Differences between Anglicanism and Lutheranism

[Ridgerunner]

I probably shouldn’t post, as I’m likely to offend. But maybe not, so here goes.

I think a meaningful comparison between what I understand as Lutheranism and what I understand as Anglicanism cannot be made, because both vary a great deal, and significantly.

Paraphrasing something W.F. Buckley said long ago “The Anglican church is so eclectic that no one from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung can say with any degree of certainty that he is NOT an Anglican.”

One thing I do think, though, and by what I have observed is this (understanding that I am more familiar with LCMS than any other branch of the Lutheran church). Lutherans don’t mind saying they are Protestants. Lots of Anglicans do not like to say it, and maintain that they’re not.

That’s not a doctrinal difference, but it does, I think, tell something about how each views Catholicism and their relationship (or non-relationship) to it.

 

[KjetilK]

One thing I do think, though, and by what I have observed is this (understanding that I am more familiar with LCMS than any other branch of the Lutheran church). Lutherans don’t mind saying they are Protestants. Lots of Anglicans do not like to say it, and maintain that they’re not.

Well, I’m a Lutheran priest and you will never hear me referring to myself as a Protestant.

 

[steido01]

I probably shouldn’t post, as I’m likely to offend. But maybe not, so here goes.

I think a meaningful comparison between what I understand as Lutheranism and what I understand as Anglicanism cannot be made, because both vary a great deal, and significantly.

Paraphrasing something W.F. Buckley said long ago “The Anglican church is so eclectic that no one from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung can say with any degree of certainty that he is NOT an Anglican.”

One thing I do think, though, and by what I have observed is this (understanding that I am more familiar with LCMS than any other branch of the Lutheran church). Lutherans don’t mind saying they are Protestants. Lots of Anglicans do not like to say it, and maintain that they’re not.

That’s not a doctrinal difference, but it does, I think, tell something about how each views Catholicism and their relationship (or non-relationship) to it.

I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’ve written, though within Confessional Lutheranism, at least, the pendulum seems to be swinging back toward catholicity.

Something else that might be worth consideration… when the Lutheran calls himself “protestant,” he usually does so to describe a very specific part of his faith – that is, directly as it relates to the Church in communion with Rome. When a run-of-the-mill Evangelical calls himself “Protestant,” however, it can often be understood as a badge or title that totally defines them, and mostly relates to how they group themselves with other “Protestants.” It’s a significant paradigm shift; one is insular, the other not so much.

 

[GKC]

I probably shouldn’t post, as I’m likely to offend. But maybe not, so here goes.

I think a meaningful comparison between what I understand as Lutheranism and what I understand as Anglicanism cannot be made, because both vary a great deal, and significantly.

Paraphrasing something W.F. Buckley said long ago “The Anglican church is so eclectic that no one from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung can say with any degree of certainty that he is NOT an Anglican.”

One thing I do think, though, and by what I have observed is this (understanding that I am more familiar with LCMS than any other branch of the Lutheran church). Lutherans don’t mind saying they are Protestants. Lots of Anglicans do not like to say it, and maintain that they’re not.

That’s not a doctrinal difference, but it does, I think, tell something about how each views Catholicism and their relationship (or non-relationship) to it.

Not considering what any given Lutheran might say, as to being called a protestant (they often speak for themselves), what an Anglican might say is…well…variable.

GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

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. uch:

No accounting for taste, I suppose.

GKC

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not considering what any given Lutheran might say, as to being called a protestant (they often speak for themselves), what an Anglican might say is…well…variable.

GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus

Non-denominational protestants don’t like to be called protestants, and they’ll correct you if you say it. I guess it sounds too, well, “denominational”.

I have heard Lutherans (not many, but all LCMS) refer to themselves as being “Catholic”, by which I, at least, understood them to mean that they’re members of the Universal Church in a general sort of way, but with doctrinal as well as organizational bones to pick with the Catholic Church or something. I have heard Anglicans call themselves “Catholic” too, but I think they mean something slightly different. With some I have understood it to mean they consider themselves Catholic in the same way I do, but that there is this unfortunate misunderstanding that prevents full union. I have even heard Methodists say it, and think they consider that Catholicism has subdivisions, of which they are one.

But I think both of those are not the usual. I think, for the most part, both consider themselves separate and entirely valid subdivisions of Christianity on a par with the Catholic Church, which grant Catholicism the same status.

I am surprised that the poster from Norway calls himself a priest. Lutheran pastors with which I am familiar here would never say that.

Interestingly, the ultra orthodox Orthodox with whom I have talked at times consider all western churches as “Latins”, with Protestants being a sort of subdivision of Catholicism, but even more “heretical” than the “other” Catholics.

 

[GKC]

Non-denominational protestants don’t like to be called protestants, and they’ll correct you if you say it. I guess it sounds too, well, “denominational”.

I have heard Lutherans (not many, but all LCMS) refer to themselves as being “Catholic”, by which I, at least, understood them to mean that they’re members of the Universal Church in a general sort of way, but with doctrinal as well as organizational bones to pick with the Catholic Church or something. I have heard Anglicans call themselves “Catholic” too, but I think they mean something slightly different. With some I have understood it to mean they consider themselves Catholic in the same way I do, but that there is this unfortunate misunderstanding that prevents full union. I have even heard Methodists say it, and think they consider that Catholicism has subdivisions, of which they are one.

But I think both of those are not the usual. I think, for the most part, both consider themselves separate and entirely valid subdivisions of Christianity on a par with the Catholic Church, which grant Catholicism the same status.

I am surprised that the poster from Norway calls himself a priest. Lutheran pastors with which I am familiar here would never say that.

Interestingly, the ultra orthodox Orthodox with whom I have talked at times consider all western churches as “Latins”, with Protestants being a sort of subdivision of Catholicism, but even more “heretical” than the “other” Catholics.

Get to know the poster from Norway. He’s my sort of Lutheran, mostly.

Anglicans may well mean something different. And from each other, too. When I say I’m Anglo-Catholic, Catholic in the Anglican tradition, it relates to possession of apostolic succession. No, no one needs to agree, and yes, I’m familiar with Apostolicae curae. Very familiar.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

I am surprised that the poster from Norway calls himself a priest. Lutheran pastors with which I am familiar here would never say that.

Well it IS the proper term. In Confessio Augustana the term used is Priester (in German) and sacerdos (in Latin).

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well it IS the proper term. In Confessio Augustana the term used is Priester (in German) and sacerdos (in Latin).

Obviously, Lutheran pastors in Norway use the term, but they sure don’t where I live.

 

[KjetilK]

Obviously, Lutheran pastors in Norway use the term, but they sure don’t where I live.

Well, they should. It is right there in the Luheran confessions. But I do know a few clerics in the LCMS, and all of them call themselves priests.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Get to know the poster from Norway. He’s my sort of Lutheran, mostly.

Anglicans may well mean something different. And from each other, too. When I say I’m Anglo-Catholic, Catholic in the Anglican tradition, it relates to possession of apostolic succession. No, no one needs to agree, and yes, I’m familiar with Apostolicae curae. Very familiar.

GKC

I don’t know what a person means when he says he is “Catholic in the Anglican tradition”. There are Catholics in union with Rome whose Masses are “Anglican use”, there are Anglicans who consider themselves Catholics but accept the Magesterium of the Church with reservations, and there are Anglicans who consider that their clergy have Apostolic Succession after all, and consider themselves Catholics who are misunderstood by the Catholic Church. There may be others of which I know nothing.

With Lutherans, it is considerably more clear.

It can get confusing, but I do not demand that you make the distinction.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, they should. It is right there in the Luheran confessions. But I do know a few clerics in the LCMS, and all of them call themselves priests.

Not one I ever knew did, nor did their congregants. It was always “pastor”. But okay, I’m not complaining about it. It’s just one of those things that sometimes Catholics like me (and, I suspect, no few Lutherans) are not aware of. Anglicans seem to use the term more, but I don’t know how the numbers compare.

 

[GKC]

I don’t know what a person means when he says he is “Catholic in the Anglican tradition”. There are Catholics in union with Rome whose Masses are “Anglican use”, there are Anglicans who consider themselves Catholics but accept the Magesterium of the Church with reservations, and there are Anglicans who consider that their clergy have Apostolic Succession after all, and consider themselves Catholics who are misunderstood by the Catholic Church. There may be others of which I know nothing.

With Lutherans, it is considerably more clear.

It can get confusing, but I do not demand that you make the distinction.

Ok.

GKC

 

[thenobes]

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

What bothers me is that Calvin apparently accepts the absurd notion that a body can go through locked doors. (As in Easter Sunday evening). It seems Calvin just chooses what characteristics are absurd, and what are not. What authority was given to him to make these choices?

peace
steve

 

[Potter]

Consider yourself forgiven, on account of your fantastic taste in hymns.

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.

I heard it once and was utterly moved; it has been a close favorite sense. I took the third verse, however, the ‘her’ in question, to be referring to Christendom. That’s why I use it as my signature here.

 

[GKC]

I heard it once and was utterly moved; it has been a close favorite sense. I took the third verse, however, the ‘her’ in question, to be referring to Christendom. That’s why I use it as my signature here.

Usually taken to be the Heavenly Kingdom.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Usually taken to be the Heavenly Kingdom.

GKC

Yes indeed. If I remember aright the fuss that was made about this hymn was on the grounds that (a) making somehow equivalent one’s love of country and one’s love of the Heavenly Kingdom was not appropriate; (b) the suggestion that our husbands’ or children’s deaths in war are our sacrifice is distasteful; (c) the suggestion that one’s service to one’s country should be “no questions asked” is immoral.

Whether or not those criticisms are valid, the magnificence of Holst’s tune overwhelms any doubts about the words, I think.

 

[GKC]

Yes indeed. If I remember aright the fuss that was made about this hymn was on the grounds that (a) making somehow equivalent one’s love of country and one’s love of the Heavenly Kingdom was not appropriate; (b) the suggestion that our husbands’ or children’s deaths in war are our sacrifice is distasteful; (c) the suggestion that one’s service to one’s country should be “no questions asked” is immoral.

Whether or not those criticisms are valid, the magnificence of Holst’s tune overwhelms any doubts about the words, I think.

The original title of Spring Rice’s poem (double title, in fact) was Urbs Dei (The City of God) or The Two Fatherlands. A second country, And here’s (by coincidence), a most up to the very date discussion of the caviling anent it:

churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/8-november/comment/opinion/can-%E2%80%98i-vow-to-thee%E2%80%99-be-renovated

Holst, I’ve read, reworked a theme from his “Jupiter”, for the tune, but it has been too many years since I played THE PLANETS for me to say I recognized it.

Me, I like singing it.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

The original title of Spring Rice’s poem (double title, in fact) was Urbs Dei (The City of God) or The Two Fatherlands. A second country, And here’s (by coincidence), a most up to the very date discussion of the caviling anent it:

churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/8-november/comment/opinion/can-%E2%80%98i-vow-to-thee%E2%80%99-be-renovated

Holst, I’ve read, reworked a theme from his “Jupiter”, for the tune, but it has been too many years since I played THE PLANETS for me to say I recognized it.

Me, I like singing it.

GKC

Yep, Jupiter. I suspect that, in Britain at least, however genuine the cavils about the words, some of the unease about the hymn is that it so obviously stems from a period of British imperialism which to us today tends to feel somewhat embarrassing. Almost as if one were to set Newbolt’s Vitai Lampada to music by Parry.

 

[GKC]

Yep, Jupiter. I suspect that, in Britain at least, however genuine the cavils about the words, some of the unease about the hymn is that it so obviously stems from a period of British imperialism which to us today tends to feel somewhat embarrassing. Almost as if one were to set Newbolt’s Vitai Lampada to music by Parry.

Which wouldn’t fret me at all.

GKC