The usual answer to this question is that its the via media, the middle way, between catholic and protestant. I think it boils down to how you define "protestant".
Ok, so do you consider yourself to Protestant ("prod" as we say in N Ireland) and how do you define it? A number of forum members have said that Anglicanism is the third branch of Catholic Church along with Roman and Orthodox. No one has ever called Orthodoxy Protestant
RCs have...on many occasions. But to your question, I do consider Anglicanism proestant, in the best sense of the word. It is also catholic in the best sense of that word. It is catholic in that it follows St. Vincent's formula of catholicity (what is be lived everywhere, always, and by all), that is, the apostolic faith as embodied in the Holy scriptures, the ecumenical councils and creeds, and the early church fathers. It retains the threefold ministry and apostolic succession. However, it is also protestant since the Church of England truly came into its own during the Reformation, protesting the medieval accretions and innovations of the Papacy, and embracing the biblical truths of the Anglican reformers as embodied in the Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the Homilies.
Anglicanism has very little in common with other so called protestant bodies and seems to be more connected to the catholic expression of the Christian faith. In my understanding, this is what the reformers fought for, to be recognized as catholic rather than innovators of new theologies. Those who carry the protestant badge with pride do not seem to share this with Anglicans and seem to stay further and further away from anything catholic. This is my personal view and observation.
That is a good question. I do not think technically we would be. Heck my lutheran pastot i know thinks he is not protestant. In the end i belong to the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It is expressed through the lense of Anglicanism in traditions, laungage and history.
Henry VIII wasn't Anglican. Anyone who's read the six articles or the king's book would concede that the church he headed was not the church that emerged from the Elizabethan Settlement.
The Church of England was Roman Catholic until 1534 when King Henry VIII decided to separate it from Rome because Rome refused him an annulment of his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Ann Boleyn. Pope Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII. Unlike Luther who broke away from the Roman Catholic church over RC practices, the liturgy not being based in scripture, indulgences, buying forgiveness etc, the Church of England was born of a King that wished to put away his Queen, marry another, ignore the denial of annulment and enter into what the RCC considered an adulterous, sexually deviate, relationship with a young girl he would later have executed. So Henry VIII wasn't protesting anything except the Pope wouldn't grant an annulment so he could have a new marriage, with a new play thing, blessed by the church. Luther started the Protestant movement because of RCC corruption. Big difference.... All of which I find ironic considering the current state of the Anglican Communion and those that would attempt to judge others. Sorry, got a little political there.... Let he who is without sin ............................
It was an unreformed Church of England. Afterwards, it was the reformed Church of England. Anglicanism today is defined as the latter, that is, the original Church of England that was started in the apostolic era, plus the medieval alterations to its original doctrine, plus the Reformational principles that sought to fix/remove those medieval alterations.
I do not feel that the statement is accurate. The COE may have evolved and changed over time but it has always been Anglican .
It has always been Anglican in the sense that the church has been situated in England. But it has existed under more than a few incarnations, ie, Celtic, Roman Catholic as it existed prior to Trent, Henrican, Reformed, Elizabethan (meaning the church resulting from the Elizabethan Settlement), Puritan, Restored, etc. Some of them vary but a little. Others are quite distinct. I suppose calling them evolutions is technically correct, although reformation seems more appropriate. If all you mean by Anglican is "of/in England" it's not a very helpful adjective to describe the different regimes the Church has existed under. Henry was Anglican in the sense that he worshipped in the church of england, but I don't believe he would have worn the moniker willingly. He was catholic, meaning he followed the theology of medieval catholicism. His writings and actions bear that out. His church was very different from Edward's and differed only a little from Mary's in one or two respects. In those senses, the theological and doctrinal, he was not what we identify as Anglican. So I agree with Anglican74, that terms like reformed and un-reformed are helpful qualifiers when talking about anglicanism, especially if we are going to call all English worshippers Anglican without regard to what they actually believed and confessed.
I don't consider Anglican to merely mean 'of England'. I understand Anglican to mean 'reformed Catholicism'
Such a minor detail. Also heard she made really dry sandwichs and complained about leaving his socks in the living room when he toom them off.