Lutherans...closest to Catholics?

[grandfather]

Hi Newbie2,

Since you qualified the question with “more so than any other branch of Protestantism”, I would say that Lutherans and Anglicans are about tied for being closest to Catholicism.

If you had omitted that qualifier and simply asked “Which non-Catholic Christians are closest to Catholicism?” then my answer would be the Eastern Orthodox, followed by the Oriental Orthodox (followed by the Polish National Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Old Catholics – although those 3 are smallish groups that are seldom mentioned).

I used to think so. (After all, Calvinists came along after Lutherans, and Calvinists are further afield from Catholicism.)

Eventually, though, I came to realize that the facts don’t really fit this theory. As JonNC pointed out, the Zwinglians/Anabaptists were “first-generation” Protestants, and they’re pretty far “out there”.

Also, I would add that the Methodists came along much later, and they split off from the Anglicans rather than directly from the Catholic Church, and yet they are closer to Catholicism than the Anabaptists, Baptists, or even Calvinists are.

That is a very good analysis. I have a friend who is a young pastor in a Nazarene Church. (spell?) They come from Methodists. He got in a discussion with some Calvinists and came to me and told me his denomination was much more aligned theologically with Catholics than Calvinists. This kind of surprised him, because he thought all Protestants had some loose connection or affinity. He had the attitude that all Protestants had some minor differences that separated them from one another, but it was the Catholics who were off base on just about everything.

When people live with disorder for a long time they come to embrace it as acceptable. Things have always been this way and they always will. But when things are broken a body can not function as it should. Its operations are hindered and crippled. It is weakened and vulnerable. Christianity is divided. It has divided itself disobeying its founder’s command to be unified. That is why Christian civilization and the society it built is being destroyed. God will reunify His people and destroy the evil of division among them.

 

[7_Sorrows]

my father was catholic and married a lutheran and i was baptized and confirmed in the episcopal faith- unfortunately.

i believe my mother was anti-catholic and, therefore, would not convert to catholicisim in order for my sister and i to be raised catholic.

i also had a neighbor who was lutheran and was married to a non-practicing catholic and she said terrible things about the catholic church.

i am catholic now and wish that i had been raised catholic. i thought the episcopal church was close to being catholic, but i can see now, it was not.

the episcopal/anglican churches and the lutheran churches were all started from the protestant movement, so they probably tried to be as un-catholic as possible.

 

[chewchoo]

Assuming by"anti-Catholic" you mean he uses hateful language about Catholics (not simply disagrees with Catholicism), you can tell your friend for me to read Luther’s commentary on the eighth commandment in his Small Catechism:

Jon

yes, it’s subtle, but it’s there.
thanks for the reference, i’ll mention it to him. but i think it’ll be awhile before i talk religion with him again.

 

[JonNC]

=Contarini;5076439]
I never understand where people get this from. Just who do you imagine did intend to “split with the Church”? Both Lutherans and Reformed defined “the Church” in a way that was not dependent on the Pope and the episcopal hierarchy. Both Lutherans and Reformed understood themselves to be in continuation with the historic Catholic Church, including the medieval Church. If anything, it seems to me that the Reformed put more energy into demonstrating continuity than the early Lutherans did (by the time of Chemnitz this had changed, it seems to me).

Edwin, it is good to have you back.
I get this, at least in part from The Apology, XIV. Melanchthon makes a case for continuing ecclesiastical order. You have studied this stuff more than me, I’m sure. Maybe his effort here was half-hearted.
Jon

 

[CJ_Nick]

Hey Ya’ll

I can’t help but wonder what OUR LORD thinks as he reads this thread???

Several " little " bodies of Christ spread all over the globe .

Sad, IMHO, that HIS Church has been weakened and " divided " amongst his follwers.

I am confident that this is not the Lords desire and pray that some day we " Christians " can unite as ONE BODY OF CHRIST.

Just my thoughts,

Peace,
CJ

 

[JonNC]

yes, it’s subtle, but it’s there.
thanks for the reference, i’ll mention it to him. but i think it’ll be awhile before i talk religion with him again.

Can’t blame you. I’m sorry he put that face on Lutheranism for you.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hey Ya’ll

I can’t help but wonder what OUR LORD thinks as he reads this thread???

Several " little " bodies of Christ spread all over the globe .

Sad, IMHO, that HIS Church has been weakened and " divided " amongst his follwers.

I am confident that this is not the Lords desire and pray that some day we " Christians " can unite as ONE BODY OF CHRIST.

Just my thoughts,

Peace,
CJ

I share your thoughts, and pray for unity.
Jon

 

[CJ_Nick]

I share your thoughts, and pray for unity.
Jon

Hi JonNC,

First, I thank you for your warm and charitable responses to ALL.

A little off topic ( sorry to the OP ) but this thread speaks volumes as to the challenges we Christains face when trying to reach out to those who are " non believers ".
I wonder what they think of us as they consider Christ and his promise of Salvation.

At any rate, thanks for the back and forth.

God bless,
CJ

 

[JonNC]

Hi JonNC,

First, I thank you for your warm and charitable responses to ALL.

A little off topic ( sorry to the OP ) but this thread speaks volumes as to the challenges we Christains face when trying to reach out to those who are " non believers ".
I wonder what they think of us as they consider Christ and his promise of Salvation.

At any rate, thanks for the back and forth.

God bless,
CJ

CJ,
I think not only our schism but the sometimes harsh tone we use toward each other seriously hinders the Holy Spirit’s reach to the non-believer because they view us as the fruits of the Christian faith. How sad.

Thank you for the kind words.

Jon

 

[IowaJay]

There is no simple answer to this question.

Confessionally, Lutherans get the edge. As I have pointed out on these forums before, there was a movement in the 1970s, supported by then-Archbishop Ratzinger, to recognize the Lutheran Augsburg Confession as an authentic “Catholic” statement of faith. There has been no such proposal from the Catholic side to recognize the Anglican 39 Articles because of the Calvinist influence on some of the Articles. For example, Lutherans have a stauncher view of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in communion than historic Anglicanism (outside of the Oxford movement, mentioned below).

Structurally, Anglicans get the edge with the uniform existence of bishops, whereas Lutherans have a hodge podge of ecclesiastical structures. Some (LCMS for example) have a congregational emphasis, whereas some (Church of Sweden) are no different than Anglicans.

Liturgically, Anglicanism since the mid-1800s is really the tale of at least 2 churches (probably more than that, but for this discussion, I’ll leave it at 2). Due to the Oxford movement and its Anglo-Catholic emphasis, some of Anglicanism today looks more like Catholicism than most Lutheran churches (and many Catholic churches!). However, as I understand it, there is still a strong evangelical/low church wing of Anglicanism. Lutheranism would be definitely be closer to Catholicism than Anglicans of that type. So, that’s a wash - Lutheranism is closer to Catholicism than some Anglican churches, but not others (and Lutherans are far from being uniform themselves).

 

[Contarini]

There has been no such proposal from the Catholic side to recognize the Anglican 39 Articles because of the Calvinist influence on some of the Articles.

But the 39 Articles do not have the same status among Anglicans as Lutheran confessional statements have among Lutherans.

For example, Lutherans have a stauncher view of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in communion than historic Anglicanism (outside of the Oxford movement, mentioned below).

That may be true, although strong views of the Real Presence (stopping short of transubstantiation) predated the Oxford Movement among Anglicans. Whether those views were as “staunch” as Lutheran views could be debated. However, more to the point the “Oxford movement” has leavened all of Anglicanism, particularly on this point. It’s not just one isolated movement within Anglicanism. It has shaped how most Anglicans see themselves, beyond the self-conscious Anglo-Catholics.

Liturgically, Anglicanism since the mid-1800s is really the tale of at least 2 churches (probably more than that, but for this discussion, I’ll leave it at 2).

To hear some Anglo-Catholics talk, you would think that. However, in the end Anglo-Catholics are not their own “church” insofar as they remain within the Anglican Communion (Continuing Anglicans like GKC are another story). A liturgical movement or a theological tradition is not a church.

However, as I understand it, there is still a strong evangelical/low church wing of Anglicanism.

Evangelical and low church are not the same. Until recently at least, evangelicals were low church (I would consider myself a high church evangelical, and the numbers of people like me are growing, I believe), but many low church Anglicans were definitely not evangelical. Most of the self-consciously evangelical Episcopalians left in the late 19th century, but more liberal low-church Episcopalians remained. Then with the charismatic movement and the growing hunger for liturgy and tradition among evangelicals, a newer kind of evangelical Episcopalianism has developed in the past few decades. Those of us who identify with this version of Anglican evangelicalism are not as staunchly low-church as evangelical Anglicans have been in the past. That being said, there are still old-fashioned low-church evangelical Anglicans in the Episcopal Church–South Carolina seems to be a particular stronghold of theirs. But this kind of Anglicanism is much stronger in England and in parts of Africa.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

But the 39 Articles do not have the same status among Anglicans as Lutheran confessional statements have among Lutherans.

That may be true, although strong views of the Real Presence (stopping short of transubstantiation) predated the Oxford Movement among Anglicans. Whether those views were as “staunch” as Lutheran views could be debated. However, more to the point the “Oxford movement” has leavened all of Anglicanism, particularly on this point. It’s not just one isolated movement within Anglicanism. It has shaped how most Anglicans see themselves, beyond the self-conscious Anglo-Catholics.

To hear some Anglo-Catholics talk, you would think that. However, in the end Anglo-Catholics are not their own “church” insofar as they remain within the Anglican Communion (Continuing Anglicans like GKC are another story). A liturgical movement or a theological tradition is not a church.

Evangelical and low church are not the same. Until recently at least, evangelicals were low church (I would consider myself a high church evangelical, and the numbers of people like me are growing, I believe), but many low church Anglicans were definitely not evangelical. Most of the self-consciously evangelical Episcopalians left in the late 19th century, but more liberal low-church Episcopalians remained. Then with the charismatic movement and the growing hunger for liturgy and tradition among evangelicals, a newer kind of evangelical Episcopalianism has developed in the past few decades. Those of us who identify with this version of Anglican evangelicalism are not as staunchly low-church as evangelical Anglicans have been in the past. That being said, there are still old-fashioned low-church evangelical Anglicans in the Episcopal Church–South Carolina seems to be a particular stronghold of theirs. But this kind of Anglicanism is much stronger in England and in parts of Africa.

Edwin

The last para also brings up something I occasionally point out but don’t insistent on. High Church is not necessarily identical to Anglo-Catholic, though there is usually an overlap. One stresses doctrine, taking its cue from the Oxford/Tractarian movement, one is more churchmanship, from the Riualist movement, slightly later.

It isn’t a hard distinction, but it can be useful

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Not true in either case. We do pray for those who die. And while we don’t practice intercessory prayer to them, we believe the saints do pray for the Church Militant to our benefit.

On Purgatory; true. As for the others, we do not deny them. They are important means of grace. We just don’t define them as sacraments.

This is untrue. Please, a Lutheran reference.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Every other non-Catholic Church mentioned is this thread, including PNCC and Orthodox
do, as well.

Not true. This is not how Lutherans define sola scritpura, and we uphold the authority of the Church to teach rightly.

Augsburg Confession

Martin Chemnitz

Luther is responsible for Luther. Calvin, Zwingli, anabaptists, Anglicans, etc. are responsible for themselves, as their break from Rome is completely unrelated to Luther.

Separation goes both ways. You are separated from us as well.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml#9

It seems to me that the first step in returning to unity is to listen to and understand what the other believes. Only then can we work together to find our way back together.
Jon

Well said, JonNC. I, like you, noticed those falsehoods, but unlike you I didn’t have the patience to take the time to respond to them.

 

[Peter_J]

And remember that Calvin signed on to the “variata” version of the Augsburg Confession (which was primarily altered with regard to Eucharistic theology). It more or less speaks for all early Protestants, not just Lutherans.

Edwin

What about the Zwinglians? Weren’t they “Protestants” too? (I’m not being sarcastic, that’s a real question.)

 

[Peter_J]

That is a very good analysis.

Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

Well said, JonNC. I, like you, noticed those falsehoods, but unlike you I didn’t have the patience to take the time to respond to them.

Thanks, Peter,
I hope I said it with patience. I know sometimes I make mistakes in what Catholics believe, and hope people will be patient with me. Like I said, if we don’t understand what our true differences are, and we don’t address them in Christian love, we’ll never come to unity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

When people live with disorder for a long time they come to embrace it as acceptable. Things have always been this way and they always will. But when things are broken a body can not function as it should. Its operations are hindered and crippled. It is weakened and vulnerable. Christianity is divided. It has divided itself disobeying its founder’s command to be unified. That is why Christian civilization and the society it built is being destroyed. God will reunify His people and destroy the evil of division among them.

Well said. I pray what you say will happen.

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

Luther and Lutherans do not pray for their dead, or believe the saints prayers help them, deny purgatory, deny the sacraments of Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Penance, Confirmation, and Unction. They believe they are saved by faith alone, that the theological virtues of hope and love are nont necessary to salvation. They deny the authority of the pope as the head of the Church. Believing Luther’s doctrine that scripture alone is the sole rule or authority in matters of faith, they believe the Church has no authority to teach. Luther’s religion is responsible for the chaos and consequences of denominationalism and the thousands of its ensuing divisions and impact on Christian civilization.

So why would you think this group is close to Catholicism? They deny its tenets outright and have cut themselves off from communion with the Catholic Church for that reason.

There is an old saying. You can’t be a little pregnant. You are or you are not. You have unity or you don’t. You are separated from or you are at one with. If you are separated it does not matter how far. If my finger were cut off from my hand it would not matter if it were an inch or a mile apart. It will die unless it gets sewn back on. If the branch is cut off from the vine it is cut off. The Anglican Church thinks or makes believe it is Catholic and it is dying. Being close does not help.

Did you even read my post before going off on a diatribe? I was asking which one was CLOSEST. We all pretty much know that there are significant differences of theology.

“Why would I think this group is closest to Catholocism?” is the correct question, if you care to re-read the OP.

One could ask the same question about Islam and Taoism, for example, i.e. which is ***closest ***to Catholicism without ranting about how neither one is close to our theology.

Do you understand my OP now?

 

[Contarini]

What about the Zwinglians? Weren’t they “Protestants” too? (I’m not being sarcastic, that’s a real question.)

Definitely. Zwingli never signed off on the Augsburg Confession, and I’m not sure that Bullinger (his successor) did, but generally Bullinger moved much closer to Calvin. According to Wikipedia, Calvin signed the Variata in 1540, which would be during his stay in Strasbourg. Martin Bucer (the leading Protestant pastor in Strasbourg, and one of the most important Protestant leaders at this point) had moved closer to the Lutherans, signing a Eucharistic agreement with them in 1536 (Calvin had actually criticized Bucer a few years earlier for his compromises with Lutherans and Catholics). Bullinger had not followed suit. So it’s fair to suggest that Bullinger and other more hardline Reformed folks might not have been as willing to sign off on the Augsburg Confession.

I probably shouldn’t have taken up Jon’s point about Augsburg, because the question of “intending to split the Church” is bigger than that. I’m honestly a bit confused as to what people mean when they talk about this. I’d like to here a coherent example of a Protestant Reformer who did intend to split the Church, or at least a theoretical description of what an intention to split the Church would look like. All the Protestant Reformers thought they were reforming the Church, but by the [visible] Church they meant the historic body of people professing the Christian Faith throughout history. They didn’t think that Pope or even bishops constituted the Church. So they could have an intention of splitting from the Pope (or more ideally abolishing the Papacy outright) without seeing this as “splitting the Church.”

In short, I can’t see that “not intending to split the Church” is some sort of mark of moderation. The Reformers didn’t intend to split the Church, because they intended to transform it entirely and abolish those aspects they believed to be corrupt. This didn’t make them particularly ecumenical by our standards–quite the reverse in fact.

Edwin

 

[IowaJay]

There is an old saying. You can’t be a little pregnant. You are or you are not. You have unity or you don’t. You are separated from or you are at one with. If you are separated it does not matter how far. If my finger were cut off from my hand it would not matter if it were an inch or a mile apart. It will die unless it gets sewn back on. If the branch is cut off from the vine it is cut off. The Anglican Church thinks or makes believe it is Catholic and it is dying. Being close does not help.

Based upon my reading of Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) it appears that the Catholic Church does make distinctions between other Christians based on how close they are to Rome. See Chapter III:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html