Thursday, September 16, 2010

Two heads are better than one

In a recent conversation behind the scenes, via email, a very sincere fellow has been trying to convince me that Anglicanism is a "two-headed monster." It is the same old worn-out argument that the Elizabethan Settlement (as if they understood it) was flawed from the start, because, golly gee whiz, you just can't be both Catholic and Protestant.1 Unfortunately, too many Anglo-Catholics buy into this idea, convinced that if ever they recognize their own Protestantism (though they may contest it too much), they will lose some argument against Reasserters (who, by the way, are irrelevant to any genuine theological discussion), and will lose the argument that they may be Catholic without the big Daddy in Rome or the little Daddy in Constantinople.

Furthermore, for too many of them, being Catholic means nothing more than having valid Orders, causing them to act as if all we stood for was a solution to the married priest problem Rome has created for itself. Valid Orders do matter of course; but, if you think that being Catholic means nothing more than that, then you will believe all too readily that the Pope has been generous in "offering" conversion by expanding the Pastoral Provisions in Anglicanorum Coetibus. If so, you are ripe for the picking, like those born every minute P.T. Barnum style.

Why are people so shocked to learn that Anglicanism is both Catholic and Protestant, and further, scandalized to hear that this is good? The answer is simple and twofold. The first problem is that they have allowed the Two One True Churches to define the terms, even though those big fellows can't get their own divisions reconciled. The other problem is that the word "Protestant" has taken on too many definitions. A word that means so many things can end up meaning nothing at all. I understand the second problem, but refuse to surrender to it. After all, the same problem applies to the word "Christian."

Anglicanism is like a coin with two sides, but it is not a two-headed monster. That is, Anglicanism, as we Continue it, is balanced, but not double minded. Yes, "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8)," but a one legged man is crippled. Anglicanism is what it is because the message of the Church is Evangelical, and the order of the Church is Catholic. The Faith we proclaim is the Catholic Faith, that is, it is according or κατά (kata) to the whole ὅλος (holos). The word comes from combining the words into one, katholike. We proclaim the whole truth, and it is by holding and practicing this whole truth in its entirety that the Church is Catholic.

This whole truth is the revelation God has given. However, the Whole does not include man made, or demon made, innovations. It cannot include any doctrine that has not been revealed by God, and therefore cannot include anything that is "repugnant to the Word of God." It is in this spirit, and for this cause, that Anglicanism has always the goal of conforming to the doctrine of the Apostles as the ancient Church received it, holding it fully intact, guarding against addition to God's revelation and against subtraction from it. It is for this reason that we regard our teaching and practice to be truly katholike; and that is the positive and authentic meaning of the more recently coined word, "Protestant"--at least as we should feel free to use it without embarrassment.

Those who merely observe classic, genuine Anglican practice from the outside, with their faces pressed against the window, weighed down in their minds by modern definitions or by anxiety to conform to the standards of others, may be "ever learning," but they are "never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" that we both teach and live in our daily practice of "the Faith that was once delivered to the saints" (II Timothy 3:7, Jude 3). They argue against the very lives that we live, treating the whole matter in theoretical terms only. But, their theoretical arguments only prove to us that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Many such people, disabled concerning "the knowledge of the truth" in their "ever learning" state, are members of Anglican churches, and some have been Anglicans by affiliation for years. But, they have never grasped the essence of Anglicanism itself. We may pity them, but we need not wonder why they seek a solution for something that is, though they are blind to it, most healthy, good and true. The solution to life is death, and the solution to health is sickness. Seeking a solution to life and health is easy, but no wise person wants to do so.

I wish I had said that

In the VirtueOnline posting of my essay, An Apologetic Response, our own Fr. Laurence Wells commented in response to another reader:

"The [Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church] at paragraphs 606--618 describes the Atoning work of Christ exceedingly well, especially at #615. 'Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.'

"But this noble statement of the Gospel is subverted, overthrown, and reneged on in the discussion of Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences. In paragraphs 1459 and 1460, we are told on the same page (!) that Christ has expiated our sins, and like[wise] we must expiate our own sins through the good works of penance.

"This is incoherent. You cannot have it both ways.

"At paragraph 1473 we are told that even after 'the forgiveness of sin and remission of eternal punishment,' even so 'the temporal punishment of sin remains,' which we must endure through various practices of penance and the sufferings of purgatory. So the Good News of Jesus becomes nothing more than the phoney warranty on a used car! The Gospel of the Roman Church resembles a scam in which we are offered a 'free gift' but when we pick it up at the post office, it is C.O.D."

Amen. Well said Fr. Wells.
_________________________

1. I have said enough about the word "Protestant" here and here. Therefore, when someone thinks he is insulting me by calling me Protestant, he may be shocked when I respond, "thank you for the compliment."

21 comments:

Wimsey said...

I think that Fr. Wells is spot on in identifying that the genius of the Protestant Reformation is the recognition that, during the Middle Ages, "ecclesial creep" in both the Western and Eastern portions of the Church had for all practical intents and purposes replaced Old-Law works righteousness with a new works righteousness based on the respective "New Law" of the West (the Penance-Merits-Purgation-Indulgences doctrinal phalanx) and of the East (the imposition of the Monastic Typicon upon the laity).

Furthermore, I agree with Fr. Hart that the formularies of classical Anglicanism did a better job of retaining the wheat of the orthodox catholicism of the ancient Church while jettisoning the chaff of innovative medieval accretion than did any other segment of the Reformation. This is why Anglicanism can, perhaps uniquely, lay equal claim to the appellations Protestant and Catholic and affirm both without any sense of inconsistency or incoherence. Indeed, strictly speaking, in proper understanding of each term, to truly be one, you must be both.

Jack Miller said...

Fr. Hart,
Why not this addition (in bold) to your text:

It is in this spirit, and for this cause, that Anglicanism has always the goal of conforming to the doctrine of the Apostles as the ancient Church received it and as the 16th century English reformers restored it, holding it fully intact, guarding against addition to God's revelation and against subtraction from it. It is for this reason that we regard our teaching and practice to be truly katholike; and that is the positive and authentic meaning of the more recently coined word, "Protestant"--at least as we should feel free to use it without embarrassment.

It seems to me that would give the last sentence of this paragraph a better context of meaning when using the word "Protestant." The Reformation is unfortunately 'assumed' in too many Anglican discussions when in fact it is more or less ignored. I'm not saying you personally ignore it. Just saying...

best regards in Christ,
Jack

Shaughn said...

Fr. Hart,

The Elizabethan Settlement works just fine depending solely on how narrowly or broadly you define it. To give but a simple example, folks with a near Zwinglian view of Eucharist and folks with Thomas Aquinas' views of the Eucharist aren't likely to get along for long.

The biggest trouble with the Elizabethan Settlement, which you and I have not experienced here in America, is the notion of an Established Church -- one that says that we here in England, be we near Quaker or Unitarian or Deist, must all be under the umbrella of Anglicanism. Now, the UK isn't quite like that now. For example, to pass modifications to the BCP in England requires a vote from Parliament, and many of the folks there simply aren't Anglican, and thus really have no business voting on such things.

Put simply, you and I can probably agree on some Elizabethan Settlement that theoretically works. The one that happened ran its course in England, and, well, here we are. It only works if you can trim the fringes regularly by saying to Zwinglian, Deist, materialistic transubstatiationist, and all the other problematic groups, "Out! We are not about that, thank you kindly."

The Elizabethan Settlement in practice led to Latitudinarianism of a kind that put broader Anglicanism in its present sorry state.

I am convinced that "Classic Anglicanism" is an artificial construct that mostly depends on who is describing it. From the very start, people in the Church of England were a jumble of folks being nasty to each other while trying to define what is acceptable. See Cranmer vs. Gardiner, or Hooker's own problems, or the persecution of the folks in the Oxford Movement, or the persecution Wesley faced, or any number of things.

I don't want a squishy, highly subjective "Mere Anglicanism." Fr. Hart, Canon Tallis, and Bp. Robinson all have nuanced views of what such a thing is, which leads me to believe they are chasing after a Platonic Ideal that we'll never quite experience. Rather, I want clear boundaries, and I don't find them in the Elizabethan Settlement as it was actually lived out in an established church. (Yes, yes. The Articles. Hum de dum. Many signed (and do still sign) them with their fingers crossed or with a very skewed view of what they actually meant.)

charles said...

Dear Father Hart,

Why not let the actual origin of the word define 'protestant'? As you know it came from the 1529 Diet of Speyer where German princes asked Charles V to preserve the 1527 concord. The terms of the peace was:
1. the princes would reform religion within the bounds of their own territories.
2. both kinds would be administered to the people in Mass.
3. the edict against anabaptism would be enforced.
4. a free general council with Rome was expected.

If these points govern our use of Protestants, then very few churches are such. Namely, the term, if rigorously applied, translates to a preference for established churches, a concilar openness toward Rome, and a sensitivity toward correct administration of sacraments. Today, most churches shaped by the Great Awakening(s) reject these categories, are ecclesiastically anabaptist, and therefore no longer recognizably 'protestant'.

Another definition of 'protestant' might be something more confessional, namely those churches with confessions rooted in the Augsburg one. It's this family of churches we give expression to adiaphora rather than Regulativism which precipated the horror of the Great War. Given the reconstructionist if not emotionalist basis of most American churhces, few meet this criteria, and the 'protestant' term is loosely interchangeable with 'evangelical'. However, a confessional and concilar approach to the word would flush it out as more properly 'northern catholic'.

What passes for 'protestant' today is mostly a historical misidentification. The way we turn this around is to apply the word correctly ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Well put, Wimsey

Doubting Thomas

charles said...

A thought on 'protestant'vs. evangelical: Like Protestant, 'evangelical' can be a loaded term, I think it might be said, however, that while every protestant is evangelical, every evangelical is not necessarily protestant. An evangelical protestant would have to be a christian who subscribes to reformation and magisterial norms (as described above). Furthermore, unlike 'evangelical', protestantism actually posits a specific ecclesiology and creedalism.

What, then, is 'evangelical'? I would venture it is more fundamental than ecclesiology or confession, dealing with how men are justified. In his 1536 disputation Cranmer discusses the weightier controversy, 'no so concerned with ceremonies or light things'. Cranmer explains these 'weightier' parts, which I would guess describes an 'evangelical', "The difference between the Law and the Gospel, how to receive the forgiveness of sins, the manner to comfort doubtful and wavering consciences, the true use of the sacraments, justification by faith, and not by any ex opere operato virtue of the sacraments, what are truly good works, whether human tradtions be binding, whether confirmation, ordination, etc., should be called sacraments" (Hardwick, p. 52)

If this be an adequate definition of 'evangelical', then how many self-professed are such? Most are not very systematic, the more wild aspects of revivalism corroding any perspective on sacraments if not theology altogether. If this definition excludes the Romans as an 'evangelical church', then what does it do to those AC's who follow Rome's doctrine?

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Shaughn:

To give but a simple example, folks with a near Zwinglian view of Eucharist and folks with Thomas Aquinas' views of the Eucharist aren't likely to get along for long.

The official Anglican Formularies include the Homilies, which rejected Zwingli's view, the bare sign and all that. Hooker rejected Zwingli by name, presumably on behalf of the English Church rather than as an individual opinion. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, presents more of a discussion.

the notion of an Established Church

Which was never unique to England. That was simply the way it was everywhere. Some made room for the Pope, but they were still national churches, and so was the C of E before the English Reformation.

It only works if you can trim the fringes regularly by saying to Zwinglian, Deist, materialistic transubstatiationist, and all the other problematic groups, "Out! We are not about that, thank you kindly."

They said "out" to those ideas. But, the English state did not burn people at the stake for heresy once Elizabeth's reign was settled. They allowed theological discussion without threat of death for the loser of a debate.

The Elizabethan Settlement in practice led to Latitudinarianism of a kind that put broader Anglicanism in its present sorry state.

Then what led to the sorry state of European and American RCism? Just because something happens sequentially in history, we cannot assign some rule of self-evident cause and effect.

I am convinced that "Classic Anglicanism" is an artificial construct that mostly depends on who is describing it.

No more so than Christianity itself. The English Church forced Christian theology back into its ancient paradigm. Questions that allowed for debate were no longer settled by the state wielding its sword. But, if we follow Hooker, Andrewes and Laud, we find a specific thing we may call Anglicanism. C.S. Lewis was right that it is a big room; but it does have clearly discernible walls.

However, in my post I am aiming my thoughts against those who cannot reconcile "Protestant" and "Catholic." That inability is one of the things that is outside the room, and has no place within it.

I don't want a squishy, highly subjective "Mere Anglicanism.

We have identified the Affirmation of St. Louis as consistent with classic Anglicanism. I believe that rules out heresies, and is firm without shoving dubious doctrines down people's throats. Anglicanism is very Romans 14 in the best way.

Charles wrote:

Furthermore, unlike 'evangelical', protestantism actually posits a specific ecclesiology and creedalism.

No it does not. The ecclesiolies of Protestant churches ranges from Episcopalianism (with Apostolic Succession, or like the Methodists, without it) to Presbyterianism to Congregationalism. The Creeds labeled Protestant today range from Nicene to Spong's Atheism. The question for us is, what does the word mean for Anglicans?

If this definition excludes the Romans as an 'evangelical church', then what does it do to those AC's who follow Rome's doctrine?

It excludes them.

George said...

Love it Fr. Hart. Your explanation is beautiful of the Protestant Catholic terminology. I noticed newer dictionaries have the contradiction of terms when they define protest and contest.

Connected to this conversation. I felt slightly disappointed in myself, but also unsure the other day. I got received a phone call survey on the phone and one of the questions. How do you define yourself? Catholic, Protestant, or Something else.

I said well I am Protestant Catholic. Long pause on the phone. THe surveyor said, "so...How do you define yourself? Catholic, Protestant, or Something else." I stated again I am Protestant Catholic. long pause and again. He said the same thing back to me. Realizing this wasn't going anywhere I ended up just answering Protestant. Any one else ever get stuck in the position?

Anonymous said...

Shaughn opines:

"The Elizabethan Settlement in practice led to Latitudinarianism of a kind that put broader Anglicanism in its present sorry state."

This telescopes and muddles two different historical epochs about 100 years apart.
The Elizabetan settlement, as we all know by now, was a 16th century affair. Latitudinarianism was a posture which surfaced after the Restoration, a feature of the Caroline (not Elizabethan) serttlement of Charles II. Latitudinarianism was characterized by full-blown Arminianism melding into Arianism and Deism. That aberration was only on the far horizon in the days of Elizabeth.

I can only speculate as to what is meant by "Elizabethan settlement in practice." But to suggest that Hooker, et al., paved the way for theological indifferentism is quite odd, like suggesting that Aquinas' embrace of Aristotle paved the way for Nominalism.
"Post hoc" is not "propter hoc."
LKW

Shaughn said...

Fr. Hart writes,

However, in my post I am aiming my thoughts against those who cannot reconcile "Protestant" and "Catholic." That inability is one of the things that is outside the room, and has no place within it.

Agreed, agreed. I am very much on board there. Where you and I disagree, I suppose, is on whether the Elizabethan Settlement can work in practice. The first trial run, as I said, has gotten us precisely here. It's a human institution, and so it's destined, like all human endeavors, to shrivel, rot, and die. It has done so. We are arguing a point of history, which I enjoy, but which ultimately will not guide our future. The present -- the Affirmation, which is also Catholic and yet Protestant, does so more succinctly and more relevantly than the abstract notion of the Elizabethan Settlement.

Now, I think the Affirmation of St. Louis takes the best of the Elizabethan Settlement and leaves the parts that haven't worked out quite so well, especially given how it has worked in practice.

Most of us, for example, are not that willing to go to the mat on high church vs. low church liturgical style, up to a point in either extreme. Most parishes I've visited manage to balance both aesthetics nicely. During the Elizabethan Settlement, however, it was a much more heated issue.

In another example, the history of the American Church itself stabs at the heart of your proposition. Prior to the late 1800s, nearly every Episcopal Parish was low church. The REC formed in no small part left because of such "ritualism" as candles on the altar. Heavens!

That period is, I think, happily behind us. Rather than try to resurrect a system that fell apart, we need, I think, to move forward. Let's acknowledge that the original intent of Anglicanism was both Catholic and Protestant, acknowledge that it hasn't, in practice, done a very good job of preserving that notion (especially in America), and improve, which I think we've done with the Affirmation.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I don't know what the 19th century popularity of Low Church has to do with my argument at all. Nor can I blame the Elizabethans for the errors that happened centuries later, and that required rebellion against their doctrine and practice in order to flourish. Furthermore, the apostate Anglican churches could not get in their modern condition without first rebelling against all of the honest theology that came before, whether High or Low Churchmanship was practiced.

Note, the modern apostates had to get rid of the Book of Common Prayer to do what they do. They had to banish the Elizabethans and everything from the Caroline era too. They rejected the very things you criticize in order to "ordain" women, and to do everything else they do.

Anonymous said...

Shaughn: What is your definition of the term "Elizabethan settlement"? For you, does this term refer to the POLITICAL arrangements worked out by Elizabeth herself, or to the THEOLOGICAL stance of
her bishops? When you write,

"It's a human institution, and so it's destined, like all human endeavors, to shrivel, rot, and die,"

I get the feeling you are not making some necessary distinctions.

If is was political, then it collapsed when Charles I tried to rule without a Parliament. But the theological method (which I do not call a system) is perfectly viable today.
LKW

Shaughn said...

Gentlemen,

This may just be a simple error of misunderstanding the scope and definition of the historical terminology on my part. I took the Elizabethan Settlement to mean "the sum of Anglicanism beginning with Elizabeth and continuing forward," such that it included events following the English civil war and so on--something with a beginning, a process, an end.

As I study more, I see that you rather refer to the period starting with the Act of Uniformity and the Act of Supremacy, continuing onward to include Hooker and the Caroline Divines, and possibly ending with the English Civil War or the Restoration.

That would, of course, present a much less problematic position for me, and the Elizabethan Settlement would be attractive largely because our foes aren't Puritans, but a fine blend of Modernism and Gnosticism.

Mea culpa. Carry on.

Death Bredon said...

This thread is demonstrating how varied views about English Church History can be and how this lack of a shared historical understanding makes any intelligent discussion about Anglicanism so bloody difficult. Indeed, some see the Elizabethan Settlement as a crypto-Calvinist. Others see it as the inauguration of religious comprehensiveness within the C of E. And, some have even argued that it broadly agreed with with substantive theology of the Council Trent, though nobody taking that view has chimed in this thread yet. Finally, others see it as admixtures of all of these three things, and even among the mixers, the proportions of each element are not agreed.

Worse yet, the fact that that none of these three views is within shouting distance of historically accuracy makes "talking Anglicanism" even more frustrating. Indeed, until we as a group--those wanting to continue authentic Anglicanism--are willing to go behind partisan polemics regarding what the formularies of the English Religious settlement signify, we are not likely to understand that real meaning, weight, and merit of Fr. Hart's post.

That is to say, until we look clearly and objectively at the hard historical record and understand that, between the time of Richard Hooker and William Law, the Elizabethan Settlement was by and large exegeted as a western tertium quid, neither Roman nor Reformed (in the developed, Calvinist sense), nor a compromise between these two, but western revival of of the consensus patrum, we will all constantly talk past each other when we employ terms such as "Elizabethan Settlement" or historical or classical "Anglicanism," and we have no chance coming together to actually continue Anglicanism. Instead, what we continue is the spirit of partisanships motivated by forces utterly foreign to Anglicans while each faction ironically claims for itself the mantle of Continuing Anglicanism.

Fr. John said...

Shaughn,

You wrote:

"Prior to the late 1800s, nearly every Episcopal Parish was low church."

I suppose it is possible that is true. However, we have had the first bishop of Louisiana's army field communion chest in our parish, in fact used it to say Mass, and the center piece is a sterling silver candelabra with a silver crucifix (cross with corpus) between the two candle branches.

If you are correct, then Bishop-General Polk was an amazingly advanced Anglican for his time. He was Bishop of Louisiana until 1860 when he accepted a major general's commission in the Confederate Army. He said Mass for his headquarters staff and others using the aforementioned communion set.

A photo of the set is posted at the bottom of my blog.

charles said...

Dear Death,

Why do you insist on calling other protetants outside the Anglican church 'calvinist'? There were other confessional schools, not the least of which stemmed from the Augsburg. The influence of the Augsburg happened at a formative time for Anglican standards (at least concurrent to development of the catechism, articles, and BCP). The influence certainly wasn't total, but it was substantial, especially in what Cranmer called 'heavier matters'.

Also, the period from Hooker to Law is quite extensive. At least looking to Scotland, you have the appearance of two parties within the non-juroring movement: the separatists and unionists. It's worth noting these two parties took quite different cues on public prayer and doctrine. Unionists basically cleaved to the Carolinian English standards while the seperatists really went in a 'new' direction theologically, emulating the East. The best proof of this is their differnt approaches to consecratory prayers.

So, the period between Hooker and Law is really unsettled where new directions opened in terms of Anglican theology. My sense is the Carolines sought more medieval and latin continuity while the non-juror (separatists) definitely prioritized the Greek.

If you believe the standards are not frozen to any particular period or author, but are the property of the church and therefore open to the conintual interpretation hereof, then haven't we seen a number of phases of development and stratificaitons of doctrine over the last five centuries? I think this is what you suggest when you distinguish the Hooker-Law period as a kind of corrective and healthy realignment to standards. If this is what you imply, I am willing to agree with you. But, it certainly doesn't solve our exegetical problems.

Dear Fr. Hart,

You are right about the absence of a specific ecclesiological consensus among magisterial protestants. But this is perhaps because early protestants were rather pragmatic about discipline. Where they agreed, typically, was that clergy be ordered and called. The sense of common order is entirely absent amongst so-called protestants today, and the difference between 15th and 20th century christians is what I meant by having lost an 'ecclesiology'. We may disagree as to the number of divine-right offices, but magisterial protestants together had a comparatively high view of church and clergy vis-a-vis modern fundamentalism. That's the difference, and it's a mark that seperates true from false protestants. IMHO

charles said...

Dear Shaughn,

I believe you bring up two different but relevant questions. Do anglicans have definable standards? And, second, can we gain the wherewithal to enforce them?

To the first, I would say our standards and doctrine are fairly perceptible. In no particular order, roughly outlining the 'settlement', they (Church of England) were:
1662 BCP,
1571 articles of religion,
1552 and 1570 catechisms (Ponet & Nowell),
the 1547 and 1563 Homilies,
1604 canons,
1611 KJV,
and Jewel's apology plus Hooker's Book V being the most salient divines. For added context, I would also recommend authoritative Henrician documents which laid the ground work:
the 1536 Articles,
1547 Catechism,
and perhaps the 1545 Primer.

So, there you have it-- some definitions for evangelical, protestant (see above), and now Anglican (begging the jello of 'mere anglicanism')

I think between these standards one can get a sound picture of Anglican faith. Anglicanism becomes rather definable when we add together those texts which carry most authority-- namely that approved by crown, convocation, and in some cases parliament. Anti-Erastian biases (free church) are often used to toss out standards that too often would add meat to the bone. But if we stick to royal seal, we are able to clear a lot of tangental or idiosyncratic debris.

Unfortunately, it is one thing to prove more than adequate defination and formulare. It is another to muster the will to enforce such. The lack of discipline, whether it was under Grindal's archbishopric or the 18th century latitudinarians, undermines whatever coherency standards provided through by their sum.

Lastly, the rise of the modernists in the 20th century has much to do with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism. Anglo-catholics in England too often rewarded modernists with clerical positions in exchange for 1928 BCP revision support against evangelicals.

Shaughn said...

Fr. John,

I would say so, for Bp. Polk. Do you know what vestments he preferred, by chance? From what I've read, Oxford and Camden-Cambridge movements were slow to cross the pond. 1860s would be around the time it would be just starting to take off.

The Diocese of Fond Du Lac, for example, elected Charles Grafton in 1888. I've read of bishops in other dioceses threatening priests with everything short of defrocking at the same time period for wanting to worship with candles on the altar, in a stole -- not even a chasuble.

Some of these extremely low church parishes are still around and quite large. Christ Church Alexandria is one. The celebrant only wears alb, cincture, and stole, and they wear blue (blue!?!) cassocks.

But not farh from there is St. Paul's K Street, which is lovely.

Anonymous said...

This excellent article and the thoughtful responses thereto demonstrate that there are not only differing views to the meanings of 'Protestant' and 'Catholic', but there are also apparently differing views to the meanings of 'Anglicanism', 'Elizabethan Settlement', 'Calvinism' and 'full blown Arminianism' as well.

The quest for terminological clarity continues. :-)

Doubting Thomas

Fr. John said...

Fr. Shaughn,

Rochet, preaching tabs, pleated cuffs, and a tippet(?), or other type vestment.

Feast your eyes on the Matthew Brady portrait:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gacobb/leonidaspolk.jpg

Anonymous said...

Fr John forgot to mention that over the white rochet he was wearing a black chimere. The "preaching tabs" was really a large handkerchief tied about the neck, not the silly thing modern Presbyterian ministers sometimes affect. In case anyone supposes this was somehow "low church" I would point out that it was the choir habit of a mediaeval English bishop.

Vestments are more a reflection of an historical epoch than of a a theological position. The example from
Christ Church Alexandria is more modern Novus Ordo than historic Virginia Churchmanship, which was cassock (maybe), surplice and black tippet.
LKW