Not 'catholic(s)' but catholic. Being catholic or Anglo-catholic merely means thinking oneself part of the universal, world wide church of Christ, rather than as an exclusive member of a sect or 'church' which regards itself as the only 'REAL' church, or the only 'RIGHT' church. I, as an Anglican think of myself as a member of Christ within the Anglican communion. Neither as protestant or Roman Catholic. Our doctrines and theology are Anglican and merely happen to be the same as some 'protestant' doctrines, theology and practice, and also some Roman Catholic doctrines, theology and practice, which happen also to be Apostolic doctrines of the universal world wide church established by Jesus Christ himself and his Apostles. That is why we claim we believe there is one Catholic and Apostolic Church, every week. .
While it is true that Vatican II did move the Latin church closer to Protestantism, all the major issues of the Reformation (justification by faith alone, Sola Scriptura, papal infallibility, saintly intercession, purgatory, & etc...) all remain and in some cases are even worse (in the case of papal infallibility & declaring some Marian doctrines to be dogma). On all these questions, the Anglican tradition is a Protestant one (the Protestant reformation itself a western ressourcement movement looking to retrieve catholicity, not abandon it) The Protestant doctrine and worship of Anglicanism (the BCP, the Articles of Religion, & etc...) are not simple accidents of the English Reformation but as a part of the wider context and influence of the wider Protestant Reformation, especially the Calvinist one.
We are not that far apart really. Much of my formative years were spent in an aggressively protestant type of Anglicanism, which I came to reject for several reasons. It was marked by absolute rigidity and legalism which essentially allowed little place for charity or grace. Effectively they seem to make faith a work and I ultimately had trouble distinguishing them from the Pharisees. Accordingly, I don't normally use the word 'Protestant' as a descriptor of Anglicanism, at least as I understand it. There is no doubt that early Anglican reformers were seeking to recover something of the clarity and beauty of the primitive church freed from a number of additions that appeared to have attached themselves to the received tradition. The matter of the infallibility of the Pope is interesting. It is in fact later than the Reformation, (in the declaration, though I acknowledge that RCC asserts that it declares that which has been always and ever understood) and would be what this Forum's rules might declare as a modern error. When you read the accounts of Peter in the Gospels and in Acts, you have a number of juxtapositions where Peter has been clearly wrong and has been corrected by Jesus, God or the Spirit (an perhaps by Paul). That the one who now sits in the ancient Petrine See should now claim the one thing that Peter himself clearly did not claim hs a certain irony at least.
Protestantism is a mostly continental phenomenon though. The Anglican church is essentially a National Church which developed reformed and reforming tendencies long before Martin Luther and the continental reformation. The drive against Roman Catholic excesses, popery and dodgy non-apostolic theology started even before John Wycliffe 1328-1384, had pioneered the way. The Church IN England was already 'reforming' long before the continental 'Reformation'. What appeared as the Church of England at the Act of Uniformity was not the start of a new church called the Church of England. The Act was merely establishing legally in the secular sphere, the Apostolic Christian church that had always existed in the British Isles. Up until that Act it was still technically Roman Catholic/Celtic, but had merely been taken over by the monarch to try to obtain a male heir. After that Act in 1559, The 1552 version of the English Prayer Book was restored but many of the familiar old practices were kept and two interpretations of communion were allowed for, one Catholic and one Protestant. The C of E therefore remains Catholic / Celtic and Reformed. Not Protestant. .
Trust wholly in Christ; rely altogether on his sufferings; beware of seeking to be justified in any other way than by his righteousness. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. — John Wycliffe .
Too many posts to reply to but it is just historically true that the Church of England is not directly a part of the wider Protestant Reformation. Our doctrines are directly influenced by Calvinist and Lutheran theologians and discussions, to the point of sending English churchmen to continental synods and discussions on doctrinal issues directly relevant to the Reformation (ex. the Synod of Dort). It would be like claiming the Church of Scotland had nothing to do with the continental Reformation. The idea that the Church of England was not historically a part of the wider Protestant Reformation or currently a part of the wider Protestant world would be totally foreign to anyone alive before the 20th century. To the idea that Anglican doctrine & Roman doctrine are not that far apart is to ignore what the Roman church itself says. We believe in the justification of faith alone, we believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures on the matters of salvation and in the Scriptures as the only infallible authority. These doctrines are anathema to Rome. We believe that we are corporately part of the visible, catholic church through apostolic doctrine and the historic episcopate. Rome officially says we do not have valid Holy Communion since we have no valid clergy whatsoever. These are not minor details and it does not help ecumenical matters to pretend otherwise.
Sorry it will not let me edit my post: "just historically true that the Church of England is not directly a part of the wider Protestant Reformation." That should read "just historically untrue"
But it is historically true that the Church of England owes far less to Continental wrangling with Roman Catholic doctrines and praxis than say Baptists, Free Church Evangelicals and Presbyterians/Congregationalists. Lutherans and Greek/ Russian/etc. Orthodox hardly get a look in here in England. The Methodists, like us do not owe as much of their 'Protestantism' to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and other foreign 'Continentals'. Anglicans back then more or less went it alone because we did not need to define ourselves over against any other denominations in England, (over on the continent however there were many vying for supremacy with RCs), but in England, particularly not against Roman Catholicism. WE just banned it for a long time, by law and statute, so it didn't exist in England. The Church in England had previously BEEN the Roman Catholic Church in England and just continued being The Catholic Church in England that had REFORMED itself and shaken off its Romish doctrinal and ritual detritis, like a dog shakes off fleas. It was a painful and messy business though, for a while. I like to think the C of E got rid of the worst of Roman and kept the best of Catholic. Whereas real 'Protestants', like Presbyterians and Babtists etc. dumped both Roman AND Catholic and went full on Protestant, throwing out the baby the dirty bathwater and - all. .
I'm really not sure how this squares with the fact that the English Reformers are explicitly taking from Calvinist reformers to shape our prayerbook especially when it came to removing Roman/late medieval pieties or when it comes to handling how Anglicans teach about Holy Communion. This Reformed influence continues all the way to the Caroline era. Additionally parts of the Articles of Religion are lifted directly from Lutheran theologians. On virtually all the issues that divided Europe (the sufficiency and clarity of the Scriptures, our justification by faith alone, that all have sinned including the Virgin Mary, the rejection of transubstantiation, the liturgy back in the language of the people, the rejection of the office of the pope) all are taken from the Continental influence on English churchmen, who are directly corresponding with them (Cranmer even marries into the family of a prominent Lutheran reformer and Calvin colleague Martin Bucer is brought to England to assist with the Reformation). This feels like; A) A very unhistorical understanding of what the Reformation is and was about B) A totally misunderstanding of the English Reformation and where it came from
The fact that leaders of the Church in England quoted continental theologians was merely because they were aware of their theology and could quote it and it was, by then, common currency, not because such theology was brand new, innovative, and neither because not already preached by previous, English theologians, because it all had been, 100 years before. ALL of the aspects of 'so called' Protestant theological reflection already existed in the English Church at least a century before and all had been identified and attempted to be suppressed by the Romish persuasions in both monarchs and bishops of the Church in England during the century previous to the continental Reformation. The Lollard unlicensed priests following Wycliffe were being persecuted by their 'Romish' church leadership precisely because they were preaching the illogicality and superstition of transubstantiation, the inappropriateness of various Maryological notions, various medieval superstitious practices in the English church, and Popery. Salvation by FAITH alone was their gospel, for which they became targeted as 'Lollard heretics'. None of this was new to the Church in England and most certainly not uniquely 'imported' from abroad. Labeling those within the English church as 'heretics' simply because Romists did not like their preaching, (as was done to the Lollards by the still Romish English church bishops), did not void the Lollards membership of Christ's church in England. Christ decides who's still a member of His church. They were, in effect, the 'prophets' of that church in their era. Luther and others abroad, had merely 'caught up' in tandem, with The Spirit in those times, and those ideas had gained a more general acceptance, continentally. They were not 'new', 'innovative' and 'imported' ideas into the English National church. They were becoming, by then, universal abroad, as well as 'at home' and naturally seemed more influential and 'mainstream' to the English church leadership, to whom the ideas were now at last appealing. .
The essence and genius of the Elizabethan Settlement was to forge peace between the new ways and the old ways. It was not a wholesale sell-out to the position/s of the European reformers. Whilst the English Church retained the structural integrity of a Catholic Church (The Creeds, The Orders of Sacred Ministry (Deacons, Priests, and the Historic Episcopate), The Sacraments (highlighting the Dominical), The Holy Scriptures (recognising a difference between the Masoretic and LXX Canon and excluding the deuterocanonical texts from being used to prove doctrine), it excluded any Authority of the Bishop of Rome in England, specific doctrines such as purgatory and the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and practices such as the invocation of the saints, Corpus Christi Processions. It was in fact a Catholic Church where Protestants had a place. Since that time many have tried to drag it hard in one direction or another, so the fabric of the tatty ol maiden aunt we love to call mother has become a little frayed, and dare I say frazzled.
I think both of the above posts rely on a reductionist understanding of both catholicity and Protestantism. 1) Did the English Reformers see themselves as part of the early modern ressourcement/retrieval project in the western church known as the Reformation? The problem with the theory that the English were entirely off doing their own thing largely divorced from the rest of the theological context is that the English Reformers themselves did not believe nor did the English church believe this later well into the Caroline and Georgian period (even much later well into the Georgian and Edwardian periods). As pointed out earlier, Continental reformers were invited to England to participate in our own reformation. I don't know of a single scholar who believes the English Reformation was not deeply influenced by (and influenced) the wider continental Reformation. Cranmer drew on Lutheran catechisms, litanies, and liturgies as he compiled the Book of Common Prayer, Tyndale gave England its Bible, and Barnes gave it a Lutheran theology. No English denomination ever emerged that could call itself the Lutheran Church. But the 39 Articles were strongly influenced by phrases and sentences in the Augsburg Confession, and the Lutheran imprint is impressed on The Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican form of worship. --Rev'd Professor Patrick Comerford Lecturer in Anglicanism, Liturgy and Church History at the Church of Ireland Theological Institute, Trinity College Dublin. The English like to think of their church as entirely homegrown, and this is balderdash…right from the beginning, England was radically dependent on continental influences.--Torrance Kirby, professor of ecclesiastical history and former director of the Centre for Research on Religion at McGill University’s School of Religious Studies. 2) But what about the fact these ideas are already in the air? While it is true that the doctrines of the Reformation (justification by faith alone, that all are with sin, even the Virgin Mary, the rejection of icon veneration, the rejection of the Roman concept of purgatory, a more spiritual presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Holy Communion, preaching in the vernacular, Holy Communion in both kinds as the norm, rejection of Roman supremacy) all have patristic precedent (to say nothing of being Scriptural), this does not take the Anglican tradition out of the continental Reformation. In fact it is the continental Reformers who are explicitly saying this themselves, that they have precedent in both the early and medieval Church for their own views, in particular in the West. The Reformation as a movement and project is very much in the spirit of the age - ad fontes - back to the sources. The fact that there are sources to go back to (the Fathers are all over Calvinist and Lutheran works), does not mean that there is not a specific retrieval movement unique to the time. The English Reformation is explicitly part of this project. All the major leaders of the English Reformation are motivated to engage in the reform of the Church by reading and discussing Luther's works. They are writing to continental Reformers like Calvin himself (Elizabeth had a Latin translation of the institutes she would consult) or Peter Martyr. They are inviting reformers like Martin Bucer to help shape our prayerbook. And this was not a one way street. Calvin is writing to the English church hoping they would lead a pan-Protestant synod for unity. The English church is notably invited to the Synod of Dort because the rest of the continental Reformed world sees the English established church as part of the same wider movement. This continues all the way to the 19th century when the Church of England's missionary efforts to the Holy Land collaborate with Prussian Lutherans and Swiss Calvinists. 3) But what about the fact we retained bishops, priests and deacons? Doesn't this prove we are catholic and not Protestant? To the continental Reformers (like Osiander, Bucer, Calvin, du Moulin, Calvin & etc...) the three church offices were not something that made or unmade a church to be "Protestant" (that is part of the Reformation). In fact at the Synod of Dort, Bishop George Carleton is invited and given an episcopal canopy as part of the recognition of his unique office. Calvin notably affirmed that the episcopal office was a godly one and even sought the possibility of a shared episcopacy with Edward VI. The consensus view (there were outliers) among the continental Reformers is that retaining the office of bishop was perfectly acceptable and even desirable though not a mark of the true church (a view shared by many English churchmen). Given that other churches born out of the Reformation (Hungarian Reformed, Moravians, Scandinavian Lutherans) also retain the office (technically even the Church of Scotland did until the 1690s), this polity issue does not mean the Church of England was not and is not a Protestant church by any normal or academic definition. I think ultimately this attempt to anachronistically define the Reformation out of Anglicanism derives either from poor history or a simplistic view of the Reformation as a whole. To the Reformers catholicity was the point. The purging of late medieval error and superstition (in the true sense of the word) and restoring the gospel was to make the Church truly catholic.
Lambeth Conference of 1888 Resolution 11 That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion: The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church. https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/109011/Chicago-Lambeth-Quadrilateral.pdf
I would say, little c catholic. Not protestant because we have liturgy and sacraments, though I understand that the Lutheran Church does too. I just don’t like the word Protestant to describe us.