Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Salibi said:
How similar are Lutheranism and Anglicanism to each other? How similar is each of those to the Catholic Church? …
Click to expand...
I’m Byzantine Catholic. For comparison you can read these but not all hold the same views:
Note that Catholicism teaches that man can do morally good acts without grace, however they are not salviific.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
40.png
Salibi:
How similar are Lutheranism and Anglicanism to each other? How similar is each of those to the Catholic Church? …
Click to expand...
I’m Byzantine Catholic. For comparison you can read these but not all hold the same views:
Note that Catholicism teaches that man can do morally good acts without grace, however they are not salviific.
Click to expand...
And, to dig up the dead horse that GKMotley and I had briefly stopped beating, the 39 Articles are very much a historical political document and do not reflect broad swathes of modern and historic Anglicanism, both liberal and Anglo-Catholic.
 
Here’s a precis:

Anglo-Catholic: Articles are historical and not normative for any Anglican unless imposed by recognized authority, though much in the Articles are mere Trinitarian Christianity.

And the beat goes on…
 
Last edited:
Very true. Some Lutheran bodies retain an episcopal polity, while others maintain a hybrid congregational polity. My own Lutheran body takes a hybrid approach essentially mixing a congregational and either episcopal or presbytery type structure. Each type of polity brings with it strengths and weaknesses.
 
Last edited:
Salibi said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Church of England began when Pope Gregory the Great sent St Augustine to convert the Anglos in the 6th century. Some Anglicans believe this, that their Church existed 1000 years before Henry VIII.

I mention this because different groups can have radically different ideas about very basic concepts. Another example is bishop, which means something very different for most Lutherans than it does for Anglicans or Catholics. They all use the same word, but with different meanings.

Comment may make your head spin if you do not understand some of the underlying ideas and how people differ on them.
 
Some Anglicans believe even odder things about the origin of the Church in the Isles. But even sticking to actual history, the origin of the Faith in the British Isles is fuzzy. There are a couple of vague references in classical sources, such as Tertullian and Origen, which are suggestive, but not proof, for a date in the 200s. St. Alban, who, if really an historical figure, could put the Church in the islands around 300 or so. No one really knows. Ignoring the whole Joseph of Arimathea/Glastonbury legend and similar exotic stuff.

What is known is that by around 300 or so, the Church in England was sufficiently established as to be organized into sees. Three British bishops attended the Council of Arles, in 314 (London, York and Caerleon). Three British bishops attended the Council of Rimini in 359, though they were too poor to pay their own way. It is debated whether there were British bishops at Nicea in 325 and Sardica in 347, but it is reported that the British Church agreed with those Councils.

And from there, there is a lot of history that runs up to when Augustine reluctantly did what Gregory told him to do. It is a complicated story of the various small kingdoms in the islands, which converted, which didn’t, who fought whom, how the Church grew and receded and how the Celtic branch of the Church played into it. Lots of history before 597.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
Very true. Some Lutheran bodies retain an episcopal polity, while others maintain a hybrid congregational polity. My own Lutheran body takes a hybrid approach essentially mixing a congregational and either episcopal or presbytery type structure. Each type of polity brings with it strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...
My recent experience exposed the significant weakness of congregational polity, and an unwillingness of the synod to step in and
impose doctrine.
That said, episcopal polity also has weaknesses.
 
JonNC said:
My recent experience exposed the significant weakness of congregational polity, and an unwillingness of the synod to step in and
impose doctrine.
That said, episcopal polity also has weaknesses.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, that is definitely the downside of the congregational polity. Ecclesiastical supervision becomes a touchy issue. That said, when you look at the ELCA and even our own history in the Reformation and you realize that an episcopal polity is also no guarantee of purity of doctrine. It comes down to this, every generation has to be faithful to the gospel, and the scriptures provide the norm for evaluating the purity of that doctrine and practice.
 
Last edited:
Of course, you are right about that. I only chose St Augustine because he founded Canterbury, a prominent symbol of the Church of England.

I also like to suggest that the Church had been in England as long as the English, as St Gregory’s comment suggested.
 
And don’t forget St Patrick, from Britain and possibly ordained there before he evangelized Ireland 100 years before St Augustine. Since he became a Christian in Ireland, the religious history there does not start with him.
 
Well… he established a See there, but it was already the capital of Aethelberht of Kent, whose wife Bertha, a Christian, set up the welcome committee for Augustine.
 
True. Which brings in the whole murky point about the Celtic strand of Christianity in the Isles.
 
Last edited:
Salibi said:
I believe that the Orthodox accept the validity of Anglican orders and Apostolic Succession, do they not?
Click to expand...
No.

There was a statement some time ago (a century?) that were the Anglican church to enter orthodoxy en mass, their orders would become valid by ekonomia. That was long before Anglican approval of artificial birth control, and purported ordinations of women.

Again, not “valid” but “could become valid”.

Also, for a time, Orthodox in England were instructed to attend Anglican services and receive their communion–with the understanding that the actual Presence was there only for such Orthodox and not for the Anglicans alongside them (please don’t ask me to explain that one!)

hawk
 
GKMotley said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which is my general conclusion.
 
AFAIK, they all have the office, although primarily or exclusively in an administrative capacity, and for a turm.

The Church of Sweden claims to have preserved the apostolic succession and calls its ministers “priests” (but it’s attempted ordination of women shows otherwise).

hawk
 
Fets said:
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
Click to expand...
Actually the African GAFCON lot are in the Communion too. At present.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top