Lutheran vs Anglican

[ajcstr]

Anglo-Catholics ???

 

[Contarini]

Anglo-Catholics ???

Anglicans who consider Anglicanism a branch of the Catholic Church and regard the Seven Councils and the consensus of the first millennium as authoritative, with the Reformation being either bad, irrelevant, or a minor clean-up of non-doctrinal matters (or some combination of all the above).

For instance, when I was preparing for confirmation my priest (an Anglo-Catholic) said something about the Eucharist that sounded to me like transubstantiation. I pointed out that the 39 Articles (the Anglican statement of faith from the Reformation era) rejected transubstantiation, and he said that IV Lateran (the medieval Council that affirmed transubstantiation) was a Council of the whole Western Church and thus of greater authority than the 39 Articles, which spoke only for one national church.

Edwin

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think you are wrong about that first point. Anglicans don’t have a well-developed system of confessions and are not strong on systematic theology. This easily misleads more confessional Christians, such as Lutherans. But rather than saying “there are some Anglo-Catholics that emphasize the sacraments,” it would be truer to say “there are some extreme low-church Anglicans who don’t.” Certainly when it comes to regular Eucharist, I’d say that Anglicans if anything have a “better” record on this than Lutherans. Admittedly, my experience may be skewed by my having spent more time as an adult in Germany than in England, and having attended a lot more services in the EKD than in any American Lutheran church. Monthly communion is the norm in Germany (there are exceptions), but weekly seems to be the norm in American Lutheran churches. I know that less-than-weekly communion is more common in England than in America (in Anglicanism).

Edwin

That’s true, Edwin, in as much as you are looking at the frequency of reception. Certainly that is a huge issue and tends to define how the church views the celebration of the Supper. However, it isn’t directed at what the church believes about the nature of the Supper. For example, I know of many Reformed congregations that offer the bread and wine on a weekly basis, yet their view of the sacrament is close to Zwinglian. My point was what the church teaches about the nature of the Eucharist.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree. Frequency and the actual beliefs are two different things. Lutherans really are closer to the Catholic view. Anglicans tend more toward the Calvinist view, especially in light of the 39 Articles. Anglo-Catholics the exception of course. But Anglicans see their orders as being of an Apostolic origin and thus valid where Lutherans have lost, generally, their apostolic succession.

That’s true, Edwin, in as much as you are looking at the frequency of reception. Certainly that is a huge issue and tends to define how the church views the celebration of the Supper. However, it isn’t directed at what the church believes about the nature of the Supper. For example, I know of many Reformed congregations that offer the bread and wine on a weekly basis, yet their view of the sacrament is close to Zwinglian. My point was what the church teaches about the nature of the Eucharist.

 

[GCMac87]

Indeed! (My wife was Methodist and recently became Episcopalian.)

As you note, the Midwest is more high church than other regions. I’m not sure how high is your high and how low is your low, if you get my meaning. My own parish tends to think of itself as Anglo-Catholic but is really pretty middle-of-the-road, and our priest is relatively low church by Midwestern standards (he comes from Virginia, which may explain it!). He’s basically a Barthian in theology and tends to discourage certain Anglo-Catholic practices. For instance, we didn’t get to venerate the Cross on Good Friday, we don’t have a Eucharistic Vigil on Holy Thursday, etc. But he hears confessions, so he’s hardly a true low-churcher.

You might also try visiting one of the AMiA (now part of the ACNA) parishes. For instance, the Church of the Resurrection in Wheaton, Illinois is a much more low-church experience than you’re likely to get in midwestern Episcopal parishes. There’s a similar congregation in my own town.

Still, if you want real low-church Anglicanism in America, you should visit something like Falls Church in Virginia. And by and large the low church is not very strong in the U.S. If one wants to be a low-church Protestant, there are plenty of better options! In England, on the other hand, there is a very strong low-church movement. The most stridently low-church Anglican I’ve met in America is Fr. Gerald Bray (I’m sure he wouldn’t appreciate the “Father”), who teaches at the Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham. Alabama. The Birmingham diocese is generally low church, but Fr. Bray complained to me that many of the smaller parishes aren’t as conservative or as evangelical as the cathedral is, so even there it’s not uniform. He also said that in his opinion there really wasn’t a true low-church Anglicanism in the U.S., or not much of one.

To put this in some perspective, Fr. Bray gave a talk at a conference I recently attended at Wheaton (this is how I came to be talking to him) on the subject “Why Evangelicals are the True Catholic and Orthodox Christians.” Ironically, the Baptist Wheaton professor who responded to the talk rejected Fr. Bray’s entire line of argument–and on good evangelical principles too! (The Baptist professor’s point was that evangelicals have no business trying to claim to be somehow “better” than other Christians, because we are supposed to be pointing people to Christ.)

Edwin

Thanks Edwin, although I should explain that I am not actually looking to attend a low-church parish, I’m just simply wondering where they tend to be located geographically. I joined the Episcopal Church (baptized and confirmed) because of Anglo-Catholicism, although I was not aware that the parish I would start attending would share so strongly in my views. I had begun to understand that ACNA is where a great number of the low-church Episcopal parishes went; I also had a notion that the CoE had a greater number of them as well. That being said, I have no desire to leave the Episcopal Church for one of these groups, and even if I did, I would have to drive for several hours to find one.

I would contend that our priest shares my Anglo-Catholicism more than many of our parishioners, which I think may stem partly from his time at Nashotah House.

An interesting personal note, my fiance joined the Episcopal Church soon after we were engaged; she was previously, like your wife, Methodist.

Since much of this discussion seems to concern the view(s) of the Eucharist, I have copied the section concerning the Eucharist from the Catechism of the Episcopal Church.

The Holy Eucharist
Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.

Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

Q. By what other names is this service known?
A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ’s command.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and received by faith.

Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal life.

Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

 

[ajcstr]

Let me put it this way: I can’t see what in the Lutheran theology of baptism ought to be unacceptable to an orthodox Catholic.

Edwin

When my son was an infant he became very sick and I feared he would not make it through the night so I baptized him myself. Fortunately after a few transfusions, he was ok, but I later came to find out that I should NOT have then had him baptized by a priest because he was already baptized. Yet, I think - and I could be wrong - that if he had been baptized in a non-catholic, he WOULD have to be re-baptized (if thats a word). That makes no sense to me.

 

[Contarini]

When my son was an infant he became very sick and I feared he would not make it through the night so I baptized him myself. Fortunately after a few transfusions, he was ok, but I later came to find out that I should NOT have then had him baptized by a priest because he was already baptized. Yet, I think - and I could be wrong - that if he had been baptized in a non-catholic, he WOULD have to be re-baptized (if thats a word). That makes no sense to me.

I think you are wrong. As I understand the matter, anyone who intends to do what the Church does, and uses correct form and matter, is performing a valid sacrament. So, for instance, non-Catholic or even non-Christian nurses could perform valid baptisms if they knew that a Catholic child was in danger of death. They don’t have to believe in the Faith themselves, only to intend to do what those weird Catholics do

In the past, Catholics have cast some doubt on Protestant baptisms, but not because Protestants can’t validly baptize. Rather, the concern was that when a Protestant intends to celebrate a Protestant baptism, what he or she means by it may not be what the Church means. These days the practice seems to be to accept Protestant baptisms, although it seems that some conservative priests still do “conditional baptism” just to be sure.

That wasn’t really the question I was asking, though. My question was: is there anything in the Lutheran *theology *of baptism that is unacceptable to a Catholic? And yes, that would mean that Lutherans certainly do have proper intent from a Catholic perspective.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That’s true, Edwin, in as much as you are looking at the frequency of reception. Certainly that is a huge issue and tends to define how the church views the celebration of the Supper. However, it isn’t directed at what the church believes about the nature of the Supper.

I responded as I did both because liturgy is how Anglicans express their theology and because you actually spoke of “emphasizing” the sacraments. I’d say that frequent celebration is a pretty obvious sign that one emphasizes the sacraments.

For example, I know of many Reformed congregations that offer the bread and wine on a weekly basis, yet their view of the sacrament is close to Zwinglian.

I would find that surprising–generally among the Reformed frequent reception goes with a Calvinist rather than Zwinglian theology (recognizing that many Lutherans refuse to acknowledge much difference between the two). But there are other churches of which this is true–Restorationists and Plymouth Brethren, for instance.

My point was what the church teaches about the nature of the Eucharist.

And my point is that you can’t determine what Anglicanism teaches by looking just at
formal confessional statements. Those do indeed look Calvinist. Liturgy and theology are very closely linked for Anglicans. Certainly a Calvinist view of the sacrament is compatible with Anglicanism, and there are those who hold it. But in my experience it’s not dominant. Most Anglicans are essentially in agreement with Lutherans, even if they express it differently. (Yes, I know this kind of wobbly language makes Lutherans cringe ever since Bucer first tried it in the wake of Marburg!) The statement on the Eucharist that Anglicans are most likely to agree with is

“He was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what that Word did make it,
That I believe and take it.”

Vague, sure. That’s why I appeal to liturgical practice, which fleshes out what we believe. For instance, we typically engage in some kind of gesture of reverence toward the altar, the tabernacle, and the elements themselves at reception and/or consecration. Yes, avowed Anglo-Catholics are more particular about when and how they do this, and are more likely to engage in such acts at the consecration and toward the tabernacle, while other Anglicans may simply bow toward the altar and cross themselves while receiving. And yes, low-church Anglicans may not do this at all. I don’t deny that Anglicanism has a range of belief and that the official teachings are vague. But it’s imply misleading to say that Lutherans as a whole are closer to Catholicism in their belief on the Eucharist than Catholics. A sizeable minority of Anglicans are more or less indistinguishable from Catholicism. If you averaged it out, my guess would be that the average Anglican and the average Lutheran would more or less believe the same things.

I find this conversation frustrating, because when the Concordat between our denomination and the ELCA was being debated, my Anglo-Catholic priest was very concerned about it because he didn’t think the Lutherans really believed in the Real Presence. My experience is that Anglicans and Lutherans each suspect the other of this, because we have different ways of expressing our belief in the Real Presence.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I agree. Frequency and the actual beliefs are two different things. Lutherans really are closer to the Catholic view. Anglicans tend more toward the Calvinist view, especially in light of the 39 Articles.

In my experience, most Anglicans either explain the Articles away or don’t pay much attention to them–only a few consider them binding, at least in the U.S. But your experience appears to be different.

Anglo-Catholics the exception of course.

In my experience, Anglo-Catholics are not the “exception,” but one end of the spectrum. And they have had a huge influence on Anglicanism as a whole, particularly in the U.S. Anglican worship today looks as Catholic as it does mostly because of the Anglo-Catholics. Admittedly, many Anglicans have taken on the trappings without thinking through the theology. But I don’t think liturgy and theology can be disconnected from each other. Most people don’t think through their theology very systematically. Their theology is expressed to a great extent by how they worship.

I’m not just talking liturgy, although I think the liturgy is the first place to look for what Anglicans believe. Most Episcopalians I know speak, think, and act in ways that have been influenced by Anglo-Catholicism to some extent.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks Edwin, although I should explain that I am not actually looking to attend a low-church parish, I’m just simply wondering where they tend to be located geographically.

I didn’t think you were looking to attend one. I thought you might be looking to visit one.

“Low church” and “high church” can mean many different things. Folks in my parish in NC considered the other churches in our area terribly “low,” because for instance they didn’t have frequent weekday celebrations of the Eucharist, didn’t chant, didn’t talk much about confession, etc. And yet these churches had Eucharist at least every week (usually with at least one weekday celebration), used the Eucharistic vestments, reserved the Sacrament, etc. By some standards they were quite high.

If you are in a real Anglo-Catholic parish, my parish would probably count as desperately low!

Edwin

 

[IowaJay]

Edwin - your posts have been great.

I am an ELCA seminarian who has served as an assisting minister many times at a local Episcopal church. Regarding the Eucharist, it has been my observation that while Lutheran confessional documents strongly advocate a belief in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ compared to Anglican statements of theology, Anglican liturgical practices seems to take the real presence more seriously. From genuflecting before the altar and then kneeling at the consecration, to the way the consecrated elements are treated, the times I have worshiped in Anglican churches (probably 5 or 6) have been more reverent than the many Lutheran churches I have worshiped in (dozens of ELCA, a few LCMS).

As has been observed by others, I tend to think that often times there are more similarities between like-minded members of different denominations when compared to members of the same denominations. I would much rather read theological works by an orthodox (yet moderate compared to some) Anglo-Catholic such as former Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey as opposed to many Lutherans.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Most evangelical Anglicans and broad church folks subscribe to the Articles. The ACNA upholds the 39 Articles as critical expressions of the faith of that fellowship. Also, I would also say that I don’t think most of the U.S. is heavily-influenced by the Anglo-Catholics; maybe some Episcopalians are in liturgy and overall looks but there are more evangelical protestant Anglican parishes for sure in the ACNA than there are Anglo-Catholic ones. Most Anglo-Catholics are either in TAC, have gone to Rome already, or are out on their own. Jack Iker’s diocese in Fort Worth, an ACNA province, is one exception for sure. They are generally Anglo-Catholic. REC and AMIA and CANA have done a lot to protestantize ACNA. I speak to people constantly from all over this country who describe most ACNA worship as happy clappy evangy stuff. My parish here in town is ACNA and middle-of-the-road. The rector proudly calls himself PROTESTANT and evangelical and he loves the 39 Articles yet also has a Catholic approach to worship, liturgy, etc.

Anglo-Catholicism, in its truest form, forbids female ordination. Most TEC parishes that are supposedly “anglo catholic” allow the innovation along with a host of others.

In my experience, most Anglicans either explain the Articles away or don’t pay much attention to them–only a few consider them binding, at least in the U.S. But your experience appears to be different.

In my experience, Anglo-Catholics are not the “exception,” but one end of the spectrum. And they have had a huge influence on Anglicanism as a whole, particularly in the U.S. Anglican worship today looks as Catholic as it does mostly because of the Anglo-Catholics. Admittedly, many Anglicans have taken on the trappings without thinking through the theology. But I don’t think liturgy and theology can be disconnected from each other. Most people don’t think through their theology very systematically. Their theology is expressed to a great extent by how they worship.

I’m not just talking liturgy, although I think the liturgy is the first place to look for what Anglicans believe. Most Episcopalians I know speak, think, and act in ways that have been influenced by Anglo-Catholicism to some extent.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But if you read the actual statements by Lutherans, their confessions, they believe in the Real Presence in a substantial way more similar to Catholicism. The closest thing we have to an organized statement of what Anglicans actually believe is the 39 Articles and those articles are decidedly Calvinistic in their approach to the Lord’s Supper. In Anglicanism, one could go from town to town, parish to parish, and see vastly different views about the same sacrament. I read an article, and it’s still on Catholic Answers, about a former Anglican priest who later converted to Catholicism. He was so frustrated because he went to one parish in London where the Eucharist was adored, benediction took place, incense abounded around the sacrament, and it looked overall more Catholic than the pope. He proceeded to go about 8 blocks to another Anglican parish. He was saddened to see after communion the priest hand the Eucharistic hosts to a parishoner and she took the hosts outside and fed them to the birds. Depends on where you go…

Edwin - your posts have been great.

I am an ELCA seminarian who has served as an assisting minister many times at a local Episcopal church. Regarding the Eucharist, it has been my observation that while Lutheran confessional documents strongly advocate a belief in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ compared to Anglican statements of theology, Anglican liturgical practices seems to take the real presence more seriously. From genuflecting before the altar and then kneeling at the consecration, to the way the consecrated elements are treated, the times I have worshiped in Anglican churches (probably 5 or 6) have been more reverent than the many Lutheran churches I have worshiped in (dozens of ELCA, a few LCMS).

As has been observed by others, I tend to think that often times there are more similarities between like-minded members of different denominations when compared to members of the same denominations. I would much rather read theological works by an orthodox (yet moderate compared to some) Anglo-Catholic such as former Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey as opposed to many Lutherans.

 

[Contarini]

Most evangelical Anglicans and broad church folks subscribe to the Articles.

Broad-church folks subscribe to the Articles? That’s news to me, and surprising to hear from you. I’d have thought you’d accuse them of not subscribing to the Nicene Creed!

Conservative Anglicans in America, particularly the low-church ones, complain bitterly about the Articles having been relegated to the “Historical Documents” section of the 1979 BCP. I’m not sure that placement in that section means that we no longer subscribe to them (the Chalcedonian Formula is also there, and I hope we still subscribe to it!), but it is certainly taken in some circles as a downgrading.

The ACNA upholds the 39 Articles as critical expressions of the faith of that fellowship.

Interesting. Are there no Anglo-Catholics in ACNA? Aren’t the dioceses of San Joachim and Quincy Anglo-Catholic? What about Forward in Faith North America? Aren’t they in the ACNA?

Also, I would also say that I don’t think most of the U.S. is heavily-influenced by the Anglo-Catholics

I have to wonder if you aren’t dismissing this influence because you don’t realize what Anglicanism looked like before Anglo-Catholicism.

Without the Anglo-Catholics we wouldn’t have weekly, let alone weekday Eucharist; we wouldn’t use Eucharistic vestments, let alone more minor things like candles; we wouldn’t have a light burning in front of the Tabernacle; we wouldn’t bow or genuflect or cross ourselves on a regular basis; we wouldn’t have a liturgy for private confession/reconciliation in the BCP; we wouldn’t pray for the dead; and so on. Now maybe you don’t experience any of these things in most Anglican parishes you’ve seen. If so, your experience is widely different from mine.

maybe some Episcopalians are in liturgy and overall looks

Practically all Episcopalians are in liturgy and overall looks. Not some, and not maybe. The things I’ve described above are universal in the Episcopal Church in my experience. Now you can argue that this doesn’t go very deep, and that may be a fair point.

I speak to people constantly from all over this country who describe most ACNA worship as happy clappy evangy stuff.

I know. I’ve been to two AMiA parishes (in both cases before the ACNA came into existence). But even there, they had elements of Catholic ritual that would have been anathema before Anglo-Catholicism.

Anglo-Catholicism, in its truest form, forbids female ordination. Most TEC parishes that are supposedly “anglo catholic” allow the innovation along with a host of others.

I have no interest in arguing over who the Anglo-Catholics really are, or what it takes to be one. I’m arguing instead that their influence is everywhere. In a sense they have lost by winning. So many of the things they pushed for have become accepted, that it became hard to tell who really was one any more. We are all sort-of Anglo-Catholic, which has in many ways made it harder for the “real” Anglo-Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But if you read the actual statements by Lutherans, their confessions, they believe in the Real Presence in a substantial way more similar to Catholicism. The closest thing we have to an organized statement of what Anglicans actually believe is the 39 Articles and those articles are decidedly Calvinistic in their approach to the Lord’s Supper. In Anglicanism, one could go from town to town, parish to parish, and see vastly different views about the same sacrament. I read an article, and it’s still on Catholic Answers, about a former Anglican priest who later converted to Catholicism. He was so frustrated because he went to one parish in London where the Eucharist was adored, benediction took place, incense abounded around the sacrament, and it looked overall more Catholic than the pope. He proceeded to go about 8 blocks to another Anglican parish. He was saddened to see after communion the priest hand the Eucharistic hosts to a parishoner and she took the hosts outside and fed them to the birds.

I have heard these kinds of stories about Lutherans as well.

It’s certainly true that they have clearer and more detailed confessional teaching.

Anglo-Catholics arguably opened the way for liberalism, because they broke down the fairly slim confessionalism we had (based on the Articles).

Edwin

 

[GKC]

With an intention facere quod facit ecclesia, yes. And a valid form and matter, yes. And also is a valid minister of the sacrament in question.

GKC

I think you are wrong. As I understand the matter, anyone who intends to do what the Church does, and uses correct form and matter, is performing a valid sacrament. So, for instance, non-Catholic or even non-Christian nurses could perform valid baptisms if they knew that a Catholic child was in danger of death. They don’t have to believe in the Faith themselves, only to intend to do what those weird Catholics do

In the past, Catholics have cast some doubt on Protestant baptisms, but not because Protestants can’t validly baptize. Rather, the concern was that when a Protestant intends to celebrate a Protestant baptism, what he or she means by it may not be what the Church means. These days the practice seems to be to accept Protestant baptisms, although it seems that some conservative priests still do “conditional baptism” just to be sure.

That wasn’t really the question I was asking, though. My question was: is there anything in the Lutheran *theology *of baptism that is unacceptable to a Catholic? And yes, that would mean that Lutherans certainly do have proper intent from a Catholic perspective.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well you got the news from me, fair and balanced I’m not sure why you make the last statement “surprising coming from you.” I’m also a bit fuzzy about the Nicene Creed comment. Why would I accuse them of any such thing?

Broad-church folks subscribe to the Articles? That’s news to me, and surprising to hear from you. I’d have thought you’d accuse them of not subscribing to the Nicene Creed!

I never said low church folks and evangelicals don’t subscribe to the 39 Articles? I said the exact opposite, that low church people tend to follow them, not Anglo-Catholics? I’m not sure why you make this point?
Conservative Anglicans in America, particularly the low-church ones, complain bitterly about the Articles having been relegated to the “Historical Documents” section of the 1979 BCP. I’m not sure that placement in that section means that we no longer subscribe to them (the Chalcedonian Formula is also there, and I hope we still subscribe to it!), but it is certainly taken in some circles as a downgrading.

Darn few. If you look at the majority of ACNA membership, talk to the bishops, and follow it, they’re mostly evangelicals with some catholic ritual and much of the time it’s bare minimum. I live in San Joaquin Diocese, and no, it’s not by any means Anglo-Catholic. Quincy is mixed I’ve heard. Forward in Faith I can’t speak to. I’ve heard of them but not what type of polity they maintain.
Interesting. Are there no Anglo-Catholics in ACNA? Aren’t the dioceses of San Joachim and Quincy Anglo-Catholic? What about Forward in Faith North America? Aren’t they in the ACNA?

Neither you nor I realize it as it was long before we were born. Yes I do indeed realize that the Oxford Movement and tractarians had a major influence worldwide. I never meant to imply Anglo-Catholicism didn’t change up the face of the Anglican Communion; I’m merely saying that the majority of U.S. churches are not Anglo-Catholic, but rather more evangelical-leaning. That’s all. I’m not dismissing anything.
I have to wonder if you aren’t dismissing this influence because you don’t realize what Anglicanism looked like before Anglo-Catholicism.

I realize all these points you make. Again, I’m not trying to marginalize the impact the Oxford Tractarians had on the AC. I’m personally an anglo-catholic fan so you don’t have to sell me. I’m sold.
Without the Anglo-Catholics we wouldn’t have weekly, let alone weekday Eucharist; we wouldn’t use Eucharistic vestments, let alone more minor things like candles; we wouldn’t have a light burning in front of the Tabernacle; we wouldn’t bow or genuflect or cross ourselves on a regular basis; we wouldn’t have a liturgy for private confession/reconciliation in the BCP; we wouldn’t pray for the dead; and so on. Now maybe you don’t experience any of these things in most Anglican parishes you’ve seen. If so, your experience is widely different from mine.

True enough, again I know the influence of anglo-catholics but I’ll say that these AMIA parishes are far more evangelical than anglo-catholic. Show me an AMIA parish with benediction, adoration, confessionals, holy water, and incense. It’s more middle of the road to evangelical.
I know. I’ve been to two AMiA parishes (in both cases before the ACNA came into existence). But even there, they had elements of Catholic ritual that would have been anathema before Anglo-Catholicism.

I have no interest in arguing either, Edwin. I was simply posting my viewpoint. I don’t want to argue, just chat. I have no axe to grind on this; but with the way Africa is quickly influencing the world, you’re seeing a very very evangelical Global South re-evangelizing the world and I think their influence is going to be far more far-reaching and influential in the next 50 years than anglo-catholicism. It might change the face of Anglicanism in a huge way. In fact, it already has with CANA and AMIA.
I have no interest in arguing over who the Anglo-Catholics really are, or what it takes to be one. I’m arguing instead that their influence is everywhere. In a sense they have lost by winning. So many of the things they pushed for have become accepted, that it became hard to tell who really was one any more. We are all sort-of Anglo-Catholic, which has in many ways made it harder for the “real” Anglo-Catholics.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed.

I have heard these kinds of stories about Lutherans as well.

It’s certainly true that they have clearer and more detailed confessional teaching.

Anglo-Catholics arguably opened the way for liberalism, because they broke down the fairly slim confessionalism we had (based on the Articles).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

**

**I never said low church folks and evangelicals don’t subscribe to the 39 Articles? ****

No, and I didn’t say that you said they didn’t. You said that low- and broad-church Anglicans *did *subscribe to them. My point is that the “broad church” tends to look dimly on any kind of creeds or confessions–some of them even squirm at treating the Nicene Creed as a binding confession of faith. (I should have put it that way instead of making my unnecessary crack about your propensity to accuse Episcopalians of a loose attitude to doctrine. The accusation is certainly a fair one in many cases–hence my surprise that you would say that *broad church *Anglicans subscribe to the Articles.)

Roughly speaking, low-church Anglicans take the Articles seriously; high-church Anglicans take the creeds and confessions of the first millennium seriously; and broad-church Anglicans have trouble with any kind of creedal statement, though many of them will subscribe to the Nicene Creed at least. It all depends on how low, how high, or how broad we are talking about, of course. In my experience most Episcopalians (not speaking for the ACNA here) subscribe to the Nicene Creed and don’t want anything more restrictive than that.

**

I’m merely saying that the majority of U.S. churches are not Anglo-Catholic, but rather more evangelical-leaning.

**

The majority of the ACNA is evangelical-leaning, certainly. I wouldn’t say that about TEC. TEC is by and large “liberal Catholic”–i.e., a combination of broad-church theology with a very diffuse influence of Anglo-Catholicism. I’m not willing to say that this Anglo-Catholic influence is merely “smells and bells”–I think it’s theological as well. But I understand why “real” Anglo-Catholics wouldn’t recognize it as Anglo-Catholicism.

At any rate, I’m not sure we are disagreeing, because I’m making claims about the influence of Anglo-Catholicism. I’m certainly not interested in making claims about how many North American Anglicans are actually Anglo-Catholic, in part because we could argue endlessly about where the line is to be drawn between Anglo-Catholics and generic Anglicans with some Anglo-Catholic influence. As you point out, many of the hardline Anglo-Catholics would draw the line at the ordination of women.

An example of what I would consider Anglo-Catholicism but what a conservative might say is just liberal Anglicanism with Catholic trappings is St. Mark’s in Philadelphia.

But even St. Mark’s is certainly not typical of Episcopal parishes.

Edwin

 

[ajcstr]

That wasn’t really the question I was asking, though. My question was: is there anything in the Lutheran *theology *of baptism that is unacceptable to a Catholic? And yes, that would mean that Lutherans certainly do have proper intent from a Catholic perspective.

Edwin

I guess it depends on the Lutheran belief of what Baptism does - it is the Catholic interpretation of being “born again through water and spirit”. Not sure if the Lutheran sees it this way or not. Also, I may be incorrect about which denominational Baptism’s would be recognized by the Catholic Church, I just guessed they would all be do-overs, but maybe that does not apply to Lutheran and/or Anglicans.