Recently I was at dinner with a friend and a co-worker of his. It came out that the co-worker is Episcopal, as am I, and we discussed our respective parrishes. Later in the conversation I refererred to the Episcopal Church as Protestant. The co-worker “corrected” me and stated that the Anglican Church wasn’t part of the Protestant Reformation. I had a few drinks and didn’t know the person well enought to argue with her, so I let it go. Now I am plagued by this statement. If it is true, then wouldn’t the Methodist Church not be Protestant either? I think this co-worker was just plain wrong, but I don’t know for sure. A little help please.
It’s common to call every Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic or Orthodox to be protestant when this isn’t the case as your Episcopalian friend pointed out. One could argue that the Anglican church was formed in protest to policies of the R.C. Church but it wasn’t part of the reformation that Luther started. Part of the distinction may be that Luther never intended to form a new church but his goal was to reform the R.C. Church from within.
The Episcopal Church is the American branch of the Anglican Church, or Church of England. It was founded by King Henry VIII of England in response to uncooperativeness from the Pope and his local subordinates, and not in response to the abuses that spurred the Reformation. The Methodist Church broke off from the Church of England, and is therefore not technically Protestant, but in the U.S. many Methodist churches are theologically Calvinist and socially Protestant, and most U.S. Methodists would consider themselves Protestant.
This is a complicated question. Protestants generally do not hold with apostolic succession (the idea that priests are ordained descendents of St. Peter); Episcopals do. However, the full name of the Episcopal Church here in America is “The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America”. Wikipedia notes that
Since American Episcopal bishops do trace apostolic succession to the Scottish bishops (they did not want to take an oath of fealty to the King of England) they are not literally Protestant.
The Episcopal Church’s website adds to the confusion by saying
Unhelpfully, they include a historal summary of the church up through the second (Lutheran/Calvinist/Protestant) schism, but do not say which side the Anglican Church ended up on. They differ from the Roman Catholic Church in that they do not accept the authority of the Pope (nor any single human authority) and welcome non-celibate women and men to become celebrants and priests. In many doctrinal nuances, the Episcopal Church is more open to other Christians – e.g., a non-Episcopal Christian may partake of the Eucharist in an Episcopal service (Catholics have other conditions which must be met before taking Holy Communion).
I am Episcopalian and I consider myself Protestant. I know a fair amount about the history and I don’t know what else you would classify it as. I grew up Methodist and there was no question that we also considered ourselves protestants.
There are a bunch of issues to be picked up here. First, “Protestant” in 1789 when the Episcopal Church in the U.S. adopted it as part of its name meant “Christian but not affiliated with the Pope” and so “Protestant Episcopal” meant “Church headed by bishops but not connected with the Pope” and was an accurate descriptor of that church. The modern tendency to associate Protestant with exaltation of Biblical authority, sola fidei/sola Scriptura, evangelical doctrine was not contemplated by the founders of the American church.
Second, to say that Henry VIII “founded” the Church of England is like saying that the Governor of Massachusetts on July 4, 1776 “founded” Massachusetts. The Church of England was founded by St. Augustine of Canterbury about a thousand years previous to Hank Tudor of the many wives; what he did was to deny Papal authority to intervene in its domestic affairs, as many kings had done before in most European countries. However, as in Sweden at the same time, this time it “took” and there was no compromise and reunion as there had been when King John, Barbarossa, Philip the Fair, and several other monarchs had done much the same thing.
Anglicans claim to be “the bridge church,” preserving at the same time Catholic tradition, including the Apostolic Succession, and Protestant reformation of the abuses of Medieval Catholic practice. In the past 120 years there has been a strong focus on the Catholic aspects of Anglicanism, a tendency to focus on sacramental grace, and at the same time a willingness to explore the basics of theology from new perspectives that focus on grace freely given, as opposed to legalism or authority.
So the basic answer to the question is, “Whaddaya mean by ‘Protestant’?” It depends on how you’re using the term. From a Roman Catholic perspective, definitely. From a Baptist perspective, no way, José.
History doesn’t really tell us if Benedict Arnold was a patriot or a traitor. Our view of him is largely determined by which side of the Atlantic we’re on.
Where we put one religious group or another is largely based upon what group we are in. Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder.
From my life-long Episcopalian perspective, the Episcopal Church is a Protestant church.
If what your ignorant dinner companion said was true, OP, then only the Lutheran Church or Calvinist Church would be Protestant. Her definition would exclude Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians, often referred to in America as ‘Mainstream’ or ‘Mainline’ Protestant denominations.
Refer also to the VIth Article of Religion for the Episcopal Church, *Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. *
I made the very same argument that the Methodist Church was not truly a member of the Protestant movement. Someone corrected me, by saying that was true only until the 1970’s when the Methodist Church combined with the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) to create The United Methodist Church. A very sad day in the Methodist Church IMHO. 
The Church of England is Catholic according to extreme Protestants, and Protestant according to extreme Catholics.
Nearest I can say is that CoE is catholic but non Papist.
Notice the very use of the word catholic in the Apostle’s creed, said at every (well ever one I have been to) CoE service.
Having grown up Catholic, I always lumped all non-Catholic Christians under the “Protestant” rubric–much to the dismay of my Mormon, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic pals. Nowadays, I’ll just take your word for it.
That’s small-c catholic, Bippy, meaning “universal”. The Apostle’s Creed is also near-universal among Christian churches, being the most popular creed used by Western Christians. The fact that the CofE uses it doesn’t mean doodly as to the question of their (big-C) Catholicness.
Oh! Thanks jayjay I didn’t realise the difference between Catholic and catholic was so large, I thought catholic was Catholic with the Pope replaced by Henry VIII after his little tiff with the Vatican. I had not realised that completely Protestant churches used the term catholic in refering to their churches.
I hve still heard about theso called high church/low church division in CofE which I don’t much understand except in what I was told that high church was more Catholic like and Low Church was more Protestant like.
Bippy, the above statement is laden with language many would call offensive – the equivalent of “Well, I didn’t realize that gay people were comfortable living a sinful lifestyle.” I deleted my first response to it – chase down a good write-up of the history of Anglicanism and the various meanings given to “Protestant” to get a better handle on it.
Your last paragraph is pretty much on target – what matters to Catholics matters to High Churchmen; what matters to typical Protestants matters to Low Churchmen (“Evangelicals” in their own terminology).
High Church and Low Church refer more to the degree of liturgical formality the religious service takes than any differences in belief.
A High Church service may include incense. A Low Church Episcopalian might not bow his head when the cross in the procession passed. Under Cromwell the Puritans led a movement away from ‘Romish’ vanities such as stained glass windows, vestments, and processions. The Puritans smashed stained glass windows, stripped alters, and melted down communion chalices. Low Church Episcopalians’ services tend to be closer to what the Puritans were aiming for.
There are no real differences of substance though. It’s sort of like the incessant arguments about do you or do you not dress up when you go to the opera:
High Church = Of course you dress up when you go to the opera - after all, it’s the opera!
Middle Church = Wear a cashmere turtleneck or finely tailored shirt and nice slacks - you look sharp!
Low Church = Wear blue jeans to the opera, who cares?
Thanks Poly, but I’m now even more confused (if that were possible)
I promise I made no concious attempt at offense, and can’t yet see where the offense may have been made.
The quote about catholic being Catholic was meant to explain where my error came from, not meant to be read as a correct view. I am also talking from the position of someone who was taught in CofE schools about CofE and other religions. So I am not trying to say anything authorative, but I am trying to learn how what I was taught relates to the truth of the matter.
As I was taught. CofE broke away from the Roman Catholic churc arround the time of HenryVIII (after I think the pope refused him a devorce from one of his wives), HenryVIII dissenfranchised many Roman Catholic Monastaries within his realms and pretty much set himself up as the head of the Christian Church in England. I was also told and taught that Roman Catholics tend to consider CofE as a Protestant branch of Christianity (for not considering the Pope as Christ’s Priest on Earth, and not revering the Virgin Mary in the way the RC’s do) whilst Strong Protestants consider CofE to be Catholic (because of the existance of an organised priesthood). I have found it rare for members of the CofE to refer to themselves as Protestant or Catholic but just Christian. Further more what I heard about the difference between High and Low church further makes me believe CofE cannot be considered completely Protestant or Catholic, and time spent in University Halls of Residence with future CofE ministers did nothing to remove this confusion.
I am aware that since I did not and still do not know how my first answer may have caused offence, that I may be digging myself into a deeper whole with this reply. I agree it may be wise for me to just shut up about things I am not fully aware of, but I hope I can learn through continued communication. I also hope that if what I say causes harm or offence, that whomever feels such harm or offence would feel free to email me (in my profile) to point out as politely as they can where I err.
aahala makes a good point about perspective. Things are so much simpler for fundies. Our pal Jack T. Chick probably defines the categories as “my King James bible believing church” and the ones going to hell.
Getting serious again, if we define out terms a little more loosely to include mainstream protestant churches do we include churches like LDS and Jehova’s Witness which were started as a protest to the R.C. Church but becaus of a prophecy or revalation.
We need some new terminology and probably a Venn diagram to sort this out. The diagram gets pretty messy quickly so I don’t think one term will cover it. Churches evolve too so categories ovlap. Is the relatively recent Evangelical Lutheran Church in America a true protestant church just because we have rose carvings in the pews and listen to A Prarie Home Companion?
At least we don’t serve fish with Drano sauce :eek:
That should read “which were not started…”
Hmmm. I always understood it to be Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and the Other Folks (CJCLDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc). The Eastern Schism just doesn’t seem to fit the pedigree of the “protestant” movement, though I can’t think of a good principle for such classification beyond a particular historical context. Before that you had the Arian Schism, the Acacian Schism, the Iconoclasts, and maybe a few more I can’t remember…are they all Protestant?
It’s actually a very good question the OP raises. Is the Catholic Church so special that “everybody else” is a Protestant? I’m sure some in the One True Church might look at it that way, but what’s the most correct definition of Protestant?
Heretic!
I thought lutefisk was required by law at all Lutheran church functions in Minnesota and Wisconsin.