestant. The Eastern Orthodox church is not in union with Rome and we certainly don’t describe them as Protestant, nor would they describe themselves so.

Putting this aside, I think there might be slightly different definintions of the word Catholic. I can certainly understand why some Anglicans would describe themselves as Catholic, but officially most Anglicans describe themsleves as reformed Catholic. I imagine this would be because at the reformation their church, whilst rejecting papal authority, held onto the central tenets of the catholic faith in terms of their belief in apostolic succession; in terms of liturgy - that was based on a translation of the Sarum Use; and the episcopacy and three-fold order of ministry.

As someone whose father was Anglican, I can clearly see this distinction between Anglicans and other denominations. In terms of liturgy also, I have heard Presbyterians and Baptists describe many Anglican churches as more Catholic than Catholic, and they wouldn’t see them as fellow protestants.

The Eastern Orthodox church is the result of an early schism from Catholicism. Technically it is protestant, but because it predates the reformation, we don’t usually refer to it as such. It is not in union with Rome.

Some of the regional churches that split at or near the time of this Eastern schism have in the centuries since then, come back into juridical, theological and practical union with Rome, and these constitute the other rites in the Catholic church. There are 21 of them in addition to the most populous rite which is the Roman Rite. The other rites tend to be small and regional but they are in union with Rome. The other rites were allowed to keep the traditions that they had at the time of entry that did not contradict union with Rome and Catholic theology and practice.

Churches that split from Rome during the Reformation, and that includes the Episcopalian/Anglican church, are considered protestants in the true sense of the word. None of them are in union with Rome and this includes the Episcopalian/Anglican church.

There is more to being Catholic than having some kind of foggy romanticism about being Catholic which is what you see with Anglicans and Episcopalians. There are juridical and practical issues, and the Episcopalian/Anglican church doesn’t have any of those in place. Theologically, we’re also somewhat different. You mentioned yourself about the theology of marriage. It’s different, and that’s just the start.

PS. Like the Baptists and Presbyterians have anything to say about all of this. They’re not in union with Rome either.

 

[iloveangels]

Union with Rome: the act of recognizing and functioning in obedience to the Pope in Rome, who at this time is Benedict XVI; having Catholic theology AS DEFINED by the Catholic Church in Rome; having juridical and practical status with Rome, such that the prescriptions of canon law are satisfied; having a local bishop appointed by the pope as all of them are.

The Episcopalian/Anglican church satisfies none of these criteria.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Eastern Orthodox church is the result of an early schism from Catholicism. Technically it is protestant, but because it predates the reformation, we don’t usually refer to it as such. It is not in union with Rome.

As the very word “orthodox” suggests, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have rejected nothing with respect to core beliefs of the Apostolic Churches of Christ. It is not appropriate to refer to Orthodox Christians as protestant.

Truly protestant churches were formed by rejecting central tenets of faith in favor of their own interpretation.

Even the Anglican Church is not truly protestant in that regard. Henry VIII was actually a staunch supporter of Catholic doctrine most of his life, and at one time was named Defender of the Faith. He wrote passionately in defense of the Church, rejecting Lutheran assertions and teachings. He ultimately rejected the discipline of the Church, not necessarily the doctrine, for his own personal reasons.

 

[iloveangels]

iloveangels,

As already stated, the Eastern Orthodox Church is not in communion with Rome and they are not Protestants.

As for what “other Protestants” think: the very same Protestants who condemn Catholicism, also condemn Anglicanism, because Anglicans are one of the three Catholic faiths: Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Catholics complain (and rightfully so) that people misrepresent their beliefs and then condemn them based on misconceptions.

You are doing the same to Anglicans.

Anna

I’m not misrepresenting you at all. Anglicans/Episcopalians routinely misrepresent themselves as Catholic. They are not in union with Rome. They have foggy romantic notions about how Catholic they think they are but no legal status to back any of that up.

 

[iloveangels]

As the very word “orthodox” suggests, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have rejected nothing with respect to core beliefs of the Apostolic Churches of Christ. It is not appropriate to refer to Orthodox Christians as protestant.

Truly protestant churches were formed by rejecting central tenets of faith in favor of their own interpretation.

Even the Anglican Church is not truly protestant in that regard. Henry VIII was actually a staunch supporter of Catholic doctrine most of his life, and at one time was named Defender of the Faith. He wrote passionately in defense of the Church, rejecting Lutheran assertions and teachings. He ultimately rejected the discipline of the Church, not necessarily the doctrine, for his own personal reasons.

They certainly have. It was a huge and ancient SCHISM. They disputed the relationship of the Trinity–ie. the origin of the Holy Spirit, among other things. It’s a matter of history. And then they broke union with Rome, and they have not returned to this day. It’s a matter of history and it’s in a thousand history books, at least. Don’t tell me nonsense. They are NOT in union with Rome.

Foggy notions don’t mean anything at all. You can get on the internet and call yourself anything you wish. That doesn’t make it true. If a church isn’t in union with Rome, they aren’t Catholic. Maybe they’re catholic-like or old or they want to be like Catholics, but they aren’t in fact Catholic. Big C, in union with Rome, Catholic.

People who claim to be Christian, but who are not in union with Rome, belong to communities that are the products of apostasy and schism. That’s how those communities came to be, and the Anglican/Episcopalian church is one of those communities.

This is why when an Episcopalian/Anglican person joins the Catholic church, they have to go through the catechesis and conversion process. They don’t just waltz in the door and start taking the sacraments. Even when whole communities come into union with Rome, there is a process that has to be followed.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

They certainly have. It was a huge and ancient SCHISM. They disputed the relationship of the Trinity–ie. the origin of the Holy Spirit, among other things. It’s a matter of history. And then they broke union with Rome, and they have not returned to this day. They are NOT in union with Rome.

Yes, they are not in union with Rome. No, that does not make them protestant.

Yet, Rome acknowledges openly that Orthodox Christians share in the True Faith.

Rejection of the True Faith in favor of one’s own interpretation makes one a protestant.

 

[iloveangels]

Yes, they are not in union with Rome. No, that does not make them protestant.

Yet, Rome acknowledges openly that Orthodox Christians share in the True Faith.

Rejection of the True Faith in favor of one’s own interpretation makes one a protestant.

No. Union with the Pope, who is the successor of Peter, is part of the True Faith. Rejection of the juridical and practical unity with Rome is part of rejection of the True Faith.

Christianity is more than a bunch of emotions and foggy notions. “Looks like” doesn’t cut it. This isn’t a game of charades.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m not misrepresenting you at all. Anglicans/Episcopalians routinely misrepresent themselves as Catholic. They are not in union with Rome. They have foggy romantic notions about how Catholic they think they are but no legal status to back any of that up.

With all due respect, you have no authority to decide whether or not I call myself Catholic. What law have I broken by calling myself Catholic? To what “legal status” are you referring? Have our religious freedoms in the U.S. changed overnight?

Anna

 

[iloveangels]

When an Anglican/Episcopalian congregation comes to us for entry into the Church, I hope you realize that they are expected to make professions of faith which are not only emotional or dispositional, but in fact are juridical, legal. When you convert to the faith, you enter in every sense of the word.

Also, we are re-ordaining some Anglican/Episcopalian priest converts. They have to go through an education process and pass muster for that to happen. We’re not taking them all for re-ordination. Some of them don’t qualify, you understand. If they come in, they must come in as laypersons because that’s what they are.

For an Episcopalian/Anglican, converting to the Catholic church isn’t just a matter of sliding from one building to another. We’re not protestants. Protestants do that.

 

[iloveangels]

With all due respect, you have no authority to decide whether or not I call myself Catholic. What law have I broken by calling myself Catholic? To what “legal status” are you referring? Have our religious freedoms in the U.S. changed overnight?

Anna

You can call yourself anything you want. This is a free country. I could call myself a horse if I wanted to and then refuse all questions about how I have the ability to type here. You couldn’t stop me.

That doesn’t constitute religion, nor does it constitute Catholicism.

PS Have you never heard of canon law?

 

[Anna_Scott]

No. Union with the Pope, who is the successor of Peter, is part of the True Faith. Rejection of the juridical and practical unity with Rome is part of rejection of the True Faith.

Christianity is more than a bunch of emotions and foggy notions. “Looks like” doesn’t cut it. This isn’t a game of charades.

iloveangels,
Are you claiming those of us who are not in Communion with Rome are not part of the Body of Christ?

Anna

 

[iloveangels]

iloveangels,
Are you claiming those of us who are not in Communion with Rome are not part of the Body of Christ?

Anna

Only in a rudimentary way, as defined by Dominus Iesus. This document was released a few years ago and summarizes the situation well.

But for that matter, an uncatechized Bushman is also part of the Body of Christ, to the extent that he wants to be. That doesn’t make him a practicing Catholic.

Read the document. It’s very good and has a lot more information on the practical aspects of being in the Body of Christ.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

With all due respect, you have no authority to decide whether or not I call myself Catholic. What law have I broken by calling myself Catholic? To what “legal status” are you referring? Have our religious freedoms in the U.S. changed overnight?

Anna, while I do not condone these bland condemnations, I can understand objections from Catholics about use of the proper name Catholic. As you know, those who are members of the Catholic Church get knocked left and right from all sides for being Catholic, so the proper name also connotes a strong sense identity for practicing, faithful Catholics. I trust in Christian charity that you can appreciate that point.

That said, we recognize that Catholic was originally used to mean “universal” and is a term used for purposes other than refering to members of the Catholic Church. In charity, I assume that you use it to refer to the purity of your beliefs with respect to essential elements of faith.

FWIW - from everything you have wrote and shared, you seem more Catholic than Anglican to me!

What is certainly less forgiving is the utterly improper use of the term “protestant” to refer to all those who are not members of the Catholic Church. As an Eastern Catholic, I have even been told many times in my life that I am not Catholic by fellow Catholics of the Latin tradition. These are views which must be corrected, as they do nothing but harm the cause of ecumenism to which we are all called by the Catholic Church and Christ directly, who wishes us all to “be as one”.

I will be monitoring this thread closely, waiting for the inevitable reactions of our faithful Orthodox contributors to CAF, who will certainly be pleased to see that they have once again been branded “protestant”.

 

[iloveangels]

Anna, while I do not condone these bland condemnations, I can understand objections from Catholics about use of the proper name Catholic. As you know, those who are members of the Catholic Church get knocked left and right from all sides for being Catholic, so the proper name also connotes a strong sense identity for practicing, faithful Catholics. I trust in Christian charity that you can appreciate that point.

That said, we recognize that Catholic was originally used to mean “universal” and is a term used for purposes other than refering to members of the Catholic Church. In charity, I assume that you use it to refer to the purity of your beliefs with respect to essential elements of faith.

FWIW - from everything you have wrote and shared, you seem more Catholic than Anglican to me!

What is certainly less forgiving is the utterly improper use of the term “protestant” to refer to all those who are not members of the Catholic Church. As an Eastern Catholic, I have even been told many times in my life that I am not Catholic by fellow Catholics of the Latin tradition. These are views which must be corrected, as they do nothing but harm the cause of ecumenism to which we are all called by the Catholic Church and Christ directly, who wishes us all to “be as one”.

I will be monitoring this thread closely, waiting for the inevitable reactions of our faithful Orthodox contributors to CAF, who will certainly be pleased to see that they have once again been branded “protestant”.

You can’t be more Catholic than Anglican if, in fact, you aren’t in juridical union with Rome. This is basic.

Being Catholic is not a matter of some foggy disposition that you might or might not have. It’s far more than that. It actually has parts and substance. Wow, what a concept, huh?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Only in a rudimentary way, as defined by Dominus Iesus. This document was released a few years ago and summarizes the situation well.

The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

Dominus Iesus (para 59-60)

 

[iloveangels]

Dominus Iesus (para 59-60)

Read your quote VERY carefully.

It says that the Anglican church can be called a Church, NOT that it can be called a Catholic Church. As opposed to the Baptists, who may not even be able to call themselves a Church, but rather should call themselves a community or a sect or something of that nature–this is contained elsewhere in the document.

 

[Indiana_Jones]

You can’t be more Catholic than Anglican if, in fact, you aren’t in juridical union with Rome. This is basic.

Being Catholic is not a matter of some foggy disposition that you might or might not have. It’s far more than that. It actually has parts and substance. Wow, what a concept, huh?

But if one who is not Catholic reads & believes Catholic teaching on a number of issues (as opposed to Protestant interpretations of those issues), that’s not the worst place to be, right? I think that’s the way the word “Catholic” is being used here. And, Anglo-Catholics often do identify CC/EO/AC as branches of the original Catholic Church. Even if Catholics don’t agree with that division or usage, they’ll still continue to do it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Being Catholic is not a matter of some foggy disposition that you might or might not have.

Yes, I know. My people, my ancestors directly, suffered greatly to remain faithful to the Catholic Church and the Catholic communion. It has not always been with the full support and acceptance of the broader Catholic community, despite that allegiance. I thus have no “foggy” notions of what it means to be Catholic. I also have no “foggy” notions of what it means fundamentally to be Christian.