Catholic Saints in Anglicanism and Lutheranism?

[cmodrmac]

We honor the Saints and pretty much have the same ones up to the schism of Henry VIII time-we do have additional saints such as The Martyrs of Uganda -and some that I suspect would not go over well with the Roman Church such as Archbishop Cranmer

we do not pray to the saints for intercession-at least I do not-the Blessed Virgin is in a different category many members of my Church venerate and pray to Her for intercession

the definition of a Saint is that the Church feels that that person is in Heaven-we would have no problem with Mother Theresa and such notables-then again Gahndi and Mandela had saintly qualities-I would put Thomas Merton in there as well

 

[LutheranScholar]

Thank you, that is fascinating, and makes me wonder why his idea of a Protestant Council (a council of “the prostrated Church” in C B Smyth’s version) never took hold: it could have given Protestantism more unity, and changed the whole course of northern European history.

Sigh, my book list just got longer, and I was already going to need an augmented lifespan to get through it!

I can give you four reasons why the idea of a Protestant Council never took hold: #1: Confessional Evangelical Lutheranism, #2: Anglicanism, #3: Reformed Calvinism and #4: Anabaptism. lutheranism101.com/?p=241 conciliaranglican.com/2013/08/18/how-to-stand-for-classical-anglicanism-in-the-midst-of-anglican-pluralism/ crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/reformed-accent/what-reformed apcwdc.mennonite.net/What_is_Anabaptism

Nationalism, religious exclusivity and mutual anathematizing would have turned such a meeting into chaos. As you know, everybody backs their own team. Hey, McDonalds and Campbells are both Scottish, but they’re not exactly famous for being overly fond of each other; how do you think a Swiss Reformed layman and a Swiss Mennonite would fare?

 

[Mystophilus]

Nationalism, religious exclusivity and mutual anathematizing would have turned such a meeting into chaos.

True, once someone has seen fit to judge others unworthy, they can start to apply that to friend and foe alike.

Still, with all due respect to my more-conservative fellow Anglicans, I would not be too quick to describe “Classical Anglicans” as especially representative of historical Anglicanism: latitudinarianism has almost always been a very significant force in Anglicanism (except around the end of the C18th/beginning of the C19th), and so the conservatism of the “Classical” branch was only ever one strand.

 

[GKC]

True, once someone has seen fit to judge others unworthy, they can start to apply that to friend and foe alike.

Still, with all due respect to my more-conservative fellow Anglicans, I would not be too quick to describe “Classical Anglicans” as especially representative of historical Anglicanism: latitudinarianism has almost always been a very significant force in Anglicanism (except around the end of the C18th/beginning of the C19th), and so the conservatism of the “Classical” branch was only ever one strand.

Yep. As I have repeatedly observed, re:" the spectrum of Anglicanism, ab initio".

Perhaps not oft enough enough, but twas ever so, even so. More a two headed beast, in the beginning, restrained somewhat by the Elizabethan Compromise, shedding Puritans and Separatists, spawning the smooth Broad center; a range of things. Surely I can find a word to refer to all of it.

When I used “classical”, somewhere above, it was classical Anglo-Catholicism, at that point, I was meaning; melding of Tractarians and Ritualists.

GKC

 

[LutheranScholar]

True, once someone has seen fit to judge others unworthy, they can start to apply that to friend and foe alike.

Still, with all due respect to my more-conservative fellow Anglicans, I would not be too quick to describe “Classical Anglicans” as especially representative of historical Anglicanism: latitudinarianism has almost always been a very significant force in Anglicanism (except around the end of the C18th/beginning of the C19th), and so the conservatism of the “Classical” branch was only ever one strand.

Other than having common beginnings as the Church of England, one really* can’t *pin any sort of commonalities on the Anglican movement, apparently.

 

[GKC]

Other than having common beginnings as the Church of England, one really* can’t *pin any sort of commonalities on the Anglican movement, apparently.

But one recognizes the doctrinal spectrum, that was there, from the start. And how it grew into the many splendored/splintered thing it is.

GKC

 

[LutheranScholar]

True, once someone has seen fit to judge others unworthy, they can start to apply that to friend and foe alike.

Still, with all due respect to my more-conservative fellow Anglicans, I would not be too quick to describe “Classical Anglicans” as especially representative of historical Anglicanism: latitudinarianism has almost always been a very significant force in Anglicanism (except around the end of the C18th/beginning of the C19th), and so the conservatism of the “Classical” branch was only ever one strand.

You’re right. Jesus’ statement applies to Lutherans and Methodists just as much as it applies to anyone else: " Master, we saw somebody casting out demons in your Name and we told him to stop, because he doesn’t follow along with us," the disciples said. Jesus said, " don’t stop him! Nobody who does a work in My Name will be able soon after to speak evil of Me." " Where two or three are gathered in My Name, there I am in the midst of them," He said elsewhere. Bringing people to Jesus is the important bit and that doesn’t happen without the Holy Spirit. We can point at a different denomination and scream " heretic!" all we like, but how would Jesus respond to that kind of treatment of our brothers in faith? Wouldn’t it be something if we were to see Pope Leo X, Martin Luther, Lancelot Andrews, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli sharing a beer with Jan Hus, Peter Waldo and Vladimir of Kiev in the Kingdom of God? Of course, in our own churches, we do have to be careful of divergent doctrine ( unless you’re an Anglican)… we do have to weed out our own gardens every now and then ( Seminex!)…

 

[namax91]

I also stumbled upon the Wikipedia article with a list of Lutheran saints. I’m surprised that St. Teresa of Avila is honored in Lutheranism. In her autobiography she specifically called Lutherans “lost souls”, and later she either quotes directly or paraphrases something Jesus apparently told St. John of the Cross (who also is venerated by Lutherans), “What Satan was doing among the Lutherans was the taking away from them all those means by which their love might be the more quickened; and thus they were going to perdition.” I’m not using these quotes to pick on Lutherans, I’m just surprised that Lutherans venerate these two, plus St. Francis Xavier. All three of these people were big in the Counter-Reformation.

On a less controversial note, it is pretty cool that Michelangelo and Johan Sebastian Bach are considered saints by Lutherans.

 

[Peter_J]

True, once someone has seen fit to judge others unworthy

You mean like deciding that the successor of St. Peter is someone they don’t need to be in full communion with?

 

[LutheranScholar]

You mean like deciding that the successor of St. Peter is someone they don’t need to be in full communion with?

Fair point… once Scripture alone becomes the standard, the idea of a mortal human being leading the Church Militant in spiritual as well as temporal matters ceases to be relevant. Luther said that the job of the clergy was to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments, absolve the penitent and prevent the excommunicated from approaching the altar. He spoke of a Pope as perhaps being a useful symbol of unity, but not having any particular authority over anyone other than those who voluntarily attach themselves to him.

 

[Mystophilus]

Surely I can find a word to refer to all of it.

I’m pretty sure that there’s one around somewhere.

When I used “classical”, somewhere above, it was classical Anglo-Catholicism, at that point, I was meaning; melding of Tractarians and Ritualists.

Oh, yes: my reference was to the self-description of the group to which LutheranScholar provided a link when talking about the failure of agreement amongst the early Protestant groups.

 

[Mystophilus]

You mean like deciding that the successor of St. Peter is someone they don’t need to be in full communion with?

Or moving out of home for the first time. As Fanon said regarding colonies, it tends to begin with hostility, but develop into co-operation.

 

[Mystophilus]

Other than having common beginnings as the Church of England, one really* can’t *pin any sort of commonalities on the Anglican movement, apparently.

As GKC says, though, that diversity has itself become a very characteristic trait of Anglicanism. For the moderate majority, broadness is a value in itself, and our clergy spend a lot of time trying to stop the two extremes from flying off on their own.

 

[GKC]

I’m pretty sure that there’s one around somewhere.

Oh, yes: my reference was to the self-description of the group to which LutheranScholar provided a link when talking about the failure of agreement amongst the early Protestant groups.

D’accord.

 

[Mystophilus]

Wouldn’t it be something if we were to see Pope Leo X, Martin Luther, Lancelot Andrews, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli sharing a beer with Jan Hus, Peter Waldo and Vladimir of Kiev in the Kingdom of God?

I expect rather a lot of that to go on, there, God being God and understanding far more than we do about where others really are.

Of course, in our own churches, we do have to be careful of divergent doctrine ( unless you’re an Anglican)

There is a concern regarding divergent doctrine in Anglicanism, but it is a concern which operates in a very Anglican way: it tends to revolve first around the relationship between the priest and the parish, and then between the parish and the diocese. Since the bishop grants each priest a licence to minister, there is still a means of top-down control, but (in so far as I have seen) it tends only to be exercised when there is a failure of bottom-up coherence.

Within walking distance of my (moderate) church are two extremes: one which cannot accept women priests, or any talk of evolution, and one which holds services explicitly for the LGBT community and which preaches Jesus the Social Revolutionary. Each reflects the feelings of its congregation. Despite their differences, both extremes remain committed to the diocese, to the province, and to the Communion, and so the main part of the bishop’s interactions with them seems to be to keep them in dialogue with the rest of us.

If, on the other hand, a liberal parish somehow received a conservative priest, or vice versa, the bishop would most likely move to find the priest a new location.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I expect rather a lot of that to go on, there, God being God and understanding far more than we do about where others really are.

There is a concern regarding divergent doctrine in Anglicanism, but it is a concern which operates in a very Anglican way: it tends to revolve first around the relationship between the priest and the parish, and then between the parish and the diocese. Since the bishop grants each priest a licence to minister, there is still a means of top-down control, but (in so far as I have seen) it tends only to be exercised when there is a failure of bottom-up coherence.

Within walking distance of my (moderate) church are two extremes: one which cannot accept women priests, or any talk of evolution, and one which holds services explicitly for the LGBT community and which preaches Jesus the Social Revolutionary. Each reflects the feelings of its congregation. Despite their differences, both extremes remain committed to the diocese, to the province, and to the Communion, and so the main part of the bishop’s interactions with them seems to be to keep them in dialogue with the rest of us.

If, on the other hand, a liberal parish somehow received a conservative priest, or vice versa, the bishop would most likely move to find the priest a new location.

What are the powers these days of patrons in the CofE? I remember living in a parish where the patron was a catholic society, and the priest thoroughly Anglo-Catholic, but the congregation, as far as I could tell, utterly Broad. They seemed to tolerate each other well enough. Of course there are conservative evangelical patrons like the Church Society, too.

 

[Mystophilus]

What are the powers these days of patrons in the CofE? I remember living in a parish where the patron was a catholic society, and the priest thoroughly Anglo-Catholic, but the congregation, as far as I could tell, utterly Broad. They seemed to tolerate each other well enough. Of course there are conservative evangelical patrons like the Church Society, too.

These days, the role is largely ceremonial. Below (and, sometimes, alongside) the bishops, power/governance tends to be exercised by various types of meetings, committees, and synods.

 

[Picky_Picky]

These days, the role is largely ceremonial. Below (and, sometimes, alongside) the bishops, power/governance tends to be exercised by various types of meetings, committees, and synods.

Thanks.