One Site at a Time

I’ve been away from the blogosphere for a few days. But I see the usual suspects are up to the usual stuff.

Something from the spreading Christian ignorance one site at a time file: the not-so-closed cafeteria was confusing Christmas and Advent earlier this month. Today they have trouble getting Anglicans and Protestants confused.

Rock has his usual dose of prelate news, including speculation on filling the Detroit post. Even a humble monsignor is in the rumor mix next to all those episcopal hussies from Newark, Saginaw, Oakland, and New Ulm. The smart money is on another dose of careerism in the episcopacy. Let’s see if they don’t pull another lateral move like Charleston to Birmingham (Newark to Detroit) and do some more fussy fine-tuning of the arch-episcopates.

I see the NLM is focusing on their usual one-dimensional universe: either you’re in one of their two hermeneutics, neglecting that there may be no less than five operating post-conciliar philosophies afoot these days, including the hermeneutic of obstruction:throw everything you can into blocking Vatican II.

About these ads

About catholicsensibility

Todd and his family live in Ames, Iowa. He serves a Catholic parish of both Iowa State students and town residents.
This entry was posted in Church News, Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to One Site at a Time

  1. Dustin says:

    If pressed, I think I could elaborate upon three . . . but five?

  2. FrMichael says:

    Todd: The Closed Cafeteria has it right. Take a look at Vatican 2′s Decree on Ecumenism, number 13, paragraph 2. You will will discover that the Anglicans are indeed considered a communion of the Reformation– that’s “Protestant” to us English-speaking Catholics. They are singled out as having a special place within the movement, but that’s where they fit.

  3. Todd says:

    Anglicans recognize their closeness to Roman Catholicism, and I can’t recall any Anglicans or Episcopalians who consider themselves Protestant. Most see that Luther and Calvin’s split as “protestant,” but that Henry VIII’s was something different, given his initial defense of Catholic practices and traditions against the Reformation proper.

    Many Catholics like Gerald don’t appreciate or are even aware of the fine distinctions within Christendom. They do themselves little credit spouting off as they do.

  4. Liam says:

    Todd

    By UK law the Anglican religion is Protestant by definition. The UK sovereign – head of the Church of England – actually is required to swear an oath before Parliament:

    “I [monarch's name] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God
    profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will,
    according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant
    succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said
    enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”

    The idea that Anglicanism/Episcopalianism are not Protestant is not tenable from a factual perspective. THere may be individuals and congregations that partake of a Catholic or Unitarian flavor atop their Protestantism, but the denominations are unqualifiedly Protestant.

    I will be away from the Internet tomorrow through next Wednesday, folks. So enjoy!

  5. Randolph Nichols says:

    “. . .I can’t recall any Anglicans or Episcopalians who consider themselves Protestant.”

    Todd, the confusion lies with the terminology used by Episcopalians themselves. High church Episcopalians certainly view themselves as Catholic, but the Articles of Religion (see page 867, Book of Common Prayer) refer to “the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United Sates of America.”

  6. John Heavrin says:

    Todd, I believe you’re correct that Henry VIII’s personal rebellion was a political, not really a theological matter, and really a matter of personal weakness and petulance. However, if there had been no sympathy for Reformation theology and ecclesiology in some sense, he would have been seen merely as an apostate and his rebellion would have died with him. Cranmer and others were full-fledged protestants, and filled in the theological rationale quickly. That’s my amateur take on it.

    Many Episcopalians describe themselves as Catholic, and fiercely defend the description. Others would consider it false, almost insulting. Practially speaking, it seems a quibble not to refer to anyone who belongs to an ecclesial body which began, or descended from one which began, as a 16th-century offshoot from the Church of Rome, as a “protestant.”

  7. In practical terms, being Episcopalian in the United States requires almost no specific beliefs. I’ve had some close Episcopal friends who consider themselves “catholic” and others who consider themselves “Protestant” and others were are very close to being Unitarian, but like ritual.

    However, from a Catholic point of view (and a historical one) the Anglicans/Episcopalians are unquestionably Protestant.

    Gerald is thinking with the Church on this one.

  8. Todd says:

    Points taken.

    Clearly I’ve been hanging around with too many high church Anglicans. I’ve never used the term Protestant in connection with them.

  9. Raul says:

    It’s also worth pointing out that the Episcopal church calls itself “The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.”

  10. Jimmy Mac says:

    This is how Wikipedia deals with the issue of what to call them:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America#Official_names

  11. Deacon Eric says:

    It seems to me that to classify Anglicans as Protestants is to say “once a Protestant, always a Protestant.” I don’t think that fairly allows for evolution and development of theology and ecclesiology.

    Why pick out one period in history? Certainly no one could say that the Henrician Church was Protestant. It certainly veered more in that direction under Edward, but under Elizabeth’s settlement it once again returned to Catholic roots in many ways. Then with the Oxford Movement the Catholic orientation became even more pronounced.

    So why pick only one period, say under Edward, and say the Anglican Communion must forever be categorized by its nature at that time? Why not choose Henry’s period as a basis for classification? Seems to me it’s more realistic (and fair) to see where they are here and now and classify them accordingly. Anyone who reads the documents of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Consultation Commission can clearly see there is no Protestant theology contained therein.

  12. Liam says:

    Back for a few days…justmoved my elderly parents from their home of 55 years….

    Deacon Eric

    The Church of England is a creature of English law (under the governship of the English sovereign), which defines it definitively as Protestant. That *IS* its formal ecclesiology, and not currently reconcilable with Catholicism. Only when it is privitised can this conceivably be revisited.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s