Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hodos said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
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.
Click to expand...
Area Lutheran explains Lutheranism better than area Anglican.

Story at 11.
 
LOL. Nice one. That is why I come here. I think there is lots of ecumenical value in explaining what we believe to one another, even if we disagree.
 
Oh, yeah, to clarify further on the ministerial priesthood thing, there’s some good old fashioned via media in the (historic, official, not universal) Anglican position. The pedigree is considered necessary for valid holy orders (barring some sort of contingency, such as in which it is simply impossible for the pedigree to be available to the new generation of priests, for example), but it is not considered to give one teaching authority.

I think I’d be correct in saying it’s basically the Catholic view of Apostolic Succession with the Lutheran view of the ordination itself.

And, the usual disclaimer: my understanding of Apostolic Succession is not representative of Anglicanism writ large. My wife, also an Anglican, disagrees with me, as she does on most modern disputes within the faith.
 
Last edited:
HopkinsReb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. Lutherans were and are not opposed to apostolic succession. The AC is clear about that.
In fact, many Lutherans continue to practice it. Others have returned to the practice through altar and pulpit agreements with Anglicans, such as PorVoo.
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...
If one reads the FoC, one finds this to be a distinction with very little difference.
HopkinsReb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Anglicans and Lutherans share similarities of views on the canon of scripture and Justification.
Lutheranism does not have a doctrinal statement on the canon.
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...
That’s okay. Lutherans are often divided by a common confession.
 
JonNC said:
If one reads the FoC, one finds this to be a distinction with very little difference.
Click to expand...
For some Anglicans, yes. For others, no.
JonNC said:
Anglicans and Lutherans share similarities of views on the canon of scripture and Justification.
Click to expand...
For some Anglicans, yes. For others, no.
JonNC said:
That’s okay. Lutherans are often divided by a common confession.
Click to expand...
Still better than the Split P’s, as far as I can tell.
 
Here’s some random blatherings.

What Hank wanted was a decree of nullity, based on his need for a legitimate male heir to strengthen his dynasty, with respect to his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. And based on his understanding of the Levitical prohibition against marrying a brother’s widow. (This was opposed, of course, by the levirate admonition in Deuteronomy). Actually, his strongest case would have been based on claiming an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, resulting from a faulty dispensation from Pope Julius II, which permitted him to marry his brother’s widow, but Wolsey couldn’t convince him of that. And it was a tricky point, turning on whether Arthur and Catherine had actually consummated their brief marriage).

Decrees of nullity such as Henry sought were a commonplace at the time. It’s how dynastic marriages were managed, and happened regularly. Henry’s sister received one, on a far weaker causa, 2 months before Henry submitted his appeal. He had every expectation his own request for a decree would sail through as easily. Primary reason it didn’t? Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, nephew of Catherine of Aragon, and recent sacker of Rome (sort of accidentally, that was). Clement just wanted the whole thing to go away.

The issue of Henry’s annulment /dynastic quest was only the last straw in a process that had been ongoing in England for several hundred years, of limiting the influence of the Holy See. Clement finally pushed a rash and impetuous monarch to the final break. The (potential) split had long been coming. See, for example, among others, the Statues of Praemunire (1353/1393) and the Statues of Provisors (1351/1390), all aimed at decreasing papal power in England.

Though such a process was the way in which dynastic marriages were made and unmade, for purposes of state, during this period, there was a problem in Henry’s case. While his argument on the matter was fairly good (better than he actually made, in that he did not argue on the basis of an undispensed diriment impediment of the public honesty in his marriage to Catherine, the strongest point he had, but on the weaker Levitical prohibition), it faced the daunting figure of Charles V, Catherine’s nephew. And given the real-politick in that situation, no way was a Pope going to rule for Henry. And so off we went.

Random comments, randomly c&p. Much history is passed over.
 
Last edited:
I can’t find it anywhere, but I seem to remember learning on CAF that Patriarch Kirill had basically stopped accepting the Anglican Apostolic Succession as valid, bc of gay marriage, etc. If that wasn’t the case, I think he made a much more forceful statement about possible unity than did the Catholic Church. Ie: the Catholic Church “this development of X” (it was either female bishops or gay bishops or something) the Catholic Church said it was a great difficulty to future unity prospects, whereas Patriarch Kirill said “this makes it impossible”. Something to that effect.

Because of say the last 100 years of Anglican/ Episcopalian history, I think the view that the Orthodox were somehow more closely related to Protestants like Anglicans is now obsolete. The Orthodox Churches are now much more close to Rome. And Anglicans and other Protestants certainly aren’t looking to Orthodox Churches for much.
 
Fets said:
I can’t find it anywhere, but I seem to remember learning on CAF that Patriarch Kirill had basically stopped accepting the Anglican Apostolic Succession as valid, bc of gay marriage, etc. If that wasn’t the case, I think he made a much more forceful statement about possible unity than did the Catholic Church. Ie: the Catholic Church “this development of X” (it was either female bishops or gay bishops or something) the Catholic Church said it was a great difficulty to future unity prospects, whereas Patriarch Kirill said “this makes it impossible”. Something to that effect.

Because of say the last 100 years of Anglican/ Episcopalian history, I think the view that the Orthodox were somehow more closely related to Protestants like Anglicans is now obsolete. The Orthodox Churches are now much more close to Rome. And Anglicans and other Protestants certainly aren’t looking to Orthodox Churches for much.
Click to expand...
My quick read on Wikipedia says that while the Orthodox accept the validity of Anglican orders, they reject intercommunion based on, well, orthodoxy. For the Catholics, the primary issue is catholicity, but for the Orthodox it’s orthodoxy. Fitting.
 
Mostly, yes.

But it still depends on the Anglicans in question. I know of several Continuing Anglican bishops who have been talking to Orthodox types within the past year.
 
Orthodox think of orders outside Orthodoxy as potentially valid. RC or Anglican.

Except when they have other thoughts on the matter.
 
Well, I’m not an Anglican. But I guess I was referring to the Anglican Communion. Not to continuing Anglicans or whatever the African ones are that have GAFCON instead of Lambeth.
 
These are the only 2 links I could find. I love how the one has a sensationalist title “Kirill Warns Cantebury of Apostasy”, but then in the article, he himself nowhere uses the word. Just in the title made by the journalist. Anyways:


https://www.virtueonline.org/russia...hurch-north-america-condemns-episcopal-church

The second one says he speaks against the Episcopalian Church, but again, doesn’t quote him on it. I seem to remember a Vatican response compared to the Russian Orthodox response. It was over some big development from the Anglican Communion. I’m pretty sure it was the Anglican Communion, and not the Episcopalians. And the Russian Orthodox statement on it was very blunt and strongly worded. Whereas the Catholic response was more diplomatic and less headline-making/ eyebrow raising.

Neither of these articles are what I’m thinking of…

Edit: UGH, I can’t find it. I literally googled “Patriarch Kirill slams gay bishops decision of Anglican Communion”. Nothing. I remember there was a lot of news about it at the time. And a lot of discussion on CAF about it. I’m surprised.
 
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...
The Westminster Confession of Faith was supposed to replace the 39 Articles. The Church of Scotland adopted it but the Church of England didn’t.
The London Baptist Confession is a modified version of the WCF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top