No one's denying the existence of a catholicizing tendency in some elements of Anglicanism, the issue is one of identity. I can't see Anglican Catholics other than a party in an overwhelmingly Protestant church.
I like Bishop Cosin's defence of the Church of England. He said that the Church of England was Catholic in her retention of the Apostolic faith, ministry and sacraments but Protestant in her rejection of Roman innovations.
Evangelical does not equal protestant, Catholics and Orthodox are evangelical. I should clarify evangelical with a lower case e, I just always capitalize things out of habit. We use the old definition before the protestant movement took it over meaning to be a believer of the Gospel.
Right, Evangelical is the profession of the true Gospel that we can be saved from our sins by Christ's one perfect sacrifice by faith alone. How do you do that without being a Protestant?
Rather easily as I said evangelical does not mean protestant that is why Catholics and Orthodox can be called evangelical. Just because a segment took over a word does not mean it must be used that way. So we do not use a protestant idea of the word which means you must be protestant rather we use it to mean that one believes in the Gospel. This is the sense the Catholic Church uses it and so do we minus the name Catholic:
Of course three streams ideology is inherently incoherent as you can just go about changing what these adjectives mean to make them what you want. The second is that they are incompatible theologies. It's simply ludicrous to assume that Evangelicalism and Romanism are capable of some sort of synthesis.
There is no Evangelicalism, it's evangelical which is different I am sorry if your protestant mind can not accept that. It is protestantism that changed the definition not the Historic Church
It is a false dichotomy. We are every bit catholic and protestant all in one. I agree that the discussion of an "evangelical" Roman Catholic is an incoherent one. They have neither claimed that title nor sought to profess the Biblical gospel. They can seek to profess some sort of Roman and 'papalistic' gospel but saying that has anything to do with the Bible or evangelism is incoherent.
In our town we get on well with both the RCs and the Methodists. The RC ban on inter-communion is problematic, but in practice we have more in common with them than with the Methodists. We have similar forms of our main service (the mass/eucharist), have a similar hierarchy and maintain the Apostolic Succession. Interestingly, when RCs come to our sung evensong services, they seem far more comfortable with it than many Methodists do.
I think this is a bit like being known by the name others call us. Protestant in the sense of not Roman (catholic). But catholic in our sense of our roots, liturgy and history. When we use Rome as the yardstick, we get into trouble with self definition. One of the troubles we have right now is that some of us want to either be more like Rome in terms of authority and/or what they see as bad ideas in terms of modernizing trends. There are others of us who are hostile to Roman authority and the exclusivity it claims. On the other side, we seem to be receptive at times to the more protestant ideas of personal salvationism and the born again types of practices, with others hostile to that in turn, because of its claim to a more exclusive personal approach without reference to anything grounded in history or liturgy. Thus, the middle way, refusing to be identified as either Roman or protestant. I see a difference in the leanings of some from the UK and in some places in the USA toward Rome, which exists much less frequently in Canada. Here Anglicans are more likely to be Ukrainian or First Nations in ethnic background than of UK extraction, with none of the experience of the history of that place. A lot of them are refugees from the Roman Catholic tradition, and would not seem themselves returning there, and are specifically not into the (what appears to be) self centred approaches to faith of the fundamentalists and evangelicals. As a side not, the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada (ELCC) recognize each others' ordinations and a Lutheran clergy can apply to to be priest in an ACC church and and Anglican in an ELCC church. I suspect that the 2 churches may decide eventually to amalgamate, but that is a generation or two away. Myself, I have the concern about the their basis with Luther, and mainly his anti-Semitism. Link: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/lutheran/docs/waterloo.cfm
My anglo-catholic friend is bent on seeing our whole diocese convert to our particular churchmanship, lol. But I agree... I think Anglicanism is a distinct branch of Christianity that descended from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, localised in England, and then spread all over the world. We do have Korean and Japanese Anglicans in my diocese, and both are rather anglo-catholic. As far as my knowledge takes me, many places around the world are notably anglo-catholic because the symbols and rituals are very much easier to grasp than simple Reformed Prayer Book Christianity. I myself am a Filipina and a cradle Roman Catholic. And the merger between ELCC and ACC, while it is possible, does have a lot of theology to work on. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not really believed by the Anglicans that I know of, and personally I don't know how I would be able to work around that belief alongside the Epistle of James.
Although I accept that the CofE is "Protestant" in the sense of being reformed, I define myself as a catholic on four counts: I) My baptism/confirmation certificate says I am. ii) Twice a week I affirm my belief in one, holy catholic and apostolic church. iii) I believe in the historic episcopate. iv) I come within the definition of "Catholic" as defined in the Creed of St. Athanasius: "And the Catholick faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity".
I thought this was an interesting email I would share. It was written by Father James Rosselli, a priest in the Western Rite Vicariate of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russian (ROCOR) on a Western Rite discussion group. An Anglican asked him regarding his views on Anglicanism. I am not posting this to offend anyone, I received this in my email this morning and thought some here might find it interesting. Dear in Christ (name withheld), If I may, I'd like to respond to your post with some personal observations. First, I like the "Anglican atmosphere." It's very attractive, very pleasant. People have manners. There's a sense of humor. In the Continuum, there is an attractive, and even inspiring, sense of commitment to Christ and a desire to serve Him. The Convergence movement demonstrates a real desire to "get it all together at last." Anglicanism, however, is not Orthodox. We share much in common: the Western Church's origin in Britain; the post-Celtic, pre-English spirituality of Lewis and Chesterton, The Cloud of Unknowing, the Gregorian liturgical base. Anglicanism, however, wishes to be recognized as Orthodox without actually becoming part of Orthodoxy. That's because to actually become Orthodox requires acceptance of that which is hard and fast, immutable and uncompromising. Anglicanism is simply not built to accommodate that, because it would require abandonment of that which it holds most dear: the conviction that "there's room for everybody under the Big Tent." And there isn't. There is no room in the ecclesiam for priestettes or homosexual clergy or bishops. There is no room at the Communion rail for cohabiting couples. There is no room in the schola for ambiguity about what constitutes heresy. There is no room in either Sanctuary or Nave for Modernist speculation or indifferentism. To be sure, instances of these things can be found (except for the priestettes). They are not, however, excused. There is nothing good or "normal" about them, and there is no "wiggle room," in doctrine or praxis, to pretend there is. Anglicanism has a fatal flaw: it roots itself in "Scripture, Tradition and Reason." Accordingly, the Anglican conscience is obliged, if not to accept at least to consider, if not to consider at least not to condemn, any position that can be advanced by means of an argument which is (a) logically consistent within itself and its system of definitions and (b) able to refer in some way to Scriptural and/or Traditional authority. The mindset overall is so Cranmerian, that Anglo-Catholics aren't even obliged to adhere to Cranmer. In practical terms, this results in Anglican jurisdictions who thoroughly disagree with each other, still able to serve liturgies together and even intecommunicate. Anglicanism sees this as a virtue, as something which "prevents division.." In the Orthodox Church, however, the thing that prevents division is a solid, sound, complete body of Doctrine which has lasted unaltered and un-"developed" since the Patristic Age. Orthodoxy has nothing of accommodationism in it and human reason has no authority at all over Scripture and Tradition. There is no canon, anywhere, that can reconcile these two approaches. They are diametrically different, and cannot live together. Anglicanism, in its goodness of nature, would try. "Can't we reason this out, together?" would be the approach, "Surely we can form some common ground." "Common ground is not established," would be the Orthodox response, "but approached and stood upon. We do not form it, it forms us." The best of Anglicanism reaches for this Theologically-confident view, but too often seeks it in the Cranmerian canon of the 39 Articles. Central to this canon is the assertion that the Sacred Elements are not in fact transformed into, but rather convey the spiritual presence of, the Body and Blood of Christ. This is heresy. And "reason" is still held on a par with Scripture and Tradition, which is dilutionism. Neither could find a home within Orthodoxy. Yet, there is that thing within the Anglican soul--that thing that was common to Lewis and Chesterton--that yearns wholeheartedly for departure from accommodationism and for conformity to Ancient Truth. That yearning cannot be satisfied by the discovery of an obscure canon that "patches things up." I wish it could, because I really, really, like you guys! But it can only be satisfied by actually becoming part of an Orthodox Church. Certainly there are terrible examples. Orthodoxy can become, in the worst of us, an essentially joyless and Christless doctrinaire Pharisaism. Anglicanism at its worst can become Mrs. Jefferts-Schori. neither is the norm. Just as Anglicanism beckons welcomingly to "come as you are and live out your personal journey," Orthodoxy beckons welcomingly to "come as you are, and be transformed in Christ into that which is unimaginably greater," into the shining characters described by Lewis. I'm not an Anglican (name withheld) and have never been one, despite my great admiration. I have, however, been following the progress of the Continuum, and praying for its success, since it began. These are my limited perspectives from the point of view of an outsider, and I mean no offense by them. in Christ, Fr. Jim +
Good responses. I don't think we must really become and accept all about each other to recognize each other. For example, within Anglicanism, I don't identify myself personally as high, low, broad or Anglo-catholic. We attend here what there is, but I've been happy and thrilled with attending church on travels, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Ascension_and_St_Agnes_(Washington_D.C.), which is higher and even all sung in latin that I've found within European RC churches. Glorious. Our previous parish priest spent much time with the local Orthodox priest, finding affinity but differences. He's retired back locally, and resumed his dialogues. Always good for us to talk and learn from each other. But again, we don't have to become each others. re the Lutheran and Anglican recognition in Canada, I don't know the impediments, but do find myself concerned about the core of what I see as Anglican. Which is willingness to be part of it, having differences that don't divide, having no 'litmus test' to belong, and eucharistic focus. The unfortunate and terrible pronouncements of Luther about Jews is particularly sensitive to me as my father's family was refugees from Germany and specifically never darkened the door of a Lutheran church after leaving.