Anglican Church.....

[Eby]

:blush: - This might seem like a really silly question and since I've attended the church of England/Anglican church since I was born I guess I should know the answer but...is the Anglican church/Church of England protestant or catholic? And what is the actual difference in terms of beliefs between catholics and protestants?

[gtsecc]

Christ founded One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
If a Church is not Catholic, it is different than the one Christ founded.

[ChasingADream]

We are not Roman Catholic and most would consider us to be Protestant but some Anglicans consider themselves to be Anglo-Catholic....

Really I'm trying to get a straight answer too. Everybody tells you something different. I've attended an Anglican Church my whole life too and I'm not really sure so don't feel bad.

[Fish and Bread]

Anglicans are both Catholic and Protestant. Some dioceses, parishes, and individuals lean toward to the Catholic side, others more to the Protestant side; but we are all both in many significant senses of the terms.

John

[gitlance]

Here is a quote from the canon of Ely who was sent as a representative on behalf of the entire Anglican Communion to the 2nd Vatican Council:

A further confusion arises from the various meanings of the words "catholic" and "protestant." The Church of England, as well as other Churches of the Anglican Communion, is in a considerable difficulty here, and often seems to bestride two worlds. She is in every sense "Catholic," that is, she has received the Catholic faith and ministry in their fullness -- which is why she has to speak carefully and say Roman Catholic to distinguish her people from those of obedience to the Church in Rome. Although she is sometimes legally described as "protestant" (non-Roman), and is proud in some respects to take her stand with non-Catholic brethren, yet to describe her as "Protestant" (non-Catholic) in the sense in which that word is understood in Europe and America is entirely misleading.

Methodists, Baptists, and the others, are called Free Church in England because they are not "established by law," as is the Church of England. In the USA, Free churches are called Protestant churches. Furthermore in England, the term Protestant, as used by the Church of England, means non-papal, or non-Roman, as does the Episcopal Church in the USA when that word is used in its legal title. When the Free churches use the term, it means non-Catholic; Anglican Churches believe in a Catholic Church, not a non-Catholic church, as do the Protestants.

We are Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

[Father Rick]

:blush: - This might seem like a really silly question and since I've attended the church of England/Anglican church since I was born I guess I should know the answer but...is the Anglican church/Church of England protestant or catholic? And what is the actual difference in terms of beliefs between catholics and protestants?There are about as many opinions to this as there are Anglican dioceses.

[trooper]

Right now, I consider myself to be a Roman Catholic, separated only by some cultural and liturgical differences. In other words, I have no issues with the Holy See that cannot be corrected by the new Holy Father. I would place myself with TEC and say that the reunion can start soon.

Honestly, though, we are a small minority.

[Naomi4Christ]

:blush: - This might seem like a really silly question and since I've attended the church of England/Anglican church since I was born I guess I should know the answer but...is the Anglican church/Church of England protestant or catholic? And what is the actual difference in terms of beliefs between catholics and protestants?

It is a protestant church, but part of the universal (aka catholic) church. It has little to do with Roman Catholicism, mainly sharing some basic Christian beliefs.

CofE beliefs come from the bible. The Roman Catholics have added on quite a bit of doctrine of their own over the centuries, especially the one about Mary.

Even the Kirk admits to being catholic.

[murron]

:blush: - This might seem like a really silly question and since I've attended the church of England/Anglican church since I was born I guess I should know the answer but...is the Anglican church/Church of England protestant or catholic? And what is the actual difference in terms of beliefs between catholics and protestants?
As has been said, there are many different and correct answers to your question. Some parishes view themselves as protestant, others view themselves as catholic.
I belong to the TAC and our communion and parish are very much catholic in nature. CofE was the British branch of the RCC prior to Henry VIII - so, the roots of the faith are Roman Catholic. Henry split from Rome and Elizabeth moved the church into a much more protestant direction. Some communions have left the AC and formed communions which harken to the earlier tenets and adhere to the previous teachings on certain issues.

Anglicanism is varied enough that there is pretty much room for anyone, you just have to find the communion or parish that suits you best.

[gitlance]

It is a protestant church, but part of the universal (aka catholic) church. It has little to do with Roman Catholicism, mainly sharing some basic Christian beliefs.

CofE beliefs come from the bible. The Roman Catholics have added on quite a bit of doctrine of their own over the centuries, especially the one about Mary.

Even the Kirk admits to being catholic.

It's funny that neither the BCP 1662 or the 39 Articles say that. No, instead, they affirm that we are part of Christ's one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, having preserved the faith once delivered to the saints.

We have got to learn what Protestant, from an historic Anglican viewpoint, means. It never meant non-Catholic! It meant non-papal! We are Catholics without a pope! Never did the Church claim to be non-Catholic. In fact, it is impossible to be an Anglican and not call yourself Catholic (and the world Catholic in our sense has the same meaning as it would to a Roman or Orthodox). It's not that difficult to understand, really. We say we believe in a Catholic Church in the creeds, so how about we all learn what that means? In the eyes of those who wrote the creeds, it did not mean "universal." It meant kathalou, in accordance with the whole faith. The Catholic Faith is the whole faith.

[Naomi4Christ]

Why don't you define "catholic", Git? It might be really useful to the debate.

[karen freeinchristman]

It's funny that neither the BCP 1662 or the 39 Articles say that. No, instead, they affirm that we are part of Christ's one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, having preserved the faith once delivered to the saints.

We have got to learn what Protestant, from an historic Anglican viewpoint, means. It never meant non-Catholic! It meant non-papal! We are Catholics without a pope! Never did the Church claim to be non-Catholic. In fact, it is impossible to be an Anglican and not call yourself Catholic (and the world Catholic in our sense has the same meaning as it would to a Roman or Orthodox). It's not that difficult to understand, really. We say we believe in a Catholic Church in the creeds, so how about we all learn what that means? In the eyes of those who wrote the creeds, it did not mean "universal." It meant kathalou, in accordance with the whole faith. The Catholic Faith is the whole faith.
Would it be more appropriate/acceptable to people if we said that Anglicans are catholic (with a small c) instead of Catholic? I agree it means non-papal, but I don't understand what the distinction between "universal" and "the whole faith" (as gitlance describes it) is.

[gitlance]

Technically, there should not be two definitions of the word "Catholic," but Protestants brought that about at the reformation.

The word "Catholic" come from the Greek katholou, which means "in accordance with the whole." The Catholic faith is the whole faith, taught by the Church to all men. When I say Catholic, I am referencing the fact that the Anglican Communion has kept those pillars which the Church has always agreed upon as being the basic necessities of Catholicity: the Scriptures in their complete canon, the Apostolic Succession as the guarantee of truth and the validity of the sacraments, the Creeds as the required rule of faith, and the seven Sacraments (in their orthodox understanding) as being essential to the life of the Church. We have kept those four things, along with our Roman, Eastern, Old Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters. Therefore, we possess the "whole faith."

The reason I may seem to get uptight when people degrade the Succession or refuse to accept the Real incarnational Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is because those are essential elements of the Catholic faith, and we should not just abandon them in the pursuit of being "accessible" by the unchurched.

[gitlance]

Would it be more appropriate/acceptable to people if we said that Anglicans are catholic (with a small c) instead of Catholic? I agree it means non-papal, but I don't understand what the distinction between "universal" and "the whole faith" (as gitlance describes it) is.

And actually, the correct one would be "Catholic" with an uppercase "C" in reference to the Anglican Communion.

[Fish and Bread]

I am referencing the fact that the Anglican Communion has kept those pillars which the Church has always agreed upon as being the basic necessities of Catholicity:

See, this is what I don't get. Almost everything on your list has at one time either not existed or been disputed by faithful members of the united Church. I don't understand how one can retroactively say they've always been agreed upon.

the Scriptures in their complete canon

The scriptures weren't even written in the early days of Christianity and, after they were written, a canon wasn't agreed upon for several hundred years. Even the Book of Revelation, which we all now agree is canon, was disputed to the point were it was very nearly left out of the bible in favor of the Apocylapse of St. Peter.

the Apostolic Succession as the guarantee of truth and the validity of the sacraments

Apostolic Succession existed in the early days of the Church, but was not really codified as a requirement in the way we understand it today for some time.

the Creeds as the required rule of faith

The beginnings of the Nicene Creed weren't even written until 325AD and the parts about the Holy Spirit weren't included until later in the 4th century.

I believe in all the things you stated as being components of my faith, but we can't rewrite history and pretend all the saints in every time and place have universally believed these things. Many of them seem to fall into the category of "developed doctrines", which evolved from simpler forms in the early Church into the more complex ones we have today.

John

[Rusticus]

It is interesting that this topic is underway just now, because I was going to ask a similar question.

By way of background I have had a roman catholic upbringing, but these days I consider myself to be a "generic" christian (whatever that may be).

The other day at a family meeting someone asked my future sister-in-law (my brother-in-law's fiancee, to be exact) what religion she was. She said "protestant". Someone else then asked "what denomination?", to which she replied "Anglican". To which I said "Oh, I did not think the Anglicans were protestants". This seemed to greatly confuse her and she looked at me as if to say "you obviously do not know what you are talking about..."


Therefore my question, which has partly been answered in this thread, but the variety of answers have confused me more than anything else.


How can it be both non-protestant and protestant at the same time?


Is there short and easy answer?


Thanks.

[xristos.anesti]

How can it be both non-protestant and protestant at the same time?


Is there short and easy answer?




I think that is because Anglicans vary from one extreme to the other (that is ultra liberal to ultra conservative). And all of them being in communion makes them "non-protestant and protestant at the same time".

That is: individuals are either "like" protestants or not "like" protestants, but all of them commune together, so the communion as a body (of individuals who are in-communion) is very varied.

(Note: I am not an Anglican nor in-communion (sadly) with the Ancient seat of Augustine, the mother of Church of England, see of Canterbury; so please take this with a grain of salt).

Many years.

[Naomi4Christ]

How can it be both non-protestant and protestant at the same time?



It is protestant.

Catholic refers to being the universal church - ie a church believing in the Godhead - the trinity - father, son, holy spirit. Even unquestionably protestant churches, such as the Church of Scotland, say they are catholic (and they definitely know what foot they kick with).

Now, you'll read a lot on these boards about Anglo-Catholicism, where they believe they have one-over on the rest of us lesser mortals because they have sacraments as the focus of their faith...:P

[gitlance]

It is both. Even I accept that (won't you believe, Dogsbody?)

England has historically used the word "protestant" to mean "non-papal". We do not use it in the same sense that the Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc use it in. They use "protestant" to mean "non-Catholic." The English Church is Catholic not because she is universal, but because she has preserved the whole faith of the apostles and of the ancient undivided Church (along with Rome, the East, and a few others). We are a non-papal (protestant) Catholic Church. We acknowledge that Christ did indeed found one Church, and we are a part of that Church. If anybody says that the Anglican Church is purely Protestant, and that "catholic" for us only means "universal," than they have not studied their history, and they don't know what the Church believes about herself.

[svdbygrace]

Some really interesting posts! :)

[ChessCastle]

It is protestant.

Catholic refers to being the universal church - ie a church believing in the Godhead - the trinity - father, son, holy spirit. Even unquestionably protestant churches, such as the Church of Scotland, say they are catholic (and they definitely know what foot they kick with).



If this is your definition of Catholic, how can you say the Anglican church is protestant?

CC

[ChessCastle]

It is both. Even I accept that (won't you believe, Dogsbody?)

England has historically used the word "protestant" to mean "non-papal". We do not use it in the same sense that the Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc use it in. They use "protestant" to mean "non-Catholic." The English Church is Catholic not because she is universal, but because she has preserved the whole faith of the apostles and of the ancient undivided Church (along with Rome, the East, and a few others). We are a non-papal (protestant) Catholic Church. We acknowledge that Christ did indeed found one Church, and we are a part of that Church. If anybody says that the Anglican Church is purely Protestant, and that "catholic" for us only means "universal," than they have not studied their history, and they don't know what the Church believes about herself.

This is exactly how I see the Anglican/Episcopal Church.

CC

[Lel]

If this is your definition of Catholic, how can you say the Anglican church is protestant?

CC

I think some of our more Anglo-Catholic are saying that Anglicans are Catholic with a much stronger emphasis than the simple catholic/universal church.

We are universal (catholic). We have sacraments and other characteristics of a church that is more as if it were Catholic. Some of our more Anglo-Catholic members emphasize such Catholic traits as the wholeness of the church and Apostolic Succession. We also have characteristics that are more Protestant, such as stating that the Real Presence is a spiritual mystery, and not necessarily the physical body and blood of Jesus.

Some of us see Anglicanism as more Catholic, some as more Protestant.

[Fish and Bread]

I'm told that in the old days, many Anglicans saw themselves as being a potential bridge of unification between Roman Catholics and Protestanism. We'd have been a fairly good middle ground. Unfortunately, though, so many Protestants and Roman Catholics have moved so far right that liberal-conservative issues seem to be much more important than Catholic-Protestant ones in terms of ecumenicalism nowadays and the Anglican Communion probably isn't what one would call centrist in that respect. :)

John

[Naomi4Christ]

It is both. Even I accept that (won't you believe, Dogsbody?)


Protestant and universal - just like the Kirk!


England has historically used the word "protestant" to mean "non-papal".

We are are Anglican, after all


We do not ...<snip>

Clearly not the 'Royal We'


They use "protestant" to mean "non-Catholic."

non-Roman Catholic


The English Church is Catholic not because she is universal,

Sounds like a ship...


but because she has preserved the whole faith of the apostles and of the ancient undivided Church (along with Rome, the East, and a few others). We are a non-papal (protestant) Catholic Church.

We call that the apostolic church. We believe in one catholic and apostolic church...

[Naomi4Christ]

If this is your definition of Catholic, how can you say the Anglican church is protestant?

CC

Let's put it this way, I am Church of England and definitely a Right-Footer!

[Naomi4Christ]

Some of us see Anglicanism as more Catholic, some as more Protestant.

I think this is an American thang. When I lived there, I felt that the episcopalians were trying to distance themselves from the fundie churches.

[karen freeinchristman]

England has historically used the word "protestant" to mean "non-papal". We do not use it in the same sense that the Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc use it in. They use "protestant" to mean "non-Catholic."
I would think that "non-papal" and "non-Roman Catholic" are pretty well the same, aren't they?

[Albion]

:blush: - This might seem like a really silly question and since I've attended the church of England/Anglican church since I was born I guess I should know the answer but...is the Anglican church/Church of England protestant or catholic? And what is the actual difference in terms of beliefs between catholics and protestants?

Catholic in the sense that the church's origins did not begin at the Reformation, Catholic in the sense that the historic liturgy, Kalendar, and Episcopate were retained.

Protestant in the sense that the key reforming principles of the continental Reformation were authorized--Salvation by faith, that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation, and that many Medieval practices such as adoring the reserved host or praying to saints were prohibited.

You can now identify which faction of the church you lean towards by which period of English history you want to say was just a passing abberation: 1) the High and Late Middle Ages, or 2) the Sixteenth Century. ;)

[gitlance]

Catholic in the sense that the church's origins did not begin at the Reformation, Catholic in the sense that the historic liturgy, Kalendar, and Episcopate were retained.

Protestant in the sense that the key reforming principles of the continental Reformation were authorized--Salvation by faith, that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation, and that many Medieval practices such as adoring the reserved host or praying to saints were prohibited.

You can now identify which faction of the church you lean towards by which period of English history you want to say was just a passing abberation: 1) the High and Late Middle Ages, or 2) the Sixteenth Century. ;)

Hey Albion! Have missed seeing you around! (You always make life interesting for me. :D)

[ChessCastle]

Catholic in the sense that the church's origins did not begin at the Reformation, Catholic in the sense that the historic liturgy, Kalendar, and Episcopate were retained.

Protestant in the sense that the key reforming principles of the continental Reformation were authorized--Salvation by faith, that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation, and that many Medieval practices such as adoring the reserved host or praying to saints were prohibited.



So the Anglican Church has declared praying to saints to be prohibited? This is news to me, in fact I just just looking at a book by the Archbishop of Canterbury on praying with icons.

CC

[gitlance]

So the Anglican Church has declared praying to saints to be prohibited? This is news to me, in fact I just just looking at a book by the Archbishop of Canterbury on praying with icons.

CC

She doesn't believe that anymore. That is a belief from a particular point in time when Calvinistic protestants took over the Church.

[ChessCastle]

She doesn't believe that anymore. That is a belief from a particular point in time when Calvinistic protestants took over the Church.

Who is the she you're referring to?

[Naomi4Christ]

Who is the she you're referring to?

The cat's mother? :D

[holyshe]

WHAT ABOUT ALL SAINTS DAY? st micheal pray for us st peter pray for us, st benedict pray for us and so and so on....

we do pray to saints

i know i am catholic and proud of it!
i go to church of england churchs
and when i am in roman catholic countrys i go to roman churchs.(holidays)
so yes i am a catholic anglican
not a protestant thank you!.

[Lel]

She doesn't believe that anymore. That is a belief from a particular point in time when Calvinistic protestants took over the Church.

The Anglican Church may no longer be quite so Calvinist Protestant, but the vestiges of such a time are still acknowledged. (The 39 Articles in the BCP, anyone? They may not be adhered to, but they are still acknowledged.)

[Lel]

WHAT ABOUT ALL SAINTS DAY? st micheal pray for us st peter pray for us, st benedict pray for us and so and so on....

we do pray to saints

Some of us do, some of us don't. (I have no problem with requesting the intercession of saints, although I would prefer such an activity be more private than public devotion.)

[Naomi4Christ]

not a protestant thank you!.

Is protestant a dirty word to you?

[Naomi4Christ]

She doesn't believe that anymore. That is a belief from a particular point in time when Calvinistic protestants took over the Church.

/hitting head off brick wall...

Don't you realise that the Anglican Communion is made up of a very broad churchmanship? You might deny the existance of the evangelical wing, but we are here, alive and well and working tirelessly for Christ. Constant denial will not make us go away or relinquish our Anglicanism. We are as much a part of the faith as any other - we are a faith that is accepting of different traditions, and this is not reflected at all in the tone of your posts.

[Lel]

/hitting head off brick wall...

Don't you realise that the Anglican Communion is made up of a very broad churchmanship? You might deny the existance of the evangelical wing, but we are here, alive and well and working tirelessly for Christ. Constant denial will not make us go away or relinquish our Anglicanism. We are as much a part of the faith as any other - we are a faith that is accepting of different traditions, and this is not reflected at all in the tone of your posts.

To be fair, if you look at that post in context, the poster is simply stating that the Anglican Church does now permit requesting the intercession of saints. That doesn't mean that all Anglicans must do it or even approve of it, but rather that the Anglican Church does not specifically disallow such a practice.

[Rusticus]

Hi, it's Rusticus again (remember me from post 16?).

So far I have been able to determine that there are Anglicans that regard themselves as Non-Protestants and there are Anglicans that regard themselves as Protestants.

That's fine with me, diversity is a good thing.


But it still leaves the question: How should I myself regard the Anglican Church?

Maybe I can use a simplyfied test and ask 3 questions. (If possible the answers should be "official" Church teaching, rather than indidividual belief.)

Does the Anglican Church claim "apostolic succession"? Yes = "Non-Protestant", No = "Protestant.

Does the Anglican Church teach the doctrine of "sola scriptura"? No = "Non-Protestant", Yes = "Protestant".

Does the Anglican Church teach the doctrine of "sola fides"? No = "Non-Protestant", Yes = "Protestant".

Answers would be very much appreciated.
(I realise that the above test will be, in many people's eyes, somewhat defective and subjective, but for my own purposes it will do just fine.)

P.S.: I am not trying to stir up trouble. I am just trying to come to grips with this issue. Thanks for your understanding.

[Naomi4Christ]

Does the Anglican Church claim "apostolic succession"? Yes = "Non-Protestant", No = "Protestant. Yes, it claims apolstolic succession - we say in the creed: I believe in one catholic and apostolic church. But this does not define whether it is protestant or not. Protestant simply means not Roman Catholic.

Does the Anglican Church teach the doctrine of "sola scriptura"? No = "Non-Protestant", Yes = "Protestant". We believe that everything we need to know for salvation is found in Holy Scripture. But we also apply tradition and reason to this, the rationale being that our tradition is rooted in scripture and that we need reason to apply scripture to our lives in the 21st century.

Does the Anglican Church teach the doctrine of "sola fides"? No = "Non-Protestant", Yes = "Protestant". Yes, totally. But, if the Holy Spirit dwells in you, then there should be some evidence of this in your behaviour - so faith should result in good works, but it is the faith that brings about salvation, not the works.

[ixoye87]

Well.. I just had cell in church this saturday. It was led by a parish pastoral staff who just graduated from Trinity Theological College, which is the bible college in Singapore for all protestant denominations. He asked us some questions and addressed us as young protestants. Second, the bishop of the diocese of Singapore is also the president of the National Council of Churches, an organisation in Singapore made up of all the protestant churches. So, Anglicans are protestants... at least here in Singapore.

[karen freeinchristman]

I suggest this is all boiling down into semantics. We seem to have differences of opinion regarding the meaning of the word Protestant.

[gitlance]

Does the Anglican Church claim "apostolic succession"? Yes = "Non-Protestant", No = "Protestant.

Yes, we affirm that the Succession is essential to the life of the Church, and it is necessary for reunion between Christian bodies:

"As inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit:
1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God.

2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.

3. The two Sacraments,--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.

4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church."



Does the Anglican Church teach the doctrine of "sola scriptura"? No = "Non-Protestant", Yes = "Protestant".

No, she does not. She teaches that, while only doctrines which are in Scripture can be required for salvation, there is Christian truth contained outside of Scripture. We believe that the Church is the final authority for interpreting Scripture, but Scripture must be interpreted equally with Holy Tradition and Holy Reason.

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

"Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible? A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures."



Does the Anglican Church teach the doctrine of "sola fides"? No = "Non-Protestant", Yes = "Protestant".

Faith is the preclusionary principle required behind all of our actions. It is impossible to trust Christ or to properly venerate the Sacraments without having faith. However, we believe that in addition to faith, one must prove themselves through good works, faithful stewardship, partaking of the Sacraments, leading a holy life, etc. You cannot separate faith from works, for you cannot have one without the other. Either you have no faith and empty works, or you have false faith because it is not proved by works. You must have both. We must be shown to be worthy before Christ.

"Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit."

[ChessCastle]

Yes, we affirm that the Succession is essential to the life of the Church, and it is necessary for reunion between Christian bodies:

"As inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit:1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God.

2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.

3. The two Sacraments,--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.

4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church."




No, she does not. She teaches that, while only doctrines which are in Scripture can be required for salvation, there is Christian truth contained outside of Scripture. We believe that the Church is the final authority for interpreting Scripture, but Scripture must be interpreted equally with Holy Tradition and Holy Reason.

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

"Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible? A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures."





Faith is the preclusionary principle required behind all of our actions. It is impossible to trust Christ or to properly venerate the Sacraments without having faith. However, we believe that in addition to faith, one must prove themselves through good works, faithful stewardship, partaking of the Sacraments, leading a holy life, etc. You cannot separate faith from works, for you cannot have one without the other. Either you have no faith and empty works, or you have false faith because it is not proved by works. You must have both. We must be shown to be worthy before Christ.

"Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit."

I concur with all of the above.

[Rusticus]

Thank you very much for that, gitlance; most informative.

So, this means that I can continue to regard the Anglican Church as non-protestant. (This is despite the fact that some members of the Anglican Church regard themselves as protestant.)

Please note that I said that "I can regard...". I make no claim either way that the Anglican Church is, or is not, protestant. After all, that it up to the Church to know.

[gitlance]

Thank you very much for that, gitlance; most informative.

So, this means that I can continue to regard the Anglican Church as non-protestant. (This is despite the fact that some members of the Anglican Church regard themselves as protestant.)

Please note that I said that "I can regard...". I make no claim either way that the Anglican Church is, or is not, protestant. After all, that it up to the Church to know.

Yes, you may regard it that way, and you will be right in doing so.

Those who deny the Church's true catholicity, or deny the essential nature of things like the Succession, Sacraments, etc, are not following historic Anglicanism.

[Fish and Bread]

However, we believe that in addition to faith, one must prove themselves through good works, faithful stewardship, partaking of the Sacraments, leading a holy life, etc.

That is not the traditional Anglican position. Almost all of our historic documents state that we are saved by grace through faith. Granted, because we are a diverse tradition, there are some who not believe in that way, but the mainstream Anglican view, at least from the onset of the Reformation, has been very similar to Martin Luther's perspective.

"Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit."

The sentence highlighted above actually supports my point. To winnow the quote down to the barebones: "Good works[...]follow after justification, cannot put away our sins". First we are saved by grace through our faith, and as a result of that, we do good works.

John

[Naomi4Christ]

That's pretty much the position of the evangelical wing of the church, John.

Salvation through faith alone - but when you are baptised in the spirit, good works naturally follow.

[gitlance]

That is not the traditional Anglican position. Almost all of our historic documents state that we are saved by grace through faith. Granted, because we are a diverse tradition, there are some who not believe in that way, but the mainstream Anglican view, at least from the onset of the Reformation, has been very similar to Martin Luther's perspective.



The sentence highlighted above actually supports my point. To winnow the quote down to the barebones: "Good works[...]follow after justification, cannot put away our sins". First we are saved by grace through our faith, and as a result of that, we do good works.

John

John, please read the second half of that article. It says those works spring out "necessarily". They are required.

[Fish and Bread]

John, please read the second half of that article. It says those works spring out "necessarily". They are required.

The way the English language was used at the time, "necessarily" in that context does not make works a precondition of salvation, it simply conveys that everyone who has faith can not help but do works. The historical documents of Anglicanism are almost certain intentionally aping the beliefs and sentence construction of the reformers in that respect. What you quoted practically could have come straight from Luther's pen in terms of it's style and content.

John

[gitlance]

The way the English language was used at the time, "necessarily" in that context does not make works a precondition of salvation, it simply conveys that everyone who has faith can not help but do works. The historical documents of Anglicanism are almost certain intentionally aping the beliefs and sentence construction of the reformers in that respect. What you quoted practically could have come straight from Luther's pen in terms of it's style and content.

John

Cannot help to. Yes. So, if you have true faith, you will of necessity perform works. You cannot separate the two. True faith brings about true works. Therefore, since you cannot genuinely have one without the other, you are saved by faith and works.

[Fish and Bread]

Cannot help to. Yes. So, if you have true faith, you will of necessity perform works. You cannot separate the two. True faith brings about true works. Therefore, since you cannot genuinely have one without the other, you are saved by faith and works.

If everyone who had an umbrella also wore an orange shirt, would it be the umbrella and the shirt which were saving people from the rain, or just the umbrella?

John

[gitlance]

If everyone who had an umbrella also wore an orange shirt, would it be the umbrella and the shirt which were saving people from the rain, or just the umbrella?

John

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.

Our own Scriptures affirm that you cannot have faith without works. Would you like the quotes from the fathers and conciliar pronouncements as well?

Sola fide did not exist until an ex-monk in Germany decided to invent it because he was insecure in his salvation.

[Fish and Bread]

Our own Scriptures affirm that you cannot have faith without works. Would you like the quotes from the fathers and conciliar pronouncements as well?

Why is it that folks who disagree with the doctrine of "faith alone" only seem to read the epistle of St. James? ;) If you'll flip to some other epistles, you'll notice that St. Paul repeatedly says we are saved by faith and not works, in very simple everyday language. Of course, the problem is that when people know they are saved by faith and not works, they begin to sometimes get complacent and that is why St. James is so up in arms about the need to perform good works. If St. James epistle were the only epistle, then I would agree that is saying that we are saved by faith and works together, but when it is understood in context with the other epistles, it becomes clear that it is simply saying that all who truly have faith will do works if possible... i.e. that works are the natural result of a lively faith.

Sola fide did not exist until an ex-monk in Germany decided to invent it because he was insecure in his salvation.

The underpinnings of sola fide are clearly evident in many of the epistles, including St. Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, where he plainly says "We are saved by faith and not works, lest any man should boast". :)

John

[gitlance]

Why is it that folks who disagree with the doctrine of "faith alone" only seem to read the epistle of St. James? ;) If you'll flip to some other epistles, you'll notice that St. Paul repeatedly says we are saved by faith and not works, in very simple everyday language. Of course, the problem is that when people know they are saved by faith and not works, they begin to sometimes get complacent and that is why St. James is so up in arms about the need to perform good works. If St. James epistle were the only epistle, then I would agree that is saying that we are saved by faith and works together, but when it is understood in context with the other epistles, it becomes clear that it is simply saying that all who truly have faith will do works if possible... i.e. that works are the natural result of a lively faith.



The underpinnings of sola fide are clearly evident in many of the epistles, including St. Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, where he plainly says "We are saved by faith and not works, lest any man should boast". :)

John

However, when all of those scriptures are taken in light of universal belief by the Catholic Church for the first 1000 years, it becomes evidence that faith and works are both required for salvation, as they are inseperable.

[IowaLutheran]

Our own Scriptures affirm that you cannot have faith without works. Would you like the quotes from the fathers and conciliar pronouncements as well?

Sola fide did not exist until an ex-monk in Germany decided to invent it because he was insecure in his salvation.


For seem reason, you seem to want to pick a fight with Luther, even though we're the only ones besides Old Catholics that ever enter into full communion agreements with you.;)

If I am understanding your posts correctly, I don't think you disagree with Luther. Luther also believed that true faith led to works, or as he put it "faith active in love". So, if you put it that way, Luther and Lutherans also believe in "faith and works". He just didn't think that the chicken (works) could be put before the egg (faith).

I think I posted this before somewhere, but it seems to be appropriate to post it again - our respective churches do not disagree on the doctrine of justification:

"We believe and Proclaim the gospel, that in Jesus Christ God loves and redeems the world. We share a common understanding of God's justifying grace, i.e. that we are accounted righteous and are made righteous before God only by grace through faith because of the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not on account of our works or merit. Both our traditions affirm that justification leads and must lead to 'good works'; authentic faith issues in love."


From the text of the ELCA/ECUSA full communion agreement "Called to Common Mission"


http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullCommunion/episcopal/ccmresources/text.html

[gitlance]

For seem reason, you seem to want to pick a fight with Luther, even though we're the only ones besides Old Catholics that ever enter into full communion agreements with you.;)

If I am understanding your posts correctly, I don't think you disagree with Luther. Luther also believed that true faith led to works, or as he put it "faith active in love". So, if you put it that way, Luther and Lutherans also believe in "faith and works". He just didn't think that the chicken (works) could be put before the egg (faith).

I think I posted this before somewhere, but it seems to be appropriate to post it again - our respective churches do not disagree on the doctrine of justification:

"We believe and Proclaim the gospel, that in Jesus Christ God loves and redeems the world. We share a common understanding of God's justifying grace, i.e. that we are accounted righteous and are made righteous before God only by grace through faith because of the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not on account of our works or merit. Both our traditions affirm that justification leads and must lead to 'good works'; authentic faith issues in love."


From the text of the ELCA/ECUSA full communion agreement "Called to Common Mission"


http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/fullCommunion/episcopal/ccmresources/text.html

And if one must lead to the other, then they must both be required. ;)

[Fish and Bread]

And if one must lead to the other, then they must both be required. ;)

I don't understand your logic. You seem to be presupposing that a cause can't have two seperate and distinct effects, but there are plenty of examples of a cause having multiple effects, even in everyday life. For example, if I eat a lot of food, that may both satisfy my hunger and cause me to gain weight, but my hunger doesn't necessarily need to be satisfied in order for me to gain weight and I don't necessarily need to gain weight in order for my hunger to be satisfied.

John

[gitlance]

I don't understand your logic. You seem to be presupposing that a cause can't have two seperate and distinct effects, but there are plenty of examples of a cause having multiple effects, even in everyday life. For example, if I eat a lot of food, that may both satisfy my hunger and cause me to gain weight, but my hunger doesn't necessarily need to be satisfied in order for me to gain weight and I don't necessarily need to gain weight in order for my hunger to be satisfied.

John




Go ask an Eastern Orthodox. In the west, it it common to think of this as "faith vs. works." However, in the eastern mindset, there is no such thing. It is "faith with/both/and works." They are inseparable in the Eastern mind. They were inseperable in Christ's mind. What good is your religion if it does not manifest itself in works? If you have to have the proof of your faith through good fruit, then it only follows that you must have good fruit.

How many times did Jesus tell us what we must do? Sermon on the Mount, his parables, his Passion... on and on. Abraham, while he believed God, was not justified until he obeyed God and took his son to be sacrificed.

The only reason Luther had to separate them was because he was insecure in his salvation. He refused to beleive that he had to work for it. However, I say to him, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

True faith == validation of faith
Validation of faith == good works

True faith == good works

[Fish and Bread]

Go ask an Eastern Orthodox. In the west, it it common to think of this as "faith vs. works." However, in the eastern mindset, there is no such thing. It is "faith with/both/and works." They are inseparable in the Eastern mind. They were inseperable in Christ's mind. What good is your religion if it does not manifest itself in works? If you have to have the proof of your faith through good fruit, then it only follows that you must have good fruit.

How many times did Jesus tell us what we must do? Sermon on the Mount, his parables, his Passion... on and on. Abraham, while he believed God, was not justified until he obeyed God and took his son to be sacrificed.

Actually, there is a famous exegensis on Genesis that Luther did which makes a pretty convincing case that Abraham was justified by his faith, but that's a side issue. The point I'm trying to make is that anyone who is truly faithful is going to do good works, so faith and works are tied together in that sense, but it is God's grace through our faith that is saving us, the works are in some senses the fruits of that salvation. I'm not arguing, nor did Luther argue that faith and works aren't linked, rather the argument is that they are very closely linked by that faith is the cause of the two effects known as works and salvation rather than salvation being the effect of the two causes of faith and works.

The way Luther described is better for two reasons. Firstly, it keeps people from boasting in themselves and puts the emphasis on their boasting in God for their salvation (As St. Paul noted in several epistles). Secondly, it allows people to feel secure in their salvation and not stare up at heaven wondering if they've done one too many things wrong and living their lives in fear. Do you think our God wants us to cower under bushes or to sing and dance for joy at the work of his hands (i.e. the salvation earned for us on the cross)?

The only reason Luther had to separate them was because he was insecure in his salvation. He refused to beleive that he had to work for it.

As St. Paul wrote, salvation is the free gift of God. God so loved the world that he gave us his only Son so that we should not perish but have life eternal. Then, he gave us faith. As Jesus said to St. Peter, it is not anything on earth that reveals our faith to us but rather our but our Father in heaven.

Luther was countering a Roman Catholic Church during a time when it had veered off the path that God had laid out and became obsessed with doing works to be saved. People were scared for their lives, literally, and then a traveling priests like Tetzel would come around, scare them some more with horrible visions of hell and purgatory, and tell them they could have some sins remmitted if only they would contribute money to build the cathedral or something like that. Luther realized that this wasn't Christ's Gospel and very courageously, at great risk to life and limb, stood up and said something about it.

However, I say to him, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

In the bible, fear is often used to mean "awe and reverence". So what St. Paul is actually saying that is that we should work out what God has done for us with awe, reverence, and trembling at the majesty of the Lord. I believe St. Paul was exactly right in saying that. :)

John

[gitlance]

And yet we know very well that St. James wrote something different from Paul. And we also know very well that Luther wanted to boot James out of the Bible. How can we trust a man who thought he had the authority to usurp the Church? He already thought that when he booted out the Deuterocanon.

Either Paul is right and James is wrong, or James is right and Paul is wrong...

**OR**

The Church is right, and she has properly interpreted both of them to mean that both are required.

[Fish and Bread]

And yet we know very well that St. James wrote something different from Paul. And we also know very well that Luther wanted to boot James out of the Bible. How can we trust a man who thought he had the authority to usurp the Church? He already thought that when he booted out the Deuterocanon.

Either Paul is right and James is wrong, or James is right and Paul is wrong...

**OR**



The Church is right, and she has properly interpreted both of them to mean that both are required.






*Or* St. James should be read through the lense of the the rest of the epistles. St. James isn't wrong, it just relies on the idea that everyone has prior knowledge of the other epistles, which were written beforehand. The early Church taught the same thing as St. Paul. St. Martin simply restored the original teaching in that respect.

John

[gitlance]

*Or* St. James should be read through the lense of the the rest of the epistles. St. James isn't wrong, it just relies on the idea that everyone has prior knowledge of the other epistles, which were written beforehand. The early Church taught the same thing as St. Paul. St. Martin simply restored the original teaching in that respect.

John

Well then how come St. Paul can't be read through the lens of St. James? Again, it all goes back to the Church being the sole interpreter of the Scriptures. The Catechism affirms that.

[Fish and Bread]

Well then how come St. Paul can't be read through the lens of St. James? Again, it all goes back to the Church being the sole interpreter of the Scriptures. The Catechism affirms that.

St. Paul wrote it many times so it was likely the more important point. He also wrote it first and all of his epistles appear before St. James' epistle in canonical order. Finally, St. Paul's view fits better with the rest of the bible, if read on it's own. Therefore, we must read St. James through the lense of St. Paul, but also read St. Paul understanding, as St. James did, that the faithful will do good works and should do good works. Part of being faithful is to do works, but they are done out of love and not out of compulsion, for our salvation has already been given to us.

John