Are Episcopalians Protestant?

Certainly the historical precedent would seem to be to call the Church of England a Protestant church. For example, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 repeatedly refers to the efforts of the deposed Roman Catholic King James II to “extirpate the Protestant religion”, and to “subjects which are Protestants”.

I realize dictionaries aren’t necessarily the best references for this sort of question, but the American Heritage Dictionary defines a Protestant as “A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers”. From the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, we have Article VI (“Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation”) (already mentioned above):

(That article goes on to define the Bible as including the books considered by other Protestant churches as canonical, while relegating what are generally called the “Aprocrypha” to a lesser status.)

From Article XI (“Of the Justification of Man”):

Now, I don’t see anything in there about the “universal priesthood of all the believers”; still, we’ve got two out of three major doctrines, plus historic usage. More Protestant than not, I’d say. (Of course some clearly Protestant churches retain the office of Bishop–a number of Lutheran churches have an episcopal form of government–but some Protestant churches stress that “bishop” is merely an “office”, and not a separate “order”.) Finally, it doesn’t seem to me that a desire for ecumenicism makes a denomination non-Protestant–heck the mainline Lutheran churches have explored ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic Church, and if the Lutherans aren’t Protestants, then who is?

IANAE, but from statements made by some of them in this board, I draw that they do mostly accept the teaching that the EC is in the Apostolic Succession.

From the outside, the RCC does not currently recognize the Apostolic Succession in Anglicanism, based on changes made in the procedures for episcopal ordination after the original schism.

The difficulty with this definition is that it relies on the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church to define who is a Protestant. Shouldn’t you should be asking the individual churches and their members whether they consider themselves Protestant?

A different way to ask the question is ‘If you’re Christian, and you’re not Catholic, and you’re not Orthodox, and you don’t call yourself Protestant, what do you call yourself?’

Is there a 4th category? Rest of Christianity, like Rest of World? And Protestant is, in my (Episcopalian) mind, **a relative category. **

In answer to CBCD’s question just above, Anglican? Christian?

I received a nice e-mail from the Beardless one, and need to clarify –

The Church in England was around 500 years before the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox split. It remained in existence up through the early 1500s, in communion with Rome but with its own hierarchy, just as the Church in France, in Spain, in Germany, and in Sweden did. In the course of this, there were any number of disputes between monarch and Pope about the scope of the latter’s authority over the laws of the local realm.

Henry VII, newly king of England after overthrowing Richard III and with the most precarious claim possible for kingship, took every step possible to cement his authority, including marrying the Yorkist heiress and making marriage alliances for his children by her. One of these entailed marrying Prince Arthur, heir to the throne, to the younger daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, Catherine of Aragon. This was a typical “political union” between two kids, and Arthur, sickly, never consummated the marriage before he died.

Trying to salvage the mess his death left, Henry negotiated her marriage to his surviving son, Prince Henry, who would become Henry VIII. To do so, he needed to get relief from the canon law prohibiting someone from marrying his brother’s widow, and the Pope of the time was willing to grant this.

Henry VIII ascended the throne on his father’s death, and had a daughter and a number of stillbirths by Catherine. When Luther condemned Catholic teaching, Henry wrote a book in defense of the Catholic position, and was awarded the title Defensor Fidei by a grateful Pope. Falling for Anne Boleyn and concerned for the absence of a male heir, he convinced himself that the dispensation that had permitted him to marry Catherine was actually against God’s law, and that his sonlessness was due to God’s anger, he sought an annulment, a fairly common occurrence in the days of matrimonial alliances. However, Catherine’s nephew was now King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor as Charles V, and his troops were occupying Rome – and he was not at all pleased at the idea of his aunt’s marriage being annulled. He prevailed on the Pope to refuse the annulment.

Henry did what kings and emperors before had done – got a complaisant Parliament to declare that the Pope had no authority over civil matters affecting the realm. And got his annulment, assuming headship under Christ over the English church, which he kept firmly Catholic in doctrine but outside the Pope’s authority.

Matters stayed like this through five more wives until Henry’s death. He had one son, who took the throne as Edward VI at age nine – and his guardians, his mother’s kin the Spensers, were Protestant, largely Bucerian in theology. Under the Spensers, England moved rapidly Protestant. Then Edward died at fifteen, unmarried. After a brief spasm involving Lady Jane Grey, Edward’s older sister, Catherine’s daughter Mary, took the throne, reversed her mother’s annulment, and brought England back under the Papacy, marrying Emperor Charles’s son Philip II of Spain. But they had no children, and, ironically, she was excommunicated in a bit more Papal politics. Her successor was the only surviving child of Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn’s daughter Elizabeth. And she stabilized the church in a position midway between Catholicism and Protestantism, preserving the Apostolic Succession and episcopal rule, retaining the ecclesiology and sacramental theology of Catholicism but with some abuses corrected and an emphasis on Scripture and evangelism taken from Protestantism. For the first 15 years of her reign, she was in communion with the Pope, though independent of his authority. Then Philip II, who continued to claim the English throne through his marriage to Mary, prevailed on the Pope to excommunicate her and her loyal subjects.

And that’s where things have stood ever since.

To say that Henry founded the Church of England is to deny the fact that the same bishops and priests and the same doctrine were in place before and after his separation from the Pope. The same Church continued in place throughout his reign as had been before and, save for the backing-and-filling under his children and the Commonwealth and Civil Wars, continued from then until today.
Anglicans use the adjective catholic to mean an ecclesiology that adheres to the traditional three orders of clergy and the transmission of authority from the apostles by laying on of hands down to the present leadership, a focus on grace mediated through the sacraments, and generally an adherence to Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as the three sources of authority, none of which may be disregarded without damage to the faith. This flies in the face of Protestant sola Scriptura teachings. So we claim to be catholic, one element of the broken Church, other pieces of which include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Lutheran Churches of Sweden, Finland, and ELCA, and the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht.

I put this question to a friend of mine who is LDS and he didn’t have any better terms than reformation for Lutheran and Calvanist and post reformation for most others but said that LDS consider themselves to be in neither of those categories.

Moriah:

CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!CLAP!CLAP! CLAP!CLAP! etc. etc.!!!

Thank you very much for a brilliant exposition.

My regards to Polycarp, UDS, Moriah, and the others whose erudition hath runne…er, flooded this thread. In defense of my original reply, however, this:

doesn’t quite fly with me. The Church of England is separate from the Roman Catholic Church: not in Communion with it, and not subordinate to the Pope. Its members are not Roman Catholics, but before Henry’s action, they were. Augustine of Canterbury founded the Catholic Church in England, but not what we now know as the Church of England.

Separating from the Pope was that big a deal, yes?

I think an Anglican would say that, immediately after the break with Rome, it was the same church; all that had changed was its relationship with Rome. Doctrinal and liturgical changes came a little later, and undoubtedly wouldn’t have come but for the prior break with Rome but it was the same group of people forming the same community and worshipping the same God they had always worshipped. So how was it a new church?

And the key here is whether they formed the “same community” as they had previousl formed.

Take a step back. There’s a temptation to see the Roman Catholic Church as a “top-down” organisation, a single church with the pope at the top, bishops deriving their authority the pope, priests from bishops, and so forth.

Not so, even in the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church. The basic unit is actually the local church – the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Antioch, the Church of Corinth, the Church of Rome, the Church of Canterbury, the Church of Boston. Each of these churches is a group of Christians under the leadership of a bishop, who is assisted by priests or presbyters. This concept of “church” goes back pretty much to the apostolic age. I’m a member of (in my case) the Church of Perth if I’m (a) baptised, and (b) in commmunion with the Archbishop of Perth.

But, as well as the local churches, we have the Catholic, or universal, church, which is all the local churches in communion with one another. Local churches are in communion with one another if their bishops are in communion with one another. And, specifically, I am in communion with my bishop, he is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, who as the successor of St Peter has primacy among the bishops, and through him, with all the other bishops who are in communion with him, and with the members of their local churches. Presto! The Roman Catholic Church!

“Communion” with the Bishop of Rome is a foundation on which a fairly large edifice has been erected. Communion requires a degree of shared faith, and one aspect of that shared faith, so far as Roman Catholics are concerned, is the acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome’s primacy as including a degree of authority.

So when Henry persuades or coerces the English bishops to reject the authority of Rome, this is a fairly fundamental issue. Does it amount to a rejection of communion, so as to place the English church outside the catholic church, united by a common communion? Clearly, two opinions are possible on this; in fact a very large number of opinions are possible. And the situation is fluid. Does rejection of authrority plus the adoption of calvinist doctrine do the trick, as under Edward? What about acceptance of Catholic doctrine while maintaining secular headship of the church, as under Mary? It’s well into the reign of Elizabeth before the question is definitively answered.

Catholics would take the view that, when this finally and definitely happens, its such a fundemental change in the nature of the English church that, yes, it really is fair to speak of it as a separate, autonomous, self-contained church, in a way that it wasn’t before. So, yes, it’s a new church. But it’s the same organisation that was previously the English church in communion with Rome. There’s an organic continuity there.

Yes, it was. The point that Anglicans make is that the theology and worship practice of Anglicans did not change when Bluff King Hal took over – and after some extremist swings in both directions during the next 30 years or so, it settled in with a belief structure that preserved the essentials of Catholic thought and practice (at least in our opinion).

To give you a quick conception of what we’re trying to get at here, let’s take a hypothetical St. Ignatius Loyola Catholic Church somewhere out there. Fr. Sarducci, the new pastor, slowly:
[ul][li]Institutes a prayer service with sermon on Sundays instead of Mass[/li][li]Conducts prayer-and-praise services Saturday nights[/li][li]Begins Bible studies in the parochial school in which he teaches Biblical literalism[/li][li]Preaches on the Epistle to the Romans and in the process comes out for sola fidei theology[/li][li]Comes out for “believer’s baptism” and institutes a movement to rebaptize all parishoners who were baptized as babies[/li][li]Encourages parishioners to watch the 700 Club and listen to Focus on the Family[/li][li]Preaches against the Rosary, Novenas to the BVM, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption[/li][li]Brings in guest speakers to conduct revivals[/ul][/li]
But through all this (his bishop for some obscure reason having remained silent on his activity) he professes total allegiance to the Pope. Clearly, he’s still a good Roman Catholic! :rolleyes:

I grant that bit of bizarrerie might never happen – but it’s a caricature intended to stress that “unity with the Pope” is far from the sole key to “being Catholic.” And our point is that we did what Luther set out to do – preserve and restore the essentials of Catholicism while reforming the abuses that had been tacked on. That the proximate cause was the denial of Henry’s annulment no more makes that “the reason” that we split than World War I was fought because Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Russians, Americans, etc., were personally loyal to Archduke Franz Ferdinand and aghast at his assassination.

We were the same national church before and after the Act that established Henry’s Headship (which Elizabeth, significantly, did not continue – she and all succeeding monarchs down to her incumbent gloriously reigning namesake are/were Protectors of the Church). We believed the same things, we celebrated the same sacraments, we practiced the same piety.

That historicity of tradition is important to us – it validates a big piece of who we understand ourselves to be. And that’s a piece of why we get so bent out of shape at the “Henry VIII started the Church of England because he wanted a divorce” canard. First, it’s false in detail, and second, what he did was not to found a new church but to take the national church that he and his predecessors had been crowned in and spent their lives worshipping in out of communion with the Pope. And that’s all he did. Granted there was some theological divergence later – but Henry was as sincere and loyal a Catholic as it was possible to be – just not a Roman Catholic when the Pope thwarted him.

Is not Henry VIII’s Dissolution of Monasteries also have an effect on the move from Roman Catholic ideas?
And from this cite
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page19.asp
Henry made sure that his sole male heir, Edward, was educated by people who believed in Protestantism rather than Catholicism because he wanted the anti-papal nature of his reformation and his dynasty to become more firmly established.

I’m sorry Polycarp but I’m not sure it can really be said that Henry was as sincere and loyal a Catholic as it was possible to be.

Well, there’s a Catch-22 here. The RCC has a central authority in the Pope. If he says the Anglicans are out of communion and are part of the the Protestant movement, then that’s the official RCC point of view.

Now, the Anglicans might say, hey, wait a second, we’re catholic, too! But what does it mean to be catholic? Part of being catholic is being in communion with Rome. But Rome doesn’t recognize them to be in communion, so, they’re not catholic.

But the Anglicans will say that you don’t need such type of communion (of recognizing the supremacy of one bishop over another) to be catholic. They’ll point to how they have national churches and autonomous dioceses and yet are still in communion with eachother (a communion that’s being sorely tested by having a gay bishop).

But the Orthodox, who have taken the same position (we don’t need no stinking Papal Supremacy), don’t recognize the catholicity (the validity of orders and Apostolic succession) of the Anglicans.

So the Anglicans can say they’re reforming Catholics all they want, but it’s a different matter to get Roman Catholics and Orthodox to recognize that claim as valid. And if the Roman Catholics and Orthodox reject you, can you really lay claim to the title of Catholic?

And, as I wrote in my previous post, even though there are many of the Anglican family who see themselves as Catholic (even Roman!) with valid orders and episcopal succession, there are just as many ‘low church’ Anglicans who proudly delcare themselves Protestant and would be happy to see the episcopacy pass away as a medieval corruption of true Christianity.

But if it eases people’s minds, in the spirit of ecumenism of Vatican Council II, the term “Protestant” is never used in any official documents. A reference is made to the “Reformation” and all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christian churches are referred to as ‘other church bodies’ or ‘ecclesial communities’ and fully recognizes their baptisms and calls their adherents members of the mystical body of Christ. The council fathers even went out of their way to give a shout out to the Anglicans (since, among the Protestants, the Anglican church is closest to the RCC and would be the easiest to reunite with).

From the 1964 Decree on Ecumenism:

Peace.

Pretty fair analysis, Moriah. The only issue I’d raise is that I’ve never heard of a low church Anglican who wanted to do away with episcopacy – there are plenty of places they can go for non-episcopal evangelicism if that’s what they’re seeking. Mostly, they would prefer the bishops function in a less ceremonial role and more as teachers of moral values and leaders in supra-parish evangelistic efforts.

However, you raise the question of who gets to define “catholic” in the creedal sense – the “[One] Holy Catholic [and Apostolic] Church” mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed, with the bracketed parts added in the Nicene Creed. And I humbly submit that Anglicans have just as much right to write the definition in the manner that suits them as do [Roman] Catholics, [Eastern and Oriental] Orthodox, and the Protestant groups who reference all Christian churches whatsoever by the term.

I’d want to note that there’d be several other “definitions”. I write from a Lutheran perspective, in which the equation of catholicity with bishops and “threefold ministry” seems quite odd. From my perspective, the “catholic” church is the Body of Christ. I would oppose any attempt to define it by specifically Lutheran doctrinal formulae, and I would also oppose any attempt to define it by another community’s emphases.
A problem, I think, is that all our communities (my own included), insofar as they refer at all to “catholicity,” have some tendency to define “catholic” so that it most clearly includes “us.” In earlier posts, the same tendency shows up with regard to schism; from a Lutheran perspective, I would not see it having anything whatsoever to do with whether or not bishops are involved. “Schism” is the attempt of any community rooted in the Church to separate itself from other Christians and exist independently. The chief offense is not against episcopacy, but against communion.

Anyhow: I don’t intend to get into “witnessing” here – only to note, for the original poster, that definitions should be taken with some caution. I would be especially wary of any definitions which take for granted the theological assumptions of the community from within which they are written. Returning to the original post, “Protestant” would not be defined by Roman Catholics in isolation; nor by American Evangelicals. Actual usage would certainly include Methodists, as well as those Episcopalians who are not personally offended by the term.