Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Archive > Archive > Anglicanorum Coetibus: 2009
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

 
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Dec 29, '09, 11:52 pm
gurneyhalleck1 gurneyhalleck1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2007
Posts: 8,991
Default Has anyone read this book about Hooker? Seems to support my theories on Anglicanism

Has anyone read this new book mentioned on Virtueonline? This review of it opens with:

"In his book, Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason (Paternoster, 1997), Nigel Atkinson demonstrates that Richard Hooker (1554-1600), regarded by Anglicans as one of its foremost theologians, was not someone who believed that the doctrine and teaching of the Church of England was a via media between the teachings of Roman Catholicism and the Reformed teachings of Geneva. Indeed, Atkinson demonstrates that Hooker was as convinced of the Reformed doctrines of the Reformation as his Puritan opponents."

The idea of the catholicity and sacramental Catholic-like characteristics that the "via media" of Elizabeth I's time permitted was an alien intruder. I liked what many of the posters had to say in the comments section. Most of them see Anglicanism for what it is--a sixteenth century protestant church that later had an alien intruder, Catholicism, come into the fold through men like Newman, and Anglicans in 2009 are of the understanding that they're in a catholic, sacramentally-valid, Church that goes back to the apostles, etc. Anglo-catholics believe they can have it both ways, the 39 Articles, the protestant history, and somehow the Tractarians wiped that all away and anachronistically those first 400 years became catholic?

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...?storyid=11798

I'd like to hear everyone's reactions to the article and the anachronisms/fantasy that Anglicanism was catholic in the 16th century. Was Anglo-Catholicism in existence ever until the 1800's? This article also points out a view I have always had, as an Anglican and as a Catholic, that the 39 Articles are the heart of Anglicanism and that they must be respected and obeyed for a person to indeed be an Anglican. To disregard the articles one must disregard the essence of Anglicanism and really a person is just building a religion to fit their comfort zone...
  #2  
Old Dec 30, '09, 8:58 am
crm114 crm114 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Posts: 142
Religion: RC
Default Re: Has anyone read this book about Hooker? Seems to support my theories on Anglicanism

Haven't read the book. But it is clear that there was a period in time, after Henry separated the English church from Rome, but before the English church adopted reform doctrines, when the English church remained Catholic in all but communion. Henry remained Catholic, while Cromwell was superficially Protestant, though in fact, like many politicians, probably completely amoral and areligious.

Henry did not adopt the 42 Articles. That was done by his successor Edward.

Once the 42 (later 39) Articles became obligatory for all Anglicans, then clearly we can say that all Anglicans were (and are) technically Protestant. But in reality there has always been a continuum of beliefs, a spectrum of Catholicness, in the separated English church. The 39 Articles were intentionally drafted to include a kind of doctrinal flexibility, in dramatic contrast to the unambiguous pronouncements of Trent which define a clear set of Catholic doctrine.
  #3  
Old Dec 30, '09, 9:36 am
GKC GKC is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2004
Posts: 10,184
Default Re: Has anyone read this book about Hooker? Seems to support my theories on Anglicanism

True, in essence. But the 42 Articles were never formally ratified. Edward died and Mary returned, putting a stop to that process.

And the Articles were not binding on all Anglicans, nor on all members of the CoE. They were aimed at a set of government employees, the CoE clergy. They are not confessional, but political limits on what could be taught/preached. As Archbishop Bramhall (Armagh) put it "We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, `without which there is no salvation;' nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed."(1)

Bishop Bull's (Ordinary of St. David's) take:

"The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity."

"The Articles are to be subscribed to in the sense intended by those whose authority makes the subscription requisite." Which was don't disturb the political stability of the realm.


GKC





Quote:
Originally Posted by crm114 View Post
Haven't read the book. But it is clear that there was a period in time, after Henry separated the English church from Rome, but before the English church adopted reform doctrines, when the English church remained Catholic in all but communion. Henry remained Catholic, while Cromwell was superficially Protestant, though in fact, like many politicians, probably completely amoral and areligious.

Henry did not adopt the 42 Articles. That was done by his successor Edward.

Once the 42 (later 39) Articles became obligatory for all Anglicans, then clearly we can say that all Anglicans were (and are) technically Protestant. But in reality there has always been a continuum of beliefs, a spectrum of Catholicness, in the separated English church. The 39 Articles were intentionally drafted to include a kind of doctrinal flexibility, in dramatic contrast to the unambiguous pronouncements of Trent which define a clear set of Catholic doctrine.
  #4  
Old Dec 30, '09, 11:28 am
Contarini Contarini is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 16,425
Religion: Christian (seeking admission to the Catholic Church)
Default Re: Has anyone read this book about Hooker? Seems to support my theories on Anglicanism

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1 View Post
Has anyone read this new book mentioned on Virtueonline? This review of it opens with:

"In his book, Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason (Paternoster, 1997), Nigel Atkinson demonstrates that Richard Hooker (1554-1600), regarded by Anglicans as one of its foremost theologians, was not someone who believed that the doctrine and teaching of the Church of England was a via media between the teachings of Roman Catholicism and the Reformed teachings of Geneva. Indeed, Atkinson demonstrates that Hooker was as convinced of the Reformed doctrines of the Reformation as his Puritan opponents."

The idea of the catholicity and sacramental Catholic-like characteristics that the "via media" of Elizabeth I's time permitted was an alien intruder.
I find this sentence very confusing. I think the reason for a lot of the confusion surrounding this issue is the assumption that there are two clear-cut things called "Catholicism" and "Protestantism" which are mutually exclusive. Obviously 16th-century Protestantism was Catholic to a large degree, inasmuch as it continued many of the doctrines and practices of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. The major division within Protestantism was between those who followed Luther closely, particularly in his focus on sola fide and his rearrangement other aspects of late medieval Christianity around that doctrine (the Lutherans), and those who engaged in a more systematic re-evaluation of Christian faith and practice in the light of a number of early-sixteenth-century reformist currents allegedly based on Scripture and the early Church, of which Luther's theology was only one (the Reformed). Anglicanism, like most Protestant movements outside northern Germany and Scandinavia, moved fairly quickly into the second, "Reformed," camp. But Anglicanism was clearly on the conservative (i.e., Catholic) end of the Reformed spectrum. That made Anglicans more conservative than Lutherans in certain respects (generally more likely to see positive value in the institutional structures of Catholicism, for instance), but on the key doctrinal issue of the Real Presence Anglicans should probably be seen as less Catholic than Lutherans well into the sixteenth century. Similarly, Anglicans abandoned private confession (except as a form of pastoral counseling for the sick and dying), which Lutherans did not.

In short, I agree that sixteenth-century Anglicans generally and Hooker in particular would not have seen themselves as "in between" Protestantism and Catholicism. Like all Protestants, they thought they were Catholics. Hooker was gentler to "Rome" than most Protestants, and the Anglican establishment he defended found itself in sharp conflict with the more radical wing of English Reformed Protestantism (the Puritans). But clearly Hooker would have said that the Reformed and Lutheran churches were on important points "sound" where "Rome" was highly "unsound."

And it's certainly true that many of the things we think of as "Catholic" in Anglicanism today were brought back in later. But I'm not sure what the word "alien" means here. That seems to assume that there's some kind of original "Anglican essence" perhaps identifiable with the 39 Articles or something of that sort. I think that's a highly dubious and unhelpful way to approach any religious tradition.

Quote:
I liked what many of the posters had to say in the comments section. Most of them see Anglicanism for what it is--a sixteenth century protestant church that later had an alien intruder, Catholicism, come into the fold
Catholicism is not alien to any form of Protestantism, at least any form that believes in the Trinity.

Quote:
This article also points out a view I have always had, as an Anglican and as a Catholic, that the 39 Articles are the heart of Anglicanism and that they must be respected and obeyed for a person to indeed be an Anglican. To disregard the articles one must disregard the essence of Anglicanism and really a person is just building a religion to fit their comfort zone...
So you do buy into this "essence" idea. Well, I don't. The only "essence" any religion has is revealed Truth. Apart from the extent to which a religion participates in the uncreated Truth of God, a religious tradition is simply a collection of beliefs and practices engaged in by human beings over time.

I am not sure what right you, as a Catholic, have to tell Anglicans what the "essence" of our religion is or is not. Many Anglicans, including myself, sharply disagree with your claim about the Articles, and frankly there's nothing you can do about it! You have no standing, any more than I have standing to tell you what you should believe as a Catholic (though I can of course point out what Catholic teaching and practice has been historically).

Also, the appearance of one more book on a scholarly topic does not close the debate. If it's a well-argued book, it hopefully moves the debate forward a bit. But the folks who play down the Reformed aspects of Hooker's theology are not going to go away just because one more book appears.

Edwin
  #5  
Old Dec 30, '09, 2:28 pm
GKC GKC is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2004
Posts: 10,184
Default Re: Has anyone read this book about Hooker? Seems to support my theories on Anglicanism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini View Post
I find this sentence very confusing. I think the reason for a lot of the confusion surrounding this issue is the assumption that there are two clear-cut things called "Catholicism" and "Protestantism" which are mutually exclusive. Obviously 16th-century Protestantism was Catholic to a large degree, inasmuch as it continued many of the doctrines and practices of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. The major division within Protestantism was between those who followed Luther closely, particularly in his focus on sola fide and his rearrangement other aspects of late medieval Christianity around that doctrine (the Lutherans), and those who engaged in a more systematic re-evaluation of Christian faith and practice in the light of a number of early-sixteenth-century reformist currents allegedly based on Scripture and the early Church, of which Luther's theology was only one (the Reformed). Anglicanism, like most Protestant movements outside northern Germany and Scandinavia, moved fairly quickly into the second, "Reformed," camp. But Anglicanism was clearly on the conservative (i.e., Catholic) end of the Reformed spectrum. That made Anglicans more conservative than Lutherans in certain respects (generally more likely to see positive value in the institutional structures of Catholicism, for instance), but on the key doctrinal issue of the Real Presence Anglicans should probably be seen as less Catholic than Lutherans well into the sixteenth century. Similarly, Anglicans abandoned private confession (except as a form of pastoral counseling for the sick and dying), which Lutherans did not.

In short, I agree that sixteenth-century Anglicans generally and Hooker in particular would not have seen themselves as "in between" Protestantism and Catholicism. Like all Protestants, they thought they were Catholics. Hooker was gentler to "Rome" than most Protestants, and the Anglican establishment he defended found itself in sharp conflict with the more radical wing of English Reformed Protestantism (the Puritans). But clearly Hooker would have said that the Reformed and Lutheran churches were on important points "sound" where "Rome" was highly "unsound."

And it's certainly true that many of the things we think of as "Catholic" in Anglicanism today were brought back in later. But I'm not sure what the word "alien" means here. That seems to assume that there's some kind of original "Anglican essence" perhaps identifiable with the 39 Articles or something of that sort. I think that's a highly dubious and unhelpful way to approach any religious tradition.

Catholicism is not alien to any form of Protestantism, at least any form that believes in the Trinity.

So you do buy into this "essence" idea. Well, I don't. The only "essence" any religion has is revealed Truth. Apart from the extent to which a religion participates in the uncreated Truth of God, a religious tradition is simply a collection of beliefs and practices engaged in by human beings over time.

I am not sure what right you, as a Catholic, have to tell Anglicans what the "essence" of our religion is or is not. Many Anglicans, including myself, sharply disagree with your claim about the Articles, and frankly there's nothing you can do about it! You have no standing, any more than I have standing to tell you what you should believe as a Catholic (though I can of course point out what Catholic teaching and practice has been historically).

Also, the appearance of one more book on a scholarly topic does not close the debate. If it's a well-argued book, it hopefully moves the debate forward a bit. But the folks who play down the Reformed aspects of Hooker's theology are not going to go away just because one more book appears.

Edwin
Happy New Year, Edwin.

GKC
  #6  
Old Jan 2, '10, 10:11 am
luckyfredsdad luckyfredsdad is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Posts: 339
Religion: anglican catholic
Default Re: Has anyone read this book about Hooker? Seems to support my theories on Anglicanism

[quote=gurneyhalleck1;6110648]Has anyone read this new book mentioned on
Virtueonline? This review of it opens with:

Nigel Atkinson, can no more speak for Anglicanism, than you can! Besides which It is amazing how much you tend to ignore all that goes against your preconceived notions of history!

Of course Hooker was convinced of the reformed doctrines! But they were the doctrines of a reformed catholicism, based on revelation,scripture and tradition! What is wrong with that! Rome had its reformation and new start at Trent, it's called the counter reformation,isn't it? There's a difference though, I grant you, Anglicans went back to the early Church whereas, Rome built a new one!

Anglican doctrine did indeed show a gulf between the fanciful additions of Rome and the negatives of protestantism! An

Anglicanism rejected both these things and neither was it between these two latter,Anglicanism was a return to the early church of the Fathers and Councils.

Even from the Blog, comes the news, which again you sneakily avoided, because it didn't suit your theories, "The Church of England was not born at the Reformation! It was born again.'

You could have forgotten or even misplaced the info! But I doubt it!

It always seems to me that your information comes from ladybird Books! Give ;em up try something better!



Quote:
"In his book, Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason (Paternoster, 1997), Nigel Atkinson demonstrates that Richard Hooker (1554-1600), regarded by Anglicans as one of its foremost theologians, was not someone who believed that the doctrine and teaching of the Church of England was a via media between the teachings of Roman Catholicism and the Reformed teachings of Geneva. Indeed, Atkinson demonstrates that Hooker was as convinced of the Reformed doctrines of the Reformation as his Puritan opponents."
You go on on about the 39Articles! Just what is it that bugs you so much?

The articles were a stop line or fence beyond which the wild men, both papist and Calvinist were not allowed to go. We could have followed Rome's treatment of dissidents
, the rack, the fire or the gallows, or even tried a S.Bart's night massacre, what was it 30,000 victims at one go? The Church didn't however, it chose to follow the Christian principle and teach! {The truth mind you!]

Like everything else in the Anglican Church the base line is the doctrine of the seven councils, Rome of course has abandoned this and has added to the Deposit of Faith!

The only Church to be started in the 16th, Century was the Roman Catholic one, at the Council of Trent. There was no split, schism or separation in England till the followers of Pope Pius the vth, broke faith in 1570, at the behest of the Papacy, not for religious purposes mind you, but for the furtherance of the pope's political games!
  #7  
Old Jan 2, '10, 4:08 pm
crm114 crm114 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Posts: 142
Religion: RC
Default Re: Has anyone read this book about Hooker? Seems to support my theories on Anglicanism

Lucky, my dear brother in Christ,

I believe in free speech and acknowledge that under the civil law you have every right to call us heathens, make false claims that the Catholic Church was invented at Trent and so forth. But I am wondering why you are lurking and taunting on a website called catholic.com. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to do your bashing on wehatecatholics.com or thetruechurchwassuppressedfor15centuries .com?

How can you, or the noble cause of protestantism, possibly benefit from your angry, provocative and libelous presence here?

I will refrain from suggesting that you steal some more monasteries or chop the heads off of more Catholics. Seriously, I do not suggest it because I do not hold you personally responsible for acts that took place more than 400 years ago. I even credit you with a certain amount of good will and intellectual consistency. I just don't understand why you are in this forum, picking a fight.

Let us all pray for Christian unity.
 

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Archive > Archive > Anglicanorum Coetibus: 2009

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8457Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: suko
5143CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3735Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3320Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3284Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3224Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3109For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: RevDrJBTDDPhD



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:41 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.