-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is anglican christians closest to protestantism or catholicism?
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
Starlight
Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
Are you closest to protestantism or catholicism? im just curious
Roman Catholicism.
I was Church of England in my younger years, known as the original church of the Anglican communion. The CofE is Protestant.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The influence of radical protestantism in the CoE probably reached it's apogee around the time of the English Civil War, but the restoration of the monarchy saw the return of episcopalian, high church Anglicanism. To the puritans, monarchs and bishops were equally unpalatable.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
If they are a high church Anglican (aka Anglo-Catholic) then they are closer to Catholic. If they are a low church Anglican, they are closer to Protestantism.
CS Lewis was probably the most famous Anglican of the 20th century. He was clearly closer to Catholicism. For example he believed in purgatory and in confession. This makes it veeeeery interesting that Protestant Evangelicals love him so much.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Though I think some of the Anglo-Catholics may have trouble with some of the Thirty-Nine Articles, don't they?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Can you elaborate?
exchemist
Veteran Member
The Thirty-Nine Articles were established early in the development of the Anglican Church, to define its position relative to both traditional Catholic teaching and the various Protestant reform movements that were sweeping Europe at the time. The tone is very English: an attempt to find a compromise amid the storms of competing theologies, eschewing extreme positions, magic and fanaticism. Notable departures from Catholicism include:
- rejection of Transubstantiation at the consecration in the mass
- rejection of the concept of Purgatory
- rejection of the practice of praying to saints for their intercession.
There are also similar rejections of Calvinist Predestination and so forth, and a positive embrace of a certain amount of ritual in the church.
Details here: Thirty-nine Articles - Wikipedia
Last edited:
So has Richard Hooker, in places.
They're less important than the BCP and liturgy itself.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Richard Hooker is new to me, so I've looked him up. Interesting to read about him. I recall my mother explaining the Thirty-Nine Articles were something cited by Evangelical Anglicans who opposed Catholic thinking in the C of E.
As you may perhaps remember, my mother was High and Dry Anglican, while my father was a convert from Methodism to Catholicism and both were very bookish. So such things were discussed around the dinner table when I was growing up. But Hooker, curiously, did not feature, or not in a way that I remember.
He basically wrote the church manual for Anglicans. Interesting man.
But really the XXXIX Articles are not quite as binding as they seem. Most Anglicans then and now saw them as more of a starting point, a guideline. They're not the equivalent of Calvin's Institutes etc. Bishop Laud, for instance, disagreed with the then fashionable Calvinism in the Church and predestination as enumerated in the Articles iirc.
The main source of doctrine for Anglicans is mostly to be found in the liturgy itself, the BCP, which predates the Articles.
In almost all Anglican Churches you'll see something that doesn't align with the Articles. There's also scope for change based on reason. So for instance one of the Articles on the Canon of Scripture mentions Jerome as an ancient authority. The problem with this is that ever since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we know that Jerome was wrong. So we have to amend.
The same has been done with Sola Fide on the back of the New Perspective on Paul.
Etc.
Pretty fascinating imo.
Last edited:
What mainly sets Anglicanism apart from Protestantism?
- The Anglican Church is one of the only Protestant Churches that has Apostolic Succession
- It was not led by one individual (e.g., Wyclif, Hus, Luther, Cauvin, Zwingli).
- Believes in Prima Scriptura not Sola Scriptura (so it's not scripture alone, it's 'scripture has primacy but is not sole authority'). This is very similar to RC teaching.
- Has capital T Tradition.
- Has a strong liturgical basis (church experience is very regulated).
- Can practice auricular confession (i.e., as RCC has).
- Uses all the bells and whistles, such as incense, church clothing, etc. (Doesn't have to).
- Much more emphasis on Church Fathers.
- Has nuns/ascetics.
- Anglican Bible has deuterocanonical books in, but not for doctrine.
When you put all these together, to many Protestants it looks very much more RC than Protestant. Anglicanism is its own thing.
'The sort of Catholic apologetics often used with Evangelical Christians is ineffective for Anglicans.'
What Catholics Must Understand about Anglicanism
Much of the ecumenical adventure between Anglicans and Catholics over the last 40 years has been fruitful, but its success has been limited because many Catholics do not understand the complexity of the Anglican church.
Last edited:
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The English Reformation was driven by political rather than theological factors. If Pope Clement VII has granted Henry VIII an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, there wouldn’t have been an English Reformation, at least not while Henry, who considered himself a Catholic until the end of his life, was on the throne.
Mostly true, but there were people who were offshoots from Lollardy that took folks like Luther for renewed inspiration. Protestants here were being called Lollards well into the Reformation. Whilst most of the Reformation here was top-down, there were some smaller grassroots movements stemming from Wyclif and the Peasants Revolt who still held heterodox views.
I used to get the best of both worlds when I attended an ordinariate parish. The ordinariates are Anglo-Catholics in communion with Rome. They use a slightly modified form of the High Church Anglo-Catholic liturgy which itself is close in form to the Tridentine Mass but in Early Modern English. It's quite beautiful. Unfortunately, my specific community no longer exists but though it I got to experience Anglo-Catholicism while staying in communion with Rome.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes we had an ordinariate priest staying at our parish for a while. He was a good singer and decided to start celebrating Evensong. He collared me after mass and said “You’re a confident singer, l’ll expect to see you at 6pm.”! So I felt I had to turn up. It was rather good, mostly Anglican chant, but he had put out music sheets so it was not hard to pick up. Unfortunately his stay was temporary and it stopped when he left. The strong musical tradition of the Church of England is something the Catholic church could greatly benefit from, in my opinion.
Are the criteria used to distinguish low-church Anglicanism from high-church Anglicanism well determined and agreed on? Which are they?
Also, I think that the answer to the OP will have to take into account what is understood as typical Protestantism.
Anglicanism is itself arguably one of the most traditional forms, if not necessarily one of the most typical. So is the Methodist Church far as I can figure.
But it is not clear that the most traditional Protestant Churches are necessarily the most typical or the most representative; the opposite may well be true, and there is a good case to be made for seeking a middle ground as well.
While it has become a bit of a meaningless platitude to say that a given religious group is "very heterogeneous", it is probably a fair thing to say about Protestants in the most general sense.
Also, I think that the answer to the OP will have to take into account what is understood as typical Protestantism.
Anglicanism is itself arguably one of the most traditional forms, if not necessarily one of the most typical. So is the Methodist Church far as I can figure.
But it is not clear that the most traditional Protestant Churches are necessarily the most typical or the most representative; the opposite may well be true, and there is a good case to be made for seeking a middle ground as well.
While it has become a bit of a meaningless platitude to say that a given religious group is "very heterogeneous", it is probably a fair thing to say about Protestants in the most general sense.