Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salibi

Guest
How similar are Lutheranism and Anglicanism to each other? How similar is each of those to the Catholic Church? I’ve just started reading about the Protestant Reformation and about these two communions in particular. Some of their practices do bear similarity to the Catholic Church, no? And also, why do the Lutherans believe in consubstantiation rather than transsubstantiation, as in what fault do they believe there is in the doctrine of transsubstantiation? I’m interested to hear about this from a Lutheran on the forums.
Kind regards to all.
 
Last edited:
Ooh, this’ll be a fun conversation as long as we all stay nice to each other.

I’m an Anglican of the Anglo-Catholic variety.

First off, differences.
Anglicans largely maintain the Catholic view of the Apostolic Succession and an ordained ministerial priesthood. The Lutherans reject the ministerial priesthood, instead treating the “priesthood of all believers” as the only level of priesthood. Likewise, no Episcopate in Lutheranism.

Lutherans believe in Sola Scriptura. Some Anglicans do as well, but in general we have view that you might call “Prima Scriptura.” The old official position in the XXXIX Articles was that you can’t draw mandatory doctrine from extrascriptural sources, but that doesn’t mean that you can only believe what’s said in scripture.

As for similarities…well, it depends on the Anglican. Some Anglicans are basically Lutherans with priests. Others, like me, are quite non-Lutheran, such as in rejecting sola fide and accepting the canonicity of the deuterocanon.

Anglicanism, unlike Lutheranism, is not a confessional faith; we do not have a big long document spelling out the particulars of Anglican belief. As a result, saying “Anglicans believe” is almost always bound to lead you into problems. As @GKMotley likes to say, we’re motley.
 
I can’t speak for Lutherans, but I best describe Anglicanism as Catholic-lite. It retains much of the eclessiological structure, has a similar liturgy, sacraments, music, respect for tradition, apostolic succession and belief in real presence. It is light on doctrine and devotions. It places a heavy emphasis on the role of laity in the church and affords women equality in leadership (in most of the church). Clergy are permitted to marry. Parishes are generally smaller in size. There is no person of equal calibre to the Pope.
 
JohnStrachan said:
It retains much of the eclessiological structure, has a similar liturgy, sacraments, music, respect for tradition, apostolic succession and belief in real presence.
Click to expand...
Here’s the danger one gets into when one says “Anglicanism maintains…”

There are many, many Anglicans who reject some or all of these things. I know plenty of Anglicans who reject the very notion of sacraments and who reject the real presence.
 
Hello, thanks for your reply, it was very informative.
How do Anglicans reconcile themselves to the fact that the Anglican Church is “motley”, as you put it? Does an Anglican of more Catholic leanings commune with and consider another Anglican who leans towards Calvinism or other non-Catholic doctrines a brother in faith? And also, and I mean no disrespect by this, how do Anglicans reconcile themselves to the fact that their Church was founded because King Henry the Eighth (it was King Henry the Eighth, wasn’t it?) couldn’t get a divorce from the Pope? Or is this not the correct version of events? I’m genuinely curious.
Christ’s peace.
 
Salibi said:
How do Anglicans reconcile themselves to the fact that the Anglican Church is “motley”, as you put it?
Click to expand...
Apostolic succession is maintained (Catholics will disagree, which is fine. At the very least, it is maintained in the sense that there is a lineage from the Apostles; the dispute comes in with the validity or invalidity of Anglican ordinations), and difference of opinion within some minimal bounds of Christian orthodoxy is considered acceptable. Those bounds are themselves a matter of dispute, though.
Salibi said:
Does an Anglican of more Catholic leanings commune with and consider another Anglican who leans towards Calvinism or other non-Catholic doctrines a brother in faith?
Click to expand...
See above. Disagreement in particulars is accepted as long as we agree on the basics.
Salibi said:
And also, and I mean no disrespect by this, how do Anglicans reconcile themselves to the fact that their Church was founded because King Henry the Eighth (it was King Henry the Eighth, wasn’t it?) couldn’t get a divorce from the Pope? Or is this not the correct version of events? I’m genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
This is a woefully incomplete version of events. Yes, that was a proximate cause, but it’s better seen as the final straw than as the full reason.
 
I believe that the Orthodox accept the validity of Anglican orders and Apostolic Succession, do they not?
Also, do you happen to know any books or websites where I can read more about the complete version of the events?
Christ’s peace.
 
Salibi said:
I believe that the Orthodox accept the validity of Anglican orders and Apostolic Succession, do they not?
Click to expand...
I have no idea; I know very little of the Orthodox. And I haven’t really dived into the Catholic view of that question yet. The extent of my knowledge of the dispute is that the Anglican holy orders do not include anything about the mass as sacrifice.
Salibi said:
Also, do you happen to know any books or websites where I can read more about the complete version of the events?
Click to expand...
Wikipedia would be a good start. If you want a really nice general overview of Anglicanism, including historical and doctrinal questions, there’s an essay compilation called “The Study of Anglicanism.” It has essays representative of our best and worst tendencies.

GKMotley could tell you much more about the English Reformation than I can. That particular aspect of Anglican history is not one I’ve spent much time with.
 
Last edited:
HopkinsReb said:
The Lutherans reject the ministerial priesthood, instead treating the “priesthood of all believers” as the only level of priesthood.
Click to expand...
Lutherans do not reject the ministerial priesthood. They reject the notion that being in a clerical position somehow affords one additional grace or righteousness by their merit. We have a priesthood, that is called and ordained. Refer to the Augsburg Confession Article V. This was refuted 500 years ago.
HopkinsReb said:
Lutherans believe in Sola Scriptura. Some Anglicans do as well, but in general we have view that you might call “Prima Scriptura.” The old official position in the XXXIX Articles was that you can’t draw mandatory doctrine from extrascriptural sources, but that doesn’t mean that you can only believe what’s said in scripture.
Click to expand...
The Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura is somewhat close to your view of Prima Scriptura. The big distinction is that doctrine or practice drawn from tradition must yield to scripture. If there is a conflict, other sources of doctrine, such as tradition is not a valid source for contradicting scripture.
HopkinsReb said:
Anglicanism, unlike Lutheranism, is not a confessional faith; we do not have a big long document spelling out the particulars of Anglican belief. As a result, saying “Anglicans believe” is almost always bound to lead you into problems. As @GKMotley likes to say, we’re motley.
Click to expand...
I thought you guys had a confessional doctrinal statement. This is actually surprising to me. Maybe I am thinking of the London Baptist Confession I guess.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
I thought you guys had a confessional doctrinal statement. This is actually surprising to me. Maybe I am thinking of the London Baptist Confession I guess.
Click to expand...
Depends on the body in question, but regardless there’s nothing with the level of detail y’all have.
 
I thought so. That’s why I asked to be directed to some good sources to read about the matter.
 
Salibi said:
And also, why do the Lutherans believe in consubstantiation rather than transsubstantiation, as in what fault do they believe there is in the doctrine of transsubstantiation?
Click to expand...
Lutherans don’t subscribe to either consubstantiation or transubstantiation, but our understanding of the Eucharist is much closer to consubstantiation. We believe that we receive the true body and blood of Christ, in, with, and under the bread and wine. The prepositions there basically just demonstrate that we don’t know how we receive Jesus body and blood with the bread and wine, we just trust that we get it according to Christ’s word. We aren’t interested in speculating on how we get it. The other reason is that scripturally, the Bible speaks of both receiving the the bread and wine, and the body and blood. So for example, you see this in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. We just take the promise of Christ at face value.
 
Hodos said:
Lutherans do not reject the ministerial priesthood. They reject the notion that being in a clerical position somehow affords one additional grace or righteousness by their merit. We have a priesthood, that is called and ordained. Refer to the Augsburg Confession Article V. This was refuted 500 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I realized I was imprecise as I posted it. Y’all disagree with the Catholic and Anglican understanding of the ministerial priesthood, including the linear Apostolic succession, correct? That’s what was meaning to get at.
 
HopkinsReb said:
I have no idea; I know very little of the Orthodox. And I haven’t really dived into the Catholic view of that question yet. The extent of my knowledge of the dispute is that the Anglican holy orders do not include anything about the mass as sacrifice.
Click to expand...
The most general statement I’ve decided to settle on is that the Orthodox (who are almost as motley as Anglicans; generalities are dangerous) look on Anglican orders as they do on RC orders. They consider them either non-functional, as outside the true Church (Orthodoxy) and/or potentially valid, if the individual in question were to become Orthodox.

(Also, do you happen to know any books or websites where I can read more about the complete version of the events?)

My recommendation is always Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, the best single source on what happened and why. Scarisbrisk is RC.

GKMotley may decide to cut and paste some of his favorite stuff to quote: himself.
 
HopkinsReb said:
Yeah, I realized I was imprecise as I posted it. Y’all disagree with the Catholic and Anglican understanding of the ministerial priesthood, including the linear Apostolic succession, correct? That’s what was meaning to get at.
Click to expand...
We believe that apostolic succession is not referring to a pedigree of clergy, but being faithful to the teaching that was passed down. Many bishops and priests through the ages can be pointed to as having promulgated false teachings or doctrines. Arius for example was a priest. That doesn’t mean that his succession made his teaching valid. Honorius is another example. We believe as Paul did in Galatians that the legitimacy of the pastor/priest is dependent upon his faithfulness to the Word of God. While at many times in the past, faithful doctrine was passed down through a pedigree of clergy, this is not universally true. Remember that Ireneaus coined this term because he was refuting Gnostics who were appealing to other sources of authority who promoted “secret” teacings (my teaching came from Mary Magdalene, or was the secret teaching of Peter). He was basically saying if there was a secret teaching, then I as a bishop would know it. He then made his case for orthodox Christianity based on what he had received in the scriptures. This is an important point when discussing apostolic succession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top