Episcopal Diocese of NY says 'Episcopal church is NOT Protestant!'

[mean_owen]

I don’t think you’d get total agreement with that definition even among some Catholics

Having said that, one of the Southern bishops of the Episcopal Church (I think it was Paul ) wrote up something a while back proclaiming that they were the Protestant Episcopal Church. However, haven’t heard much out of him lately.

A rose, by any other name…

Hey Brother Luke,

That sounds a lot like Paul Zahl, but he isn’t a bishop (he just thought he was). He was the Dean of the Cathedral in Birmingham. He subsequently was the head honcho at Trinity seminary for a couple of years, now I think he’s a rector at a church in MD.

 

[rad314]

Are they Catholic? I’m reminded of a quote from a friend of mine, a good ol’ boy from Louisiana. “You can put your boots in the oven, but that don’t make 'em biscuits.”

 

[mean_owen]

Are they Catholic? I’m reminded of a quote from a friend of mine, a good ol’ boy from Louisiana. “You can put your boots in the oven, but that don’t make 'em biscuits.”

Many of them would say that they are catholic, just not Catholic.

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I recall reading in previous posts your explanation of the state of Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion. I believe you claim that Apostolic Succession remains in the Anglican Communion due to consecrations made by an Old Catholic Bishop. Is this correct? Would you mind briefly explaining the modern situation again for the benefit of this thread?

I believe in the proclamations of Apostolicae Curae but I am also aware that a lot has changed since 1896, and that the Anglican Communion may have received Apostolic Succession from other sources such as the Old Catholics as previously mentioned. However, any Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion is severely fractured, as I am sure you would also agree.

I have a moment, so I thought I’d return to this. But I’m not sure just what the question was. No matter, I’ll answer something, and if there is no further comment, assume it was close enough.

To limit myself: I won’t address the issue of Apostolicae Curae itself. That’s a little steep, for a message board, and I don’‘t try to argue RCs to a position contrary to the *de fide *teachings of the RCC . I do often recommend the best books on the subject I know of, and do here again: for the Anglican position, Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD (that’s the theological discussion; the history of Apostolicae Curae is covered well in his ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID). For the best exposition of the RC case, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION (the key to the issue, not the defect of form). And I don’t address the current state of much of the official Anglican communion, with respect to females in sacerdotal and episcopal gaments. Defect of matter, pure and simple, and that’s an end on it.

But the point of the Old Catholics and the PNCC infusion into Anglicanism does seem to be a good one, logically. When
(passing over the Mathew succession), full intercommunion between the Old Catholics of Utrecht, and the Anglican Communion was established, in 1932, the OC Bishop of Haarlem, Henry Theoroe John van Vlijmen declared, as he participated in the first two co-consecrations of Anglican bishops, that he fully intended to transfer the the historic episcopate, as possessed by the OCs (as the RCC agrees they do), with other cautionary words to express how serious he was about it all. From that time, and adding in the participation of PNCC bishops, beginning in 1946, OC and PNCC lines have been widely infused in Anglicanism. Such things are trackable, in the Tables of Succession in each Anglican jurisdiction, and, by manual imposition, this infusion has spread throughout the communion, as bishops consecrate other bishops.

The Ordinal used for most of this period is that contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and which not include the defect of form objected to in AC. This removes the assumption of the defect of intention, at the same time, said assumption, as AC declared, requiring a positive indication of an intent not to do what the Church does, in this case in consecrating a bishop.

Accordingly, and logically, this would seem to suggest at least a chance of finding such orders to be valid, though illicit. But that’s logically. The RCC has made no statement on the matter, save that AC remains operative.

Ok by me.

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

Any Christian who is not in communion with the Roman Pontiff is a protestant. Even the Orthodox could be considered protestant despite the fact that they believe in a faith which is almost identical to that of the Catholic Church.

I cannot imagine how you came up with this opinion, but it is completely wrong.

Protestantism (whatever that really is, it changes so much), is the fruit of the western Latin Papal Catholic church. It could not have arisen in the east because the Orthodox do not accept or create novel doctrinal ideas, and do not accept the Latin Catholic contention that anything new can be defined about the faith at this late date.

That is a specifically western, and Papal Catholic, notion. The Protestants are your children. They reveal this to us in making their own choices about doctrine, just like your church does.

Although the “Protestants” have a history of being under the Popes, we Orthodox have never labored under the Papacy and do not ‘protest’ against it. No Pope ever controled an Orthodox church. We Orthodox Catholics don’t know what it is like to actually have been under the Popes like your Protestant brothers and sisters do. Our Patriarchs are real Patriarchs, equal in every way in dignity and authority to the actual (real, uninflated legitimate) authority of the Patriarch of Rome.

For whatever reason, they (the Protestants) have rejected the office of Pope (which they have much historical experience with) but kept a strong hold on the western Latin Catholic idea that it is possible to reread new doctrines out of the old faith. We Orthodox Catholics reject this wholeheartedly, when the Protestants do it and when your church does it as well.

You two groups are both wrong on this point, the Age of Revelation is closed and there is no need to define new doctrines. Orthodox keep to the received Faith from Christ through the Apostles to us.

Although the Orthodox and the Protestants are vastly different, they do have one thing in common: they both severed communion with Rome because they protested certain Catholic doctrines. This is why we can technically call the Orthodox the first ever protestants.

How odd, when some Orthodox call the Latin Catholic church and the Papacy the first Protestants, this receives howls of protest from the people right here on CAF. Yet you have the nerve to do just the same.

The history is very clear, the Papacy withdrew from the Orthodox communion. That has well been demonstrated many times here, everyone knows that the breaking of communion was initiated by Cardinals Humbert and Frederic (the future Pope Steven, I believe) and no one denies this historical fact. It is the Papal Catholic church which severed communion with the Pentarchy of Apostolic churches. (This is why we can, if we so choose, technically call the Latin Catholic church the first ever protestant church.)

The Orthodox have not changed a single theological point throughout the entire period: the Faith in the years 1053, 1054, 1055 AD was all the same, we have neither added nor deleted doctrine from our teachings. The Orthodox Faith has been the same in 600AD as it was in 1600 AD, or even to this very day.

We Orthodox Catholics don’t make up new dogmas, but the Latin Catholic church proudly does, and it’s Protestant children have continued this ignoble practice.

Papal Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians have to live with their mistakes, but please don’t drag the Orthodox into that sad misbegotten story, we will have none of it.

 

[chris_molter]

We Orthodox Catholics don’t make up new dogmas, but the Latin Catholic church proudly does, and it’s Protestant children have continued this ignoble practice.

I’m on your side re: ever labelling the Orthodox as “Protestant”, however, a lot of your post is waaaaaaay over the top.

I’m sure the Old Calendarists and other Orthodox splinter groups would take issue with your assertions.

Whitewashing the messy parts in the history of the Eastern Churches doesn’t help support your valid point against the OP. It just makes you look like a raving triumphalist. (I think we have enough of those already, and your contributions are normally better than this, my friend!)

 

[East_and_West]

I cannot imagine how you came up with this opinion, but it is completely wrong.

Protestantism (whatever that really is, it changes so much), is the fruit of the western Latin Papal Catholic church. It could not have arisen in the east because the Orthodox do not accept or create novel doctrinal ideas, and do not accept the Latin Catholic contention that anything new can be defined about the faith at this late date.

That is a specifically western, and Papal Catholic, notion. The Protestants are your children. They reveal this to us in making their own choices about doctrine, just like your church does.

Although the “Protestants” have a history of being under the Popes, we Orthodox have never labored under the Papacy and do not ‘protest’ against it. No Pope ever controled an Orthodox church. We Orthodox Catholics don’t know what it is like to actually have been under the Popes like your Protestant brothers and sisters do. Our Patriarchs are real Patriarchs, equal in every way in dignity and authority to the actual (real, uninflated legitimate) authority of the Patriarch of Rome.

For whatever reason, they (the Protestants) have rejected the office of Pope (which they have much historical experience with) but kept a strong hold on the western Latin Catholic idea that it is possible to reread new doctrines out of the old faith. We Orthodox Catholics reject this wholeheartedly, when the Protestants do it and when your church does it as well.

You two groups are both wrong on this point, the Age of Revelation is closed and there is no need to define new doctrines. Orthodox keep to the received Faith from Christ through the Apostles to us.
How odd, when some Orthodox call the Latin Catholic church and the Papacy the first Protestants, this receives howls of protest from the people right here on CAF. Yet you have the nerve to do just the same.

The history is very clear, the Papacy withdrew from the Orthodox communion. That has well been demonstrated many times here, everyone knows that the breaking of communion was initiated by Cardinals Humbert and Frederic (the future Pope Steven, I believe) and no one denies this historical fact. It is the Papal Catholic church which severed communion with the Pentarchy of Apostolic churches. (This is why we can, if we so choose, technically call the Latin Catholic church the first ever protestant church.)

The Orthodox have not changed a single theological point throughout the entire period: the Faith in the years 1053, 1054, 1055 AD was all the same, we have neither added nor deleted doctrine from our teachings. The Orthodox Faith has been the same in 600AD as it was in 1600 AD, or even to this very day.

We Orthodox Catholics don’t make up new dogmas, but the Latin Catholic church proudly does, and it’s Protestant children have continued this ignoble practice.

Papal Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians have to live with their mistakes, but please don’t drag the Orthodox into that sad misbegotten story, we will have none of it.

Let’s be honest Michael. The Eastern Orthodox were once Catholics and after 1054 were not. Stop filling people’s heads with your interpretation of history.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m on your side re: ever labelling the Orthodox as “Protestant”, however, a lot of your post is waaaaaaay over the top.

I’m sure the Old Calendarists and other Orthodox splinter groups would take issue with your assertions.

Whitewashing the messy parts in the history of the Eastern Churches doesn’t help support your valid point against the OP. It just makes you look like a raving triumphalist. (I think we have enough of those already, and your contributions are normally better than this, my friend!)

Hi Chris,
Sorry to have disappointed you. I am a little irritated for reasons I cannot discuss here because of forum rules, and it is coming across in my posts, I suppose. I regard Dempsey’s assertion as Latin Triumphalism, and I respond to it as I see necessary to correct it.

Interestingly enough, the Orthodox splinter groups do not on the whole have disputes with Canonical Orthodoxy over theology.

They are in no way a type of Protestant. We are all in agreement theologically. I know that is hard for most non-Orthodox Catholic people to imagine, because they don’t have as much experience with disputes that are not doctrinal (excepting the SSPX perhaps), but disciplinary in nature. We do not deny the Truth taught by those groups, or the legitimacy of their orders. We lament the divisions but we know that they teach Truth and their people are not in danger, we pray for reconciliation with splinter groups, especially with Rome which I consider the biggest splinter group. But Truth always comes first.

I stand by what I have posted here. The Latin Catholic church will proudly declare new doctrines, and the Protestant church leaders have done just the same. This willingness to reinterpret the Faith (as if that were really possible) is the essence of Protestantism.

And Orthodoxy did not initiate the schism, it was a great tragedy for Rome to break communion with the rest of the church.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Let’s be honest Michael. The Eastern Orthodox were once Catholics and after 1054 were not. Stop filling people’s heads with your interpretation of history.

I do not deny that you are Catholic, yet you have the temerity to deny me.

I can tell you right here and now that you are partly right:

The Eastern Orthodox have been Catholic from the day of Pentecost…to this very day.

But not under the administration of the Pope…ever.

Michael

 

[Contarini]

Could you guys take your East-West squabbling to another thread and let us discuss Anglicanism?

Edwin

 

[stbruderklaus]

It would appear, my friend, that the danger involved in using the term “Protestant” among Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans, extends to our Roman and Orthodox compadres, as well.

Perhaps, if the term “Protestant” is impossible to either define or apply with any certainty, we could explore the term “Catholic.” I’m sure that will be tremendously easier…

Then, maybe, we’ll be able to figure out if Anglicans are catholic or protestant, and if we fail even at this, we can try our hand at whatever “Orthodox” is defined and applied as these days… heck, maybe we’ll find out that Anglicans aren’t either catholic or protestant, but orthodox. Or something else?

Man am I glad that Lutherans aren’t the only Christians out there that can’t seem to find a CB handle that sticks. If only we had a Pope, then we could just throw our hands in the air and confess that whatever he says is the definition, or answer, or application, or… oh, wait…

Cheers!

 

[mean_owen]

I must admit, some of the Episcopalian interpretations of “Protestant” and “Catholic” always amused me, even in my nose-bleed high church Anglican days. Sure, the Anglicans weren’t
Reformation Protestants like the Lutherans, yet since they included the term Protestant in the BCP until just a few a years ago, it kinda makes you wonder how they can so easily cast off that adjective. OTOH, many folks do see a strong historical tie to Catholicism, both in terms of the Episcopate and the style of worship, but there’s also a strong contingent of folks who want nothing to to with the label Catholic.

Since there’s no definitive voice for Episcopalians, you can find any and all possible opinions. Shoot, some Episcopalians are also Muslims (like the Reverend Ann Holmes Redding- tho I think she finally got in some trouble).

 

[stbruderklaus]

You make a good point, mate. I’m one of those Lutherans (like some of those Anglicans) who bristle when the term “Protestant” is applied to us… though I will worship and celebrate the Eucharist right along with those who revel in the term and distance themselves (at least mentally) from anything “Catholic.”

The problem, as I see it, is in the proper use of terms. I was being a bit tongue in cheek earlier, but there’s a point… to Protest is a verb, and pressumes something to Protest against. Most people under the banner of Protestant these days aren’t actively protesting anything… they have a developed confession of the Christian faith, and function under those norms. It’s an easy way for Romans to bundle together all the other Christians who can’t swallow all the Roman articulations of the faith, but it really only serves them as they paint with very broad brushes… it doesn’t really serve anyone else. It remains a tool of Rome to identify those who are shockingly willing to follow Christ without the pastoral guidance (read, perhaps perhaps to some minds, tyranny) of Rome.

Conversely, the be Catholic means to be (again, assuming a verb form) universal… and so, when the Roman Church takes this mantle, they are claiming their own universality in exclusive terms (i.e., one can only be a universal Christian under the Roman Pontiff.) That’s a point of cognitive dissonance that no few theologians have tried to deal with. To be a Catholic, one has to embrace an articulation of the faith that is bigger and broader and more historic than any one person’s fiat… be that Luther or the Pope.

A Catholic Christian is someone who embraces the Catholic Faith-- so the real struggle becomes, how do we define and understand what the universal Christian faith is among all baptized believers in Christ? In that context, to be Catholic is more than to be Roman, though Romans may indeed be Catholics… and so forth, with Lutherans, Anglicans, and others. I’ve made the argument before, in other places, that the marks of the Catholic Faith are really found in the Scriptures and the Creeds… which, to my humble mind, means that any Christian who confesses the truth of the Scriptures and the Creeds is a Catholic Christian, of whatever ecclesial moniker has tended to stick to them over time. This is where I think our Orthodox friends stand on some of the most firm theological ground, claiming what is Catholic can only proceed from the the Universal Church gathered in Ecumenical Council… interesting point to ponder for those of us in the West, wrestling with how to deal with the innovations of the western theologians after the East was broken off from us.

I doubt that will be sufficient for my Roman friends, but as even our more gracious popes have pointed out, the Catholic Church is bigger than the Bishop of Rome… else how could all Christians be united to it by the waters of Holy Baptism, and communions not in fellowship with Rome be understood as part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? If indeed the Church is Christ’s Body, as well as His Bride, its true, unbreakable unity is found in Him alone, though our sinful human selves impose all kinds of division on ourselves.

Gotta love the name games…