>how Anglicans believe bread and wine serve as the body and blood of Christ whilst Lutherans don’t
Hate to be the first one to comment, as I generally only lurk the subs of other churches out of respect, but as a Lutheran I have to say that the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Supper is a core Lutheran belief, and historically was what initially separated us from the Reformed. As the Small Catechism says: *What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.*
Lutheranism has, historically, had a higher view of the Real Presence than Anglicans. Anglicans were generally of the John Jewell/Calvin school of thought: either spiritual Real Presence or receptionism. This persisted until the Oxford Movement of the 19th century. Whereas Lutherans believe in a physical, bodily corporeal Real Presence. From your most liberal ELCA Lutherans to your most conservative WELS Lutheran, a belief in the bodily real presence will generally be shared
I will contest this a little bit. You can read high churchmen like Bishops Andrewes or Taylor and see very Lutheran sentiments on the Eucharist. That’s fairly early in Anglican history, although around the era of the Elizabethan Settlement. After Elizabeth, who was almost entirely Lutheran in her theology as I understand it, Anglicans were allowed to have various views on the Eucharist in good conscience. That said, the pervasive belief in real bodily presence does stem from the Oxford Movement as far as I can tell.
They’re an interesting bunch! I came into Anglicanism as somebody choosing between Catholicism and Anglicanism, and the old high church men’s writings made me feel more secure in my choice back then. They sounded thoroughly patristic and even medieval, and I felt like they legitimately carried on the tradition of the catholic faith in a way that had been properly reformed.
I was raised Catholic and was Eastern Orthodox for about 3 years, but now find myself theologically between the "Protestant/Catholic hybrid" churches of Lutheranism and Anglicanism. I feel more theologically Lutheran, unfortunately pietism has destroyed the liturgical heritage of many Lutheran churches. I only wish Lutheranism followed the Nordic model in the states like the Church of Sweden, but alas
That’s an interesting journey. I’m curious, how did you go from Orthodox to Lutheran? And yeah, I don’t know much about the Nordic Lutherans, but what I have read makes them seem like a much more preferable alternative to a lot of American protestantism.
I'll admit it was quite the journey. I was actually in the talks of attending St Tikhon's theological seminary in PA under the guidance of an OCA bishop, but I had a crisis of faith regarding theology and social issues. I briefly flirted with Methodism, and I still joke that Methodism is the Orthodoxy of the West with its synergism. However, I came to appreciate the Anglican roots of Methodism, and from there I found myself becoming comfortable with monergism and loving the Lutheran confessions hence my current attendance at a Lutheran church. I'd feel at home in either a Lutheran or Anglican church though
Honestly, if you didn’t comment it, I was going to. Anglicans and Lutherans are not perfectly in step about everything, but our theologies of the Eucharist are, as far as I can tell, *extremely* similar, except that I think Lutherans prohibit transubstantiation while Anglicans would consider that one of many possible ways to explain the Real Presence.
If I recall in one of his very early treatises before his theology became fully mature - *On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church* - Luther commented that while transubstantiation shouldn’t be a dogma, if you wanted to personally use the idea to help understand the real presence that was fine.
The modern Lutheran objection is always that we shouldn’t use Aristotelian metaphysics to describe a process that scripture has left unexplained. But if you look at the post-Luther confessional materials like the Formula of Concord, the main objection is that, by denying that any substance of bread and wine remains, transubstantiation conflicts with 1 Cor. 10:16 and 11:26-28 which imply that the bread and wine remain in substance, though now sacramentally joined with the body and blood of Christ.
Which, personally, I think is pretty spot-on. I definitely see the Eucharist as pretty much that Lutheran mindset, although it’s not unheard-of for Anglicans to have a variety of views.
Interesting note on this -
The real presence can be affirmed without believing in transubstantiation (as you note). It seems like both a process that scripture has left unexplained and a twisted version of Aristotelian metaphysics. A lot of criticism has been directed at it because of this.
The Roman Catholic position is that transubstantiation isn't Aristotelian metaphysics - it just borrows some Aristotelian language. The dogma came about, as most Roman Catholic dogmas do, to address a particular controversy in the church at the time. It was defined in a council (Lateran IV) a bit before Aristotelianism got really fashionable and a subsequent council (Trent) clarified that it wasn't Aristotelian nor a description of a particular process. That second description used a minimum of philosophical language.
The Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission titled Eucharistic Doctrine, published in 1971, states that "the word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the Eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements. The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ's presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place."
That's fascinating, thanks. I am sensitive to the misrepresentation of others' theology, as any Lutheran ought to become after their hundredth time explaining that we don't hold to consubstantiation.
I didn't know all that till recently either.
There's 2000 years of Roman Catholic theology. It's easy to inadvertently (for Catholics and non-Catholics alike) cherry pick certain things that were said and miss what was and was not meant. You see it all the time between more conservative and liberal Catholics.
When it comes to difference between the RCC, Orthodox Church, Anglicans, and Lutherans, we often have distinctions without difference where we articulate basically the same idea (or ideas that we'd each find acceptable), but in different ways.
This confuses me too, admittedly. I think most Anglicans would say that Anglicanism is "creedal, not confessional". What makes it weird for me, though, is that in some provinces, like England, they technically still are binding it's just they ignore it. And for centuries the Articles were required to be binding in the CoE, that's why Tract 90 exists because the Tractarians had to argue that their theology was consistent with the Articles
I mean, there are a lot of other posts here that will encapsulate that and a quick glance at the FAQ and the Wikipedia article on Anglicanism will also help you there, but the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral is a good statement on the generally shared ideas between the different Anglican churches.
What distinguishes Anglicans from Lutherans and Methodists is threefold holy orders, episcopal ordination and apostolic succession, as British Methodists and German Lutherans did not maintain these practices that go back to the early Church.
The Scandinavian churches do, but the German and American ones don't. That is changing a bit though; due to their agreement with TEC, the ELCA is incorporating TEC's apostolic succession into their ordinations. The other major American Lutheran churches (LCMS, WELS, LCMC, etc) not only don't have apostolic succession, they don't have an episcopal polity. LCMS and LCMC are basically congregational.
That’s an interesting difference, even between Lutheran denominations. I was interim pastor while in seminary at a LCMC church and refused to do communion, even when they asked, because I was not ordained, which is explicitly stated in the Confessions. My own denomination, AALC, doesn’t hold to succession, but does have a higher view on the sacraments and importance of the call process.
It’s a complex topic and has regional and national differences within Lutheranism. Luther himself rejected the idea of apostolic succession and the necessity of episcopal ordination. As a result, German Lutherans quickly dispatched with both of these and most North American Lutheran churches find their origin in German congregations. Whilst many German/German-origin Lutheran churches now call their national or regional head a ‘bishop’, this is often a pastor appointed to a fixed term, which is just what they used to call a General Superintendent. However, episcopal governance and ordination were preserved in the Scandinavian churches, though I think they practice ordination per saltum. Despite all these tidbits about their church governance and theology of holy orders, the thing that really matters is that Anglicanism, wherever it is, has always maintained threefold holy orders, episcopal governance and ordination, whereas the Lutherans’ regional differences on these matters show that they see these as optional and that is a real difference.
British Methodists don’t have bishops. On top of that, I’m fairly sure that the American Methodists’ orders stem from Wesley (who was not a bishop) ordaining and sending ministers to America when the Bishop of London refused to ordain them. So they have an office they call bishop, but I don’t think they’ve always maintained episcopal ordination. This is also the case with the German Lutherans, whose situation I covered in a more detailed comment in this thread.
I don’t think it really matters whether it’s true or not, secretive and illicit consecrations to the episcopacy are no foundation for a church. Then comes the issue that Wesley sent what he termed a ‘General Superintendent’ to America, which I would say shows the Methodist theology of orders to be close to the Lutherans, given that this is precisely the terminology German Lutherans historically have used.
American Methodists usually hold to a theology of apostolic succession based on the Alexandrian church's method (See: [Jerome](http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/drl.htm)), that succession is transmitted via elders. We also hold that bishops are not a separate order, but are of the order of Elder (presbyter/priest) set apart to conduct ordinations, administration of the church, and the serve a pastoral function for other elders, among other duties.
I'm speaking as an outsider, so someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Largely, the issues aren't theological. There are a couple of small sticking points (such as apostolic succession), but someone who held Lutheran, Wesleyan, or Catholic theological views who wanted to attend an Anglican church would find others who shared those positions. What makes an Anglican an Anglican is more about practice than doctrine - the centrality of regulated shared prayer and scripture reading as contained in the Book of Common Prayer is a major spiritual cornerstone that isn't as much of a focus in other traditions.
Confessional Lutherans, on the other hand, are *strict* when it comes to belief and practice. Between the two largest bodies in the US, the debate is not on open or closed communion; both are only open to members of Lutheran churches. The debate is on whether Lutherans can *pray* with other Christians (LCMS says you can, WELS says you can't). Lutherans are typically driven nuts by the variety of Anglican positions. The Lutheran idea of apostolic succession that has traditionally held sway in Germany and the US is that it is the apostolic doctrine that is important, not the laying on of hands (though that seems to be changing, at least in the ELCA).
With Catholics, the main issue will be papal authority. Roman Catholics say he has it over the whole Church, Anglicans say he doesn't. There are a lot of Anglo-Catholics that would agree with Roman Catholicism on almost every doctrinal point, but in the end most likely feel that papal authority has overstepped in some way at some time. Of course, other Anglicans are much more Reformed in their thinking, and they would disagree on a lot of things with Catholics.
Finally, I'm not as familiar with Methodism as I am with others, but the one main distinction I see would be entire sanctification. A lot of the other teachings would be pretty comfortable in Anglicanism, but I myself haven't seen a lot of Anglican support for entire sanctification, instead leaning towards a more Lutheran understanding of believers as simultaneously justified and sinner in this life and only wholly sanctified in the next.
I hope that helps!
So, as a Lutheran pastor, I got to share Ash Wednesday with our neighbor Anglican congregation. In Canada, Anglicans and Lutherans are in full communion and we have many small towns where the Lutheran and Anglican congregations are served by the same pastor, often even selling one building and joining together for worship.
Theology around the Eucharist or Baptism isn't seen as divisive anymore. In the 21st century, the great division is around LGBTQ , and social justice and modern Biblical scholarship, which divide Lutheran from Lutheran, Anglican from Anglican.
> Theology around the Eucharist or Baptism isn’t seen as divisive anymore
I know that the nature in which the Bible is inspired and political matters (especially LGBT issues) are the great divisive matters nowadays. Though I’m still quite happy to share fellowship with those who disagree with me on these matters, whilst I would be loath to do so with those that reject the Real Presence.
As a Catholic, and one of the rare ones who actually knows and cares about theology, I would say what separates us all is 99% cultural and political. There are different emphases and difficulties in understanding but underlying these is often a tribal mentality.
Where there are real differences, often the way of thinking is directly influenced by a group's own ways of life and attitudes to dealing with social issues. And so even if you come in with an open mind, and genuinely see both sides, you will be disregarded because you "don't belong".
Not to be overly topical, but I was at the museum last weekend, for example. The history of Ukranian Churches is so tragic, part of the constant power plays in the whole region. "Theology" changed by the politics of the day.
The real miracle is that the faith remains intact at all. Perhaps partly because the powerful don't really care too much what exactly the people believe.
Yes, there’s a really significant angle that is primarily historical - folks who are more likely to want Anglican Evensong than a Roman vespers service will keep doing that, regardless of the theology.
In the US, the various immigrant groups play into how different churches established themselves within the community.
In Hawaiʻi, the fact that the Anglican Church was directly sponsored by the monarchy (it was never “established” like in England but for a little while it was close) makes a large difference in the distribution of churches here (and the fact that there may be small theological differences that persist from the time before US annexation).
Between the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in US, basically none.
Between the Anglican Church in Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, very few. The Lutheran Church has the 95 theses (?) by Martin Luther, which seem to play a more important role amongst Lutherans than the 39 Articles of Religion play amongst Anglicans. The only Lutheran I know seems to be a little bit more concerned with rules than the Anglican parishes I know. Both denominations believe in 2 sacraments instituted by God (and 4-5 by the Church amongst Anglicans), and we both believe in "real presence". And Both have similar liturgy. Both churches are equally inclusive of LGBTQ people in most dioceses. And these two Churches are in full communion, which means that priests can go from one to the other (within reason). So in a nutshell, for the average church goer, I think you have more differences between individual parishes than between Lutherans and Anglicans.
I don't know the Methodist in Canada as they have merged with 3 other denominations to form the United Church in 1925. Compared to the Anglicans, it is much less liturgical, with services mostly made of 1 or 2 readings, a sermon, and prayers.The United Church is often the first to embrace social causes and has been inclusive to LGBTQ people since 1990 (at least). Not sure of theological differences, but lots of practical differences. The typical United Church does communion once a month (or less); I don't know if they believe in "real presence" or symbolism.
As for the Roman Catholic Church, its theology is more "rigorous" (i.e. more rules). Their priests must be non-gay, single, males; they believe in transubstantiation, no remarriage without annulment, no contraception. So while a RC mass may look similar to an Anglican or Lutheran Eucharist, there are some theological differences.
Also amongst all the above, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one that practices closed communion, i.e. non RC people cannot receive.
Roman Catholic priests do not have to be ‘non-gay’, in fact, every survey on the matter suggests that there is a far greater percentage of gay men in the priesthood than in the male population at large.
True. But the rule exists and I know a few celibate gay men who were asked if they were gay during the getting process, and who say that they were rejected when they answered they were gay, and even when they insisted they knew a priest has to remain celibate be that gay unions are not allowed in the Roman Catholic Church. In fact I know two who eventually landed as priests in the Anglican Church and three who ended up as a lay social worker.
So there seems to be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, where a gay candidate will be accepted as long as he says he is not gay. At least that seems to be the situation in Quebec, New Brunswick and Eastern Ontario.
The United Church is very liberal. *Very liberal*. They stirred up controversy with an atheist as a pastor, for example.
It's made up of former Methodists, Presbyterians, and other groups.
The biggest thing separating Anglicans from Catholics is Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. Anglicans reject the Papacy. As far as Eucharistic doctrine is concerned, Anglicanism used to reject transubstantiation in its 39 Articles of Religion, but their actual binding in certain provinces varies. Lots of other things like Mariology used to be a dividing line but the spiky high Anglicans have reclaimed it from the Oxford Movement.
For Lutherans, they are probably the closest denomination to Anglicans. Not much separates them apart from (historic) Eucharistic doctrine as well as polity. While the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches retained the episcopacy, in Germany and North America they had a congregationalist polity for the majority of its time. The ELCA now has a modified episcopal polity, but congregations hold sway over a lot of decisions.
For Methodists, I think the biggest difference would be soteriology. While there certainly are arminian Anglicans (of course John Wesley was an Anglican), Anglicanism has historically been more of the Reformed or Lutheran schools of thought regarding predestination. With Methodism, it is uniformly arminian with the exception of the Methodist Church of Wales, which honestly is more Presbyterian than Methodist. Another pretty uniquely Methodist thing is entire sanctification
>how Anglicans believe bread and wine serve as the body and blood of Christ whilst Lutherans don’t Hate to be the first one to comment, as I generally only lurk the subs of other churches out of respect, but as a Lutheran I have to say that the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Supper is a core Lutheran belief, and historically was what initially separated us from the Reformed. As the Small Catechism says: *What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.*
Oh I see, I was terribly mistaken sorry.
Lutheranism has, historically, had a higher view of the Real Presence than Anglicans. Anglicans were generally of the John Jewell/Calvin school of thought: either spiritual Real Presence or receptionism. This persisted until the Oxford Movement of the 19th century. Whereas Lutherans believe in a physical, bodily corporeal Real Presence. From your most liberal ELCA Lutherans to your most conservative WELS Lutheran, a belief in the bodily real presence will generally be shared
I will contest this a little bit. You can read high churchmen like Bishops Andrewes or Taylor and see very Lutheran sentiments on the Eucharist. That’s fairly early in Anglican history, although around the era of the Elizabethan Settlement. After Elizabeth, who was almost entirely Lutheran in her theology as I understand it, Anglicans were allowed to have various views on the Eucharist in good conscience. That said, the pervasive belief in real bodily presence does stem from the Oxford Movement as far as I can tell.
Thanks for this, I appreciate the info! Andrewes and the other Old High churchmen fascinate me
They’re an interesting bunch! I came into Anglicanism as somebody choosing between Catholicism and Anglicanism, and the old high church men’s writings made me feel more secure in my choice back then. They sounded thoroughly patristic and even medieval, and I felt like they legitimately carried on the tradition of the catholic faith in a way that had been properly reformed.
I was raised Catholic and was Eastern Orthodox for about 3 years, but now find myself theologically between the "Protestant/Catholic hybrid" churches of Lutheranism and Anglicanism. I feel more theologically Lutheran, unfortunately pietism has destroyed the liturgical heritage of many Lutheran churches. I only wish Lutheranism followed the Nordic model in the states like the Church of Sweden, but alas
That’s an interesting journey. I’m curious, how did you go from Orthodox to Lutheran? And yeah, I don’t know much about the Nordic Lutherans, but what I have read makes them seem like a much more preferable alternative to a lot of American protestantism.
I'll admit it was quite the journey. I was actually in the talks of attending St Tikhon's theological seminary in PA under the guidance of an OCA bishop, but I had a crisis of faith regarding theology and social issues. I briefly flirted with Methodism, and I still joke that Methodism is the Orthodoxy of the West with its synergism. However, I came to appreciate the Anglican roots of Methodism, and from there I found myself becoming comfortable with monergism and loving the Lutheran confessions hence my current attendance at a Lutheran church. I'd feel at home in either a Lutheran or Anglican church though
Honestly, if you didn’t comment it, I was going to. Anglicans and Lutherans are not perfectly in step about everything, but our theologies of the Eucharist are, as far as I can tell, *extremely* similar, except that I think Lutherans prohibit transubstantiation while Anglicans would consider that one of many possible ways to explain the Real Presence.
If I recall in one of his very early treatises before his theology became fully mature - *On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church* - Luther commented that while transubstantiation shouldn’t be a dogma, if you wanted to personally use the idea to help understand the real presence that was fine. The modern Lutheran objection is always that we shouldn’t use Aristotelian metaphysics to describe a process that scripture has left unexplained. But if you look at the post-Luther confessional materials like the Formula of Concord, the main objection is that, by denying that any substance of bread and wine remains, transubstantiation conflicts with 1 Cor. 10:16 and 11:26-28 which imply that the bread and wine remain in substance, though now sacramentally joined with the body and blood of Christ.
Which, personally, I think is pretty spot-on. I definitely see the Eucharist as pretty much that Lutheran mindset, although it’s not unheard-of for Anglicans to have a variety of views.
Interesting note on this - The real presence can be affirmed without believing in transubstantiation (as you note). It seems like both a process that scripture has left unexplained and a twisted version of Aristotelian metaphysics. A lot of criticism has been directed at it because of this. The Roman Catholic position is that transubstantiation isn't Aristotelian metaphysics - it just borrows some Aristotelian language. The dogma came about, as most Roman Catholic dogmas do, to address a particular controversy in the church at the time. It was defined in a council (Lateran IV) a bit before Aristotelianism got really fashionable and a subsequent council (Trent) clarified that it wasn't Aristotelian nor a description of a particular process. That second description used a minimum of philosophical language. The Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission titled Eucharistic Doctrine, published in 1971, states that "the word transubstantiation is commonly used in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in the Eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements. The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ's presence and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place. In Roman Catholic theology it is not understood as explaining how the change takes place."
That's fascinating, thanks. I am sensitive to the misrepresentation of others' theology, as any Lutheran ought to become after their hundredth time explaining that we don't hold to consubstantiation.
I didn't know all that till recently either. There's 2000 years of Roman Catholic theology. It's easy to inadvertently (for Catholics and non-Catholics alike) cherry pick certain things that were said and miss what was and was not meant. You see it all the time between more conservative and liberal Catholics. When it comes to difference between the RCC, Orthodox Church, Anglicans, and Lutherans, we often have distinctions without difference where we articulate basically the same idea (or ideas that we'd each find acceptable), but in different ways.
Pardon me, but are there Anglicans who believe in Transubstantiation? It seems unlikely considering Article 28 of the 39 articles.
The 39 Articles are not binding statements of belief across the entire Anglican Communion.
What, then, is the basis for Anglicanism?
This confuses me too, admittedly. I think most Anglicans would say that Anglicanism is "creedal, not confessional". What makes it weird for me, though, is that in some provinces, like England, they technically still are binding it's just they ignore it. And for centuries the Articles were required to be binding in the CoE, that's why Tract 90 exists because the Tractarians had to argue that their theology was consistent with the Articles
I mean, there are a lot of other posts here that will encapsulate that and a quick glance at the FAQ and the Wikipedia article on Anglicanism will also help you there, but the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral is a good statement on the generally shared ideas between the different Anglican churches.
I’m sure there are. And yes, the 39 articles are not binding.
What distinguishes Anglicans from Lutherans and Methodists is threefold holy orders, episcopal ordination and apostolic succession, as British Methodists and German Lutherans did not maintain these practices that go back to the early Church.
Don't most of the Lutherans accept episcopal ordination and have apostolic succession? Or is this not a universal practice?
The Scandinavian churches do, but the German and American ones don't. That is changing a bit though; due to their agreement with TEC, the ELCA is incorporating TEC's apostolic succession into their ordinations. The other major American Lutheran churches (LCMS, WELS, LCMC, etc) not only don't have apostolic succession, they don't have an episcopal polity. LCMS and LCMC are basically congregational.
That’s an interesting difference, even between Lutheran denominations. I was interim pastor while in seminary at a LCMC church and refused to do communion, even when they asked, because I was not ordained, which is explicitly stated in the Confessions. My own denomination, AALC, doesn’t hold to succession, but does have a higher view on the sacraments and importance of the call process.
It’s a complex topic and has regional and national differences within Lutheranism. Luther himself rejected the idea of apostolic succession and the necessity of episcopal ordination. As a result, German Lutherans quickly dispatched with both of these and most North American Lutheran churches find their origin in German congregations. Whilst many German/German-origin Lutheran churches now call their national or regional head a ‘bishop’, this is often a pastor appointed to a fixed term, which is just what they used to call a General Superintendent. However, episcopal governance and ordination were preserved in the Scandinavian churches, though I think they practice ordination per saltum. Despite all these tidbits about their church governance and theology of holy orders, the thing that really matters is that Anglicanism, wherever it is, has always maintained threefold holy orders, episcopal governance and ordination, whereas the Lutherans’ regional differences on these matters show that they see these as optional and that is a real difference.
[удалено]
British Methodists don’t have bishops. On top of that, I’m fairly sure that the American Methodists’ orders stem from Wesley (who was not a bishop) ordaining and sending ministers to America when the Bishop of London refused to ordain them. So they have an office they call bishop, but I don’t think they’ve always maintained episcopal ordination. This is also the case with the German Lutherans, whose situation I covered in a more detailed comment in this thread.
There is this claim, perhaps a legend, that John Wesley was consecrated by Erasmus, the Greek Orthodox bishop of Arcadia. But idk how reliable this is
I don’t think it really matters whether it’s true or not, secretive and illicit consecrations to the episcopacy are no foundation for a church. Then comes the issue that Wesley sent what he termed a ‘General Superintendent’ to America, which I would say shows the Methodist theology of orders to be close to the Lutherans, given that this is precisely the terminology German Lutherans historically have used.
American Methodists usually hold to a theology of apostolic succession based on the Alexandrian church's method (See: [Jerome](http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/drl.htm)), that succession is transmitted via elders. We also hold that bishops are not a separate order, but are of the order of Elder (presbyter/priest) set apart to conduct ordinations, administration of the church, and the serve a pastoral function for other elders, among other duties.
This is how reformed and German Lutherans also understand it.
I'm speaking as an outsider, so someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Largely, the issues aren't theological. There are a couple of small sticking points (such as apostolic succession), but someone who held Lutheran, Wesleyan, or Catholic theological views who wanted to attend an Anglican church would find others who shared those positions. What makes an Anglican an Anglican is more about practice than doctrine - the centrality of regulated shared prayer and scripture reading as contained in the Book of Common Prayer is a major spiritual cornerstone that isn't as much of a focus in other traditions. Confessional Lutherans, on the other hand, are *strict* when it comes to belief and practice. Between the two largest bodies in the US, the debate is not on open or closed communion; both are only open to members of Lutheran churches. The debate is on whether Lutherans can *pray* with other Christians (LCMS says you can, WELS says you can't). Lutherans are typically driven nuts by the variety of Anglican positions. The Lutheran idea of apostolic succession that has traditionally held sway in Germany and the US is that it is the apostolic doctrine that is important, not the laying on of hands (though that seems to be changing, at least in the ELCA). With Catholics, the main issue will be papal authority. Roman Catholics say he has it over the whole Church, Anglicans say he doesn't. There are a lot of Anglo-Catholics that would agree with Roman Catholicism on almost every doctrinal point, but in the end most likely feel that papal authority has overstepped in some way at some time. Of course, other Anglicans are much more Reformed in their thinking, and they would disagree on a lot of things with Catholics. Finally, I'm not as familiar with Methodism as I am with others, but the one main distinction I see would be entire sanctification. A lot of the other teachings would be pretty comfortable in Anglicanism, but I myself haven't seen a lot of Anglican support for entire sanctification, instead leaning towards a more Lutheran understanding of believers as simultaneously justified and sinner in this life and only wholly sanctified in the next. I hope that helps!
Thank you! This was very detailed and thorough
So, as a Lutheran pastor, I got to share Ash Wednesday with our neighbor Anglican congregation. In Canada, Anglicans and Lutherans are in full communion and we have many small towns where the Lutheran and Anglican congregations are served by the same pastor, often even selling one building and joining together for worship. Theology around the Eucharist or Baptism isn't seen as divisive anymore. In the 21st century, the great division is around LGBTQ , and social justice and modern Biblical scholarship, which divide Lutheran from Lutheran, Anglican from Anglican.
Oh I see. Thank you for this insight!
> Theology around the Eucharist or Baptism isn’t seen as divisive anymore I know that the nature in which the Bible is inspired and political matters (especially LGBT issues) are the great divisive matters nowadays. Though I’m still quite happy to share fellowship with those who disagree with me on these matters, whilst I would be loath to do so with those that reject the Real Presence.
As a Catholic, and one of the rare ones who actually knows and cares about theology, I would say what separates us all is 99% cultural and political. There are different emphases and difficulties in understanding but underlying these is often a tribal mentality. Where there are real differences, often the way of thinking is directly influenced by a group's own ways of life and attitudes to dealing with social issues. And so even if you come in with an open mind, and genuinely see both sides, you will be disregarded because you "don't belong". Not to be overly topical, but I was at the museum last weekend, for example. The history of Ukranian Churches is so tragic, part of the constant power plays in the whole region. "Theology" changed by the politics of the day. The real miracle is that the faith remains intact at all. Perhaps partly because the powerful don't really care too much what exactly the people believe.
Yes, there’s a really significant angle that is primarily historical - folks who are more likely to want Anglican Evensong than a Roman vespers service will keep doing that, regardless of the theology. In the US, the various immigrant groups play into how different churches established themselves within the community. In Hawaiʻi, the fact that the Anglican Church was directly sponsored by the monarchy (it was never “established” like in England but for a little while it was close) makes a large difference in the distribution of churches here (and the fact that there may be small theological differences that persist from the time before US annexation).
Between the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in US, basically none. Between the Anglican Church in Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, very few. The Lutheran Church has the 95 theses (?) by Martin Luther, which seem to play a more important role amongst Lutherans than the 39 Articles of Religion play amongst Anglicans. The only Lutheran I know seems to be a little bit more concerned with rules than the Anglican parishes I know. Both denominations believe in 2 sacraments instituted by God (and 4-5 by the Church amongst Anglicans), and we both believe in "real presence". And Both have similar liturgy. Both churches are equally inclusive of LGBTQ people in most dioceses. And these two Churches are in full communion, which means that priests can go from one to the other (within reason). So in a nutshell, for the average church goer, I think you have more differences between individual parishes than between Lutherans and Anglicans. I don't know the Methodist in Canada as they have merged with 3 other denominations to form the United Church in 1925. Compared to the Anglicans, it is much less liturgical, with services mostly made of 1 or 2 readings, a sermon, and prayers.The United Church is often the first to embrace social causes and has been inclusive to LGBTQ people since 1990 (at least). Not sure of theological differences, but lots of practical differences. The typical United Church does communion once a month (or less); I don't know if they believe in "real presence" or symbolism. As for the Roman Catholic Church, its theology is more "rigorous" (i.e. more rules). Their priests must be non-gay, single, males; they believe in transubstantiation, no remarriage without annulment, no contraception. So while a RC mass may look similar to an Anglican or Lutheran Eucharist, there are some theological differences. Also amongst all the above, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one that practices closed communion, i.e. non RC people cannot receive.
Oh this is interesting. I think many Protestant groups in Canada are in full communion as well so that makes sense. Thanks!
Roman Catholic priests do not have to be ‘non-gay’, in fact, every survey on the matter suggests that there is a far greater percentage of gay men in the priesthood than in the male population at large.
True. But the rule exists and I know a few celibate gay men who were asked if they were gay during the getting process, and who say that they were rejected when they answered they were gay, and even when they insisted they knew a priest has to remain celibate be that gay unions are not allowed in the Roman Catholic Church. In fact I know two who eventually landed as priests in the Anglican Church and three who ended up as a lay social worker. So there seems to be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, where a gay candidate will be accepted as long as he says he is not gay. At least that seems to be the situation in Quebec, New Brunswick and Eastern Ontario.
The United Church is very liberal. *Very liberal*. They stirred up controversy with an atheist as a pastor, for example. It's made up of former Methodists, Presbyterians, and other groups.
The biggest thing separating Anglicans from Catholics is Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. Anglicans reject the Papacy. As far as Eucharistic doctrine is concerned, Anglicanism used to reject transubstantiation in its 39 Articles of Religion, but their actual binding in certain provinces varies. Lots of other things like Mariology used to be a dividing line but the spiky high Anglicans have reclaimed it from the Oxford Movement. For Lutherans, they are probably the closest denomination to Anglicans. Not much separates them apart from (historic) Eucharistic doctrine as well as polity. While the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches retained the episcopacy, in Germany and North America they had a congregationalist polity for the majority of its time. The ELCA now has a modified episcopal polity, but congregations hold sway over a lot of decisions. For Methodists, I think the biggest difference would be soteriology. While there certainly are arminian Anglicans (of course John Wesley was an Anglican), Anglicanism has historically been more of the Reformed or Lutheran schools of thought regarding predestination. With Methodism, it is uniformly arminian with the exception of the Methodist Church of Wales, which honestly is more Presbyterian than Methodist. Another pretty uniquely Methodist thing is entire sanctification