Are Anglicans Protestant?

[ChasingADream]

I have met Anglicans that say yes, we are and those that say no, we're not. Please let me know what you think and what your reasoning is.

Thanks :hug:

[AngCath]

We "protest" the excesses of Rome. In that sense we are "protestant". beyond that definition is when the fighting starts.

[gtsecc]

Not until we change the Creed.
God, I hope we havn't done that yet - have we? Anyone have thier finger on the pulse of the church in CA?

[Naomi4Christ]

I have met Anglicans that say yes, we are and those that say no, we're not. Please let me know what you think and what your reasoning is.

Thanks :hug:

Yes we are protestant. We kick with the right ;)

[ChasingADream]

Look at the replies already...lol...there are three posts and the answers have been 1 "yes", 1 "no" and 1 "in a sense".

I'm dizzy.

[AngCath]

Look at the replies already...lol...there are three posts and the answers have been 1 "yes", 1 "no" and 1 "in a sense".

I'm dizzy.

don't expect any less from STR:P

[gtsecc]

Are Anglicans Christian, or have we innovated the faith too much?

[PaladinValer]

Anglicanism has historically and historically:

1. Affirmed the authority of Holy Tradition
2. Affirmed the Seven Ecumenical Councils
3. Affirmed the vital and necessary importance of Apostolic Succession
4. Affirmed the three ordained orders of deacon, priest, and bishop, in their traditional roles
5. Affirms the Deuterocanon
6. Affirms the True (Body and Blood [Soul and Divinity]) Presence of Christ in terms of the Eucharist.
7. Affirms the noble doctrine of theosis
8. Affirms a "place of purgation" though not as defined by the Vatican Catholic Church.

-Married clergy isn't Protestant...the EOs have been doing that for ever
-Receiving both Elements isn't Protestant...again, the EOs have been doing that for ever
-Bible in the vernacular isn't Protestant...EOs again

Nope, we're not Protestant. Not even close.

[ChasingADream]

don't expect any less from STR:P

Haha...I've come to accept it ^_^

[PaladinValer]

Actually, that "yes" vote looks to be meaning no if you look at AngCath's post :)

[AngCath]

Actually, that "yes" vote looks to be meaning no if you look at AngCath's post :)

I know, I was very generous in voting yes and I voted yes only by the definition I offered. ^_^

[ChasingADream]

If it were 100% clear what the criteria for being "Protestant" is then we would all have the same answer right? Are we using the same criteria?

[gtsecc]

Are Protestants Christian? - Yes.
Are Protestants part of the Church? - To an impaired degree sure, but they are as far from it as possible.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Interesting thread...

[Naomi4Christ]

don't expect any less from STR:P

:D :thumbsup:

There's no such thing as a simple question :D

[Bonifatius]

This is a question we will still be discussing in heaven, I assume...

I am an Anglican and do not feel Protestant but Catholic.

Best
Boni

[Aymn27]

There wasn't a yes and no box so I checked yes - we are Protestant in the sense that we protested against Rome and the Curia. We are Catholic in the sense that we adhere to the faith once delivered - the two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the question should be Are Anglicans Romish? ;)

[svdbygrace]

Interesting thread...

Indeed.

[Colabomb]

Yes, the Anglican Church is a Protestant Body. Protestant does not necessarily mean illegitimate as some Anglo-Catholics would have us think.

Protestants protested Rome because they believed Rome departed from the Historical Church. Protestantism is an attempt to return to the ancient foundations of the faith.

If you define Catholicism as "being like the Catholics" or "Like the Orthodox" why are you Anglican?

[Colabomb]

Are Protestants Christian? - Yes.
Are Protestants part of the Church? - To an impaired degree sure, but they are as far from it as possible.
So our Baptists Brothers are "half-Brothers"?

What about Protestant Anglicans? Are we in impared communion? We have Apostolic Succession, do we get in on a technicality?

[ChasingADream]

Almost forgot to vote in my own poll :sorry:

I voted no because of basically the same reasoning as PaladinValer.

Anglicanism has historically and historically:

1. Affirmed the authority of Holy Tradition
2. Affirmed the Seven Ecumenical Councils
3. Affirmed the vital and necessary importance of Apostolic Succession
4. Affirmed the three ordained orders of deacon, priest, and bishop, in their traditional roles
5. Affirms the Deuterocanon
6. Affirms the True (Body and Blood [Soul and Divinity]) Presence of Christ in terms of the Eucharist.
7. Affirms the noble doctrine of theosis
8. Affirms a "place of purgation" though not as defined by the Vatican Catholic Church.

-Married clergy isn't Protestant...the EOs have been doing that for ever
-Receiving both Elements isn't Protestant...again, the EOs have been doing that for ever
-Bible in the vernacular isn't Protestant...EOs again

Nope, we're not Protestant. Not even close.

And I also agree with Aymn27 that we are Catholic, just not Roman Catholic.

[ChasingADream]

There wasn't a yes and no box so I checked yes - we are Protestant in the sense that we protested against Rome and the Curia. We are Catholic in the sense that we adhere to the faith once delivered - the two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the question should be Are Anglicans Romish? ;)

I was going to put a "Yes and No" box but I thought pretty much EVERYBODY would vote "Yes and No" if I gave that option. I did give an "Other" option though, just incase people were REALLY torn between the two. :D

I agree with your post though. Thanks :thumbsup:

[Torah613]

voting from my perspective of a sometimes outsider, I said no. In my personal opinion, the Anglican tradition is a Catholic tradition--one of the many flavors of Catholicism available to feed the soul.

Joe Zollars

[higgs2]

Yes and yes. Yes we're Protestant. Yes we're Catholic.

typical Anglican answer... :)

[Torah613]

BTW isnt' this the forum that recently had a wonderfully inteligent debate about whether or not the sky is blue?

Joe Zollars

[higgs2]

BTW isnt' this the forum that recently had a wonderfully inteligent debate about whether or not the sky is blue?

Joe Zollars
There is no sky.

[ChasingADream]

Oh, we Anglicans are such a diverse bunch aren't we! :thumbsup: :hug:

[Diane_Windsor]

I voted yes.

Protestant: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Protestant)

DIANE
:)

[ContraMundum]

Anglicanism has historically and historically:

1. Affirmed the authority of Holy Tradition
2. Affirmed the Seven Ecumenical Councils
3. Affirmed the vital and necessary importance of Apostolic Succession
4. Affirmed the three ordained orders of deacon, priest, and bishop, in their traditional roles
5. Affirms the Deuterocanon
6. Affirms the True (Body and Blood [Soul and Divinity]) Presence of Christ in terms of the Eucharist.
7. Affirms the noble doctrine of theosis
8. Affirms a "place of purgation" though not as defined by the Vatican Catholic Church.

-Married clergy isn't Protestant...the EOs have been doing that for ever
-Receiving both Elements isn't Protestant...again, the EOs have been doing that for ever
-Bible in the vernacular isn't Protestant...EOs again

Nope, we're not Protestant. Not even close.

I agree with this.

(Although the "noble doctrine of theosis" was absent for some time in most Anglican circles, and we often call it other things, we do in fact hold to it, I agree. )

[ContraMundum]

I voted "other", because it is the only response that allows for all the qualifications that we add on to our responses. :)

[Naomi4Christ]

What is the "Authority of Holy Tradition"?

[TomUK]

Just as Christ is both fully man and divine, Anglicanism is both fully Protestant and fully Catholic.

I don't know where that fits into the poll and so i'll vote 'other'.

[TomUK]

Actually, i suppose if we are fully Protestant then i have to answer yes, but i do so with reservations due to some connotations as to what Protestantism is.

[Chrystabelle]

If Anglicans were not Protestants, I would not be here.

We "protest" the excesses of Rome. In that sense we are "protestant".

And I am so grateful for that.

[PaladinValer]

I voted yes.

Protestant: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church



DIANE
:)

Um, Protestants deny:

1. Authority of Holy Tradition
2. Apostolic Succession
3. Etc

Anglicans affirm these...so you're absolutely dead wrong.

In addition, Anglicans reject the Lutheran notion of "priesthood of all believers" because we affirm the three-order ordained ministry and Apostolic Succession.

We also reject "faith-alone." Works, faith, sacraments are all means by which Grace is given.

Bible as the priority? Nope.

Please do not come here and answer things for us that are not accurate.

[TomUK]

Um, Protestants deny:

1. Authority of Holy Tradition
2. Apostolic Succession
3. Etc

[/B].



Traditionally Protestants have minimised the importance of Holy Tradition, but i don't think it's very fair to claim that one cannot be Protestant and accept the Authority of Holy Tradition.

[Naomi4Christ]

Um, Protestants deny:

1. Authority of Holy Tradition
2. Apostolic Succession
3. Etc

Anglicans affirm these...so you're absolutely dead wrong.

In addition, Anglicans reject the Lutheran notion of "priesthood of all believers" because we affirm the three-order ordained ministry and Apostolic Succession.

We also reject "faith-alone." Works, faith, sacraments are all means by which Grace is given.

Bible as the priority? Nope.

Please do not come here and answer things for us that are not accurate.

You are referring just to Anglo-Catholics here. Let's remember, that they are just a part of the Anglican Communion.

You might not want to think that there is such a thing as Anglican evangelicals (protestants, if you like), but we are here and thriving. Accept it.

[TomUK]

Traditionally Protestants have minimised the importance of Holy Tradition, but i don't think it's very fair to claim that one cannot be Protestant and accept the Authority of Holy Tradition.

To summarise, traditionally Protestants reject tradition. :eek: :scratch:

[Naomi4Christ]

To summarise, traditionally Protestants reject tradition. :eek: :scratch:

This is really quite a senseless notion, because the whole point of the reformation was to get the church back to the way it was in the first few centuries. It was a restoration of tradition, rather than an abandonment.

[TomUK]

This is really quite a senseless notion, because the whole point of the reformation was to get the church back to the way it was in the first few centuries. It was a restoration of tradition, rather than an abandonment.

But the authority of holy tradition was rejected.

[Naomi4Christ]

But the authority of holy tradition was rejected.

And, in simplistic language, what exactly is the 'authority of holy tradition'?

If I google it, all I get are orthodox sites, so it leads me to believe that this concept is not anglican.

[DeoJuvante]

I voted no because when I think of Protestantism, I think of the beliefs and traditions that have their roots in the Protestant Reformation. Anglicanism has its roots in the English Reformation. I believe that the English Reformation is significantly different from the English Reformation, so I would say no, Anglicans are not Protestants.

[TomUK]

And, in simplistic language, what exactly is the 'authority of holy tradition'?

If I google it, all I get are orthodox sites, so it leads me to believe that this concept is not anglican.

I suppose the simplest definition would be regarding as authoritative things other than scripture, such as the ecumenical councils or the writings of some of the Fathers.

[Naomi4Christ]

I suppose the simplest definition would be regarding as authoritative things other than scripture, such as the ecumenical councils or the writings of some of the Fathers.

Ah, so something that is contrary to the Articles of Faith?

We are definitely in the protestant arm of the church, but we have respect for the church fathers. Writings are often quoted in sermons in order to add clarity to scripture. If you do listen to any of Nicky Gumbel's sermons, you will often hear him quote St Augustine, Irenaeus etc. We, of course, affirm our faith in the traditional creeds which are straight from the ecumenical councils.

We stop short of believing in something that is absent from scripture. We pretty much go along with what Hooker said about Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

[Naomi4Christ]

BTW, while talking about tradition...did the church fathers have a point of view on blue church crockery - we have it in our church and you probably have it in yours too.

We (the 'young' 40-somethings) are trying to ditch it in favour of white porcelain (it will go so much better with our red carpet), but there is an issue with Tradition....

:D

[TomUK]

Ah, so something that is contrary to the Articles of Faith?

We are definitely in the protestant arm of the church, but we have respect for the church fathers. Writings are often quoted in sermons in order to add clarity to scripture. If you do listen to any of Nicky Gumbel's sermons, you will often hear him quote St Augustine, Irenaeus etc. We, of course, affirm our faith in the traditional creeds which are straight from the ecumenical councils.

We stop short of believing in something that is absent from scripture. We pretty much go along with what Hooker said about Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

Who is 'we'?

(i saw your next post but assume the first one wasn't also referring to 40 somethings)

[Naomi4Christ]

Who is 'we'?

(i saw your next post but assume the first one wasn't also referring to 40 somethings)

Whoops - it's my own congregation :)

[higgs2]

BTW, while talking about tradition...did the church fathers have a point of view on blue church crockery - we have it in our church and you probably have it in yours too.

We (the 'young' 40-somethings) are trying to ditch it in favour of white porcelain (it will go so much better with our red carpet), but there is an issue with Tradition....

:D
Man are you all stuck in the past. We've had white dishes for years. Someone's great, great grandparents donated them. Each piece has a little tiny plaque with their names on it. It's a pain because we can't use the dishwasher because the plaques will rust if we do. But we got out of the blue crockery in the 19th century. St. Cylicrotorus and Flublehorn the martyr both said that blue crockery was anathema.

[ContraMundum]

But we got out of the blue crockery in the 19th century. St. Cylicrotorus and Flublehorn the martyr both said that blue crockery was anathema.

WRONG my sister in the Lord! I admire your learning but this "is outrage"! They said it was only anathema during summer or after dark! You're getting confused with St Athenagoras the Malchite of the Areopagopulous who clearly proved that tradition required the rejection of not only blue crockery but all crockery as it was a sign of decadence.

Come to think of it, don't Marxists also think it is a sign of decadence? Bourgeois decadence, of course.

Hmmmm.......:scratch:

(All in jest! :D :D :D )

[higgs2]

WRONG my sister in the Lord! I admire your learning but this "is outrage"! They said it was only anathema during summer or after dark! You're getting confused with St Athenagoras the Malchite of the Areopagopulous who clearly proved that tradition required the rejection of not only blue crockery but all crockery as it was a sign of decadence.

Come to think of it, don't Marxists also think it is a sign of decadence? Bourgeois decadence, of course.

Hmmmm.......:scratch:

(All in jest! :D :D :D )

^_^

So you're ascribe to the Paper Plate Movement? :eek: Dreadful!

[Naomi4Christ]

^_^

So you're ascribe to the Paper Plate Movement? :eek: Dreadful!

The Word according to Chinet!

[ChasingADream]

The Word according to Chinet!

Thanks be to paper. ^_^

[ContraMundum]

^_^

So you're ascribe to the Paper Plate Movement? :eek: Dreadful!

That reminds me of a story.

Two Orthodox are sitting next to each other on a bench at a lookout overlooking a cliff.

One says to the other- "hey, are you a Christian?". "Why yes I am" comes the reply. "Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant?". "Orthodox". Smiling, the first guy says "wow, me too! Eastern or Oriental?" "Eastern". "Wow, me too! That's great! Greek or Russian?" "Russian". His smile turns to a large grin, and he happily quips "Me too, ROCOR or not?" "No, no, not ROCOR". "Hey, me either, that's fantastic, it's so good to meet you, so, are you Moscow Patriarcate or Old believer?" "Old believer" "ME TOO! This is amazing, imagine meeting each other here!" "One more question, do you cross yourself with two fingers or three?" "Two". "TWO?!?!, you HERETIC!" and he pushes him off the cliff.

[ChasingADream]

That reminds me of a story.

Two Orthodox are sitting next to each other on a bench at a lookout overlooking a cliff.

One says to the other- "hey, are you a Christian?". "Why yes I am" comes the reply. "Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant?". "Orthodox". Smiling, the first guy says "wow, me too! Eastern or Oriental?" "Eastern". "Wow, me too! That's great! Greek or Russian?" "Russian". His smile turns to a large grin, and he happily quips "Me too, ROCOR or not?" "No, no, not ROCOR". "Hey, me either, that's fantastic, it's so good to meet you, so, are you Moscow Patriarcate or Old believer?" "Old believer" "ME TOO! This is amazing, imagine meeting each other here!" "One more question, do you cross yourself with two fingers or three?" "Two". "TWO?!?!, you HERETIC!" and he pushes him off the cliff.


Haha...ya know what's sad?

If you had told me it was a true story, I would have believed it! ;)

[higgs2]

That reminds me of a story.

Two Orthodox are sitting next to each other on a bench at a lookout overlooking a cliff.

One says to the other- "hey, are you a Christian?". "Why yes I am" comes the reply. "Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant?". "Orthodox". Smiling, the first guy says "wow, me too! Eastern or Oriental?" "Eastern". "Wow, me too! That's great! Greek or Russian?" "Russian". His smile turns to a large grin, and he happily quips "Me too, ROCOR or not?" "No, no, not ROCOR". "Hey, me either, that's fantastic, it's so good to meet you, so, are you Moscow Patriarcate or Old believer?" "Old believer" "ME TOO! This is amazing, imagine meeting each other here!" "One more question, do you cross yourself with two fingers or three?" "Two". "TWO?!?!, you HERETIC!" and he pushes him off the cliff.
Hilarious! :D

[pmcleanj]

Protestant

A. Eccles.
1. Hist. usually pl. The name given to those German princes and free cities who made a declaration of dissent from the decision of the Diet of Spires (1529), which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms against the Reformation; hence, a general designation of the adherents of the Reformed doctrines and worship in Germany.
2. a. A member or adherent of any of the Christian churches or bodies which repudiated the papal authority and separated or were severed from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and generally of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them; hence in the general language applied to any Western Christan or member of a Christian church outside the Roman Communion. Opposed to Papist, Roman Catholic, or Catholic in the restricted use.
b. spec. In reference to the Church of England the use has varied with time and circumstances. In the 17th c., Protestant was generally accepted and used by members of the Established Church and was even so applied to the exclusion of Presbyterians, Quakers, and Separatists, as is still usual in Ireland, and is still or was lately in some districts of England. In more recent times the name has been disfavoured or disowned by many Anglicans.
II. General, often stressed on the final syllable.
3.One who protests. a. One who makes protestation or declaration, especially one who protests devotion.
b.One who protests against error.
c.One who protests against any decision, proceeding, practice, custom, or the like; a dissenter.



So let's see:

A.1. -- that would be a No
A.2.a. -- that would be a Yes
A.2.b. -- that would be Some are/Some aren't
B.3.a. -- Yes: we declare devotion to our Saviour
B.3.b. -- Yes: we protest the errors of the Roman Church, and (more often) of the other parishes and provinces and churchmanships within our own Church, and (most often) of the current Rector in contrast to the previous Rector, who was a saintly man.
B.3.c. -- Yes, sure why not: give us a decision, proceeding, practice, or custom; and 2/5 of us will protest against it, 2/5 will protest in favour of it, and 2/5 of us will protest that the terms aren't well-defined.

But let me say with a little more weight, that to imagine you can divide Western Christian people into two groups, Roman Catholic and "Protestant(A.2.a.)" and then imagine you can make any useful generalizations about the second group, is a pure flight of fancy; for except for belief in papal authority and infallibility, nearly every doctrine held by Roman Catholics is held by at least some non-Roman Catholics. Such generalizations are more useful for dividing all Christians into us-and-them, rather than uniting all Christians as one body.


*which is the inspired, literally inerrant dictionary, and not a derivative and culturally biased work nor the product of an intentional revisionist like certain other dictionaries that may have been quoted in this thread

[ContraMundum]

B.3.b. -- Yes: we protest the errors of the Roman Church, and (more often) of the other parishes and provinces and churchmanships within our own Church, and (most often) of the current Rector in contrast to the previous Rector, who was a saintly man.

ROTFL! Very funny! :D :thumbsup:

B.3.c. -- Yes, sure why not: give us a decision, proceeding, practice, or custom; and 2/5 of us will protest against it, 2/5 will protest in favour of it, and 2/5 of us will protest that the terms aren't well-defined.

True. Not joking. True.


*which is the inspired, literally inerrant dictionary, and not a derivative and culturally biased work nor the product of an intentional revisionist like certain other dictionaries that may have been quoted in this thread

You are on a roll! :D

[Eby]

My Explanation: :)
As far as my understanding goes, Anglicanism stems from the English Reformation specifically the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559.
We are 'Protestant' in the sense that we are broken with Rome. However we are not 'extreme' Protestant, or as extreme as other Christian denominations. We do have some simularities to the Catholic church and catholic practices.
I have always been told that the Church of England (the English Anglican church) has some churches which are more protestant than others, and some which are more catholic than others. I chose 'other' because we are neither very Protestant nor are we very catholic - we're sorta stuck in the middle.
Well that's what I've always been led to believe - if I'm wrong I apologise. I haven't studied an awful lot of Anglican doctrine and the only knowledge of Anglicans roots that I have come from my Tudor History lessons! :)

[Colabomb]

Um, Protestants deny:

1. Authority of Holy Tradition
2. Apostolic Succession
3. Etc

Anglicans affirm these...so you're absolutely dead wrong.

In addition, Anglicans reject the Lutheran notion of "priesthood of all believers" because we affirm the three-order ordained ministry and Apostolic Succession.

We also reject "faith-alone." Works, faith, sacraments are all means by which Grace is given.

Bible as the priority? Nope.

Please do not come here and answer things for us that are not accurate.

My my Paladin, don't we think much of ourselves.

As much as you may not like it, Protestants are as Anglican as you. Quite honestly possibly more so since they usually stick closer to the 39 Articles.

Faith alone? Yup. My works are but mere signs of the work of Grace God has Won on the Cross.

Priesthood of all believers? Sorry bud, that's in the Bible. (What it means could be debated, but the fact that we are priests is clear.)

Bible as prime rule of Faith? You bet your sweet Bippy. Tradition is useful, but where the self-contradictory words of man get away from Scripture, they are wrong.

Paladin, you speak of diversity in the Church, please pretend at least to practice what you preach.

[Mary of Bethany]

An outsider's POV:

I don't think of the Anglican Church as protestant simply because the Church existed in England from the very earliest days of Christianity, and it never ceased to exist.

I do realize some members of the different Anglican Communions consider themselves protestant and hold to some protestant beliefs, but the overall Church is ancient - so how can it be protestant? You've had your own Bishop/Archbishop of Canterbury since well before the schism, and it's only in the last century that theological closeness with Orthodoxy has changed.

Just my observation. :wave:

Mary

[AngCath]

An outsider's POV:

I don't think of the Anglican Church as protestant simply because the Church existed in England from the very earliest days of Christianity, and it never ceased to exist.

I do realize some members of the different Anglican Communions consider themselves protestant and hold to some protestant beliefs, but the overall Church is ancient - so how can it be protestant? You've had your own Bishop/Archbishop of Canterbury since well before the schism, and it's only in the last century that theological closeness with Orthodoxy has changed.

Just my observation. :wave:

Mary

Thanks for the Outsiders observation :thumbsup:

[higgs2]

So let's see:

A.1. -- that would be a No
A.2.a. -- that would be a Yes
A.2.b. -- that would be Some are/Some aren't
B.3.a. -- Yes: we declare devotion to our Saviour
B.3.b. -- Yes: we protest the errors of the Roman Church, and (more often) of the other parishes and provinces and churchmanships within our own Church, and (most often) of the current Rector in contrast to the previous Rector, who was a saintly man.
B.3.c. -- Yes, sure why not: give us a decision, proceeding, practice, or custom; and 2/5 of us will protest against it, 2/5 will protest in favour of it, and 2/5 of us will protest that the terms aren't well-defined.

But let me say with a little more weight, that to imagine you can divide Western Christian people into two groups, Roman Catholic and "Protestant(A.2.a.)" and then imagine you can make any useful generalizations about the second group, is a pure flight of fancy; for except for belief in papal authority and infallibility, nearly every doctrine held by Roman Catholics is held by at least some non-Roman Catholics. Such generalizations are more useful for dividing all Christians into us-and-them, rather than uniting all Christians as one body.


*which is the inspired, literally inerrant dictionary, and not a derivative and culturally biased work nor the product of an intentional revisionist like certain other dictionaries that may have been quoted in this thread


:clap: :clap: :clap: love this post! :D :clap: :thumbsup:

[Torah613]

That reminds me of a story.

Two Orthodox are sitting next to each other on a bench at a lookout overlooking a cliff.

One says to the other- "hey, are you a Christian?". "Why yes I am" comes the reply. "Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant?". "Orthodox". Smiling, the first guy says "wow, me too! Eastern or Oriental?" "Eastern". "Wow, me too! That's great! Greek or Russian?" "Russian". His smile turns to a large grin, and he happily quips "Me too, ROCOR or not?" "No, no, not ROCOR". "Hey, me either, that's fantastic, it's so good to meet you, so, are you Moscow Patriarcate or Old believer?" "Old believer" "ME TOO! This is amazing, imagine meeting each other here!" "One more question, do you cross yourself with two fingers or three?" "Two". "TWO?!?!, you HERETIC!" and he pushes him off the cliff.

Chances are it very well could be a true story.

I find it odd that the Old Believer would be crossing himself with three fingers. What a heretic..... ;)

Joe Zollars

[PaladinValer]

Traditionally Protestants have minimised the importance of Holy Tradition, but i don't think it's very fair to claim that one cannot be Protestant and accept the Authority of Holy Tradition.

The point being, however, that Anglicanism affirms the Seven Ecumenical Councils, Communion of Saints, etc. Lutherans I agree adhere to many Traditions, but not as many as we do.

Naomi, no, that isn't just "Anglo-Catholics." Thats been the historical view of the Anglican Church since Day One. Or was Henry VIII not Anglican? St. Archbishop Laud the Martyr? Heaven forbid that for ~1600 years, what I described is what Anglicanism believed in.

Colabomb, same as above. In addition, two words mean "priest" in the Bible, and one doesn't mean the other. I am a hierarch, but I am not a priest.

In addition, those Articles are still a new tradition in Anglicanism.

Also, there is no contradiction in Holy Tradition.

Theosis is truth. Works are necessary, or did St. James lie?

[InnerPhyre]

An outsider's POV:

I don't think of the Anglican Church as protestant simply because the Church existed in England from the very earliest days of Christianity, and it never ceased to exist.

I do realize some members of the different Anglican Communions consider themselves protestant and hold to some protestant beliefs, but the overall Church is ancient - so how can it be protestant? You've had your own Bishop/Archbishop of Canterbury since well before the schism, and it's only in the last century that theological closeness with Orthodoxy has changed.

Just my observation. :wave:

Mary


Pretty much how I see it too. Much in the way Rome schismed from the Eastern Church, the Anglican Church (the whole thing, not just an upstart movement within the Church...i.e. protestants) broke off from communion with Rome....which in my mind says that you are not protestants, but something else entirely. What that is? I dunno :)

[pjw]

the Anglican situation was very similar to that in Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Finland, i.e. the entire national Church just rejected the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic abuses of the time, while retaining the Apostolic faith and order of the Church.

[Naomi4Christ]

The point being, however, that Anglicanism affirms the Seven Ecumenical Councils, Communion of Saints, etc. Lutherans I agree adhere to many Traditions, but not as many as we do.

Naomi, no, that isn't just "Anglo-Catholics." Thats been the historical view of the Anglican Church since Day One. Or was Henry VIII not Anglican? St. Archbishop Laud the Martyr? Heaven forbid that for ~1600 years, what I described is what Anglicanism believed in.

Colabomb, same as above. In addition, two words mean "priest" in the Bible, and one doesn't mean the other. I am a hierarch, but I am not a priest.

In addition, those Articles are still a new tradition in Anglicanism.

Also, there is no contradiction in Holy Tradition.

Theosis is truth. Works are necessary, or did St. James lie?

You keep using jargon that you fail to define accurately. Do you actually know what the jargon means yourself, at least enough to express it to someone else using different words? If so, then it would be interesting to understand your real point of view.

[gtsecc]

From Wiki

Theosis
In Eastern Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy) and Eastern Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Rite) theology, theosis, meaning divinization (or deification or, to become god), is the call to man to become holy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy) and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection). Theosis comprehends salvation from sin, is premised upon apostolic and early Christian understanding of the life of faith, and is conceptually foundational in both the East and the West.
St. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint) Athanasius of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria) wrote, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." His statement indicates the concept beautifully. What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ), who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology), God, or even part of God.
Through theoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria), the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, human beings come to know and experience what it means to be fully human (the created image of God); through their communion with Jesus Christ God shares Himself with the human race, in order to conform them to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. Theosis also asserts the complete restoration of all people (and of the entire creation), in principle. This is built upon the understanding of the atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement) put forward by Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus), called "recapitulation".
For many fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in his person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time. Some Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation) for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.

[gtsecc]

From Wiki

In hierarchical Western Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), an ordinary (from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) ordinarius) is an ecclesiastical officer with both pastoral and governmental jurisdiction over a well-defined group of persons granted by canon law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law). In the Eastern church, such an officer is called a hierarch, which comes from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) word 'ιεραρχης' meaning "high priest."
The term ordinary emphasizes that the power of the officer is not delegated from a higher governmental body but is granted directly from the law, whether that law be the codified 'canon' laws of the church or 'divine' laws which the church sees coming directly from God. Other ecclesiastical officers may exercise governmental or pastoral jurisdiction delegated from one of these officers, but since they are not mentioned in the law, they are not ordinaries.

[PaladinValer]

Naomi, why don't you actually then take the initiative to learn then?

[ContraMundum]

Um, Protestants deny:

1. Authority of Holy Tradition
2. Apostolic Succession
3. Etc

Anglicans affirm these...so you're absolutely dead wrong.

Umm..you don't know much about Protestantism, do you buddy?

I suggest a nice, long study in the Lutheran Confessions before you make such sweeping statements. See ya in a year or two.

In addition, Anglicans reject the Lutheran notion of "priesthood of all believers" because we affirm the three-order ordained ministry and Apostolic Succession.

Anglicans do NOT reject the Biblical doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers. Nor does any other branch of the church. The Jews were a nation of Priests (Ex 19:6) yet had a ministerial Priesthood as well. The same for us today. We are priesthood of believers (1 Pet 2) but we also have ordained ministers. (How else can you justify the ancient and true practice of baptism being valid even if done by a layman or woman????)

Luther did not invent this doctrine- it's in the Bible, from the Old Testament to the New. Luther just put it on the table as an argument against abuses commited by the clergy. I suggest you read "A Letter to the Christian Nobility" to get the context right. The only people that accused him of novelty were those who were in danger of losing their temporal power. Read any decent Roman or Orthodox theology and you'll see I am not on my own here.

We also reject "faith-alone." Works, faith, sacraments are all means by which Grace is given.

Since when and who made you the final word on that?

Works do not acquire salvific grace. No one teaches that.

Bible as the priority? Nope.

Tell me, what is read more in our Prayer Book services, the Bible or the traditions of the Fathers? I would say the fact that we kiss the Bible, bless it, cense it and all the rest would indicate that we have a priority place for the inspired scriptures that far exceeds any other teachings of the church.

We are taught to preach our sermons based on the scripture readings for the day, not our own favorite passages from the Fathers or the Popes or the Archibishops or any other mere opinion of men. Any Priest who would not base his preaching on the scriptures is clearly out of step with our tradition.

Please do not come here and answer things for us that are not accurate.
Ironic. What makes you the final word on things Anglican?

[PaladinValer]

What Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, accept:

1. Apostolic Succession? None. Methodists claim to have it, but don't (with all due respect to them as well) and, furthermore, don't seem to follow it in its traditional light either.
2. Where's the three-order ordained ministry in Protestant bodies? While some Lutherans now have it (and those Lutherans I do not consider to be Protestants), like in 1 above, many outright reject it. Methodists don't have bishops in the traditional sense either it seems.

3. Affirm the Seven Ecumenical Councils? Again, some Lutherans are the exception.

4. Holy Tradition? Some Lutherans are an exception. The rest at best hold it in a far more limited light at best.

5. Affirm the Deuterocanon? A limited number perhaps it seems at best.

6. True Presence? Only Lutherans.

7. Theosis? NONE.

8. "Place of purgation?" Very limited numbers at best

In addition, I am not a priest. I am a hierarch. I am not a presbuteros but a hiereus. Two different words, two different meanings.

hiereus=hierarch
And presbuterous is well known to have been Anglicized into "priest."

No works=no salvation. Know works=know salvation. St. James got it right. I'll trust the Apostle, the Bible, and Tradition.

The Bible is perhaps the primary form of Holy Tradition, but it is not in and of itself primary over all others.

[Naomi4Christ]

Naomi, why don't you actually then take the initiative to learn then?

Qu'est-ce que ca veut dire?

[Naomi4Christ]

Umm..you don't know much about Protestantism, do you buddy?...snip



Thanks for taking the effort to write this, Contra

[ContraMundum]

I'm going to be direct PV, and tell you straight you have no idea what you are on about. It sounds like you get your information from secondary sources at best, and even then only biased ones. You really need to broaden your reading and stop swallowing what other people say about other people's doctrines. Read the Lutheran Confessions YOURSELF for a start, then go to the Presbyterians later, and the Methodists last. Then you might have a clue about what they believe, teach and confess. You're parroting and generalising here.

7. Theosis? NONE.

Prove to me Anglicans are bound to believe the doctrine of Theosis first, then you will have earned the right to pontificate about the other denominations.

I think you will find that the Eastern Church has a unique emphasis within the doctrine of sanctification, one which is in essence shared among the traditions with differing degrees and language.

But do tell us all when the worldwide Anglican communion unanimously agreed to bind the Eastern Orthodox understanding of sanctification upon all members in the Anglican churches.

Until then, it all looks like hot air to me.



In addition, I am not a priest. I am a hierarch. I am not a presbuteros but a hiereus. Two different words, two different meanings.

hiereus=hierarch
And presbuterous is well known to have been Anglicized into "priest."

Actually, you are just some guy who hasn't finished his study on this topic at all, and it shows.

The term for elder (presbuteros) means just that- elder. The Anglicized word for Presbyter still means elder, even if it is commonly verbalised as priest. Your parish priest is a presbyter (elder), and according to most scholars (and Jerome for you patristic types), Biblically this term is interchangable with "overseer", or bishop.

You, however, are a "priest", as you inadvertantly point out. You are sacerdotal. You are in the society of the priesthood - "hierateuma" it calls us all in 1 Pet 2- a priestly, sacerdotal fraternity. There is no other acceptable translation of this word possible.

So, your parish priest is both Presbyter and Priest (as he is in the royal priesthood, holy nation, peculiar people called into Christ). You, however, are a priest, a member of the priesthood of all believers, but you are not a presbyter. Like I said, the priesthood of all, the ministry of some. Just like the Jews.

I don't see why you insist on arguing against me, when you basically affirmed what I was originally saying yet called it a Lutheran doctrine (therefore, in your parlance, an innovation). You're Lutheran, and they're scriptural with tradition to support them. I like that.

No works=no salvation. Know works=know salvation. St. James got it right. I'll trust the Apostle, the Bible, and Tradition.

I can't understand how someone who claims to be theologically educated could possibly muddle this one up. Works do not merit grace. St James never said that, nor did St Paul. Works demonstrate and complete faith, but alone do not merit salvation or grace. Without works, faith is dead, but without faith, works are but filthy rags of self-righteousness.

I personally think you are just being reactionary against your perceptions about Protestantism, which are not even accurate. You're knee jerking as a response to trigger words. It will pass.

[PaladinValer]

Contra, first off: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23042664&postcount=29

And now all this...care to explain? Otherwise, you've flip-flopped.

And for your information, I have read plenty of original sources. I have copies of Calvin's and Luther's writings, including Calvin's Institutes and a number of Luther's writings: his Prefaces, Heidelberg Disputation, Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, The Bondage of the Will, and The Small Catechism, just to name a few.

Some Lutherans, particularly the ELCA and those similar to it, are what could be arguably considered Catholic. However, to rid the other Five Sacraments of the title "sacrament" based on a new theological school on what a "sacrament" is, is questionable.

In addition, Rome itself got rid of many abuses via Trent and certainly rid itself of any others via Vatican II. That part of protesting is largely, arguably, done and over with. If I lived back then, then I would proudly call myself a protestant for I would protest those abuses. However, I would not, like Henry VIII, rid myself of doctrines that had nothing to do with the abuses. That means keeping the other Five listed under the title "sacrament," the three-ordered ordained ministry, etc.

Lastly, I am not a priest. That OT priesthood is dead in terms of its old function because Jesus is the High Priest. I don't need to sacrifice any doves, I may drink my blood, I may eat my cheeseburgers, and I may wear all the polyester I wish. The only alive part of it is the direct "relationship" and "link" I now have with God. That's the chief part of being a hierarch anyway.

However, I am not a priest.

If works "demonstrate" and "complete faith," then logically, without them, it isn't saving faith, as you yourself seem to imply. Therefore, no works=no salvation; know works=know salvation is logical.

Lastly, I do not have to prove in your eyes my accuracy of being right in terms of theos to be correct about anything else, especially when, as I shown in the link above, you agreed with everything else. That's a logical fallacy and I'm quite sure you know it.

[AngCath]

I'm pretty sure we still have cause to protest our understanding of the Papacy and that this matter alone will suffice in making us Protestants.

[Tetzel]

Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to ask the EO's and the RC's and see if they agree on the answer?

[PaladinValer]

I'm pretty sure we still have cause to protest our understanding of the Papacy and that this matter alone will suffice in making us Protestants.

Good point. Vatican I is worth protesting :)

[karen freeinchristman]

Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to ask the EO's and the RC's and see if they agree on the answer?


:D

[gtsecc]

+Ratzingar says we are a special case - is that authoritative enough to call it the RCC position?
This was while he was Cardinal, so it was not an excathedra statement.

[ContraMundum]

Contra, first off: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23042664&postcount=29

And now all this...care to explain? Otherwise, you've flip-flopped.

I see no contradiction here.

And for your information, I have read plenty of original sources. I have copies of Calvin's and Luther's writings, including Calvin's Institutes and a number of Luther's writings: his Prefaces, Heidelberg Disputation, Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, The Bondage of the Will, and The Small Catechism, just to name a few.

..but not the Lutheran Confessions.

Some Lutherans, particularly the ELCA and those similar to it, are what could be arguably considered Catholic. However, to rid the other Five Sacraments of the title "sacrament" based on a new theological school on what a "sacrament" is, is questionable.

That kind of reasoning would make having seven sacraments "questionable", as the number of sacraments and the definition of them has varied from time to time and place to place in church history.

In addition, Rome itself got rid of many abuses via Trent and certainly rid itself of any others via Vatican II. That part of protesting is largely, arguably, done and over with. If I lived back then, then I would proudly call myself a protestant for I would protest those abuses. However, I would not, like Henry VIII, rid myself of doctrines that had nothing to do with the abuses. That means keeping the other Five listed under the title "sacrament," the three-ordered ordained ministry, etc.

Good.

Lastly, I am not a priest.

Yes, you are.

That OT priesthood is dead in terms of its old function because Jesus is the High Priest. I don't need to sacrifice any doves, I may drink my blood, I may eat my cheeseburgers, and I may wear all the polyester I wish.

Yes, the OT priestly system is done away with, but you're still part of the nation of priests.

The only alive part of it is the direct "relationship" and "link" I now have with God. That's the chief part of being a hierarch anyway.

Right...so you are a priest then.

However, I am not a priest.

You can't be a Christian, having "The only alive part of it is the direct "relationship" and "link" I now have with God" and not be part of His elect people, the royal priesthood. You're in or you're out. Because you are baptised, have faith etc..you are in....therefore.....you are a priest.

You do realise that when you said Anglicans deny the priesthood of all believers you went against well establised Anglican doctrine?

If works "demonstrate" and "complete faith," then logically, without them, it isn't saving faith, as you yourself seem to imply. Therefore, no works=no salvation; know works=know salvation is logical.

But a good theologian should be able to avoid the blurring of the boundaries. One cannot say "a+b=c, therefore c=a". You need to be careful here. Works do not merit grace. Faith does not need works to be saving, but works need faith to be acceptable to God. Take the thief on the cross for example. Saved. No works other than a pentitent heart. This is why we hold to "justification by faith" and in our Prayer Book clearly affirm that, in many places and in many ways (consider the words of the absolution). Yet, clearly, and all the Reformers concur, faith without works is dead. Faith alone, but faith is never alone.

Lastly, I do not have to prove in your eyes my accuracy of being right in terms of theos to be correct about anything else, especially when, as I shown in the link above, you agreed with everything else. That's a logical fallacy and I'm quite sure you know it.

What I agreed with was not what you have since asserted.

[ChasingADream]

Oh man. You could cut the tension in this thread with a feather!

I hope my OP hasn't caused any feuds between people. I really was just curious what everyone thought. Personally, I have always believed that we are not Protestants but I know some people feel very strongly that we are.

I think it's beneficial to everyone, no matter what they believe is right, to hear different opinions and reasonings and that's what I hope we will all get from this thread.

[PaladinValer]

I see no contradiction here.

Then explain, please?

..but not the Lutheran Confessions.

I believe I used the word "including." That implies that those I list isn't complete.

And while it isn't complete, I do have at least sections from the various Confessions.

That kind of reasoning would make having seven sacraments "questionable", as the number of sacraments and the definition of them has varied from time to time and place to place in church history.

True, the number seems to have changed based on the Church's continuing discernment in the Holy Spirit. I don't deny that one bit. However, if something is truly of an atribute, whether people title it X, Y, or Z doesn't mean it isn't that atribute.

Good.

I'm glad we agree.

Yes, you are.

I have not been ordained.

Yes, the OT priestly system is done away with, but you're still part of the nation of priests.

Of hierarchs, absolutely.

Right...so you are a priest then.

A hierarch, not a priest.

You can't be a Christian, having "The only alive part of it is the direct "relationship" and "link" I now have with God" and not be part of His elect people, the royal priesthood. You're in or you're out. Because you are baptised, have faith etc..you are in....therefore.....you are a priest.

It would then seem that I define priest in a much different way then that you do. If you wish to define priest in this way, then according to your definition, then yes, I am a priest. However, I go by a different defintion that is more traditional at least to me. A priest to me is someone who have been validly Apostolically ordained to the second order of the three-order ordained ministry. In this sense at least, I am not a priest.

I do not deny, to clarify as I did before which got a positive response from you, that the laity have a ministry. Arguably, the most important part of that ministry is to prove witness to the world. As a hiereus, that's (arguably) my chief ministry, and I take it seriously.

You do realise that when you said Anglicans deny the priesthood of all believers you went against well establised Anglican doctrine?

It would seem that there isn't a disagreement in idea but symantics between you and I, much the same difference there is in regarding "person" between OOs and all other Christians. I do not reject that I am a member of a royal hierarchy or priesthood as most translations put it.

But a good theologian should be able to avoid the blurring of the boundaries. One cannot say "a+b=c, therefore c=a".

I am not saying works-only; that's Pelagianism. I'm not saying "faith"-only; that's Antinomianism. I'm saying living faith is both belief and works. If someone has good, true faith, they truly believe in and practice that faith. If someone believes, they must practice that belief. If someone does good works, they must do it out of a belief.

You need to be careful here. Works do not merit grace. Faith does not need works to be saving, but works need faith to be acceptable to God.

But "faith" does needs works.

Take the thief on the cross for example. Saved. No works other than a pentitent heart.

That in itself is a work. Its a personal response to God's initiative. That is something we do; God isn't going to force us to accept Him. He calls us all, but if we don't respond, then we've missed hitting the tennis ball and God gets to serve again. We may hit the ball the next time or we may miss it. Once we hit it, it takes cooperation for the tennis ball to move.

I suppose what I'm saying is that faith=works. If a work is something out of our own self, and if faith is a response, then faith is a work. We cannot initiate however; that's God's alone. But once He has, we have then the grace to respond.

This is why we hold to "justification by faith" and in our Prayer Book clearly affirm that, in many places and in many ways (consider the words of the absolution).

We are justified by faith, true. But we are sanctified through our cooperative relationship with God. That's theosis, mind you.

Yet, clearly, and all the Reformers concur, faith without works is dead. Faith alone, but faith is never alone.

If by faith you mean by how I defined living faith above, then yes. Otherwise, define faith.

What I agreed with was not what you have since asserted.

Then please explain?

[ContraMundum]

This is fun.....I'm chuckling and my neighbours must think I'm watching Seinfeld or something.

Then explain, please?

Oh, I can't even remember what we were talking about.

I agreed with what you asserted Anglicans were for, but later you asserted things Anglicans were against, and I took exception with a couple of them.

Something like that. I think.

And while it isn't complete, I do have at least sections from the various Confessions.

But you don't have the sections which deal wtih Apostolic Succession and the like. Doesn't matter.

True, the number seems to have changed based on the Church's continuing discernment in the Holy Spirit. I don't deny that one bit. However, if something is truly of an atribute, whether people title it X, Y, or Z doesn't mean it isn't that atribute.

I'm of the opinion you can number them within any system any way you like (as the church has), but the main thing is that they are all practiced, according to their institution. For example, I had a member of the church tell me that they didn't think marriage was a sacrament- my reply "doesn't matter, we still marry and it's still binding for Christians". In other words, one can split theological hairs over what to call these things but we will still practice them as ordained by God.

I have not been ordained.

But you have been annionted and consecrated to Christ into the priesthood of all believers. That's an ordination by the Holy Ghost my friend!

You might get ordained to the diaconate and higher later.

Of hierarchs, absolutely.

A hierarch, not a priest.

The English word for hierarch is priest.

It would then seem that I define priest in a much different way then that you do. If you wish to define priest in this way, then according to your definition, then yes, I am a priest. However, I go by a different defintion that is more traditional at least to me. A priest to me is someone who have been validly Apostolically ordained to the second order of the three-order ordained ministry. In this sense at least, I am not a priest.

Sure, I hear ya.

Try this though- find all the references to ordination in the NT. Then find the words (in Greek) that describe the office into which they are being ordained. The word "priest" is never there. It's always "elder" or "overseer". The word "priest" in the NT seems to be confined to the priesthood of all , descriptions of the OT priesthood and the completed High Priesthood of Christ.

Interesting, eh?

I do not deny, to clarify as I did before which got a positive response from you, that the laity have a ministry. Arguably, the most important part of that ministry is to prove witness to the world. As a hiereus, that's (arguably) my chief ministry, and I take it seriously.

I knew you would.

It would seem that there isn't a disagreement in idea but symantics between you and I, much the same difference there is in regarding "person" between OOs and all other Christians. I do not reject that I am a member of a royal hierarchy or priesthood as most translations put it.

Cool.

I am not saying works-only; that's Pelagianism. I'm not saying "faith"-only; that's Antinomianism.

Amen to that.

I'm saying living faith is both belief and works. If someone has good, true faith, they truly believe in and practice that faith. If someone believes, they must practice that belief. If someone does good works, they must do it out of a belief.

Right.



That in itself is a work. Its a personal response to God's initiative.

While I readily acknowledge that a response to God's grace is broadly speaking a form of works (in that it lies in our activity) narrowly speaking I think the distinction is best understood (in a discussion on soteriology at least) as defining works as actions that require more than assent or heartfelt repentance. This is where the debate has always focussed, historically speaking and where we as Anglicans have drawn our line.

I suppose what I'm saying is that faith=works. If a work is something out of our own self, and if faith is a response, then faith is a work. We cannot initiate however; that's God's alone. But once He has, we have then the grace to respond.

How very Wesleyan of you- I like that and agree.

We are justified by faith, true. But we are sanctified through our cooperative relationship with God. That's theosis, mind you.

In the West, we call it sanctification (one of my favorite topics and one which I realy want to hammer out with a Calvinist one day). :)

Theosis is the Eastern word on the same doctrine. Unless we affirm some other odd precise formula of the EO I'm unfamiliar with I don't know why we need to use their language when we already have our own. We do, as Western Christians, have some in-house debate to complete on sanctification but ulltimately I think we will all agree that it is God's will for us to become conformed to the image of His Son.

[Diane_Windsor]

My my Paladin, don't we think much of ourselves.

As much as you may not like it, Protestants are as Anglican as you. Quite honestly possibly more so since they usually stick closer to the 39 Articles.

Faith alone? Yup. My works are but mere signs of the work of Grace God has Won on the Cross.

Priesthood of all believers? Sorry bud, that's in the Bible. (What it means could be debated, but the fact that we are priests is clear.)

Bible as prime rule of Faith? You bet your sweet Bippy. Tradition is useful, but where the self-contradictory words of man get away from Scripture, they are wrong.

Paladin, you speak of diversity in the Church, please pretend at least to practice what you preach.

Rep points for you brother :thumbsup:


Paladin, if you direct your attention to the OP you will notice that the OP did not limit the poll to formal Anglicans. Besides, I do consider myself an Anglican-just not formally.


DIANE,
:wave:

[ChasingADream]

Paladin, if you direct your attention to the OP you will notice that the OP did not limit the poll to formal Anglicans. Besides, I do consider myself an Anglican-just not formally.




Thanks Diane :hug:

That is correct, I wanted to hear everyone's perspective :thumbsup:
And I was just about to point that out too. ^_^ Guess you saw the need also!


God Bless,

Deanne (CAD);)

[Naomi4Christ]

Oh man. You could cut the tension in this thread with a feather!

Business as usual at STR!


I hope my OP hasn't caused any feuds between people.

No, not at all.


I think it's beneficial to everyone, no matter what they believe is right, to hear different opinions and reasonings and I hope that's what I hope we will all get from this thread.

Absolutely.

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't know why we need to use their language when we already have our own.

All the better to hide behind! :D

[karen freeinchristman]

In the West, we call it sanctification (one of my favorite topics and one which I realy want to hammer out with a Calvinist one day). :)

Theosis is the Eastern word on the same doctrine. Unless we affirm some other odd precise formula of the EO I'm unfamiliar with I don't know why we need to use their language when we already have our own. We do, as Western Christians, have some in-house debate to complete on sanctification but ulltimately I think we will all agree that it is God's will for us to become conformed to the image of His Son.

Thank goodness someone explained what theosis means and I didn't have to expose my ignorance by posting the question! :cool:

[Torah613]

Ahem. On the matter of faith verses works, the RCC affirmed that faith was necessary for salvation and works completed faith and stood witness to it in a joint statement (approved by the Vatican) with the Lutherans a few years back. For the EO position, I quote the Jordanville Prayerbook from Morning Prayers. the Jordanville, or Holy Trinity, Prayerbook is THE standard of the traditional prayerbook in English used throughout the English speaking world:



My most merciful and all-merciful God, Lord Jesus Christ, through Thy great love Thou didst come down and take flesh to save all. And again, O Saviour, save me by Thy grace, I pray Thee, for if Thou shouldst save me for my works, this would not be grace or a gift, but rather a duty. Indeed, in Thy infinite compassion and unspeakable mercy, Thou O my Christ hast said: Whoever believes in Me shall live and never see death. If faith in Thee saves the desperate, save me, for Thou art my God and Creator. Impute my faith instead of deeds, O my God, for Thou wilt find no deeds which could justify me, but may my faith suffice for all my deeds. May it answer for and acquit me, and may it make me a partaker of Thy eternal glory. And may satan not seize me, O Word, and boast that he has torn me from Thy hand and fold. O Christ, my Saviour, whether I will or not, save me. Make haste, quick, quick, for I perish. Thou art my God from my mother's womb. Grant me, O Lord, to love Thee now as once I loved sin, and also to work for Thee without idleness, as I worked before for deceptive satan. But supremely shall I work for Thee, my Lord and God, Jesus Christ, all the days of my life, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.



This prayer is on Page 23 in the new prayerbook. The above is from the old printing of the book which is available in etext format at http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/prayerbook/

The traditional understanding in both east and west has been "pray as if all depends on belief, work as if all depends on works." This is the nature of Theosis as well.

Joe Zollars

[Naomi4Christ]

Work, in the biblical sense, does not have the negative connotation that it has for us today. It is simply what we do.

When the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in you, it changes your life - changes what you do (and as we grow in faith, more and more of what we do is in worship to the Lord).

If you think you have faith, and aren't naturally inclined to work for the Lord, then you have to ask yourself if your faith is real.

You can't work (or buy) your way into heaven, but you will probably do lots of good work on your way there, because that's what happens when the Holy Spirit lives in you.

[Torah613]

an interesting and lovely response Naomi.

Joe Zollars

[SirTimothy]

Thank goodness someone explained what theosis means and I didn't have to expose my ignorance by posting the question! :cool:

Amen Sistah!

Timothy (Who was on the point of googling it...)

[Colabomb]

Faith by its very nature brings about works. Faith cannot exist without works.

However, these works are not what save us. What saves us is the faith that produces these works.

Faith without works is dead. I say amen and amen to that paladin. However, I see this in a different manner than you do.

[TomUK]

Faith by its very nature brings about works. Faith cannot exist without works.

However, these works are not what save us. What saves us is the faith that produces these works.

Faith without works is dead. I say amen and amen to that paladin. However, I see this in a different manner than you do.

There was a post by Polycarp a while ago (the forum member, not the saint) which has stuck with me.

He said something to the effect of 'the worst crime of the reformation was that it convinced people that one could either choose faith of works - that the two terms are mutually exclusive.'

I agree with him totally. Faith and works only make sense when they are considered in relation to one another.

Regardless, it is through the grace of God that we are saved and nothing else. I neither have done enough works nor got a strong enough faith to be worthy of salvation. It's all down to God, and I intend to be eternally thankful for that fact! :bow:

[gtsecc]

Thank goodness someone explained what theosis means and I didn't have to expose my ignorance by posting the question! :cool:

You did see post #68, right?


From Wiki

Theosis
In Eastern Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy) and Eastern Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Rite) theology, theosis, meaning divinization (or deification or, to become god), is the call to man to become holy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy) and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection). Theosis comprehends salvation from sin, is premised upon apostolic and early Christian understanding of the life of faith, and is conceptually foundational in both the East and the West.
St. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint) Athanasius of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria) wrote, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." His statement indicates the concept beautifully. What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ), who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology), God, or even part of God.
Through theoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria), the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, human beings come to know and experience what it means to be fully human (the created image of God); through their communion with Jesus Christ God shares Himself with the human race, in order to conform them to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. Theosis also asserts the complete restoration of all people (and of the entire creation), in principle. This is built upon the understanding of the atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement) put forward by Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus), called "recapitulation".
For many fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in his person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time. Some Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation) for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.

[karen freeinchristman]

You did see post #68, right?

oh, sorry! :sorry:

[PaladinValer]

Colabomb,

No works, no faith.
No faith, no salvation.
Therefore, no works, no salvation.

~p -> ~q
~q -> ~r
Therefore, ~p-> ~r by Rule of Syllogism (aka "Chain Rule
)

Faith isn't the same as living faith. Faith-alone may justify, but living faith saves. That living faith is belief (faith) and works. Faith=works in living faith.

[Tetzel]

Faith by its very nature brings about works. Faith cannot exist without works.

However, these works are not what save us. What saves us is the faith that produces these works.

Faith without works is dead. I say amen and amen to that paladin. However, I see this in a different manner than you do.

Is faith in Christ compatible with faith in one's own works?

[Colabomb]

Is faith in Christ compatible with faith in one's own works?
I have no faith in my works, I have faith in Christ, and that faith produces works.

[gtsecc]

I thought everyone had settle on this being a false source of disagreement between protestants and Catholics.

[Colabomb]

I thought everyone had settle on this being a false source of disagreement between protestants and Catholics.
When the language is agreed upon yes.

[Tetzel]

I have no faith in my works, I have faith in Christ, and that faith produces works.

:thumbsup:

[Tetzel]

How can there be agreement when the Sacred Heart Auto League continues to make such doctrinally unsound statments as: "Members who take this pledge, and who live out their love of neighbor through courteous and careful driving, thereby counter - and in a sense, repair - the inconsideration and carelessness so often encountered while on the road."
http://www.shl.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AutoLeague

Don't they realize that it is not within our power to repair the sins that happen on our roads? We don't get extra credit from God for driving well, the stain of driving sin can only be washed away by the precious blood of Christ.

[TomUK]

I have no faith in my works, I have faith in Christ, and that faith produces works.

So simple, and yet so true.

I hope everyone takes note. 17 words of pure genius!

Pax Christi

[EvAnglican]

Colabomb,

No works, no faith.
No faith, no salvation.
Therefore, no works, no salvation.

~p -> ~q
~q -> ~r
Therefore, ~p-> ~r by Rule of Syllogism (aka "Chain Rule
)

Faith isn't the same as living faith. Faith-alone may justify, but living faith saves. That living faith is belief (faith) and works. Faith=works in living faith.

This is not a matter for mathematics.

It's a cause and effect issue. I think you are very confused. Please listen to what several people are telling you and learn from your fellow Christians.

[Torah613]

How can there be agreement when the Sacred Heart Auto League continues to make such doctrinally unsound statments as: "Members who take this pledge, and who live out their love of neighbor through courteous and careful driving, thereby counter - and in a sense, repair - the inconsideration and carelessness so often encountered while on the road."
http://www.shl.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AutoLeague

Don't they realize that it is not within our power to repair the sins that happen on our roads? We don't get extra credit from God for driving well, the stain of driving sin can only be washed away by the precious blood of Christ.

The Sacred Heart Auto League is hardly an official organ of the RCC.

Joe Zollars

[TomUK]

Colabomb,

No works, no faith.
No faith, no salvation.
Therefore, no works, no salvation.

~p -> ~q
~q -> ~r
Therefore, ~p-> ~r by Rule of Syllogism (aka "Chain Rule
)

Faith isn't the same as living faith. Faith-alone may justify, but living faith saves. That living faith is belief (faith) and works. Faith=works in living faith.

Hate to be picky (OK, maybe i don't hate it! ) but that's not a syllogistic argument

[higgs2]

The Sacred Heart Auto League is hardly an official organ of the RCC.

Joe Zollars
LOL! I must be giddy, this made me giggle. I'd better take a break... :D

[PaladinValer]

Hate to be picky (OK, maybe i don't hate it! ) but that's not a syllogistic argument

p->q
q->r
Therefore p->r

That is the Rule of Syllogism.

[Torah613]

LOL! I must be giddy, this made me giggle. I'd better take a break... :D

It is a rather bad pun that I didn't realize until you pointed it out. Thanks for adding a laugh to my day.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

p->q
q->r
Therefore p->r

That is the Rule of Syllogism.

Oy. This is such a non-issue it isn't funny (even from the perspective of tradition within the undivided Church). One thing I don't miss about my days in the west is the sheer amount of theological debating, with more than a few valid points on both sides, about issues that amount to nothing.

Now, Homoiesis. That was an isssue worthy of such debates. ;)

Joe Zollars

[Naomi4Christ]

Oy. This is such a non-issue it isn't funny (even from the perspective of tradition within the undivided Church). One thing I don't miss about my days in the west is the sheer amount of theological debating, with more than a few valid points on both sides, about issues that amount to nothing.

I don't get it either. Fortunately, it doesn't go on in real life, IME. People are generally more humble IRL, and will back down when they are wrong.

[ContraMundum]

Colabomb,

No works, no faith.
No faith, no salvation.
Therefore, no works, no salvation.

~p -> ~q
~q -> ~r
Therefore, ~p-> ~r by Rule of Syllogism (aka "Chain Rule
)

Faith isn't the same as living faith. Faith-alone may justify, but living faith saves. That living faith is belief (faith) and works. Faith=works in living faith.

One of the brightest things the best theologians, especially (but not only among) the Reformers contributed to theology was applying the proper distinction between justification and sanctification. When the two are confounded and confused, the Gospel itself comes under attack and Satan leads men away from complete faith in Christ to the reliance upon their own works for their salvation. His path takes us from "Jesus alone" to "Jesus plus works" and eventually to "works plus Jesus". Naturally, non-Christian religions are completely based on works righteousness.

Having read the above, I'm not sure how to take your post PV. Are works necessary for justification or sanctification - or both - or do you completely deny any distinction between the two?

[ContraMundum]

Oy. This is such a non-issue it isn't funny (even from the perspective of tradition within the undivided Church). One thing I don't miss about my days in the west is the sheer amount of theological debating, with more than a few valid points on both sides, about issues that amount to nothing.


It's kind of like those buck deers you might see on a nature documentary- the ones that challenge each other, charging at each other head first at full speed until *CRASH* their antlered heads butt together at breakneck speed and whiplash inertia...then, standing back to shake the stars out of their heads, they look up at each other as if to say "wow.....that felt good...let's do it again".

[Colabomb]

It's kind of like those buck deers you might see on a nature documentary- the ones that challenge each other, charging at each other head first at full speed until *CRASH* their antlered heads butt together at breakneck speed and whiplash inertia...then, standing back to shake the stars out of their heads, they look up at each other as if to say "wow.....that felt good...let's do it again".
Lol.

[PaladinValer]

Justification is by faith (belief) in Christ's merit alone.

Sanctification is by living faith, which is the cooperative relationship between our will and God's Will, which makes our works whole.

[Naomi4Christ]

Whole?

[Tetzel]

The Sacred Heart Auto League is hardly an official organ of the RCC.

Joe Zollars

I think that we can trust the priest running the SHAL to be able to make doctrinally correct statements, otherwise shouldn't his bishop be after him?

[Torah613]

Oh please. The Bishops in this country have their hands full trying to supress the old mass and wreckovating churches. They hardly have time to deal with someone who makes a statement that is within the realm of personal piety and not church doctrine.

RC Bishops may be celibate, but they still have very busy lives.

Joe Zollars

[john23237]

The Sacred Heart Auto League is hardly an official organ of the RCC.

Joe Zollars

You mean they are not secretly controlled by the Vatican? I heard they stopped Mary Magdalene from getting her driver's license. Or was that Opus Dei?^_^

[ChasingADream]

You mean they are not secretly controlled by the Vatican? I heard they stopped Mary Magdalene from getting her driver's license. Or was that Opus Dei?^_^

Actually, I think it was IAA. lol.

[ChasingADream]

I guess my OP has generated precisely the results I had anticipated. A true split of "yes", "no" and "yes BUT no" votes with some terriffic arguments on every side. I guess this is why we coined the term " Via Media". :crossrc: :crosseo:

[AngCath]

I guess my OP has generated precisely the results I had anticipated. A true split of "yes", "no" and "yes BUT no" votes with some terriffic arguments on every side. I guess this is why we coined the term " Via Media". :crossrc: :crosseo:

just think about if you had asked: "Are Anglicans Catholic?" :P

[gtsecc]

Ask, "Is the Church Catholic?"

[higgs2]

You mean they are not secretly controlled by the Vatican? I heard they stopped Mary Magdalene from getting her driver's license. Or was that Opus Dei?^_^


^_^ ^_^ ^_^ STop, you're killing me! <tears streaming down my face> ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

[ChasingADream]

Ask, "Is the Church Catholic?"

In my opinion, yes. Well, Anglo-Catholic and High church anyways. Maybe we're not Roman Catholic but I believe we are Catholic. I believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church first of all. Some people may say Anglicans are catholic (with a small "c") in the sense of "one church" but I think there are so few differences between Anglo-Catholic and High Anglican and RC that we adhere to almost the exact same faith with the exception of the Pope & Rome. As for Low church, Evengelical and even Broad Church Anglicans, I find them to be much more protestant than High and Anglo.

That's just my opinion though. How about everyone else? That's why I asked the original question in the first place because I was looking for insight and others' points of view on the subject. :D

[ChasingADream]

*bump*

[paleodoxy]

I'm coming in on this late, so I apologize if this has been hashed through and beaten like a dead horse already.

PALADIN:

Anglicanism has historically and historically:

1. Affirmed the authority of Holy Tradition

Yes and No, depending on how we're defining "authority" and "tradition" in the same sentence.

2. Affirmed the Seven Ecumenical Councils

False. Not all seven.

3. Affirmed the vital and necessary importance of Apostolic Succession

It is taught that the Anglican tradition can be traced back directly to the Apostles via successive ordinations. "Vital" and "necessary"? False.

Theological succession has been more important to Anglicans, historically.

4. Affirmed the three ordained orders of deacon, priest, and bishop, in their traditional roles.

This would need to be fleshed out more.

5. Affirms the Deuterocanon

Yes. Its existence is affirmed. ;)

6. Affirms the True (Body and Blood [Soul and Divinity]) Presence of Christ in terms of the Eucharist.

Define "True Presence".

7. Affirms the noble doctrine of theosis

Utterly false.

8. Affirms a "place of purgation" though not as defined by the Vatican Catholic Church.

True. (I think.)

-Married clergy isn't Protestant...the EOs have been doing that for ever

True.

-Receiving both Elements isn't Protestant...again, the EOs have been doing that for ever

True.

-Bible in the vernacular isn't Protestant...EOs again

True.

Nope, we're not Protestant. Not even close.

Nope. We're not Roman Catholic. Not even close.

paleodoxy

[ChasingADream]

I'm coming in on this late, so I apologize if this has been hashed through and beaten like a dead horse already.




No, thank you for reviving the thread! :thumbsup:




Define "True Presence". I believe what Paladin is referring to is Transubstantiation.







Nope. We're not Roman Catholic. Not even close.

paleodoxy

Correct, we are NOT Roman Catholic. We are however, Catholic.

[PaladinValer]

Yes and No, depending on how we're defining "authority" and "tradition" in the same sentence.

Read the Three Confessions of Faith. Holy Tradition is accepted.

False. Not all seven.

Incorrect. The Three Confessions of Faith prove otherwise.

It is taught that the Anglican tradition can be traced back directly to the Apostles via successive ordinations. "Vital" and "necessary"? False.

Wrong. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilaterial is standard doctrine.

Theological succession has been more important to Anglicans, historically.

The Quadrilaterial is standard. In addition, no Apostolic Succession, not a church in the right sense, according to historic Anglican teaching.

This would need to be fleshed out more.

Read Saepius Officio, which is Anglican doctrine.

Yes. Its existence is affirmed.

And so is its recognized authority. The Three Confessions of Faith prove this,

Define "True Presence".

Already did. Also, read the Three Confessions.

Utterly false.

Actually, I'm 100% correct. Three Confessions as well.

Nope. We're not Roman Catholic. Not even close.

Never said we were. I said we were Catholic, not Vatican Catholic.

[Torah613]

I don't know if Paladin was refferring to Transubstantian which according to the historical understanding of the undivided church till now is simply a recent innovation and is hotly debated by everyone from Eastern Rite Catholics to Eastern Orthodox to the highest of High Dearmeresque Anglo-Catholics----and rightly so. Also by and large it didn't become mainstream roman teaching until trent, which was after the reformation.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

however all branches of hte Church Catholic have at some level affirmed some sense of the "real presence" which can also be said of Lutherans (if one does not accept them as being Catholic).

Joe Zollars

[paleodoxy]

No, thank you for reviving the thread! :thumbsup:

Well, apparently I'm not TOO late.

I haven't caught up with the whole thread, but it's been quite an interesting read thus far!

I believe what Paladin is referring to is Transubstantiation.

Okay. Then no. False. :)

Correct, we are NOT Roman Catholic. We are however, Catholic.

Amen and amen! I most certainly agree with you there...:thumbsup:

[paleodoxy]

Paladin,

We obviously don't follow the same documents, and come from very distinct traditions within Anglicanism.

I am in the REC (Reformed Episcopal Church), which broke off of ECUSA in 1873 when it went liberal.

We are established on the Three Creeds (Apostles, Athanasian, Nicean - Chalcedon could technically be added here), the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Declaration of Principles.

In the "historical" debate we're having, my reference point is the 16th century reformers along with the Articles and Creeds, primarily.

Some of the stuff you're describing are Anglican innovations. You won't find them in Wycliffe and the Lollards, Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Ridley, Hooker, etc.

[PaladinValer]

Actually, I wasn't referring to transubstantiation.

I agree with the EOs, OOs, and OCs: it is literally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, but exactly how and when is a Holy Mystery. However, it should be noted that a growing number of EOs don't mind the word transubstantiationism since there is a chance of substance. The only issue is, again, how and when. When I said transubstantiation, I mean this.

So transubstantiationism as per the VCs? No.
Transubstantiationism as per the EOs? Yes!

The Confessions of Faith, to which there are three, were officially Anglican doctrinal statements established by the Anglican Church when Henry VIII was king. There are therefore fully Anglican.

In addition, the Anglican Church has been in existence since the 1st century. The Christians in the British Isles were not under the rule of Rome and history has shown and proven that multiple times over.

The REC broke off from the Anglican Communion because of the growing Anglo-Catholic movement to reassert Anglicanism as truly primitive and Apostolic, like it was before King Edward or during Archbishop Laud. It had nothing to do with "liberalism."

[Torah613]

ahem. I would assert that indeed it is an unfortunate fact that some EO Christians do not mind the word transubstantion. However I would say this is a grave problem. As Eastern Orthodox Christians we of course affirm that Holy Communion is indeed the body and blood of Christ. However,the how and when is a complete mystery. Whenever we try to tie down a mystery we end up with problems--and usually of hte unorthodox variety. A mystery means exactly that in the fullest sense--it is utterly incomprehensible to us.

Joe Zollars

[PaladinValer]

That's true; I never said it was an EO word...just that a growing number of EOs were using it under a different yet similar definition.

I completely agree that the Eucharist is a Holy Mystery.

I would never insult the EOC by saying it does/says something it didn't do/say.

[ChasingADream]

The Anglican Church has come to tolerate a wide range of views on the nature of the Eucharist, from transubstantiation to symbolic memorialism. To quote Anglican author C.S. Lewis on the Anglican position: "The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand."

[Torah613]

Paladin,

I understand, however I wanted to make clear--while not detracting from this very good thread--that the understanding of the EOC and the undivided church for that matter, is that it is a mystery, simply put.

Therefore, even if it is used by some, the very use of the word transubstantian, or for that matter any other attempt to define it, is entirely and wholly outside the teachings and understanding of the EOC.

(incidently I know more than a few AngloCatholics, of the non anglopapalist variety, who would say the exact same thing)

Joe Zollars

[ChasingADream]

Actually, I wasn't referring to transubstantiation.


Sorry Paladin (and others), I wasn't completely sure if that's what you were referring to so that's why I put "believe" in italics.:thumbsup:

[PaladinValer]

I noticed that, so no problem :kiss:

[Colabomb]

Paladin,

We obviously don't follow the same documents, and come from very distinct traditions within Anglicanism.

I am in the REC (Reformed Episcopal Church)

YAY! Me too.... I'm not alone :)

Oh, um... okay....

Go back to your conversation.

[karen freeinchristman]

YAY! Me too.... I'm not alone :)

Oh, um... okay....

Go back to your conversation.

Also, a new person who has posted in the Alehouse called "giddybiscuit"; she and her husband are joining an REC church, fyi.

[paleodoxy]

I agree with the EOs, OOs, and OCs: it is literally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, but exactly how and when is a Holy Mystery.

What Kansan said.

In addition, the Anglican Church has been in existence since the 1st century. The Christians in the British Isles were not under the rule of Rome and history has shown and proven that multiple times over.

Agreed.

However, The subjugation of the Anglican church under the Roman church around the start of the middle ages had a profound negative effect on Old Anglican/Catholic worship, and I would dispute that these distinctives were common to the primitive or Apostolic church.

The REC broke off from the Anglican Communion because of the growing Anglo-Catholic movement to reassert Anglicanism as truly primitive and Apostolic, like it was before King Edward or during Archbishop Laud. It had nothing to do with "liberalism."

I agree that the Oxford Movement in the 1830s and 40s had a profound impact on the REC and triggered a move away from the ECUSA; however, liberalism is also cited as a significant point of departure by the REC, which a casual perusal of their websites can attest.

Remember, we're talking the 19th century. Liberalism was in its ascendency in this period, and effected virtually every branch of Christ's church in the U.S.

paleodoxy

[ContraMundum]

Read the Three Confessions of Faith. Holy Tradition is accepted.



Incorrect. The Three Confessions of Faith prove otherwise.



Wrong. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilaterial is standard doctrine.



The Quadrilaterial is standard. In addition, no Apostolic Succession, not a church in the right sense, according to historic Anglican teaching.



Read Saepius Officio, which is Anglican doctrine.



And so is its recognized authority. The Three Confessions of Faith prove this,



Already did. Also, read the Three Confessions.



Actually, I'm 100% correct. Three Confessions as well.



Never said we were. I said we were Catholic, not Vatican Catholic.

Just yet another example of one Anglican citing certain historical documents to support his or her pet doctrines, to the exclusion of other valid historical documents, and then claiming that those select documents they hold sacred define "true" Anglicanism.

C'mon PV- you KNOW the 39 Articles have just as valid a historical place as any other documents- you just don't believe in them.

Also, and this is important, the succesion of the ministry as understood by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral is meant to be open ended so as to accomodate those who think the Epicsopate is bene esse of the church as well as those who hold other views- it doesn't support your EO version of things any more than it does the more Reformed perspective.

[PaladinValer]

The REC can claim anything, but liberalism wasn't a part of the big deal. The big deal is that it rejected primitive theology and instead accepted the new doctrines of the Reformation.

The Three Confessions of Faith are primitive, or at least more primitive than the 39 Articles, Contra. Anglicans are called to be primitive Christians, not modernists in terms of doctrine.

That is my chief objection to the utilization of those Articles as doctrinally definitive.

[ContraMundum]

The Three Confessions of Faith are primitive, or at least more primitive than the 39 Articles, Contra. Anglicans are called to be primitive Christians, not modernists in terms of doctrine.

If Anglicans were primitive Christians they would not even have the Three Confessions, but rather the scriptures alone, or less. Besides, they cannot deal with everything that comes along theologically, and they really don't affirm everything you think they do.

And anyway, since when are the 39 Articles Modernist? Isn't that broadening the term a little too liberally and with a certain amount of baseless insinuation?

Besides, like all of us, you are trapping yourself to some degree in a time warp and freezing tradition at a certain point in time. That's fine- I do it too. We all do.

That is my chief objection to the utilization of those Articles as doctrinally definitive.

You really ought to just admit that you don't believe in them and leave it at that. Others who don't agree with them can admit to it without a problem.

[karen freeinchristman]

Anglicans are called to be primitive Christians


How do you know what Anglicans are called to be (called by God)? I'm having a problem with the word 'primitive'. To me, that conotes some kind of life form that has not developed. Are you saying that we Anglicans are not called to develop in any way? Are you putting limitations on God?

[karen freeinchristman]

And how does Contra keep sneaking his posts in just before mine??? ;) :D

[Colabomb]

The REC can claim anything, but liberalism wasn't a part of the big deal. The big deal is that it rejected primitive theology and instead accepted the new doctrines of the Reformation.

The Three Confessions of Faith are primitive, or at least more primitive than the 39 Articles, Contra. Anglicans are called to be primitive Christians, not modernists in terms of doctrine.

That is my chief objection to the utilization of those Articles as doctrinally definitive.
We of the more protestant belief believe that Our doctrines are truer to the Scriptures and the original Faith. We believe that we are teaching "primitive" Christianity.

Now, we obviously disagree on this, but to say your belief is primitive, and that we are therefore modernist gets this discussion nowhere.

I am not sure that I am in 100% agreement with the 39 Artocles, but I find myself much more drawn to them than I used to be.

[ContraMundum]

And how does Contra keep sneaking his posts in just before mine??? ;) :D

Well Karen, I'm sorry, because your posts are better anyway!

The good news is I'm about to get offline because I've finished my work today and I have some Morris Dancers performing nearby I want to make fun of later. That, and of course I have to prepare for a game of Quidditch which I am to star in, cook some kangaroo meat in chocolate mustard sauce for tea, play Counterstrike against some Asian kids in the local arcade and organise the inaugural plastic bucket collectors' fair for the verbally handicapped.

This of course means that you will get your posts in first. :)

[gtsecc]

C'mon PV- you KNOW the 39 Articles have just as valid a his