Not all non-Catholics are full blown Protestants

[rr1213]

Hear hear…!!

…to what?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

Reunification. We would be quite satisfied if the Catholic Church admitted the errors of its ways, renounced its various erroneous dogmas and joined its brothers and sisters of the Protestants Churches in full communion. What’s taking you so long?

 

[Vaclav]

To an outsider Anglicanism does seem to be the closet to the Roman Catholic Church. What happened to the very blunt and out of blue news reports about and reunited church with Catholics? It seems impossible to reunite the catholic church with baptists, lutherans or most protestants exepct the COE.

Whoa. Easy there.

I think that this is mostly a debate over the term “Protestant.” In that sense, with a broad enough definition, the Anglican Communion is as Protestant as the Southern Baptists.

Yet, for Anglo-Catholics and High Church Lutherans it is a bit unfair to categorise them with Baptists, Pentacostals, and others who do not use any of the liturgy or acknowledge the same sacraments.

Some High Church Protestants recognise the Magisterium, Ecumenical Councils, and even Papal Infallibility. Therefore their objections to being lumped with other Protestants who may only take communion (which they see as but a symbol) once a month or so, is understandable.

Besides, for the CoE to reunite with the Catholic Church would be the ultimate victory for the Irish and I just don’t see the English agreeing to that!

 

[mercygate]

I don’t think Traveller is a real Anglo-Catholic (not in the sense you are). But he’s striking the Anglo-Catholic pose and claiming that Anglicanism holds to all 7 sacraments. That’s an Anglo-Catholic argument. One of the reasons I bothered citing the Articles is that I don’t think he’s thought through his position very carefully–he sounds very AC at times and very Protestant at others. I know what you think of the Articles and wouldn’t cite them against you!

Edwin

Honest Anglo-Catholics know that believing that Anglicans have 7 sacraments is only possible through an extremely tortured reading of the 39 Articles (and you can’t get around 'em, even if they have been relegated to the trash heap of “useful historical documents”). Anglicanism across the board acknowledges only 2 sacraments.

(signed) ex-Episcopalianmercygate, MDiv General Theological Seminary
(IOW: I’m not making this up! – and neither is Contarini)

 

[jmcrae]

I was a cradle Catholic up until three years ago in which I and my wife and son converted to the Episcopal church. I would have to say that to call us Protestants and lump us together with the likes of Baptists, Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses would be illogical andmean spirited.

Nobody doubts that Protestantism has divided into every possible permutation of belief/unbelief in Christ - the fact that the permutations differ radically from one end of the spectrum to the other does not make either end of the Protestant spectrum less Protestant.

In fact, one of the hallmarks of Protestantism is that one can believe pretty much anything one would like to believe, and there is most likely a Protestant church already out there waiting to welcome him - and if not, then he is “called by God” to start up a new one.

 

[GKC]

Honest Anglo-Catholics know that believing that Anglicans have 7 sacraments is only possible through an extremely tortured reading of the 39 Articles (and you can’t get around 'em, even if they have been relegated to the trash heap of “useful historical documents”). Anglicanism across the board acknowledges only 2 sacraments.

(signed) ex-Episcopalianmercygate, MDiv General Theological Seminary
(IOW: I’m not making this up! – and neither is Contarini)

First you have to find an Anglican who bothers to read them. And I’m not making this up either. No Anglican is bound by the 39 Articles, with the technical exception of ordinands of the Church of England, due to the Erastian nature of the CoE, and one of Elizabeth’s Acts of Parliament. All other Anglicans, and for all practical purposes, all Anglicans, period, are free to affirm, deny, pick and chose, or cut them from the Book of Common Prayer and burn them in the New Fire at Easter. I can show you a Continuing Anglican parish in LA that does the latter.

And for those who make the distinction the Articles make, between the Dominical Sacraments, generally necessary for salvation, and the others, commonly called Sacraments (as the Nativity of our Lord, or the Birthday of Christ, is commonly called Christmas), still it adds up to seven.

Can you find Anglicans who think “two”? Sure. Can you require an Anglican to say “two”? No, generally.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Efrain]

I can respond. All of the above. Depends on which Anglicans you ask.

Wanna ask me?

GKC

Sure GKC what do you say? Also if I may ask, what are the different Anglicans and in what respects do they differ? I would just like to get my facts straight.

 

[Efrain]

The reality is that most Protestant Churches also assert that they are Catholic. The Protestant Churches have a different understanding of the term than does the Roman Catholic Church. We should acknowledge that each have different understandings and move on…

Different understandings or doctrines cannot lead to unity. If we cannot be united then we cannot all be Catholic. If different churches claim to be Catholic and not beleive what we truely believe, then thats all it is just a claim.

 

[Efrain]

Reunification. We would be quite satisfied if the Catholic Church admitted the errors of its ways, renounced its various erroneous dogmas and joined its brothers and sisters of the Protestants Churches in full communion. What’s taking you so long?

Have we not admitted to errors of certain members in the past? The errors of a few does not mean it is the Church teachings of Magisterium. So if there is no error in the Magisterium, then what is left to fix? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

 

[GKC]

Sure GKC what do you say? Also if I may ask, what are the different Anglicans and in what respects do they differ? I would just like to get my facts straight.

Thanks for asking, Efrain.

My answer is Council of Trent, Session XIII, canons 1-10. Anglicans who say things like this usually differ slightly on canon 11, but 91% is still 91%.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Wisdom]

Have we not admitted to errors of certain members in the past? The errors of a few does not mean it is the Church teachings of Magisterium. So if there is no error in the Magisterium, then what is left to fix? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

What if funny is the what have bent over backwards in reagards to admissions of sin and erros of individual catholics but the protestants have not admitted the same and what is in for us to be part of the disjumbled mess and contradictions that is part of modern day protestantism. Protestantism is a 500 year experiment gone wrong. Catholcism is the body of Christiantiy that can boast to trace its lineage to the apostolic christians and through her constant tradition has spoken infalliable truth which is not the subject of every changing opinion. One day a protestant church says birth control is wrong the next day it is ok, one day the a protestant church says homosexualtiy is a sin the next day it is no longer sin, one day a protestant church says divorce and remarriage is a sin the next day a protestant church says divorce and remarriage is ok, and on and on it goes, The opinion of protestants changes with the wind of culture so it seems and to the loose what cahtolcism stands for it to join this chaos sorry there is nothing for Christendom to be gained by this and everything to be loosed namely 2000 years of infalliable apostolic christian tradition.
Protestants want Catholics to stop being Catholics in order for them to be brothers and sisters and Christ so they have not budged much in 500 years. On the other hand Catholcism has budged a lot and do consider Protestans as brothers and sisters in christ in imperfect state of communion. WE have taken step one I suggest its up to you to take step 2 as you have not taken any steps at all to heal the rifts of the Reformation.

 

[littledogs2424]

I am a member of the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran (ECCL) (ecclnet.org) which is the most “Romanized” of the High Church Lutheran (Evangelical Catholic Lutheran) Churches.

We maintain the creeds, celebrate the Mass and all 7 Sacraments using the Rites of the Roman Catholic Church. We too have sacremental confession, make the sign of the cross, baptize infants (and Adults using the RCIA process and rites) and proclaim the consecrated Eucharistic Elements to be the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (through transubstantiation.)

We have formally accepted the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium and the authority and infalibility of the Sacred Magesterium.

We have formally accepted Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility, and believe that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter, and the Vicar of Christand he is prayer for in all our Masses and other rites and ceremonies.

We say we accept the Unaltered Augsburg Confession et al, along with the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion but only and I do mean, only “insofar as they are in accordance with authentic Catholic faith and tradition,” which is defined by the Magesterium, the documents of all Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, all Papal documents, and the Catechism fo the Catholic Church, which pretty much excises everything Protestant from those Lutheran and Anglican , and reduces them to historic symbols only.

All of our clergy have been re-ordained in the Rebiban (or Vatican) lineage of the apostolic succession. Our primary succession among several) is from Scipione Cardinal Rebiba through Brazilian Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa. Though our present clergy are married (and self-supporting) we have no problem transitioning quickly to clerical celibacy for future clergy once we have returned to the Catholic Church.

Some of our Archbishops are Opus Dei Cooperators, and our Judicial vicar is a Benedictine Oblate. Our Metropolitan has a Jesuit advisor.

We are governed by Roman Catholic Canons to the greatest extent practical at this time. Our goal is incorporation into the Roman Catholic Church hopefully as an interim structure of “Lutheran heritage” to facilitate the return of large numbers of High Church (Evangelical Catholic) Lutherans to the Catholic Church (many would return if such an interim structure existed not.) This interim structure could be either a sui juris Church (not likley) a personal prelacy, or a Priestly Society (easier to establish.) Either will work for us. And we do not care who is put in charge of it as long as it is created.

Does this mean that we consider the rest of Lutheranism to be in serious error? You bet we do!

In our situation, calling us “Protestants” seems to be not only inacurate, but very sad. We do not evangelize Catholics - we are into giving Lutherans a way to become Catholics, and lead them home to Rome. Why aren’t we Roman Catholics? We are working on that. We could all return individually any time but that would only accomplish our own return. We want to start, essentially, a* second* Counter-Reformation - one generated this time from within Lutheranism. We believe this is possible, and your prayers for the reunion of the Church are greatly desired and appreciated.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

And you are wrong. The Reformation began because the Catholic church was abusing people and justifying it because they maintained that they were solely the Church of Christ. King Henry’s divorce form the King of Spain’s daughter was a product of it. Thomas Cranmer was actually the first Archbishop of Canterbury after the split from Rome. The Archbishop is still the head of the Anglican communion today. The Anglican church is protestant in the fact that it split from Rome but also Catholic in how it has maintained the Liturgy and style of worship along with the 7 sacrements.

Traveller,

You are an ex-Catholic and a new Protestant. Angelican’s are Catholic nor Universal, they are one of the thousands of Protestant sects created after the Reformation. That is simple truth.

Iowa Mike

 

[littledogs2424]

And you are wrong. The Reformation began because the Catholic church was abusing people and justifying it because they maintained that they were solely the Church of Christ. King Henry’s divorce form the King of Spain’s daughter was a product of it. Thomas Cranmer was actually the first Archbishop of Canterbury after the split from Rome. The Archbishop is still the head of the Anglican communion today. The Anglican church is protestant in the fact that it split from Rome but also Catholic in how it has maintained the Liturgy and style of worship along with the 7 sacrements.

Close, but no see-gar. Henry VIII wanted an anullment (not a divorce) because he had married within the prohibited degrees of kin (his 1st Cousin, I believe.) He came to believe the Pope who gave him a dispensation exceeded his authority to do that, so he asked a subsequent Pope to void the dispensation and the marriage. The Pope was inclined to do so, but the Holy Roman Emperor (Charles V) was in Rome, (his troops were sacking the place) and he made it clear to the Pope that it would not be good for his (the Pope’s) health if he voided the dispensation and allowed King Henry to put his Aunt “out to pasture.”

Initially Henry VIII made no changes to doctrine or worship. He only confiscated property to sell to finance his wars. The Reformation ideas came to the Church of England first through some Lutherans and when the Calvinists showed up from Geneva, they convinced the English Churchmen that those Lutherans were not really Protestant, that they, the Calvinists were the real Reformers, and they led the Church of England to become “Presbyterians with a quasi-Catholic prayer book.” The Church of England recovered its Catholic roots during the Oxford Movement (1840 - 1890).

 

[Contarini]

What if funny is the what have bent over backwards in reagards to admissions of sin and erros of individual catholics but the protestants have not admitted the same

What Protestants haven’t admitted sins and errors of individual Protestants? I find this to be a weird accusation.

Many Protestants would not only admit sins and errors of individual Protestants but would also admit that we have made many mistakes on a more official, doctrinal level–something you cannot admit.

and what is in for us to be part of the disjumbled mess and contradictions that is part of modern day protestantism.

Who wants you to be?

Protestants want Catholics to stop being Catholics in order for them to be brothers and sisters and Christ

I certainly don’t want any such thing.

so they have not budged much in 500 years.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say we change all the time, now you say we don’t change. Make up your mind.

On the other hand Catholcism has budged a lot and do consider Protestans as brothers and sisters in christ in imperfect state of communion.

And most of us consider you fully brothers and sisters and would be quite happy to have full communion with you without requiring you to change any doctrines or practices. I understand why you can’t reciprocate, but to claim that non-fundamentalist Protestants have a more exclusionary attitude to Protestants than Catholics have to us is just silly. I can understand if you’ve only encountered fundamentalists–they are thick on the ground in parts of the United States (assuming that’s where you are from), including the parts I grew up in! But they aren’t the whole picture–they aren’t even the majority.

WE have taken step one I suggest its up to you to take step 2 as you have not taken any steps at all to heal the rifts of the Reformation.

That makes no sense at all. What about the recovery of liturgy and the Christian year among Protestants? What about the great Protestant admiration for Catholic spiritual writers, from the medieval mystics to Thomas Merton and Henry Nouwen? What about the Protestants who attach themselves to Catholic monastic orders as oblates? What about the large about of Catholic theology that Protestant seminaries and religion majors have to study (my colleague who teaches systematic theology at the small evangelical college where I also teach assigns Catholic authors all the time in her courses)?

What do you expect Protestants to do, short of converting en masse, to try to heal the rift? I think that in fact you simply don’t know about all the things we have done. That may not be your fault, but it certainly isn’t ours.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Close, but no see-gar. Henry VIII wanted an anullment (not a divorce) because he had married within the prohibited degrees of kin (his 1st Cousin, I believe.) He came to believe the Pope who gave him a dispensation exceeded his authority to do that, so he asked a subsequent Pope to void the dispensation and the marriage. The Pope was inclined to do so, but the Holy Roman Emperor (Charles V) was in Rome, (his troops were sacking the place) and he made it clear to the Pope that it would not be good for his (the Pope’s) health if he voided the dispensation and allowed King Henry to put his Aunt “out to pasture.”

Initially Henry VIII made no changes to doctrine or worship. He only confiscated property to sell to finance his wars. The Reformation ideas came to the Church of England first through some Lutherans and when the Calvinists showed up from Geneva, they convinced the English Churchmen that those Lutherans were not really Protestant, that they, the Calvinists were the real Reformers, and they led the Church of England to become “Presbyterians with a quasi-Catholic prayer book.” The Church of England recovered its Catholic roots during the Oxford Movement (1840 - 1890).

Mostly accurate. If you take a peek in the "Henry VIII and Julius Train Wreck " thread, further down the forum, you’ll get more info.

Henry was granted a dispensation to marry his deceased brother Arthur’s wife, by Julius II. He faced not only an impediment of affinity in the first degree, with Catherine (his first cousin would have represented an impediment of consanquinity), but (he maintained in his causa) the case also possibly fell within the probable limits of the Levitical prohibitions against marrying a brother’s wife. The canonical rules on that matter had changed a number of times, and it’s not certain that Henry’s case was a strong one. Especially since it meant he accused Julius of attempting to dispense, not a Church law, but divine law, which was *ultra vires *. A stronger case lay in the impediment of the justice of public honesty, which Julius did not specifically dispense, as he should have. See my referenced thread for more details.

But the point about the real-politic overruling the theoretical canonical issue, re: Charles V and the Sack of Rome, etc, is correct (though Henry’s case had been before the Rota for 2 years when Rome was taken. In any case, Clement was not a decisive man). What Henry sought, a decree of nullity, was a commonplace in those days. The system was set up to accomodate it. It permited the making and unmaking of dynastic marriages, for reasons of state, and allowed the Church to control marriage as a sacrament, at the same time. And it’s why the impediments were so numerous and widespread, until Trent reformed them. But it didn’t matter what Henry’s case was. An Emperor trumps a King. Esp. an Emperor with a Pope in hand.

It’s even more complicated than this.

Still, mostly right.

GKC

 

[littledogs2424]

Really? Orthodoxy sometimes gets that badge

Until you look at their theology. Their conservatives are for the most part “low church” Reformed / Presbyterians with an apostolic succession and prayer book - they seem to be re-grouping around the very Calvinist 1662 Book of Common Prayer and repudiating the pro-Catholic Oxford Movement and the later prayer books influenced by it.

Their liberals tend to be “Affirming Catholics” (post-modern, quasi Unitarian Universalist, pro GLBT, low view of Scripture, the Church as social and charitable organization - not a supernatural entity - the question the miraculous including the resurrection) . . . Unitarians with an apostolic succession and prayerbook - but they do not believe what it contains.

 

[lak611]

I was a cradle Catholic up until three years ago in which I and my wife and son converted to the Episcopal church. I would have to say that to call us Protestants and lump us together with the likes of Baptists, Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses would be illogical andmean spirited. We too consider ourselves catholic because we maintain the creeds, the eucharist and ancient tradition along with all 7 (not just 2) sacrements. We too have sacremental confession, make the sign of the cross, baptize infants and proclaim the eucharist to be the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that you would find those CATHOLIC qualities and quantities in a Pentecostal church.

Traveller 1534ad

From the Articles of Religion: "XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

 

[Contarini]

Until you look at their theology. Their conservatives are for the most part “low church” Reformed / Presbyterians with an apostolic succession and prayer book -

I’m sorry, Your Excellency, but that’s not true at all. There are a lot of conservative Anglo-Catholics, although they are less prominent in the current American debate because the really conservative ones already left the Episcopal Church in 1979. Most American Evangelical Episcopalians are not Reformed but more broadly evangelical, often with a strong charismatic influence. Certainly there is a strong Reformed wing, though it’s more powerful in England than in the U.S. I think it’s gaining strength here because it offers conservatives something to rally around and it has some intellectual depth to it, so I don’t entirely disagree with you, but you are way overgeneralizing.

they seem to be re-grouping around the very Calvinist 1662 Book of Common Prayer

What makes 1662 “very Calvinist”? I can guess what might look that way to an evangelical-Catholic Lutheran, but it has certainly been interpreted in a Catholic way, and it’s less Calvinist than any other offiical English BCP after 1549.

Furthermore, in the U.S. no one I know of uses the 1662 BCP. Most of the current conservatives happily use 1979, and the Continuing Churches use 1928. Where are you getting your information, Your Excellency?

and repudiating the pro-Catholic Oxford Movement and the later prayer books influenced by it.

What later prayer books? The American ones? Are you talking about American or English conservatives? Either way, I don’t know what to make of this claim. I would respectfully suggest that you need to re-evaluate your analysis and get some more solid information.

Their liberals tend to be “Affirming Catholics” (post-modern, quasi Unitarian Universalist, pro GLBT, low view of Scripture, the Church as social and charitable organization - not a supernatural entity - the question the miraculous including the resurrection) . . . Unitarians with an apostolic succession and prayerbook - but they do not believe what it contains.

Most of these statements are completely false of the Affirming Catholics. They are in no sense Unitarians, they definitely see the Church as a superantural entity, and they do not question the Resurrection (++Rowan Williams is an excellent example of the healthier side of Affirming Catholicism). Of course, there are many liberals far more heretical than the Affirming Catholics, but you are engaging in some very hasty generalization here, not to speak of uncharitable speculation into thoughts and motives that you can’t possibly know.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[GKC]

From the Articles of Religion: "XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

Two points.

1. No Anglican, except, technically, ordinands of the Church of England, are bound to affirm the Aricles. In the real world, no one is, though some may. But please remember that quoting the Artilces is not quoting an Anglican Confession, a la Augsburg. Anglicans can take, leave, or choose 1 from column A and 2 from column B. I post a lot about this, like in this thread a few posts up.
2. Anglo-Catholics sometime will mess around with the Articles, as Newman once did, and the Sacraments one is a favorite. The distinction is between the two Dominical Sacraments, established byOur Lord, and necessary generally for salvation (that is, for everyone); the Eucharist and baptism, and the other sacraments, not so established, which are thus not considered as Dominical, or directly established in the Gospels by Our Lord. And so the two are distinct, to an Anglican. Doesn’t mean the rest aren’t to be considered sacraments. And “commonly called” is Anglo-speak for “also called”. It’s all over the Prayer Book. Like the instance I cited above, about the name for Christmas.

Again. The Articles are not an Anglican Confession; there is none such. They are statecraft as religion, how Elizabeth invented her *via media *, to rule a fractious Church. And they are history, as the 1970 Prayer Book shows.Can you find an Anglican who thinks they rule? Yes, easily. Do they? No.

GKC

 

[rr1213]

WE have taken step one I suggest its up to you to take step 2 as you have not taken any steps at all to heal the rifts of the Reformation.

Hey, most of us have stopped calling the Pope the anti-christ and the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon. That’s a start…

Seriously now? Speaking only of the USA (I have no experience elsewhere), it seems to me that significant segments of Protestantism are becoming more liturgical and more aware of the history of the Church. Further, there is a growing realization that Catholics are solid regarding political and moral issues that are key to the hearts of evangelicals. I don’t forsee a groundswell of Protestant Churches reunifying with the Catholic Church, but who knows? Nothing is impossible for God.