Anglicans are Protestants?

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
One of my fellow Catholic posters (Wyatt, if I remember rightly) recently commented that Anglicans are Protestants. At that time, I wasn't much inclined to start a discussion about whether they are or aren't; but I changed my mind when I read the blog post Pro and Con testantism. Anyone else interested in discussing/debating it?

The Reformers of the 16th century used the word "Protestant" to declare that they believed in the Scriptures, and that they sought to be more Catholic than the Papists who obscured the Scriptures, failed to proclaim their meaning, and hid the Gospel under centuries of superstitious rubble.
and

The current Pope, Benedict XVI, the noblest German of them all, whose works I have long respected since the days when we called him Cardinal Ratzinger, is one of the finest Protestants to be published in modern times. Clearly he favors the Gospel and the Scripture just as we do (I wish I could say the same about his rather large denomination). Because he is such a Protestant, it is not easy to be more Catholic than he is.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
they broke off from the Catholic Church and the supreme pontiff of Rome, no?
 

Luke

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
4
Points
38
For most of my life I thought they were protestant since they broke away from the Pope, but I know a priest who would consider Anglicans to more Catholic than anything.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Gamliel said:
For most of my life I thought they were protestant since they broke away from the Pope, but I know a priest who would consider Anglicans to more Catholic than anything.
I was thinking about also providing a link to Two heads are better than one, from the same blog. Your post just provided a nice lead-in.  :)

In a recent conversation behind the scenes, via email, a very sincere fellow has been trying to convince me that Anglicanism is a "two-headed monster." It is the same old worn-out argument that the Elizabethan Settlement (as if they understood it) was flawed from the start, because, golly gee whiz, you just can't be both Catholic and Protestant.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,083
Reaction score
26
Points
48
Age
41
Anglicans as too cool to be Protestants.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
The Anglican "Articles of Religion" are plainly Protestant, and many Anglicans even follow them. The Anglicans who ignore them have a choose-your-own-adventure attitude which can also, perhaps, be traced to Protestantism.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Don't most Anglicans follow sola scriptura these days? That is clearly a protestant doctrine.
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
Iconodule said:
The Anglican "Articles of Religion" are plainly Protestant, and many Anglicans even follow them. The Anglicans who ignore them have a choose-your-own-adventure attitude which can also, perhaps, be traced to Protestantism.
Exactly.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,083
Reaction score
26
Points
48
Age
41
Ortho_cat said:
Don't most Anglicans follow sola scriptura these days? That is clearly a protestant doctrine.
I thought they did that stool thing?
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There are all kinds of people in the Anglican Church, Protestants, Anglo-Catholics, even Anglo-Papalists or whatever.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
So it seems that most are in agreement with Fr. Hart's conclusion. But I'd also like to ask, more specifically, what everyone thinks of his etymological argument -- to me, it seems a bit contrived.

One of our critics, urging us to fore swear our Anglican patrimony and denounce our Fathers in favor of the Tiberian path, asked the hypothetical question: "what are you protesting?" My answer is, "I protest the Gospel." I certainly do not contest it. You see ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, dogs and cats, Jews and Greeks, pro means you are for it, and con means you are against it. To protest something in law was to sign a declaration of affirmation, that you were for the matter in a given document, or that you verified it, whatever the matter may be. I am for the Gospel, and for the Testaments of Scripture. This is pro-testamentism.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Ortho_cat said:
Don't most Anglicans follow sola scriptura these days?
Traditionally no, but possibly yes since you said "most ... these days".
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Historically, Anglicanism is not a product of the reformation, but I would consider them to be Protestant because they hold beliefs that are both unique to and common throughout Protestantism, sola scriptura being an example.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Melodist said:
Historically, Anglicanism is not a product of the reformation
Well, the fact that they aren't in communion with Rome is a product of the reformation.
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Peter J said:
Melodist said:
Historically, Anglicanism is not a product of the reformation
Well, the fact that they aren't in communion with Rome is a product of the reformation.
Not really, England could have cut communion with Rome without accepting Protestant beliefs, which were not the reason for the schism and didn't find their way into their teaching until after communion had already been broken. The king wanted a divorce and the archbishop chose giving the king his way over maintaining communion with Rome. The real theological differences didn't come until afterward, more political than anything.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Melodist said:
Peter J said:
Melodist said:
Historically, Anglicanism is not a product of the reformation
Well, the fact that they aren't in communion with Rome is a product of the reformation.
Not really, England could have cut communion with Rome without accepting Protestant beliefs, which were not the reason for the schism and didn't find their way into their teaching until after communion had already been broken. The king wanted a divorce and the archbishop chose giving the king his way over maintaining communion with Rome. The real theological differences didn't come until afterward, more political than anything.
what does that say though, that there was schism from the Roman See for such a trivial (and immoral) reason? Surely such an act could not have been ordained by God.
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Ortho_cat said:
Melodist said:
Peter J said:
Melodist said:
Historically, Anglicanism is not a product of the reformation
Well, the fact that they aren't in communion with Rome is a product of the reformation.
Not really, England could have cut communion with Rome without accepting Protestant beliefs, which were not the reason for the schism and didn't find their way into their teaching until after communion had already been broken. The king wanted a divorce and the archbishop chose giving the king his way over maintaining communion with Rome. The real theological differences didn't come until afterward, more political than anything.
what does that say though, that there was schism from the Roman See for such a trivial (and immoral) reason? Surely such an act could not have been ordained by God.
I'm not defending the schism or the reasons for it, just saying it really wasn't formed in the same manner as or on the same theological foundations of the reformation, even though the theology did find its way in relatively quickly once the schism was made.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Melodist said:
Peter J said:
Melodist said:
Historically, Anglicanism is not a product of the reformation
Well, the fact that they aren't in communion with Rome is a product of the reformation.
Not really, England could have cut communion with Rome without accepting Protestant beliefs, which were not the reason for the schism and didn't find their way into their teaching until after communion had already been broken. The king wanted a divorce and the archbishop chose giving the king his way over maintaining communion with Rome. The real theological differences didn't come until afterward, more political than anything.
If you look hard enough you could probably find political motivations in any of the Protestant movements. While King Henry VIII may have been doubtful in his sincerity, his breaking away was certainly justified in Protestant terms and I have no reason to doubt that Anne Boleyn, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell, etc. were sincere in their Protestant convictions, and such people were really the ones who guided the direction of the English church. The Protestants were waiting for a chance to pounce and Henry VIII happened to be the one who gave them that chance.
 
Top