Anglican Church of North America

2456

Comments

  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Right, first of all, let me take the simple answer to the question who are in communion if Reformed and point you to WCRC. You see the Reformed Communion exists just as clearly as the Anglican. More complicatedly we are talking of a family of churches whose shared heritage includes not just doctrine, but shared polity, spirituality and culture. When Marilynne Robinson refers to a 'Presbyterian Salad' I know exactly what she means.

    To answer this more fully, here is a rant I wrote several years back. What I get from Anglican's is that you define 'Reformed' in a way so it is about taking certain liturgical practices and doctrines and then tell other Christians who are part of WCRC that they cannot be Reformed because they do not hold those views. If, however, being Anglican is primarily about being in communion with Canterbury, surely it is fair to say being Reformed is about being part of the WCRC and being Catholic is being in communion with Rome.


  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Pomona wrote: »
    historically the Episcopal church has been an 'old money' denomination

    As illustrated by a sign outside Washington National Cathedral that reads: "To protect our environment, please have your driver shut the engine off while waiting."

    I kid you not, except that I think it's aimed at tour buses rather than at chauffeured limousines.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Right, first of all, let me take the simple answer to the question who are in communion if Reformed and point you to WCRC. You see the Reformed Communion exists just as clearly as the Anglican.
    Except that the Anglican Communion is defined by being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The World Communion of Reformed Churches doesn’t work the same way, and makes no claim to include all Reformed churches. The existence of the World Reformed Fellowship as an alternative to the WCRC illustrates that.

    But yes, I’m with you on your rant. It’s something I’ve noticed repeatedly on the Ship. Obviously words can have multiple meanings, but I’ve been surprised at how often “Reformed” gets used without an apparent understanding of the historical meaning of that word as referring to a specific stream within Protestantism (that despite some historical Reformed influences, typically doesn’t include Anglican churches).
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Right, first of all, let me take the simple answer to the question who are in communion if Reformed and point you to WCRC. You see the Reformed Communion exists just as clearly as the Anglican. More complicatedly we are talking of a family of churches whose shared heritage includes not just doctrine, but shared polity, spirituality and culture. When Marilynne Robinson refers to a 'Presbyterian Salad' I know exactly what she means.

    I think "communion" carries a very different meaning for the Reformed than it does for Catholics, Orthodox, or (most) Anglicans. They don't think about apostolic succession the same way so visible unity is pretty secondary for them. That organization you linked to contains a real grab bag of organizations. Just looking at the North American members, I can tell you that CRC-NA would not consider themselves in "communion" with the PCUSA or UCC, if we mean sharing pastors, the Lord's supper, etc. though these organizations are all on the list. Usually Protestants, at least in the US, use words like "fellowship" to specify that close of a relationship. So I would say it is completely reasonable that someone who is not connected to that particular organization, but who holds more or less to the Zwingli-Calvin strain of theology, to call himself "Reformed."
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Just looking at the North American members, I can tell you that CRC-NA would not consider themselves in "communion" with the PCUSA or UCC, if we mean sharing pastors, the Lord's supper, etc. though these organizations are all on the list.
    That may have been the case 50 years ago. As a member of the PC(USA), I can vouch from experience that it’s not the case at all now.

  • Okay. Well never mind then!
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Yes, the thing is for those of us with a Reformed heritage it affects far more than the theology. To say you are theologically Reformed is one thing. To claim to be Reformed in the way that someone of the family of Reformed churches because you hold that theology is totally another. Or to put it another way, how is that different from calling yourself Anglican because your congregation uses Anglican liturgy whether or not you are in communion with Canterbury.

    It seems to be dual standards, 'what defines us is who we belong with' for Anglicans but 'what defines you are these characteristics' for others.

    Yes, power/authority structures are different within the Reformed churches so the analogue does not quite work. Guess what that is part of the polity of being Reformed and it in part makes Reformed churches Reformed. So if you do not have different power structures are you really Reformed?

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    For those Anglicans who claim it is being in communion with Canterbury, may I point out that when you claim to be Reformed or Catholic this is precisely the point you do not get but the other way around?
    @Jengie Jon what you've said since on 'Reformed' is really interesting, because to a CofE person, when we say the CofE is 'both Catholic and Reformed', the 'Reformed' bit is much less precise than the meaning you give it. It means, 'in the tradition of the Reformation', 'accepting the Reformation' and in some pretty fundamental fashion 'Protestant'.

    It doesn't mean Geneva as distinct from Wittenberg, or of course, Canterbury.

    So your statement, to us, means - and I'd assume that outside the URC you probably meant that as well - that any Anglican person (whether CofE or from another province) who claims that the CofE is really 'just Catholic' or 'just Reformed' either hasn't really got what being Anglican is about or (more usually) is in self-denial about a part of their own spiritual identity.

    Away from Sydney, in the last century or so, this failing has been more obviously prevalent among those of us who claim we are 'really Catholics, but just not Roman ones' and who deny the Protestant part of our spiritual identity.


    You are right to say that to your eyes, there's a great chunk of what, to you, being Reformed means, that even fairly Proddy Anglicans don't appreciate or even don't get. I suspect there's equally quite a lot of Anglo-Catholicism which to 'real Roman Catholics' seems either alien or missing the point. I suspect that a 'real Roman Catholic' should say, how can someone claim to be Catholic if they don't accept the authority of the Pope.
  • I guess it would depend how strictly you want to define "Reformed." The early Anglican divines were much more influenced by Calvin, Zwingli, etc. than any other Protestant trend, despite keeping the episcopal polity. Other tendencies later dominated but the Reformed current was never quite pushed out.

    And within the Reformed "communion" you linked to there are Anglican churches- the Churches of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and North and South India (I also note at least one Lutheran church). Since these churches are also in the Anglican communion, I guess that means Anglicans can claim to be Reformed by this standard.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    I think those Anglican and Lutheran churches that are in the WCRC are union churches, with both Anglican or Lutheran and Reformed ancestry.

    I think it essentially works this way: there are basically 4 main streams of churches that arose in the first generations of the Reformation: Lutheran (in German-speaking countries often called “Evangelical”), Reformed (arising primarily in Switzerland and parts of France and Germany), Anglican and Anabaptist.

    The Lutherans and Anglicans were generally more conservative in their reforms, the Reformed more thorough-going, and the Anabaptists were the most radical. Anglicanism in that period showed both Lutheran and Reformed influences, though it of course it wasn’t really Lutheran or Reformed (in the continental sense).
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Yeah, but what I am getting at is that identity is about belonging as well as practice. When Anglicans start using communion with Canterbury as their distinctive then they can not claim to be either Reformed or Catholic because on their own terms they do not belong to those families.
  • CruntCrunt Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Yeah, but what I am getting at is that identity is about belonging as well as practice. When Anglicans start using communion with Canterbury as their distinctive then they can not claim to be either Reformed or Catholic because on their own terms they do not belong to those families.
    Thanks - I understand your point now.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Communion with Canterbury makes you part of the Anglican Communion, but has nothing to do with your being Anglican or not; that's a matter of beliefs and practices flowing from those.

    There seems a similar confusion in the Reformed/Catholic comments between organisation and beliefs. Sure, the Catholic Church has a set of beliefs but it has an organisation, a structure, as well. You can have most of the beliefs without belonging to the structure. The same with Reformed, save that there is neither just the one structure or the same complete agreement in beliefs as there is in the Catholic church. I'm not sure if this is a problem in other languages or one only in English. So it's reasonable to talk of Anglicanism as being both Reformed and Catholic as strands in the beliefs of most Anglicans come from both traditions, while the structure is largely that of the Catholic Church alone.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    For those Anglicans who claim it is being in communion with Canterbury, may I point out that when you claim to be Reformed or Catholic this is precisely the point you do not get but the other way around?
    I'm not quite clear on what you mean by this. (But for what it's worth, I consider myself a reformed - note the lower-case r, because I am sure as hell not a Calvinist or fellow traveller - Catholic, not a Protestant. The Anglican Communion having preserved the Apostolic Succession, the three orders of clergy, the primacy of the sacraments, and the liturgy, we are definitely Catholic. Deferring to the Bishop of Rome is not a necessary part of that.)


  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I agree with you, but I'm not sure that Roman Catholics would - the position of the Pope and his infallibility are both matters of faith for them.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Rosseweisse but deferring to Rome is part of being Catholic. The Catholics I know it is about belonging and deferring to Rome is part of that. Take a friend who'd self define as a feminist. Her stance on women priests is as soon as the Pope permits it then it is fine with her. Note this the acceptance of the role of Priests only available to men, is not about doctrine or woman's rights, it is about the acceptance of the authority and therefore about belonging.

    You are in the way of Anglicans telling Roman Catholics what part of their faith makes them Catholics. They do not draw the distinctions you do. If a black person has authority on what it is to be black, surely a Roman Catholic has authority on what it is to be Catholic?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    The term “Catholic” is far older and of wider application than the current version of it centered in Rome. Even if we exclude Anglicans from it, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, as well as the Assyrian Church of the East, have at least as much claim to it as Rome does. It’s just a matter of convention/convenience that the term is used to refer especially to the Vatican communion, much like residents of the US are called “Americans.”
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »

    I'm not quite clear on what you mean by this. (But for what it's worth, I consider myself a reformed - note the lower-case r, because I am sure as hell not a Calvinist or fellow traveller - Catholic, not a Protestant. The Anglican Communion having preserved the Apostolic Succession, the three orders of clergy, the primacy of the sacraments, and the liturgy, we are definitely Catholic. Deferring to the Bishop of Rome is not a necessary part of that.)
    Yebbut, the fact that you agree with some things that you'd class a Catholic but feel you have either freedom or the personal spiritual responsibility to choose which ones, and also, I suspect, which other classic Christian doctrines to sit lightly to, makes you unequivocally Protestant in 'real Roman Catholic' eyes.
  • The Bishop of Rome defines what it means to be Roman Catholic. Catholic is not an abbreviation of Roman Catholic, whatever the Romans may tell us. Belonging to the Holy Catholic and apostolic Church is possible without Rome.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »

    I'm not quite clear on what you mean by this. (But for what it's worth, I consider myself a reformed - note the lower-case r, because I am sure as hell not a Calvinist or fellow traveller - Catholic, not a Protestant. The Anglican Communion having preserved the Apostolic Succession, the three orders of clergy, the primacy of the sacraments, and the liturgy, we are definitely Catholic. Deferring to the Bishop of Rome is not a necessary part of that.)
    Yebbut, the fact that you agree with some things that you'd class a Catholic but feel you have either freedom or the personal spiritual responsibility to choose which ones, and also, I suspect, which other classic Christian doctrines to sit lightly to, makes you unequivocally Protestant in 'real Roman Catholic' eyes.

    Well then most Roman Catholics are Protestants too...

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    There are indeed Catholic churches who are not Roman Catholic but I'm not sure Anglican churches are part of that. Eastern Catholics are certainly Catholic, and most are in communion with Rome. Orthodox churches would not consider themselves Catholic. I don't think Rome's opinion alone defines Catholicism - to put it another way, Coptic Orthodox churches are not in communion with Eastern Orthodox churches, but they are both Orthodox. However....I think a sticking point here is that the Copts uniformly consider themselves Orthodox, and Anglicans do not uniformly consider themselves Catholic. Catholicism is not something an individual can claim, in my view. Anglo-Catholicism is not simply a continuation of the medieval church that got interrupted by the Reformation. That would be the Roman Catholic church, which is different in fairly crucial ways. Prayer Book Evangelical churches using the BCP and celebrating at the North end is, I think, as pure a distillation of Anglicanism as it is possible to get. That's just what Anglicanism was for most of its history. That isn't a criticism of Anglo-Catholicism! But we don't universally represent Anglicanism. We just don't.

    I agree with Jengie here, it's about authority and belonging to the Catholic church - though Rome itself acknowledges non-Roman parts of that. Out of interest, do Lutherans believe their church has apostolic succession? I think 'Reformation church with apostolic succession' would describe Anglicanism fairly well.
  • The polemics between TEC-affiliated writers and the separatist groups has been so strong at times that I do not feel comfortable in using the membership numbers floating around but TEC, like other "mainstream" churches in the US (and Canada, I think) has been shrinking with their peak demographic in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. Outside of Haiti, there's not a lot of growth, particularly because TEC etc do not have much (there's some, but not a lot) outreach into the Hispanic and immigrant population (e.g., the Nigerian church has its own semi-jurisdiction). Separatist group numbers included the entirety of some seceding dioceses (South Carolina, Quincy) which did not survive court battles, so I'm not sure how reliable these figures are, but I am not sure if we can entirely dismiss the groups.

    We need to remember that the generally admirable and comfortable anglophilia of some southern Episcopalians can be a barrier for many. In the land of gated communities and country clubs, inclusiveness can be seen by others to be a form of exclusiveness.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Pomona wrote: »
    There are indeed Catholic churches who are not Roman Catholic but I'm not sure Anglican churches are part of that. Eastern Catholics are certainly Catholic, and most are in communion with Rome. Orthodox churches would not consider themselves Catholic.

    Yes, they would and they do.
    I don't think Rome's opinion alone defines Catholicism - to put it another way, Coptic Orthodox churches are not in communion with Eastern Orthodox churches, but they are both Orthodox.

    But not all those in either camp would consider the other Orthodox. It's silly but there are still Eastern Orthodox who insist that Copts, Armenians, etc. are followers of Eutyches.
    Anglo-Catholicism is not simply a continuation of the medieval church that got interrupted by the Reformation. That would be the Roman Catholic church...

    The Roman Catholic Church is very, very different from the pre-Reformation Catholic Church... whether the Church of England or Rome underwent the most profound change is a matter of perspective but they both changed significantly.
    Prayer Book Evangelical churches using the BCP and celebrating at the North end is, I think, as pure a distillation of Anglicanism as it is possible to get. That's just what Anglicanism was for most of its history.

    I think it's highly questionable that there is such a thing as a pure distillation of Anglicanism
    do Lutherans believe their church has apostolic succession?

    The Church of Sweden does, at least, if apostolic succession if understood as a continuity of bishops. But Lutherans have a different idea of what apostolic succession really is.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    as soon as the Pope permits it then it is fine
    Yet there are card-carrying, communion-receiving Roman Catholics whose bedroom habits (for example) would make the Pope ask to borrow Miss Amanda's smelling salts . . . for starts!
  • My uncle is an RC priest and he certainly says many things that don't line up with the catechism.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    A couple of observations.
    There is the danger of "I call myself a poached egg, therefore I am a poached egg" thinking. Or to put it another way - putting a crown on a chimp doesnt make it a king.
    I am a roman catholic simply by reason that the bishop of the diocese where I live is in communion with the Pope. Its not about deferring to or being obedient to. Its about being in communion with.
    Apostolic succession has always struck me as magical thinking - you know, those odd-balls who style themselves Archpatriarch of the universe and make all their mates cardinals and then justify it by listing a line of succession from some swivel-eyed loon who found it impossible to be a member of a church he couldn't personally rule over. That cant be right.
  • Well if apostolic succession is magical thinking, then so is any ordination or indeed sacraments altogether. Granted, it's true there is a proliferation of basement sects claiming apostolic succession, with more bishops than parishioners (a lot of the blame for this can be traced to Rene Vilatte) but dismissing apostolic succession altogether seems pretty perilous. Obviously the biggest Christian communions consider it very important.

    I think we need to clarify the difference between "Catholic" as a popular, convenient shorthand for those in communion with Rome, and "catholic" in its full historic sense. Granted, the former usage is so ubiquitous then anyone outside of Rome's communion would be a bit disingenuous to say "I'm Catholic" without some further qualification. But tracing "catholic" to its ancient roots, it is not at all clear that those of the catholic church largely thought communion with Rome was indispensable to this identity. The idea of Rome as a defining reference of catholicity is something that developed over time and, unsurprisingly, had a lot more traction in Rome than Constantinople or Alexandria. What was important was catholic AKA orthodox doctrine, apostolic succession, and communion with the wider catholic church. So at the very least the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East all have a very plausible claim to be catholic.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    For those Anglicans who claim it is being in communion with Canterbury, may I point out that when you claim to be Reformed or Catholic this is precisely the point you do not get but the other way around?
    I'm not quite clear on what you mean by this. (But for what it's worth, I consider myself a reformed - note the lower-case r, because I am sure as hell not a Calvinist or fellow traveller . . .
    As I’ve said before, there is a reason that those in the Reformed tradition have preferred the word “Reformed” (or in France, “Huguenot” :wink: ) to “Calvinist.” There is more to the Reformed tradition than Calvin (and certainly more than the two or three ideas generally associated with Calvin by those not in the Reformed tradition), not least of which is the idea of the ongoing need of the reform in the church.

    And it might be worth mentioning that the Eucharistic theology of Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer is a pretty classic Reformed understanding.

    . . . Catholic, not a Protestant. The Anglican Communion having preserved the Apostolic Succession, the three orders of clergy, the primacy of the sacraments, and the liturgy, we are definitely Catholic. Deferring to the Bishop of Rome is not a necessary part of that.)
    Then perhaps you should say you are catholic—note the lower case c—because in standard English usage, as @SirPalomides notes, Catholic is typically taken to mean Roman (or Eastern) Catholic, in communion with Rome, much like the difference between Orthodox and orthodox. There are plenty of Lutherans and Reformed out there who would consider themselves catholic. (BTW, there is an understanding of Reformed ecclesiology that would say the Reformed churches have preserved the three orders of ministry.)
  • The Russians conveniently have two versions of the word "Catholic", one for the wider sense used by the Orthodox, and one for the Roman Catholic communion
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    One of the problems is that both ‘catholic’ (of or including all Christians) and ‘reformed’ (any of several major representative groups of classical Protestantism that arose in the 16th-century Reformation) - and, at least to an extent, ‘protestant’ (any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church) - are terms which have general meanings outside their use as labels for specific denominations or confessions.

    According to this entry in Britannica
    After the great controversy among these churches over the Lord’s Supper (after 1529), the followers of Martin Luther began to use the name Lutheran as a specific name, and the name Reformed became associated with the Calvinistic churches (and also for a time with the Church of England). Eventually the name Presbyterian, which denotes the form of church polity used by most of the Reformed churches, was adopted by the Calvinistic churches of British background. The modern Reformed churches thus trace their origins to the Continental Calvinistic churches that retained the original designation.
    In those general meanings, Anglicans contend that all of those terms can legitimately be applied to them. (Although to complicate matters there are for each of those terms some Anglicans who disavow them.)
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    (BTW, there is an understanding of Reformed ecclesiology that would say the Reformed churches have preserved the three orders of ministry.)

    Yeah, it's a bit tricky, because I think most people agree that in the New Testament the priests and bishops are interchangeable. So one question is, when the offices began to separate, and the priests became more like deputies of the bishops, did the priests then stop being "bishops" in the New Testament sense?

    Episcopal consecration also seemed to have taken a number of different forms before the requirement of three bishops to consecrate a new bishop became the universal norm. In some places bishops were elevated by acclamation of the people; in Alexandria, for a while, they were chosen and consecrated by the community of priests. John Wesley cited this latter precedent to justify his consecration of priests in North America.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Problems happen with apostolic succession and sacramental theology when people imagine that the Almighty is constrained by our categories. So for example there are those who insist that a particular form of words needs to be used in ordination to make explicit the intention of those conferring orders. This has been one of the biggies when it comes to Anglican Orders when considered by the RCC and most of the Orthodox. Thats fair enough as a way of controlling who can and cannot claim to be priests etc .... but I can't help wondering if anyone sent God the relevant memo. The Alexandria example is a good'un. Those bishops would undoubtedly now be considered not legitimately ordained as not being members of the correct pass the baton relay race.
    Or is sacramental theology just a matter of doing the red and saying the black?
  • Right, I think these rules were really implemented to preserve order and maintain collegiality in the church; they were not meant to be dogmatic conditions of "validity." In a pinch, the rules could be bent, as when St Augustine of Canterbury was authorized to consecrate bishops single-handedly.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    I suppose my biggest issue is dealing with Anglicans who staunchly deny being Catholic. That is probably quite a big percentage, probably the majority if you include those who deny it less staunchly. I find it hard to imagine, say, an RCC where a third of the membership doesn't consider themselves Catholic at all. Even lapsed Catholics consider themselves Catholic, in my experience. Still more problematic are Anglicans who do not recognise apostolic succession as being important or even real (strangely enough in my experience, this has generally been liberal Anglicans rather than evangelical ones, perhaps due to links with Methodists and desiring communion with them?).
  • Which Anglicans staunchly deny being (small c) catholic? The evangelicals are possibly more keen than anyone else to uphold the 39 articles, which state that the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds "ought thoroughly to be received and believed." And these creeds are also built into the BCP services. So when they affirm belief in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" presumably they are not talking about an organization they don't belong to...
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    (BTW, there is an understanding of Reformed ecclesiology that would say the Reformed churches have preserved the three orders of ministry.)

    Yeah, it's a bit tricky, because I think most people agree that in the New Testament the priests and bishops are interchangeable. So one question is, when the offices began to separate, and the priests became more like deputies of the bishops, did the priests then stop being "bishops" in the New Testament sense?
    Yes. The Reformed take that can be encountered is that there was a gradual move from the terms bishop and presbyter being interchangeable, to a bishop assisted by a group of presbyters (“elders,” though it is of course the word from which we get the English “priest”) in each local gathering of Christians, and then, as the church grew, to presbyters (as delegates of the bishop) in each local gathering of Christians, with the bishop overseeing all local gatherings within a wider community.

    The view that can be found among some Reformed, and that is reflected in various documents regarding discipline and order (and, I think, at least one confessional document) is that traditional Reformed order represents the middle stage in this development. In other words, ministers/pastors exercise episcope (oversight) and administer the sacraments in the congregation, with the assistance of presbyters. Then there are deacons to attend to people’s needs and temporal needs.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Which Anglicans staunchly deny being (small c) catholic? The evangelicals are possibly more keen than anyone else to uphold the 39 articles, which state that the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds "ought thoroughly to be received and believed." And these creeds are also built into the BCP services. So when they affirm belief in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" presumably they are not talking about an organization they don't belong to...

    Well, I certainly know evangelical Anglicans who strongly dislike and/or rarely use the creeds (and who rarely use the BCP)*. But I was under the impression that you were using Catholic in a more narrow sense to mean 'not just Protestant' - apologies if I misinterpreted. But certainly I think most Anglicans worldwide would see themselves as Definitely Protestant. Or maybe I just spent too long in East Sussex....

    *I know this is Very Naughty but the local suffragan bishop at least at the time was, ahem, very willing to look the other way. Large evangelical Anglican churches with an emphasis on young families can often get sloppy about including the creeds and Lord's Prayer because 'it takes too long'/'it's boring' - I don't know about numbers outside of certain areas, but within known evangelical hotspots I've encountered it on multiple occasions. Needless to say, I strongly disapprove!
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    I think 'Reformation church with apostolic succession' would describe Anglicanism fairly well.

    That would be the Moravians, even Rome sort of acknowledges theirs!

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Gee D wrote: »
    I agree with you, but I'm not sure that Roman Catholics would - the position of the Pope and his infallibility are both matters of faith for them.
    I never said I was a Roman Catholic. (For one thing, I reject such unbiblical heresies as the "Immaculate Conception.")
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    (Rossweisse) but deferring to Rome is part of being Catholic. The Catholics I know it is about belonging and deferring to Rome is part of that. ... You are in the way of Anglicans telling Roman Catholics what part of their faith makes them Catholics. They do not draw the distinctions you do. If a black person has authority on what it is to be black, surely a Roman Catholic has authority on what it is to be Catholic?
    No, being Roman Catholic gives them authority on what it is to be Roman Catholic. There are other Catholic bodies. We are among them.

    (When I was a child, and Greek Orthodox were thin on the ground in the American midwest, the Episcopal Church was in communion with the Greek Orthodox Church. We had several Greek families at my parish. The problem, from the Greek Orthodox official point of view, is that those families became acclimated and Episcopalian - and when a Greek Orthodox church was finally established in our area, they tended to stay put. But I think the GOs finally broke with us over women's ordination, not so much because Girls Have Cooties, a la Roman Catholics and certain fundamentalists, but because We've Never Done It That Way.)
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    As I’ve said before, there is a reason that those in the Reformed tradition have preferred the word “Reformed” (or in France, “Huguenot” :wink: ) to “Calvinist.”
    Actually, they call themselves "Protestants;" the word Huguenot (according to our guide at the Musée Protestant in La Rochelle) is a German coinage. (I still consider myself the descendant of Huguenots on that side of the family...)
    And it might be worth mentioning that the Eucharistic theology of Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer is a pretty classic Reformed understanding.
    That's why I prefer the 1549 BCP over the 1559. It's more Catholic.
    ...There are plenty of Lutherans and Reformed out there who would consider themselves catholic....
    The Swedish Lutheran Church, having maintained the Apostolic Succession (as we have) clearly is. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which now includes an Episcopal bishop in every consecration, is becoming so.

    Reformed churches...not so much.

    It's worth noting that the Church of Rome made no objections to Anglican orders until the RCC were forced to give up secular power in Italy, and Roman Catholicism became accepted in the United Kingdom. After all, if the Church of England were Catholic, why would the RCC be needed in Britain? I've made an extensive study of this topic, and it seems pretty clear to me that it's basically a turf battle.

    In 1896, the Church of Rome had to deal with the question of the validity of the consecration of Matthew_Parker. They decided it was invalid; their stated reasons have changed several times over the last century-plus. That suggests that said reasoning is more political than spiritual; I feel free to reject it.

    I'm still Catholic....just not Roman Catholic.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Your right about Immaculate Conception - if that were so, from whom would Jesus get His humanity?

    I very carefully did not say you were a Roman Catholic, but simply a catholic - the description we would give ourselves.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gee D wrote: »
    Your right about Immaculate Conception - if that were so, from whom would Jesus get His humanity?.

    Why is that a question?

    The Immaculate Conception is perhaps the most misunderstood dogma of all. It does not say that Joachim and Anne didn't "do it" and that Mary somehow popped out of Anne's tummy anyway. It says that Mary was conceived without original sin "by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race". See the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the matter.
    "The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents.

    Although the dogma is not explicitly stated in scripture, it may be argued that Luke 1:28 and Song of Solomon 4:7 imply it.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    There is no removal of the term catholic from the creeds by the Reformed churches. It is just like you, we are redefining it to suit our theology. The only difference is we do not pretend our understanding is the one Roman Catholics should adopt, nor that it makes us Catholic.

    Jengie
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    The word 'huguenot' ,often used to describe the non Lutheran Protestant communities in France, is the way that French speakers said the German word 'Eidgenossen'

    'Eidgenossen' means 'oath companions' or 'companions of the oath' i.e. those who have sworn to work together irrespective of differences of language, culture and religious practice. 'Eidgenossen' particularly in its adjectival form ,is the way which German Swiss still describe themselves. The early French Protestants found refuge in Switzerland and the popular perception in France was that Protestantism came from Switzerland.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Your right about Immaculate Conception - if that were so, from whom would Jesus get His humanity?.

    Why is that a question?

    The Immaculate Conception is perhaps the most misunderstood dogma of all. It does not say that Joachim and Anne didn't "do it" and that Mary somehow popped out of Anne's tummy anyway. It says that Mary was conceived without original sin "by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race". See the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the matter.
    "The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents.

    Although the dogma is not explicitly stated in scripture, it may be argued that Luke 1:28 and Song of Solomon 4:7 imply it.

    The Creed say that He became truly human - and this surely includes the ability to sin.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @Rossweisse I'm sorry. I still don't agree with you.

    If the Episcopalians are part of the Anglican Communion (which they are) to say that you are just Catholic and not Reformed is to deny part of your heritage, identity and, in effect, spiritual personality. You can say that you personally lean towards the Catholic side of the family. You can even say, if you must, that you think the Protestant side put a bit of a damper on your family Christmases. But, however Catholic you may claim to be in your ecclesiantic preferences, some of the things you've said unmistakably evidence a Reformed/Protestant way of thinking that over 450 years has become so deeply embedded in Anglicanism that most of the time, most of us are unconscious of it. Take, for example, your statement,
    "(For one thing, I reject such unbiblical heresies as the "Immaculate Conception.")"
    It's not even rejecting the Immaculate Conception there that is the real clincher. The Roman Communion did not make belief in it obligatory until 1854. There are also doctrinal/theological/Trinitarian arguments for and against it, and its implications for how we understand the Incarnation. It's your taking it for granted (which I share) that 'unbiblical' pips the lot that is unmistakably part of Anglicanism's Reformation heritage.

    So also, incidentally, is your notion that which prayer book you prefer can be a matter of preference, rather than loyalty and acceptance of the authority of the church. The whole idea, though, that it might matter comes from C19 arguments in the Church of England. Not only does no other part of Christendom get steamed up about this sort of thing. They don't care.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    ... The Swedish Lutheran Church, having maintained the Apostolic Succession (as we have) clearly is. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which now includes an Episcopal bishop in every consecration, is becoming so.

    Reformed churches...not so much.

    It's worth noting that the Church of Rome made no objections to Anglican orders until the RCC were forced to give up secular power in Italy, and Roman Catholicism became accepted in the United Kingdom. After all, if the Church of England were Catholic, why would the RCC be needed in Britain? I've made an extensive study of this topic, and it seems pretty clear to me that it's basically a turf battle.

    In 1896, the Church of Rome had to deal with the question of the validity of the consecration of Matthew_Parker. They decided it was invalid; their stated reasons have changed several times over the last century-plus. That suggests that said reasoning is more political than spiritual; I feel free to reject it.

    I'm still Catholic....just not Roman Catholic.
    I don't think your history is quite right there. First of all, recusant Roman Catholic publicity has always made snide comments about Anglican orders. In the C16 and C17, their usual legend was that the ordinations at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign hadn't taken place as normally described but in a public house called the Nag's Head. It's rather more that the Roman Church only made its official pronouncement on the subject in 1896. I think it may also have been only then that the Curia pulled out of its collective back-pocket their intentio argument.

    Second, it wasn't only with the end of the Papal States (1866 and 1870) that the Roman Church took the line that the RCC was needed in Britain. That's been consistently their position since it became clear in England shortly after November 1558 that Elizabeth was going to take England down a Protestant road, and in Scotland from 1567 when the Scottish magnates forced Mary Queen of Scots to abdicate.

    There are still Catholics in both countries and not just Ireland, who take pride in their identity as recusants who never accepted the Reformation. Jacob Rees-Mogg would like people to think he's one, but he isn't. His family were ordinary Protestants like everyone else until his grandfather married an American Roman Catholic in the 1920s.

    Recognising the Protestant/Reformed part of Anglican identity does not mean a person has to align themselves with the wilder shores of snake-handlers or the Patriot Bible.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gee D wrote: »
    The Creed say that He became truly human - and this surely includes the ability to sin.
    I don't see the connection between Mary's soul never having been stained with original sin, and Jesus' ability or lack thereof to commit sin. Jesus is God. Can God commit a sin? But we're getting off topic.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    As a truly human person, yes, Jesus would have the ability to sin. That doesn't necessarily mean that he would sin.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    The Catholic Church sees itself as much wider than the Roman Catholic Church which strictly speaking refers to those who follow the Roman rite. There are a number of other 'Latin' rites such as the Milanese/Ambrosian rite and the Dominican rite or even now the Ordinariate rite.. There are many other Eastern rites which are used by Catholics who are strictly speaking not called Roman Catholics but who are in full communion with the Holy See. The Maronite Catholics who are strong in the Lebanon are fairly well known. They have their own rites but have been consistently over the centuries in full communion with the Roman See.

    Even leaving out the Eastern and Oriental Catholics the Catholic Church recognises all those who are baptised (properly in the view of the RC church) as part of the Catholic Church, even although they may not be in communion with the Holy See.


    This does not necessarily mean that the orders of these communities are recognised as authentically Catholic. The RC Church does not recognise the orders of the Anglican Church as the same as those of the orders within the communion of the (Roman) Catholic Church,but without making any formal statements ,many Catholic would see, for example, the orders of the Anglican church as authentic and valid for members of the Anglican community.


    As Enoch has only too rightly said Rossweisse's grasp of European ecclesiastical history is a little shaky. She must know that there were Catholic communities existing in England and Scotland throughout the Penal times. Surely she cannot forget Ireland which was a fief of the British Crown until the 1920s.


    I would put the arguments about Apostolicae Curae the other way round. It was only after the Oxford Movement that Anglicans began really to see themselves as 'English Catholics' and to rediscover in a Catholic way such ideas as Apostolic succession. (Of course the idea that the CofE and the other churches of the Reformation were in some way Catholic was always around but it was only given real impetus following the Oxford movement.)

    Apostolicae Curae was a document of its time and was meant to be a recognition on the Roma side that the Anglican Church was not the Catholic Church in England. The Catholic Church in England is,well, the Catholic Church.

  • Forthview wrote: »
    As a truly human person, yes, Jesus would have the ability to sin. That doesn't necessarily mean that he would sin.

    No, Jesus could not sin, unless we want to argue he is two persons.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    As I’ve said before, there is a reason that those in the Reformed tradition have preferred the word “Reformed” (or in France, “Huguenot” :wink: ) to “Calvinist.”
    Actually, they call themselves "Protestants;" the word Huguenot (according to our guide at the Musée Protestant in La Rochelle) is a German coinage. (I still consider myself the descendant of Huguenots on that side of the family...)
    Alright, we’re getting really in the weeds here. Yes, the Reformed Christians in France are now the United Protestant Church of France (L’Église protestante unie de France), due to a 2013 union with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in France. “Protestant” is the common denominator there, so to speak. Before 2013, the Reformed Church of France (L’Église Réformée de France), whose roots traced directly to Calvin, through various Reformed bodies. There is also the Protestant Reformed Church of Alsace and Lorraine (L’Église Protestante Réformée d'Alsace et de Lorraine).

    “Huguenot” has never been an official name, except perhaps occasionally in the French Reformed diaspora. It’s a term that was applied to and then taken on by the French Reformed. The etymology of Huguenot is a matter of dispute. Various theories posit German (as noted), Dutch and/or French etymologies, as well as connections to Besançon Hugues, Hugues Capet and Jan Hus. But whatever the origin, Reformed Christians in France still, as I understand it, consider themselves to be Huguenots. Ditto for some in the French Reformed diaspora—Charleston, SC, for example.
    Enoch wrote: »
    Take, for example, your statement,
    "(For one thing, I reject such unbiblical heresies as the "Immaculate Conception.")"
    It's not even rejecting the Immaculate Conception there that is the real clincher. The Roman Communion did not make belief in it obligatory until 1854. There are also doctrinal/theological/Trinitarian arguments for and against it, and its implications for how we understand the Incarnation. It's your taking it for granted (which I share) that 'unbiblical' pips the lot that is unmistakably part of Anglicanism's Reformation heritage.
    Yes. Rejection of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on the grounds that it is unbiblical would seem not only to be a decidedly un-Catholic approach, but also a classically Reformed—dare I say Calvinist—approach.

Sign In or Register to comment.