McGrath argues, as you would expect, from his own protestant point of view. he also, I suspect has a personal interest at the moment in appearing very protestant (cf Wycliffe Hall events), and he wants to make a political point about the future of the Anglican communion.

Historians differ on his conclusions about the various strands of ecclesiology which have held sway at different times in the history of the C of E, and the case against a reformed catholic understanding is by no means as decisive as he would like us to believe.

It is, however, on the political front that matters are most pressing. There is no need to argue for a protestant Anglicanism in order the achieve the diversity he pleads for. The pre-mediaeval structure of the catholic church is more fertile ground for this. It had a variety of rites, of jurisdictions, of disciplines, yet all were in communion with Rome. There is a strong movement within the Roman Catholic church to return to this conciliar model, rather than the monarchical one of Ratzinger, and we would be well advised to explore this, rather than McGrath's unhistorical interpretation and his desire for a pan-protestantism.

McGrath is spouting Prod propaganda. Of course Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is Reformed Catholic, and not Protestant.

McGrath's points re the cohesiveness which remain within Methodism and Presbyterianism in Ireland as a model to signify the continued cohesiveness of the Church of Ireland are true to a degree. However, it is with increasing alarm that the Sydney Diocese is increasingly colonising parts of the ArchDiocese of Dublin. In the Dublin Diocese there are a number of "trustee" churches and organisations, whose properties would be held in trust by nominated members rather than by the diocese. These particular churches are having increased alignment with Sydney, with the establishment of links with MTS (a Sydney Based Training Programme), links with Moore College, appointment of Sydney ordained Ministers and this autumn a recent influx of Moore trained youth workers.

The Church of Ireland in general are quite a cohesive bunch, however, a global shakeup could lead to quite a shakeup in one of the country's main dioceses.

Professor McGrath writes as if words never change their meanings -- "Protestant" in modern America certainly means something other than what the lived witness of The Episcopal Church currently is (hence the change of name).

In earlier eras in British history "Catholic" meant "papalists dedicated to overthrowing the government" (something which the government found objectionable). McGrath may lament that the Oxford Movement succeeded in changing this understanding, but succeed they did (well, perhaps not in Ireland).

BTW, I find Canon Cameron's piece unjustifiably ecumenically optimistic, but we have to have people like that if ecumenism is ever to obtain any successes.

It does not follow that a family of Churches implies Protestantism. This is the case with the Orthodox. It is a "family" with different groupings and connections. One group I found while looking at independent and wandering bishops was the British Orthodox Church, so named now as it plugged itself into another Orthodox Church, but had followed the same pattern of ordinations and consecrations as other independent groups, including one of particular interest, The Liberal Rite (which has episcopal lines from the Liberal Catholic Church and out of the Roman Catholic Church). None of these groups are Protestant or even Reformed, even when they are liberal (a point that took my interest - like how come?)

Whether Protestant and Reformed are interchangable I am not sure. The Church of England was started as a Catholic Church outside the reach of the Pope, and then it did allow in many Protestant ideas. Lutheran ideas have hung around, and the Calvinists walked out (many to end up generations later as Unitarians) but Calvinism kept coming back in. So I'd see the Church of England as a kind of vessel that lets in a variety of ideas, including reconstituted Catholicism. Alister McGrath isn't necessarily wrong, it is just a very partial picture and ends up being polemical.

Historically, "Reformed Catholic" -- which characterizes much of Lutheranism as well as Anglicanism -- is a strand of Protestantism, located between Roman Catholicism on the hand and the radical Protestant groups (Anabaptists, Mennonites, etc.), on the other.

If many people today use "Protestant" only with reference to "low church" groups (or whatever), that's too bad and may even be a reason for dropping "Protestant" from your name, but it is no excuse for theologians and historians to consider Anglicanism an island all of its own, located between the Protestant and Catholic continents.

The observations on Anglicanism developing from "single denomination" to "denominational family" seemed to me worth pondering. Ironically, it is TEC's very "Protestantism" which gave momentum to this.

An interesting element of the Gregory Cameron article is how the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Union is understood by some Catholics. After Arnold Harris Mathew set up the British branch, the perception was that the Utrecht Union became increasingly Protestant, and the fact that the Church of England was able to come into full communion with it is cited as evidence of its own shift. One small Church that looks to Arnold Harris Mathew rather than subsequent Liberal catholic developments (but they are all related) and seems to have an ecumenical outlook is the Open Episcopal Church, another one of these Independent Catholic outposts. Also, this split between Utrecht Union and British Old Catholics is underlined by the fact that Arnold Harris Mathew was almost feared by the Church of England high ups for reordaining hundreds of Anglo-Catholic clergy, and a potential for attracting them out (never happened, probably never would have) and this is contrasted with its attitude towards the Utrecht Union with whom Mathew first was connected and was their mission into Britain. Interestingly AHM kept running from situations when he discovered active homosexuality (except when he dropped into and then out of Unitarianism briefly) and although he had this motivational streak, almost all the Churches of his legacy are pro gay equality, whether the Open Episcopal Church, Liberal Catholic, Liberal Rite and variations around and in between. Most of the clergy who formed the Liberal Catholic Church out of the British Old Catholic Church were gay.

Of course everything depends on definition of terms, here are mine: "Catholic" refers in this context to continuity with the Western (Latin) church as distinct both from "Orthodox" which refers to continuity with the Eastern church, and from various discontinuous versions of Christianity.

"Reformed" in this context refers to affinity with the theology of the magisterial Reformers of the sixteenth century.

"Protestant" = "of any of the Christian bodies that separated from the Roman communion in the Reformation (16th c.), or their offshoots" -- so in my Concise Oxford Dictionary which sounds reasonable to me.

Anglicanism is situated between Roman Catholicism and Radical Protestantism but not uniquely so. If Diarmaid McCulloch is right, Anglicanism also represents a middle way between Lutheranism and Calvinism, which is more unique historically.

Ideologically, one may define "Catholicism" as a concern for continuity and community, and "Protestantism" as a concern for (perceived, Biblical) truth.

I would guess that these and similar issues and questions are arising, just at the present time, mainly because we are all aware - at so many conscious and indeed preverbal levels - that we are living through a rather more deeply changing time, than not.

My take? Some old - in some cases, perhaps, very old? - frames are more visibly passing away than ever before in global religious life.

First nominee for the old guard changing into something else, which we do not quite yet discern very much as a new emergent whole - involves a whole storehouse of penal frameworks, assumptions, definitions.

It is not that penalistic remedies cannot still be loudly preached, all around, for just about any human ill under our particular sun system. It is that their effectiveness as compleat, due remedies seems more openly and publicly threadbare than ever before. As this or that penalism gets applied on a visibly wider scale, we see the bad consequences of its approach and its limitations, as well as perhaps seeing that its alleged benefits sometimes occur and other times do not occur.

Jailing citizens who are gay or lesbian, for example, is a huge waste of money, time, and the very human resources that both the jailers and the jailed embody. Ditto, for confining any and all women to that classical 19th century Euro/German triad, kitchen, children, church. (Has this evolved today, into kitchen, children, outside work?) The women intelligent enough to learn law or medicine are not aberrations whom we must fear, but precious gifts to all of us.

The new (or old) science upon which so much of the replacements - note plural, please - for this or that sort of penalism - well these are forever open-ended. In those cases where data and theory are well under way, they have not been widely published among average educated citizens, nor allowed to update and transform various institutions - legal, economic, educational, and so forth. The New Biology, for one thing, seems promising of new solutions and new dilemmas in so many vexed domains of our perennial human condition - but people beholden to mainly penal resources perceive the disjuncture as: God=Tradition=Rules=Penal Enforcements VS. Anything Goes.

This forced dilemmas is literally a poor way - for exploring and understanding both the happy and unhappy possibilities of all our current changes.

I think it was Charles Haddon Spurgeon who called the Church of England "semi-demi-reformed." That always seemed pretty accurate both historically and theologically to me.

Alistair is spot on and the sooner he is made a Church of England bishop the better.

In response to John F,there are (I think)2, possibly 3, "trustee" churches in Dublin. One is evangelical, with Sydney connections, to be sure; another is charismatic; the third is definitely Anglo-Catholic. While there would be some conservative evangelical clergy, the majority are of central, liberal, or moderate catholic churchmanship.

McGrath makes these extraordinary accusations:
“Canon Gregory Cameron …..publicly distanced Anglicanism from Protestantism.”
“Canon Cameron spoke of ………Anglicanism as lying beyond the pale of Protestantism.”
“Canon Cameron appears to belong to the revisionist school of thought which is trying to airbrush out Anglicanism’s Protestant heritage and tradition.”
“Cameron may wish that Anglicanism was not Protestant; he cannot, however, rewrite history to suit his tastes.”

Cameron’s piece for the Church Times is “remarkable” for what it summarises in fewer than 900 words – as far as I can see it gives an honest and accurate account of its subject – Can anyone tell me where McGrath finds the evidence for all his assertions?

McGrath has something very important to say – something I very much want to hear – what a shame it has been lost in this vicious little piece.

"Protestantism" is a word of the Roman Office of Propaganda Fide trying to smear everybody and everything as same old, same old...

But we are not.

The Church is ever the Church, never the Sect - and the Sect is never the Church.

Simple as that.

Adherants of the Confessio augustana reject the Ecclesiology of Rome (1073 Dictatus papae) as sectarian, and the teachings of Calvinism (Christology, anti Sacraments, Straff-mir-Gott moralisms) as Heretical.

Simple as that.

Thanks John F and daithi for some reports from the ground.

Drdanfee, I agree that the whole penal subsitution model is just falling over. As I said to a girlfriend the other day, the continuing vilification against Cheva (aka Eve), and thus all women, refutes Jesus' success at being "the" atoning sacrifice for all humanity for all time. Thus either Jesus failed, and is not what some priests purport him to be, or those same accusatory priests are in rebellion by refusing to acknowledge that sin has been forgiven.

McGrath's comment about attempting to airbrush and rewrite history is particularly insightful. He comments "It is an unwise strategy for two reasons. First, it is historically indefensible. Cameron may wish that Anglicanism was not Protestant; he cannot, however, rewrite history to suit his tastes. His form of revisionism has itself been revised, and found to be untenable. But, much more importantly, understanding Anglicanism’s history allows us to appreciate what may be about to happen within the Anglican Communion, in the face of renewed tensions over issues of sexuality. To understand this point, we need to consider the Protestant concept of a ‘denominational family’."

It is sloppy theology to justify tyranny, accusations and repression, particularly when it is based on deceitfully denying history has occurred or characters existed. It is certainly not done with the Spirit of Truth. But then both Truth and Grace seem to be sentiments that are irrelevant in some circles.

"Historians now regard this account of Anglicanism as an unfortunate aberration."

Oh brother: I tuned out right there! (Historians NEVER agree on anything, except that his/her own *unique* perspective deserves tenure. ;-/)

Is Mr. McGrath's piece anything more than the customary redefinition of the facts, by some Calvinists, so that his (their) partisan wishes may be seen by the less demanding as having validity?

You have to wonder what will be next, before these forces of extremism decide to either live peaceably within the historical broad tent of Anglicanism, or else depart to form a new Calvinist sect.

Wow, I had no idea PSA kept women barefoot and pregnant. Thanks for the flashback to campy 1960's dorm room chatter.

Maybe you should profit from the occasion to reflect for a while upon the Question:

Is it possible to be one Communion when you have opposed and contradictory histories?

Claiming the Church Catholic as your own – and rejecting it?

Martin - I agree that McGrath uses forceful language. I suspect he would not have done so, if the author of the CT piece had not been Canon Gregory K. Cameron, whom one should expect to know better.

The objectionable phrases are "local co-operation between Anglican and Protestant Churches" and "dialogue with the Protestant traditions" which should have the little word "other" in it. The lack of "other" here claims for Anglicanism a status beyond the Protestant-Roman divide which it never had.

This is not to deny that the Anglican tradition had at one time greater potential for upholding a true Reformed Catholic faith than many other Protestant traditions but it is to say that it is ludicrous to imply that Anglicanism ever represented a fourth (or fifth) way alongside Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, (oriental Orthodoxy,) and Protestantism.

As regards that question (Göran Koch-Swahne) having two or more histories is useful in that each qualifies each other and tends to limit the extent of effective traditionalisms. Two histories create a space for moderation.

Thomas I am not sure I gather your meaning – here is an eminent academic personally attacking a member of the Anglican “civil service” – if you are right and the basis for this attack is the omission of the word “other” when referring to “Protestant Churches” then perhaps you might suggest to McGrath he patently needs a very long holiday.

Or are you saying that McGrath HAS a deep association with this man and has a profound knowledge of Cameron’s position and thinking, that in fact this scholar was basing these cutting remarks and damaging assertions on such an association and knowledge and NOT the Church Times article?

If this is true then I look forward to seeing a demonstration of this insightful research.

Thomas, my complaint is not only that this stupid man defamed another without checking his facts (inexcusable in itself for a man of his standing) – it is that he had a good idea – a valuable lesson to share and that this got lost in the “bitching”.

I would not be surprised to hear that McGrath and Cameron have met before but I think the omission of the word "other" is rather significant and not a minor point. All one needs to know about Cameron to draw some conclusions from this is that he is not a sloppy writer.

There is of course a history to this debate ("the revisionist school of thought"), which makes it unlikely that anyone would just happen to miss out a word (twice). McGrath's complaint is that Cameron "appears to" associate himself with an indefensible position.

The lesson McGrath has to share is related to this precise point. Denying that Anglicanism is one strand of Protestantism may well prevent one from seeing the true nature of current developments. This is why he had to tackle Cameron's (apparent?) denial head-on.

Well now, Thomas Renz' last was surprisingly polemic.

It sure takes good will on both hands, absent which there are no limits - but are you not at all sorry that your church is being rent asunder?

Hi Goran

You asked "Is it possible to be one Communion when you have opposed and contradictory histories? Claiming the Church Catholic as your own – and rejecting it?"

I couldn't help thinking that is parellels the dynamic between the masculine and feminine.

Jesus is the atoning sacrifice and you are forgiven and set free, but if you are a female that means you are enslaved to your husband/church for millenia and must continue to listen to accusatory speeches from the pulpit about one woman to justify the ongoing enslavement and abuse of all women, who are "free" in Christ but not while they remain in female bodies.

Thus these males have claimed Christ and women as their own, and yet rejected them and shackled them.

They are like the husband who insults his wife's cooking, beats her for failing to keep the house clean or embarassing him, but then demands sex every evening because he "loves" her and is only acting in "her" best interests...

Thomas, I am truly amazed.

So you are saying – McGrath (and you too it seems) don’t have to know anything of Cameron other than he is not a sloppy writer.
As Cameron is not a sloppy writer you know his omission of “other” TWICE was deliberate.
By omitting “other” we KNOW what he REALLY means and thinks and all the stuff McGrath spews up about Cameron is true.

And this is what McGrath would say too?

The Cameron piece appeared in the Church Times all of six months ago. Tell me Thomas as you imply there is no careful research or personal knowledge for McGrath to substantiate his views – did this Christian priest pick up the phone, write or email his fellow Christian priest and ask “Brother, did you omit “other” TWICE from this article to make a point……?” Or does a Professor of Historical Theology prefer to accept (his own) conjecture rather than consult the authoritative primary source to discover the truth?

So sad - The Church Times piece appeared on Friday 13th April – an unfortunate and dark day for fools.

McGrath should be happy that despite acquiring a deeply Catholic complexion over the centuries, whether we date that from Hooker or Laud or from the Oxford Movement, Anglicanism still embraces the prophetic thrust of the Reformation. It is the bridge between the two halves of western christianity.

I suppose there's no chance that Thomas's "missing word" could have been removed from the original in the course of editing for publication?

Or alternatively, that many (though clearly not all) Anglicans don't hold to the particular view on this issue that Thomas, and by implication Alister, holds.

Martin, I cannot understand your amazement. We all know that little words sometimes make all the difference. "There is no exit" is a different sentence from "There is no other exit." It is precisely the fact that there are people who seek to deny that Anglicanism is one strand of Protestantism which makes, or at least appears to make, the omission significant.

Note that the initial response from TA posters was not along the lines of "Anglicanism is of course part of Protestantism and McGrath is rather silly to claim that Cameron would be so stupid as to claim otherwise" but precisely a reinforcement of the denial which McGrath suspected in Cameron.

I have no idea what McGrath knows about Cameron. What I am saying is that I don't see the need to speculate about Cameron's mind when the words on the page are pretty clear. I grant it to Simon that the meaning may have been altered in the editorial process but I consider it unlikely. In any case, I was not focusing on Cameron but on previous TA postings in my own response.

There are different views on the specific influence of Lutheranism over against Calvinism in the reformation of the Church of England. There are different views on what precisely happened in and through the Oxford movement to change the face of Anglicanism. But, as far as the question at hand is concerned, whether Anglicanism is historically a strand of Protestantism, there is fact and there is head-in-the-sand.

I grieve to see the Anglican way disintegrate. Anglicanism is beautiful when it is Reformed and Catholic. I think I can see why some people felt they had to shed some "Protestantism" to become more "Catholic". But I am convinced that a return to the insights of the magisterial Reformers (in opposition to much of contemporary Protestantism) would have made us more "Catholic", not less so. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether Anglicanism has evolved into a super-denomination (?) which transcends and lies somewhere beyond the Protestant-Roman divide and might even be able to mediate between them. I am afraid, I think it should be patently obvious that it is not. We are fooling, and maybe flattering, ourselves to think us so different from other Protestant churches - did I just say “other”?

Maybe I ought to clarify one or two things. First, to say that Anglicanism is a strand of Protestantism is to make a historical claim in the first instance. To the best of my knowledge, this is an entirely uncontroversial claim. If there is any evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear about it. Are there any historians disagreeing with McCulloch and McGrath et al. on this?

Secondly, I realise of course that the CofE (never mind other forms of Anglicanism for the moment) has changed a lot since the 16th c. but do these changes imply that it is no longer a basically Protestant denomination? Why would one think so? The Church of Sweden has also changed. The Presbyterian Church of the USA has also changed. Are the changes within the CofE along the lines of a different paradigm? Yes, openness to medieval Catholic practices and Eastern Orthodoxy may be greater within Anglicanism than Lutheranism but this hardly means that Anglicanism has evolved into a different entity altogether. It may be on the ground a form of Protestantism which is more open to “Roman Catholic” or “Eastern Orthodox” practices than other Protestant churches but sociologically, and arguably theologically, it has not become more “Roman Catholic” or “Eastern Orthodox” even if it has become less “Reformed” (as have other Protestant denominations).

Related to this, many TA posters believe the genius of Anglicanism to consist in being “broad church”. What about it? Most mainline Protestant denominations are “broad church” and it is evident that Anglicanism’s version of being “broad church” is more Protestant than Roman, is it not? (The Roman Catholic Church is of course also a “broad church” in many ways but it is broad in ways different from Protestant denominations.)

Thomas Renz, I don’t have a problem with viewing Lutheranism as Reformed Catholic or as something other than Protestant. In fact, the American Episcopal Church is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and has been for several years now. We and the Lutherans, both ceremonially and doctrinally, are far different from, say, the Baptist sects, which are very “typical Protestants” here in America.

Thomas,
It is an incredibly controversial claim. First, Catholic doesn't mean Roman, as I'm sure you are aware, so just because something Anglicans do doesn't look like Rome doesn't make us Protestants. Further, I've been taught to consider us Reformed Catholic rather than Protestant per se. Now, locally, being CofE meant you were considered Protestant, most of us did ourselves. We inherited the Prot/RC hatreds of Ireland, and thus we Anglicans were solidly in the Prtoestant camp. Us Anglo-catholics are still looked on with the same suspicion you would have found in rural England 150 years ago. To claim baldly that we are a Protestant Church is too simplistic, though, since the issue is as much with the definition of "catholic" as anything. Defined as "what has always been believed by everybody everywhere" is just silly, because no such thing exists. It does relate to things like ecclesiology, sacrament, the nature of salvation, the organization of the Church, many things to do with the faith, both ideas as well as praxis, and on and on. I do not call myself a Protestant. In fact, if it could be shown to me that the Anglican church is fully Protestant, I would cease being an Anglican. That doesn't mean I'm a closet Roman or anything, I think the Papal claim to be King of the Bishops means that he is, paradoxically, NOT Catholic. But Protestant? In so far as rejecting the authority of the Pope outside his own diocese, or his authority to unilaterally decide doctrine, yes. Otherwise, no. But 'catholic' isn't defined by 'allegiance to the Pope.'

In a sense Anglicanism is a strand of protestantism but as far as the Church of England is concerned there is a strong sense of continuity either side of the Reformation.Hence Rowan being the 104th Abp of C...Have I got the no right?-Im not sure this is the case with Lutherans and Calvinists is it? well perhaps in Sweden and other Nordic Churches.The Roman Catholic Church,of course, officially differentiates between Protestants and Anglicans; and ARCIC and I suppose the dialogue with the Orthodox began with a view to the resumption of ecclesial communion.I'm not sure RC/ Methodist or Reformed or even the very fruitful RC/Lutheran ecumenical dialogue began with the same intention.

Not being Roman is not the same as being Protestant.

"Protestant" is a political word of the Roman Officium de Propaganda fide trying to make Catholic Lutherans, who adhere to the 1530 Augsburg Confession, into non Catholic Calvinists, who rejected the 1530 Augsburg Confession – and consequently were outside the 1555 Peace of Augsburg as (surprise, surprise) non Catholics.

Moreover, few Reform friendly German Princes in fact signed the Protestation which (much later) led to the Word “Protestant” – it was the usual suspects, Phillipp of Hesse and others.

The Church of Sweden, not being in any way party to the German developments, never was "protestant" in any way (as the Absolutist Kings and their 1686/1687 State church would have had it).

It can be argued that we never were even Lutheran, but rather the i d e a l of Dr Martin, that is retaining to this day its ancient 1st Millennium structures.

Our Parishes own their church and what ever property (forests, land) there is. Our Vestries call their priests. The Priest and the 2 church Wardens are responsible for the running of the church and its up-keep as well as the inventory.

We call it the double line or responsibility. The only one who ever tried to abolish it was a Lutheran…

Quite often the present Wardens are the descendants of the original Wardens, or at least farm the same estate.

Nor have Swedish law ever adopted the “Canonical” testament, the funding of the Gregorian World Revolution. A testament remains a Will, and remains subject to whatever wishes the heirs may have. Only parts of Roman “Canon” law was ever applied by Chapters (subject to much local adaptation).

Nor did we ever have the 1073 Dictatus papae or any of the other early 2nd Millennium Roman innovations: Mandatory celibacy (some individual bishops did try off and on) – the Bishop of Rome even had to issue “dispensations” in 1258 and 1259 – or “regular” (that is irregular) chapters, and so on.

It does not even seem the Patriarch of the West ever was a dictatus-problem in these land, the 1510s apart, when the Danish King Christiern II (who was the brother in law of the German King Charles V) competed for the Swedish Crown...

So it seems to me that Messrs McGrath and Renz try to say (once again) that Sect is Church. It isn’t.

Thomas

I loved your postings and also grieve about those who are trying to sweep away the broad tent Anglicanism that many of us love and cherish.

Ford, Catholicm might be more than the pope, but what is at issue is that some are trying to establish authority controls with a "new pope" that will impose their theological autocracy on the whole communion. They are trying to create a power model and for all the wrong reasons.

Once upon a time there was a church which called itself the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA. and there are still Supreme Governors (in all
causes ecclesistical as temporal)of the C of E who swear at their coronation to preserve the Protestant and Reformed faith of the C of E.

Ford and Kurt, maybe “Protestant” has a narrower definition in the USA. In my experience, the term is not prominent in UK usage, which may allow it to retain its more technical sense more easily.

The problem is the assumption that Protestant-Catholic is a zero sum game. Perry is of course right to observe that the continuity in the CofE before and after the Reformation is greater than in many other versions of Christianity. But this is more to do with geography and politics than anything else. There are advantages to being situated on an island and adopting a totalitarian attitude to other versions of Christianity, driving both Roman Catholicism and non-Episcopal Protestantism underground, helped bolster the claim to represent the one true continuous church in England. In this respect the CofE has a better claim to being the Catholic church in England than, say, any Protestant church in Germany. It could not be otherwise, given the political developments on the continent. And of course what is true for the CofE is not universally true for Anglican churches. The situation in most other provinces of the Anglican communion is rather different.

We all know that “Catholic doesn't mean Roman” but how confident are we to define what it means? Would we go as far as denying Catholicity to (other) Protestant denominations? Or are we merely claiming to be “more Catholic” than Lutherans and Presbyterians? And, again, why would being “more Catholic” equate to being “less Protestant”?

To say that churches in the Anglican Communion belong to the Protestant wing of Christianity is to observe something about ecclesiology and the organization of the Church. Note that the two articles to which these postings are attached are about ecumenical relationships and Anglican polity. The Roman Catholic Church may not consider Anglicanism “Protestant” (Perry, do you have a ready reference for that? I am intrigued) but, as we know, this does not mean that we are considered “church” rather than “ecclesial community”. (At least, we are no longer “sect” but then neither are Lutheran and Presbyterian churches called “sect” any more by the Papal authorities - as far as I know.)

The way many emphasise that TEC is a national church in response to Rowan’s letter to the Bishop of Florida to me documents how widespread and deep-seated Protestant views on church and church organization are in the Anglican communion. The question whether this is a good or a bad thing is an altogether different one and I have not even taken side on this. I have something about getting facts right and, as best as I know my heart, I don’t always or even usually have an agenda in correcting what I consider to me clear errors.

Posters here seem to think that McGrath was calling Anglicanism “Protestant” to bolster a call for a return to its (merely alleged?) Reformation shape. He was doing nothing of the sort, not in this essay anyway. He was observing that the Anglican Communion seems to be developing in ways similar to “other” (mainline) Protestant denominations. I can now see that this is easily misunderstood by those for whom “Protestant” means “Southern Baptist” but, to return to an earlier point, historically speaking “Reformed Catholic” is a way of being “Protestant” as much as Anabaptist and Mennonite.

By the way, "Western Christianity that is not subject to papal authority" is the definition of Protestantism found on a TEC website, see http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19625_15125_ENG_HTM.htm

Some of the people posting here seem to come very near to "1066 and all that" which declared "The Pope and all his followers seceded from the Church of England, that was called the Reformation".

"how confident are we to define what it means?"

How confident ought any group to be? Rome defines it as allegiance to the Pope. The Christian East disagreed, and, 500 years later, so did the English. The Eastern Church defines it in its own way, but, rather than deny the catholicity of their opponents, refers instead to their "heterodoxy", which appears to mean "not catholic". Defining it in the traditional way "what has always been believed by everybody everywhere" is just silly. That would mean the Catholic faith has never existed. One thing is sure, it encompasses a set of beliefs about the nature of the Church, the sacraments, salvation, the Communion of Saints, liturgical praxis, what the Christian life entails, the action of the Holy Spirit, the nature of authority, and a whole lot more. It is easier to draw the line between a snake handling Baptist and a member of Opus Dei, I agree, but while the AC might have gotten some things wrong, She has always at least tried to be catholic in her understanding. So Reformed Catholic rather than Protestant fits me nicely. And here, Prot/RC IS a zero sum game. Thus, the Anglican claim to be both and/or neither causes some confusion and humour "you crowd gave up your wings when you stopped blessing yourselves" that sort of thing. I'm convinced that there are members of our parish who, when we drag out the incense 7 or 8 times a year are very worried we might be plotting to put a Papist on the Throne. That big cache of dynamite in the Parish Hall doesn't help matters:-)

Ford, you surely do not want to define “Catholic” as the flavour of Christianity which tastes a bit like Roman Catholicism but isn’t Roman? It is one the differences between the magisterial Reformers and the radical Reformers that the former sought to remain Catholic and the latter did not. “Catholic” here expresses a commitment to the continuity of the church throughout the ages (time) and to the visible unity of Christ’s church on earth (place).

The CofE and the Church of Sweden are in the fortunate historical position of being able to claim visible continuity as national churches but Rome’s excommunication should probably still hurt a true Catholic. The Lutheran churches in many other places and the Church of Ireland (to which McGrath addressed himself) and of course TEC cannot claim such geographical and cultural continuity. If we are eager for the visible unity of the body of Christ, this should concern us. What is the reason for being Anglican in Ireland or in the USA?

Is “we like to do things our own way” or a dislike for Rome’s hierarchy sufficient reason for allowing ourselves to be out of communion with Rome? Reformed Catholics will want to speak differently, whether they be Anglican or Lutheran, Presbyterian or Methodist.

Let me cite William Laud who will probably not be accused of hidden agendas here: “And for the Protestants, they have made no separation from the general Church, properly so called … but their separation is only from the Church of Rome, and such other churches as, by adhering to her, have hazarded themselves, and do now miscall themselves the whole Catholic Church. Nay, even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence, but in her errors; not in the things which constitute a Church, but only in such abuses and corruptions as work toward the dissolution of a Church.” (Conference with Fisher the Jesuit, Section 25, par. 18)

Dear Thomas, I was thinking of the time when I studied at the Gregorian ( Jesuit )University in Rome where most professors I came in contact with talked in these terms. But if you look at the Second Vatican Council Decree on Ecumenism Ch 3 (Section 13) third para "since then ( i.e. the Reformation) many communions based on nationality or common belief, have been separated from the Roman See.The Anglican Communion has a special place among those vthat continue to retain ,in part, catholic traditions and structure". It is the only ecclesial body named in this way. Of course 40yrs -and JP2- on it may be a bit different--though the Council documents remain authoritative. At the canonization of the 40 English Martyrs of course Paul VI famously departed from his script and called Anglicanism "our beloved sister", a term hitherto confined to the Orthodox. I think that has been officially toned down since.
By the way you should read Stephen Sykes article "Anglicanism and Protestantism" written for an Anglo-German symposium 20? years ago.Stephen wrote an article on Anglicanism for a German Theological Dictionary also--he told me the Germans thought it made Anglicanism sound "Erasmian "-an interesting comment.

P.S. We've had references to MacCulloch here; Ford Elms reminds me of M's remark, Reformation p.xix ; ""Catholic" is clearly a word which a lot of people want to possess". Perhaps we need to revisit the early 1950's and the reports the then Abp commissioned-"The Nature of Catholicity" ( written mostly by one M Ramsey, I think ) and "The Fullness of Christ"--which occasioned the Free Church response, "The Catholicity of Protestantism."Those were the days!!

Bishop Ryle of Liverpool, an extreme Evangelical at the end of the 19th century, wished to celebrate the Lord's Supper while in Switzerland and his clerical hosts were happy to make preparations for him. They assumed that he was Protestant and accordingly in the best Lutheran manner prepared an altar with candles, etc. He reacted in horror and on replying in the affirmative to the question as to whether he was Reformed they provided him with the bare table to which he was used. Henry VIII may have provided England with Lutheranism without Justification by faith as a religion, but Cranmer was strongly influenced by Zwingli, and it was the Swiss (Calvinist)Reformation which dominated the Elizabethan Church. Ryle was and his spiritual descendants are in that tradition. I can remember an Anglican church in Oxford which, on the front of its holy table, had the words "He is not here, He is risen." If the C of E, has always 'tried to be catholic in her understanding', then so did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, who all appealed to the Scriptures and the early Christian Writers.

"Ford, you surely do not want to define “Catholic” as the flavour of Christianity which tastes a bit like Roman Catholicism but isn’t Roman?"

No, I don't. I also do not want to define catholic as "in communion with Rome". Communion with the bishop of Rome would be important for any Catholic Cristian, as would communion with the bishops of Abuja or Sydney, but Rome doesn't define what's catholic.

"Catholic” here expresses a commitment to the continuity of the church throughout the ages (time) and to the visible unity of Christ’s church on earth (place)."

Agreed. As to dislike for Rome's heirarchy, it's not so much dislike for me. There is not, never has been, a place for the bishops of the Church to have a king.

Perry - many thanks for the reference about the special place of the Anglican Communion in Roman eyes. I have myself at times considered the Anglican way to be the most Catholic expression of the Protestant faith but -in my case- this reflected a lack of awareness of various forms of Lutheranism and Presbyterianism.

There is of course Protestantism which is not or barely "Reformed Catholic" but I contend that there is no "Reformed Catholicism" which is not Protestant in some way. Those of us who gather together in worship in the West and who seek to be truly Catholic and see no reason to protest against some (essential!) aspects of Roman Catholicism, should be Roman Catholic.

(Traditionally, this protest was related to Reformation concerns, so clearly for the Church of England. More recently, new so-called “Reformed Catholic” denominations arose from different concerns but the principle remains the same.)

I grant that the line “I am English therefore my way of being Catholic is Anglican” or “I am Swedish therefore my way of being Catholic is Lutheran” may still have some plausibility but I wonder for how much longer, as we struggle to remain a national church, let alone the (!) national church. If we are keen for the visible unity of the body of Christ in more than just national categories, we should have a good reason for allowing ourselves to be out of communion with the church in Rome.

Before dismissing the papal claims so definitely perhaps Mr Ems should consult such eminently Anglican works as "The Recovery of Unity" Chapters 9 & 10 by EL Mascall, and "The Church and the Papacy" by Trevor Jalland. Both certainly regard the Papacy as at least the bene esse of the church, while Gregory Dix regarded it as of the esse.

I suspect that one of the reasons that the Roman Catholic authorities found it easier to deal with the Anglican Communion in 1964 is the presence of apostolic succession and the nature of the Anglican Communion as an organic network of provinces, different from the (Lutheran) federation of independent national churches. While apostolic succession was also preserved in a few Lutheran national churches, all of these churches remained independent national churches.

This is where we return to the argument at the beginning. For a time it looked as if Anglicanism was more than another “denominational family” of Protestant churches and McGrath arguably downplays these developments. Maybe he did so because he thinks that current events prove that Anglicanism is after all just (!) another Protestant denomination. We may want to argue forcefully that Anglicanism is more than just (!) another Protestant denomination but denying altogether that it is Protestant is the wrong way to go about it, just as it would be a mistake to think that you can enhance your Catholicity by being less Reformed.

Ford, the beauty of being in communion with Rome is not the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church has a decent claim for representing (rather than being, if one may be a sophist) the tree from which the branches were cut off.

Anglican orders were condemned as invalid by Apostolicae Curae issued by Leo XIII. The Second Council of the Vatican expressedly regarded the Anglican communion as having a special place, but could not regard it as a church because it had lost the grace of holy orders, instead it was merely an "ecclesial body". Recently under John Paul II Apostolicae Curae was declared to be an example of a truth not itself infalliable but practucally so. These are statements which many will find unpalatable, and have been reiterated in Dominus Jesus(2000) and by the present Holy Father.

"denying altogether that it is Protestant is the wrong way to go about it, just as it would be a mistake to think that you can enhance your Catholicity by being less Reformed."

True. I have spoken too far, I guess.

"The Roman Catholic Church....the tree from which the branches were cut off."

So does the See of Constantinople, it's just that the cutting was done in stages. To them, the Reformation is just a planting of cuttings from a larger cutting of the original tree. I like their point.

Perhaps, Frederick Jones, you would like to read a bit about the Orthodox Church before jumping so quickly to the defence of the Papal claims. It isn't only me, or the Church of England, or even the Protestants in the West who consider such things not Catholic. No-one argues against first among equals, it's first above equals that's the problem.

So Frederick, until Anglicans return to the Roman obedience and explicitly renounce the heretical teachings contained in the BCP and in the 39 Articles, Anglicans aren't fully Christian?

I am aware of the RC position pretty well (having come from such a background), thank you very much, and I am sure others are too. Of course, the first long sentence is an exaggeration of the Roman position but I wouldn't be surprised in an unguarded moment the Bishop of Rome would be saying just that.

On the papal claims I merely quoted what three eminent Anglicans said, and on Anglican Orders what the Second Council of the Vatican, Dominus Jesus(2000) and Benedict XVI said. There is no question of unguarded moments , the statements are matters of public record.

See "Dominus Jesus" 2000 written by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, and approved by John Paul II, Section IV, 17.for the statement on "ecclesial bodies".Footnote 61 and others tie it in with the Second Council of the Vatican. I am not myself in communion with the Holy See, being of the persuasion of the late Dom Gregory Dix ,but I am concerned that its case should be accurately heard and not dismissed without sufficient defence. I am amused at your posters who so rapidly jump to conclusions.

Also worth noting is the Q&A clarification offered by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 29th of June 2007. I am reminded that in Roman eyes Protestant "Communities" (which here certainly includes Anglicans) "do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders". Hence I must retract this part of my earlier speculation as to why in the wake of Vatican 2 Anglicanism might have been considered special.

A previous TEC Bishop of Hampshire had this to say in response to Dominus Jesus: "Among the classic fundamentals of Protestantism, enshrined in the Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican and Baptist traditions, is the right, indeed the obligation, to dissent, to "protest" the arrogation of the prerogatives of the Body of Christ unto the machinations of a few of its members, no matter how committed and respected they may be."

"I am amused at your posters who so rapidly jump to conclusions."

And I am amused that you seem to think that an issue that has divided Christians for at least a millenium is so easily settled by Papal reassertions of the claims that led to the discord in the first place! A thousand years is not "rapid". The only people who agree with the Papal claims are those who submit to his authority as their, in some sense, spiritual King. Mere repetition of the claim doesn't make it more valid, or any more difficult to oppose than it was in the first instance. If Constantinople didn't agree with it 1000 years ago, and Canturbury 500 years ago, why is it more acceptable because a series of Popes have asserted their authority? How does the passage of a thousand years make it more valid?

I may be permitted a footnote on the Church of Sweden:

The 1992 guidelines for the ecumenical work of the Church of Sweden present the Church of Sweden as a “bridge church”, thus claiming for itself a role similar to the one often claimed for Anglicanism. The guidelines are nevertheless clear about the Lutheran identity of the Church of Sweden. Officially, the Church of Sweden is “an Evangelical Lutheran community of faith manifested in parishes and dioceses.”

The guidelines note that “all of Europe is shaped by the Christian Faith, mediated and administrated by three great faith traditions, the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant” which translated into the Baltic context means “Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran Folk Churches.” Thus the Church of Sweden, even in its self-understanding as a "bridge church", is firmly in the Protestant faith tradition.

Unsurprisingly, http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/sprak/engelsk2.htm explains that “evangelical” in the official designation of the church “means much the same as Protestant in ordinary English, placing a higher priority on the Bible than on Tradition.”

Thomas Renz, obviously much of this has to do with subjective self-definitions; many of us Anglicans/Episcopalians (and Lutherans, too) simply don’t consider ouselves Protestants. Therefore, be my guest if you, as an Anglican, wish to consider yourself Protestant. Just honor my request, as an Anglican, NOT to be considered Protestant.

Kurt, the discussion has not been about individuals and whether they like or do not like to be called Protestants. If it had been, we should have talked also about the Baptists who don't like to be called Protestants. The discussion has been about the identity of churches and traditions. There would be no Anglican or Lutheran tradition, if it wasn't for the Reformation. Anglicanism has been Protestant in the sense that it protested against "papal authority" to define the Christian faith and in having done so for Reformation reasons.

The various Orthodox churches do of course also protest "papal authority" to define the Christian faith but they are not called Protestants because they have done it for longer. Hence the definition cited above for Protestantism as "Western Christianity that is not subject to papal authority."

This is not just history, not for those who consider "Independent Catholic" a contradiction in terms. Hence to be "Catholic" (in some senses of the word which relate to the unity of the visible church), you ought to be Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Reformed Catholic. And, as above, Reformed Catholic is traditionally a strand of Protestantism.

This does not mean that it is impossible on some definitions of Reformed and Protestant to be Reformed Catholic in a non-Protestant way - there are various more recent splits from the Roman Catholic Church which claim to be precisely that - but that’s not TEC, to the best of my knowledge.

If TEC or any other Anglican church has decided that they no longer protest against papal authority for largely the reasons which emerged in the Reformation, I would like to know about it. Then it would indeed be fair to say that they are "Protestant" only in terms of church history.

But by shedding their Reformation credentials/ballast, such churches would also shed their "Catholicity" credentials, unless they have formulated other reasons for allowing themselves to be out of communion with the historical churches.

Reformed Catholic is just fine, Thomas, in spite of the mistakes (indeed, multiple blunders) of the Reformation period. Many of us obviously don’t find the idea of a Western Catholicism independent from Rome a contradiction. Sorry, but we don’t.

Kurt, I think you have misunderstood me. I delight in calling myself Reformed Catholic and have listed "Reformed Catholic" as one of three ways of being Catholic. There is Roman Catholicism (the Papacy way of being Catholic), Orthodoxy (the Eastern way of being Catholic), and Reformed Catholic (the Protestant way of being Catholic).

I am not saying that there can only ever be these three ways. But these have been the three main historical ways of being "Catholic" in the last five hundred years, for those for whom "Independent Catholic" is a contradiction in terms.

By "Independent Catholic" I mean, e.g., Congregationalists who consider themselves part of the Church Catholic to which the creed bears witness, but who see no need for Christian unity beyond the local congregation being embodied in structures. (They, too, are baptized and affirm the ancient creeds.)

And I am amused that you seem to think that an issue that has divided Christians for at least a millenium is so easily settled by Papal reassertions of the claims that led to the discord in the first place! (dixit Ford Elms)

Which is why, exactly, I was wondering why you Frederick, came into this discussion with the string of papal quotes. I must apologize if I jumped to conclusions, but yes, we are coming to the crux of the problem.

Understandably, we are coming to a point in Christianity where the resolution of the postmodern necessitates a reassertion of modern authoritarianism. Whether it be of the Pope or the Bible, authoritarianism is inherently idolatrous. Yet, in some way, it is necessary. Nietzsche was right when he diagnosed the problem, but wrong in a very important way.

Our God is very much alive. And we, his creations, would want to keep it that way. If it requires an Anglicanism that at once connects itself to the Catholic tradition and criticizes it when needed, so be it.

Thomas-if you take away the Roman, and the Reformed and the Eastern what IS the Catholic?Perhaps this is where more thought should be given. Rather like the motto of the Scottish Episcopal Church "Evangelical truth and Apostolic Order"--more thought needs to be given to the AND.A theological task awaits....one Anglicanism has left a bit late in the day, perhaps.

Perry - the "Catholic" here is "a commitment to the continuity of the church throughout the ages (time) and to the visible unity of Christ’s church on earth (place)." I have glossed the latter in terms of the desire for "Christian unity beyond the local congregation being embodied in structures" which distinguishes Reformed Catholics from independent Protestants.

The independent Protestants and Pentecostals are of course also part of the Church Catholic, in so far as "Catholic" refers to belonging to the body of Christ, which is one important meaning of the term. Anglicans and the Orthodox are of course not "Catholic", if "Catholic" refers to Roman Catholic, which is one widespread but arguably sectarian meaning of the term "Catholic". We have to distinguish both of these from what may be termed the ecumenical meaning of "Catholic".

I agree that the AND is important. Indeed, if the little word AND sums up what is right about the Anglican way, the loss of the AND may sum up what is wrong with Anglicanism. An Anglicanism which is no longer Reformed AND Catholic, but some "broad church" in which people, pastors and priests may be Reformed OR "Catholic" or neither has lost in one sweep both its "Reformed" and "Catholic" credentials...on my understanding of these terms anyway.

I grant that those who are convinced that their clergy have been ordained by bishops in apostolic succession and that apostolic succession and order defines "Catholic" and who define "Reformed" as "non-Roman" or as upholding "evangelical truth" (whatever they mean by that), can happily go along calling themselves "Reformed Catholic". I guess this is what is going on in those recent denominations that call themselves "Reformed Catholic". But this is hardly the Anglican way.

Another definition of "Catholic", which I do not find unproblematic but whose legitimacy I do not want to rule out altogether, is in terms of the common (i.e., overlapping) faith and practice of the church in the first, say, five hundred years. This seems to be the definition of the Anglican Catholic Church.

should have been AND Anglicanism of course at the end----must preview in future!!