Anglican Reformation

[Paidiske]

I think part of what is different about Anglicanism is that it tried - and it has failed at this, but it was part of the vision - to be a church to which everyone in England could belong and have their particular spiritual/religious needs met. Its breadth and refusal to go beyond particular agreed foundations in what it requires of people is not a bug, it's a feature, so to speak.

 

[mindlight]

I was thinking of the old high church, prior to the Oxford Movement: they emphasized the sacraments as a means of grace. The Evangelical low church attitudes about the Lord's Supper and baptism really would not be consonant at all with Lutherans. Lutheranism as a theological system requires that grace be extra nos (outside us), not something that God just mysteriously places within us. And we believe baptism always regenerates (for similar reasons), which is a belief that many Evangelical Anglicans do not share.

Some Lutherans historically were receptionists (as are some Anglicans), but most have been consecrationists. If you talk to a lot of Lutherans now days, they tend to be consecrationists (if they have any kind of informed viewpoint at all), but that is more due to the 19th century revival of Neo-Lutheranism (similar to the Oxford Movement in the Church of England).

By Consecrationist I assume you mean someone who takes the bread and wine recognising the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. They have to make sure that all the wine and bread is consumed.

By Receptionist I assume you mean someone who recognises the real presence in a more mysterious way and in the act of eating and drinking. So that the bread and wine once blessed do not become the actual body and blood and therefore do not need to be disposed of if not consumed.

In my experience German Lutheran churches seem to be Receptionist today. Most British Anglicans I know also would not recognise any actual chemical change in the elements. The Anglican liturgy does not really nail this one down either.

 

[mindlight]

The spirit of Luther is not actually so much a revolutionary, but as a pastor, and it is here that Luther differs from Wycliffe. Luther's primary concern was making sure that people had a bold confidence in God's grace. He was less interested in ecclessiastic and political reforms beyond that, which is one reason the Lutheran reformation is less political in tone. That makes early Lutherans distinct from the Reformed churches, and also Anglicanism. Luther would have been happy to remain Catholic, even with all the other messiness involved in that, except for being able to preach the message of grace, as the Augsburg Confession itself concludes.

Luther himself may not have been that political but the doctrine of justification by faith was fought over in an extreme fashion here in Germany. But you are right it was a hundred years after Luther that the 30 years war actually started. Political motives can be traced for many of the participants even if religion was the wording of their self justifications

I think this speaks more to the premodern mind than anything. In Russia, people were burned at the stake, ironically at around the same time period, for refusing to cross themselves in the "right" way and not saying enough Alleluia's at the Gospel entrance.

If anything, the English civil war and European wars of religion helped give rise to liberalism in religion in general, as well as pietism. People stopped caring about correct doctrine quite so much and started focusing on reason and love. Not all a bad thing, IMO.

Casualties in Englands civil war were at most 200000 in a population of 5 million. So around 4%. The Thirty Years war killed about one third of the German population. Also Liberalism did not really begin in England until the 19th century. So whether there is a direct connection between these wars and the birth of Liberalism seems doubtful. Also the Anglicans already had a basis for broad tolerance in the configuration that Elizabeth had established so the reversion to that from Charles attempt to restore Catholicism allowed for a broad toleration of diverse theological view points. Maybe on the continent it was more true that people decided not to fight over religion after the devastation of war but far less so in England where not that many died.

 

[mindlight]

I actually think that the ground in Anglicanism is shifting, and that Anglican evangelicals today have little in common with what I think of as old-school traditional low-church Anglicanism. For example, evangelicals today (at least where I am) are abandoning prayer book liturgies and embracing what I think of as a pseudo-Baptist approach to liturgy.

And that doesn't seem to me to be a very Lutheran approach at all.

My brother pastors an Evangelical Anglican church and I must admit I find this trend to no liturgy quite annoying. The only liturgy that is always repeated is the Lords prayer because that is in the bible. But the Anglican liturgy as the Lutheran liturgy Is pretty uncontroversial from a Christian viewpoint and can be substantiated from scripture, The view is that we should not automate our responses to God nor blindly repeat the same words every week without understanding. That we should have a living relationship with God. But in practice this often means that there are large gaps in peoples understanding of the service and they do not carry around in them the same level of helpful memory about church in ordinary life.

 

[mindlight]

The fact is that the Church in England was already about 1450 years old when Henry made his moves. It was not a new church, nor did he create a new church, etc. Even the Roman Church in some of its Medieval councils referred to it as the oldest church in the Gentile world.

Anglicanism as a movement has a definite start in the reign of Henry VIII. The church in England is much older but that is true across Europe also. It is a feature of Anglicanism that it both claims to be restoring the pure basic character of the early church (the Reformation instinct) and standing in continuity with the Catholic church that came before it and also allowing the freedom to explore and find new truthes (liberalism). My church in England was 1200 years old for example dating to Anglo Saxon times. The building reflects that long history.

 

[FireDragon76]

By Consecrationist I assume you mean someone who takes the bread and wine recognising the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. They have to make sure that all the wine and bread is consumed.

Yes, it means recognizing that the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Christ at the moment of the Words of Institution.

By Receptionist I assume you mean someone who recognises the real presence in a more mysterious way and in the act of eating and drinking. So that the bread and wine once blessed do not become the actual body and blood and therefore do not need to be disposed of if not consumed.

Yes. Lutherans would still believe Christ is present in a real and true, albeit supernatural way, as per our confessions, they just would believe the emphasis is on the reception of the sacrament rather than the consecration.

Personally, I lean towards consecrationism and I think its the most obvious interpretation of "This is my body". So does my pastor.

In my experience German Lutheran churches seem to be Receptionist today. Most British Anglicans I know also would not recognise any actual chemical change in the elements. The Anglican liturgy does not really nail this one down either.

Consecrationism does not necessarily imply that the bread and wine themselves are changed in substance. We do not preach transubstantiation.

 

[Paidiske]

Minor detail, but many consecrationists would hold that the change is not at the words of institution, but at the final "amen" of the great thanksgiving prayer.

 

[FireDragon76]

Minor detail, but many consecrationists would hold that the change is not at the words of institution, but at the final "amen" of the great thanksgiving prayer.

Yeah, but that would not be Lutheran because that would focus on the human response. We would see the idea that the sacrament is confected in some way by the priest or even the congregation as wrong. This is possible because we have a sacramental worldview that recognizes the work being done is not a human work but God's work, even if it is mediated through human hands.

 

[Paidiske]

Yeah, but that would not be Lutheran because that would focus on the human response. We would see the idea that the sacrament is confected in some way by the priest or even the congregation as wrong. This is possible because we have a sacramental worldview that recognizes the work being done is not a human work but God's work, even if it is mediated through human hands.

I think you've misunderstood. It's not a focus on the human response, at all; but a focus on God's work, which in this instance is a response to prayer. So we pray, and God acts; but we finish our corporate act of prayer (which is the point of the amen) and then we can have confidence in God's action.

 

[Kalevalatar]

The Anglican reformation was not driven by theology so much as politics.

Lutheran Reformation, too, was also two-front around the Baltic Sea. On one hand there were theologians who studied in Wittenberg and were influenced by Luther and Melanchthon. And then there were the (Swedish/Danish-Norwegian) power struggles. King Gustav Vasa didn't want to replace a wife but his Danish-leaning "Cardinal Wolsey" Lord Chancellor-cum-Archbishop and several other bishops. When the Pope refused to give him what he needed to consolidate his power, Gustav Vasa turned to the Reformers to create a national church. Not unlike:

>>>>>Henry creates a national church >>>>>>

Luther himself may not have been that political but the doctrine of justification by faith was fought over in an extreme fashion here in Germany. But you are right it was a hundred years after Luther that the 30 years war actually started. Political motives can be traced for many of the participants even if religion was the wording of their self justifications

I believe Lutherans have the most affinity for the religion of the Anglican high church. The Evangelical party's religion is far too puritanical, moralistic, and biblicist, by contrast.

Indeed, the Porvoo Communion is an altar and pulpit fellowship of the major Anglican and Lutheran Churches in Great Britain and Ireland, the Nordic region, Iberia and the Baltic countries, including the Church of England.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think you've misunderstood. It's not a focus on the human response, at all; but a focus on God's work, which in this instance is a response to prayer. So we pray, and God acts; but we finish our corporate act of prayer (which is the point of the amen) and then we can have confidence in God's action.

The Lutheran emphasis is really on the Words of Institution as the basis of the Promise. It is common in more low settings of our liturgy to not even bother with an anaphora. Of course we've become more eucahristic post Vatican II, but that is a thing we consider adiaphora, that while good, it is not strictly necessary.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think that just shows that Lutherans are just not as picky about liturgical matters as Anglicans. We do not really have one single prayer book tradition. Liturgy for us is very secondary matter, the important bit is that people hear the Gospel and receive the sacraments. That's one reason we have different rites and congregational traditions within Lutheranism: there is even an eastern rite that uses the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used in parts of eastern Europe such as the Ukraine or Slovenia, or even a few congregations in the US.

My congregation's service, while liturgical, has a somewhat more casual atmosphere compared to Episcopalian services I have been to, and I think that is typical. Lutherans just don't typically do high liturgy so well: we are minimalist and pragmatic.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, there are Anglicans and Anglicans. I know some very picky ones, and some who are so laid-back they're practically reclining. Historically we certainly had a shared sense that liturgy ought to be done decently and in order.

And of course we have long since moved away from a single prayer book.

It's interesting, would I say that liturgy is a secondary matter? No, because I think liturgy is integral to our mission of proclaiming the good news etc. But many liturgical matters are secondary or even tertiary in importance.

I'd also add that American Episcopalians are not necessarily a representative sample of global Anglicanism.

 

[Kalevalatar]

I think that just shows that Lutherans are just not as picky about liturgical matters as Anglicans. We do not really have one single prayer book tradition. Liturgy for us is very secondary matter, the important bit is that people hear the Gospel and receive the sacraments. That's one reason we have different rites and congregational traditions within Lutheranism: there is even an eastern rite that uses the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used in parts of eastern Europe such as the Ukraine or Slovenia, or even a few congregations in the US.

My congregation's service, while liturgical, has a somewhat more casual atmosphere compared to Episcopalian services I have been to, and I think that is typical. Lutherans just don't typically do high liturgy so well: we are minimalist and pragmatic.

As a Nordic Lutheran, I beg to differ. Over here we are highly liturgical. Every Sunday 10 a.m. Mass anywhere in this country follows the same liturgy and liturgical cycle, the same readings, themes, the same liturgical colors. After all, we have the episcopal polity to oversee that and ensure that parishes don't just improvise. While my Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, arguably, is fairly "high church", I've been to the Church of Norway's services and they are even more so, possible because of their proximity and ties to the Church of England.

 

[Albion]

I would also classify the creation of the Anglican Church as an event that started with Henry and was modified by successive Monarchs and Parliaments.

The church in England had been in existence since the first century or so, was not established or "planted" there by the church at Rome, had no connections to the church at Rome for centuries thereafter, and was independent of the Papal church for most of her existence up until the 16th century, although not in the several centuries prior to that. What Henry brought about was a return to the historically autonomous status of the church in England. Incidentally, it had also been known as the "Anglican Church" during that earlier period.

 

[Albion]

My brother pastors an Evangelical Anglican church and I must admit I find this trend to no liturgy quite annoying. The only liturgy that is always repeated is the Lords prayer because that is in the bible. But the Anglican liturgy as the Lutheran liturgy Is pretty uncontroversial from a Christian viewpoint and can be substantiated from scripture, The view is that we should not automate our responses to God nor blindly repeat the same words every week without understanding. That we should have a living relationship with God. But in practice this often means that there are large gaps in peoples understanding of the service and they do not carry around in them the same level of helpful memory about church in ordinary life.

It is necessary to know what the liturgy is all about in order to properly appreciate it, I agree. When I was young, it seemed like a lot of words, ones I had heard often; but when I gradually came to know all that is going on during the service, with all the diversity that is incorporated into the liturgy, I thought differently.

 

[Albion]

In my experience German Lutheran churches seem to be Receptionist today. Most British Anglicans I know also would not recognise any actual chemical change in the elements. The Anglican liturgy does not really nail this one down either.

Sure it does. How else can "these thy gifts of bread and wine" be understood? In addition we have this wording in the Articles of Religion: "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." And the Catechism states: "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lords Supper."

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The church in England had been in existence since the first century or so, was not established or "planted" there by the church at Rome, had no connections to the church at Rome for centuries thereafter, and was independent of the Papal church for most of her existence up until the 16th century, although not in the several centuries prior to that. What Henry brought about was a return to the historically autonomous status of the church in England. Incidentally, it had also been known as the "Anglican Church" during that earlier period.

I don't see it as such. Henry did what the Church had been fighting against for centuries and put secular authority in charge of the Spiritual authority of the Church. The head of the Church was the head of State and so the Church's positions on any number of issues changed with the monarch and the rule of Parliament. It was not a return to some sort of autonomous existence and we should note that the English willingly accepted Papal authority.

Henry did create a New institution, something which did not exist before him. This is evidenced by the position of Catholics still existing during his time and subsequent to him. They didn't suddenly become Apostates from the English Church when Henry decided he was head.

 

[Albion]

I don't see it as such.

That's true of a lot of people, but I was just relaying the actual history of the church in that post.

Henry did what the Church had been fighting against for centuries and put secular authority in charge of the Spiritual authority of the Church.

Yes, you probably could say that, but did the Roman church ever say that it had ceased to exist because of such stuff, or of lay investiture, or three lines of pope contending with each other to be the only real one, only to be started anew later on? No.

So the same kind of argument doesn't work with the Church in England that had a nearly 1500 year history by the time that Henry came to the throne.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's true of a lot of people, but I was just relaying the actual history of the church in that post.


Yes, you probably could say that, but did the Roman church ever say that it had ceased to exist because of such stuff, or of lay investiture, or three lines of pope contending with each other to be the only real one, only to be started anew later on? No.

So the same kind of argument doesn't work with the Church in England that had a nearly 1500 year history by the time that Henry came to the throne.

Perhaps the Catholic Church wouldn't say that. I don't know. I do know my perspective and have given the reasoning for why I consider the Anglican Church a new entity in history not really in continuation with the old Catholic Church of England which became marginal at best. That's kind of my point. The Church before Henry was Catholic in nature and Catholics continued to exist independent of the larger Anglican Church. Lest we believe it was those who remained faithful to Rome who were guilty of changing the Church of England there appear to be two entities and only one of these can lay claim to continuing the Church of England the other can only be accused of innovation and betraying what the Church of England was. I don't think it was the Catholics guilty of such a thing.