Differences between Anglicanism and Lutheranism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aslan10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would actually put that much farther back: 1878, and the fallout of the Colenso Affair (cf. 1867, when they still thought that uniformity could be imposed).
 
Mystophilus said:
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.
Click to expand...
I belong to the realist tribe.

GKC
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
One difference is that Anglicans seem to recognise a necessity for apostolic succession or at least value it more so than Lutherans.
Click to expand...
I understand how it can seem that way, especially to an Orthodox observer. But I’m not sure “value” is the accurate word here. Perhaps Father K can comment as to the importance that Lutherans in his country place on Apostolic Succession in the traditional sense.

But even within those Lutheran communions practicing a more congregational polity, maintaining the Truth (which was the reason the Church instituted the practice of Apostolic Succession in the first place) is certainly valued. Prior to ordination, our ministers undergo rigorous training, and at ordination they receive the laying on of hands from the surrounding bishops, etc. The difference is that the non-episcopal Lutherans consider each pastor to effectively be the local bishop, just as the early church did. To be sure, this structure has its weaknesses, and the departure from the development of the later church --both East and West-- ought not to be dismissed lightly… but in a way, this polity could be considered more in-line with the standards set by the Apostles and the early Church than the modern monarchical model that has developed in the East and especially at Rome.
 
steido01 said:
I understand how it can seem that way, especially to an Orthodox observer. But I’m not sure “value” is the accurate word here. Perhaps Father K can comment as to the importance that Lutherans in his country place on Apostolic Succession in the traditional sense.

But even within those Lutheran communions practicing a more congregational polity, maintaining the Truth (which was the reason the Church instituted the practice of Apostolic Succession in the first place) is certainly valued. Prior to ordination, our ministers undergo rigorous training, and at ordination they receive the laying on of hands from the surrounding bishops, etc. The difference is that the non-episcopal Lutherans consider each pastor to effectively be the local bishop, just as the early church did. To be sure, this structure has its weaknesses, and the departure from the development of the later church --both East and West-- ought not to be dismissed lightly… but in a way, this polity could be considered more in-line with the standards set by the Apostles and the early Church than the modern monarchical model that has developed in the East and especially at Rome.
Click to expand...
Still, while Lutherans are willing to dismiss that traditional way of doing things in favour of going to what they see as an apostolic model, Anglicans are not. I’m not sure about the legitimacy of the Anglican claim to a genuine apostolicity, that is by the Bishops and clergy from the apostles in succession through the ages and the laying down of hands, but I think they have it right not to reinvent the episcopal wheel (in this regard anyway).
 
Indifferently said:
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, and before the Arminian doctrines were introduced by Archbishop Laud, the Thirty Nine Articles were considered to be a Reformed confession of faith.
Click to expand...
That might be, but where does it say that the Church of England couldn’t be reformed post the 16th and 17th century?
 
Novocastrian said:
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!
Click to expand...
The question one ought to ask, however, is this: What does ‘spiritual presence’ even mean? What is made present is the body and blood of Christ (and his soul and divinity too, per concommitance). Surely ‘spiritual’ presence is at least a confusing term here. The body made present is a physical thing that could either be there physically (which we generally do not belive) or substantially (which we generally do belive).
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
One difference is that Anglicans seem to recognise a necessity for apostolic succession or at least value it more so than Lutherans.
Click to expand...
That also depends on whom you ask. As a priest in the Church of Norway, in communion with the Church of England, I maintain that I do validly share in the apostolic sucession, even by, the logic of, Roman Catholic teaching. I have commented on this before.

I also maintain that apostolic succession is a must, and that the episcopacy is part of the of the Churchesse.
 
I know nothing, almost nothing, about all of the various Christian denominations that emerged from the Reformation. I know how Lutheranism and Calvinism emerged, but haven’t the slightest idea what Lutherans are actually like.
 
Potter said:
I know nothing, almost nothing, about all of the various Christian denominations that emerged from the Reformation. I know how Lutheranism and Calvinism emerged, but haven’t the slightest idea what Lutherans are actually like.
Click to expand...
Consider yourself forgiven, on account of your fantastic taste in hymns.
 
GKC said:
Fond of it myself. But it has been known to raise an eyebrow, here and there.

GKC
Click to expand...
It raised an eyebrow on my face once. Didn’t much care for feminizing (or, in this case, feminising?) the Sovereign’s title in the third line of the third verse.
 
steido01 said:
It raised an eyebrow on my face once. Didn’t much care for feminizing (or, in this case, feminising?) the sovereign title in the third line of the third verse.
Click to expand...
It was so in the 1908 original poem, as far as I know. Doesn’t bother me.

The first verse has caused some dust-up, of recent years.

GKC
 
steido01 said:
The original had the City of God being ruled by a Queen? Maybe I’m confused.

Yep.
Click to expand...
No, the original, oddly enough called “The Two Fatherlands”, referred to another country, in feminine terms. Note that she (that other country) has a King.
Code: 
And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
GKC
 
GKC said:
No, the original, oddly enough called “The Two Fatherlands”, referred to another country, in feminine terms. Note that she (that other country) has a King.
Click to expand...
Right, that’s what I thought. No problem with referring to her by the feminine (can’t imagine it any other way). Someone thought it would be appropriate to replace His title, ‘King,’ with ‘Queen.’ This was at a liberal arts college where open communion, Islamic prayer, and yoga are not unusual during the worship service. It was so very inclusive. :ouch:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top