Differences between Anglicanism and Lutheranism

[Novocastrian]

If we are talking about differences between traditional/classical Anglicans and confessional Lutherans, then I would say very little. In fact, I will be leaving my dying Episcopal parish at the end of this year for an LCMS parish.

Sad to hear that. I realise that I’ve been lucky in the various congregations available to me! Best wishes from this Anglican.

 

[ltwin]

A major historical doctrinal division would be the Lord’s supper, historically the Church of England holds to the spiritual presence whereas Lutherans hold to the physical presence views

Actually, I thought the “historical” CofE view (I’m thinking Elizabethan Settlement) was “what ever you think as long as you conform to the Book of Common Prayer.” There were always some who held to a real presence and others who held to a spiritual presence, and it was my understanding that the Book of Common Prayer was written in such a way so that both viewpoints could be interpreted into the liturgy.

 

[GKC]

Actually, I thought the “historical” CofE view (I’m thinking Elizabethan Settlement) was “what ever you think as long as you conform to the Book of Common Prayer.” There were always some who held to a real presence and others who held to a spiritual presence, and it was my understanding that the Book of Common Prayer was written in such a way so that both viewpoints could be interpreted into the liturgy.

Watch the changes in the words of Administration, from the 1549 BCP, through the 1552, to the 1559.

GKC

 

[GKC]

A major historical doctrinal division would be the Lord’s supper, historically the Church of England holds to the spiritual presence whereas Lutherans hold to the physical presence views

Depends on which Anglican one is thinking of.

GKC

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Depends on which Anglican one is thinking of.

GKC

exactly

 

[benjohnson]

I realize this will be tough, because we Anglicans are not easy to put in a box…

It is had to put Anglicans in a box, but the really hard part is finding latches that keep them in. They keep breaking free!

 

[Indifferently]

Actually, I thought the “historical” CofE view (I’m thinking Elizabethan Settlement) was “what ever you think as long as you conform to the Book of Common Prayer.” There were always some who held to a real presence and others who held to a spiritual presence, and it was my understanding that the Book of Common Prayer was written in such a way so that both viewpoints could be interpreted into the liturgy.

The spiritual presence view as articulated by Calvin and taught in the Book of Common Prayer - see for example the Black Rubric - is the real presence. It is not merely that Christ is present by his Spirit, but rather that the Holy Spirit uses the elements of bread and wine to supernaturally and spiritually feed us with Christ’s body and blood.

 

[steido01]

The spiritual presence view as articulated by Calvin and taught in the Book of Common Prayer - see for example the Black Rubric - is the real presence. It is not merely that Christ is present by his Spirit, but rather that the Holy Spirit uses the elements of bread and wine to supernaturally and spiritually feed us with Christ’s body and blood.

Lutherans and Catholics will respectfully disagree that Calvin’s real absence clearly articulates a belief in the truly real, actual, presence of Christ.

 

[Aslan10]

Lutherans and Catholics will respectfully disagree that Calvin’s real absence clearly articulates a belief in the truly real, actual, presence of Christ.

So will a vast amount of Anglicans. What’s the word, again?

 

[Novocastrian]

Lutherans and Catholics will respectfully disagree that Calvin’s real absence clearly articulates a belief in the truly real, actual, presence of Christ.

Lutherans and Catholics may hold that Calvin’s eucharistic theology is wrong, but it seems hard to argue that he teaches a real absence. He doesn’t; a comparison with Zwingli will illuminate.

Institutes IV.xvii.19

The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way (this would obviously detract from his celestial glory); and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor assigns to him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth. All these things are clearly repugnant to his true human nature. Let us never allow ourselves to lose sight of the two restrictions. First, Let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens whenever he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures. Secondly, Let no property be assigned to his body inconsistent with his human nature. This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time. **But when these absurdities are discarded, I willingly admit anything which helps to express the true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, as exhibited to believers under the sacred symbols of the Supper, understanding that they are received not by the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life. **For the odium with which this view is regarded by the world, and the unjust prejudice incurred by its defence, there is no cause, unless it be in the fearful fascinations of Satan. What we teach on the subject is in perfect accordance with Scripture, contains nothing absurd, obscure, or ambiguous, is not unfavourable to true piety and solid edification; in short, has nothing in it to offend, save that, for some ages, while the ignorance and barbarism of sophists reigned in the Church, the clear light and open truth were unbecomingly suppressed. And yet as Satan, by means of turbulent spirits, is still, in the present day, exerting himself to the utmost to bring dishonour on this doctrine by all kinds of calumny and reproach, it is right to assert and defend it with the greatest care.

Indeed, Calvin is careful to prevent a minimalist interpretation of spiritual presence!

** Institutes IV.xvii.7**

I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth. Therefore, if it is evident that full communion with Christ goes beyond their description, which is too confined, I will attempt briefly to show how far it extends, before proceeding to speak of the contrary vice of excess. For I shall have a longer discussion with these hyperbolical doctors, who, according to their gross ideas, fabricate an absurd mode of eating and drinking, and transfigure Christ, after divesting him of his flesh, into a phantom: if, indeed, it be lawful to put this great mystery into words, a mystery which I feel, and therefore freely confess that I am unable to comprehend with my mind, so far am I from wishing any one to measure its sublimity by my feeble capacity. Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehend, or the tongue to express. I will, however, give a summary of my view as I best can, not doubting its truth, and therefore trusting that it will not be disapproved by pious breasts.

 

[Novocastrian]

Again:

Institutes IV.xvii.10.

The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive—viz. that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ”? (1 Cor. 10:16.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

 

[Indifferently]

Lutherans and Catholics will respectfully disagree that Calvin’s real absence clearly articulates a belief in the truly real, actual, presence of Christ.

Calvin doesn’t teach “real absence”. And Lutherans and Roman Catholics have a different doctrine from one another too.

 

[Indifferently]

My thanks to Novocastrian for his contributions. For two real absence views, see Roman Catholicism - which teaches the real absence of bread and wine (the sign) - and Zwinglianism - which teaches the real absence of the body and blood of Christ (the thing signified).

 

[steido01]

Lutherans and Catholics may hold that Calvin’s eucharistic theology is wrong, but it seems hard to argue that he teaches a real absence. He doesn’t; a comparison with Zwingli will illuminate.

Indeed, Calvin is careful to prevent a minimalist interpretation of spiritual presence!

Certainly! I didn’t mean to dictate what Calvin or Calvinists teach (Trust me; very little irritates me more than when uneducated folks pretend to know more about Lutheranism than Lutherans ). Telling other people what they believe is not something that this poster engages in, and I typically don’t leave my posts so ambiguous as to be interpreted that way. Sorry for the slip up – though the ambiguity does fit the communions involved.

I could’ve been clearer by saying: Lutherans and Catholics would generally be unsatisfied with Calvin’s articulation of belief in the Real Presence, with many dismissing it as “real absence.”

Bringing this back to the thread, it’s a nearly-impossible issue to reconcile between Confessional Lutherans and those Anglicans who prefer a more Reformed flavor. Even the intercommunion agreements that have been reached between the more liberal Reformed and Lutheran bodies can only be made through ambiguous wording that allows each church to maintain its own beliefs.

 

[steido01]

So will a vast amount of Anglicans. What’s the word, again?

It’s around here, somewhere.

 

[Indifferently]

It’s around here, somewhere.

I hate the word and its false implications. Anglicanism is not “motley”. It is confessional. Whether ministers choose to obey the confessional standards or not is another matter, but Anglicanism is a Reformed confessional branch of Protestant Christianity.

 

[GKC]

I hate the word and its false implications. Anglicanism is not “motley”. It is confessional. Whether ministers choose to obey the confessional standards or not is another matter, but Anglicanism is a Reformed confessional branch of Protestant Christianity.

Yes, we’ve been over this before. Anglicanism is not confessional, the Articles are in no sense normative for Anglicans in general nor for laity of the CoE, in a confessional sense. Though nothing prevents or prohibits any Anglican or any Anglican jurisdiction from treating them as such. Nor for cutting them from the Prayer Book, or adopting the recommendations on them, from Lambeth 68.

It depends on which Anglican you are speaking of. Motley, the breed.

GKC

 

[Mystophilus]

Historically, that is a fiction. The Church of England was certainly considered by the English Reformers and Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries to be a Reformed church

Yes, but what “Reformed” meant to those people did vary. Hooker’s Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (especially books 2-3) emphatically locates the Anglican Church between the Catholics and the Puritans.

Motley is not new.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

One difference is that Anglicans seem to recognise a necessity for apostolic succession or at least value it more so than Lutherans.

 

[Mystophilus]

I hate the word and its false implications. Anglicanism is not “motley”. It is confessional. Whether ministers choose to obey the confessional standards or not is another matter, but Anglicanism is a Reformed confessional branch of Protestant Christianity.

I appreciate that you feel this way, but Anglicanism is broad, and has been so for much of its history.

Some consider that breadth to be a virtue; others consider it to be a vice; regardless of such valuation, it remains true as a description of the ideological variety found within the Church.