How similar are Lutheranism and Anglicanism?

[Naomi4Christ]

How is the Celtic church (something that doesn't actually exist) the same as the Anglican church? I don't believe you can even claim that Celtic Christianity evolved seamlessly into Anglicanism.

 

[PaladinValer]

Historically, they did.

St. Augustine of Canterbury was sent to British lands in order to "quell" the "differences" between Roman and Celtic Christianity. He failed. What happened was an adaptation of Roman influences while keeping the much of the Celtic base.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Not so.

Celtic Christianity retreated due to the expanding Roman rite. That is not saying that the Celtic Church was the old name for the Roman church in the British Isles. They were two different entities.

 

[PaladinValer]

Yes so, actually.

 

[Fish and Bread]

My understanding is that a majority of Celtic bishops voted to adopt the Latin Rite calendar and so forth. Hence, they sort of "merged into" the Roman Catholic Church and became one with it (A minority of Celtic bishops disented, but they became extinct). In a sense, we can view it this way:

Celtic Christianity + Latin-Rite Catholicism =Roman Catholicism in England --> Church of England

John

 

[Filia Mariae]

Speaking of Erasmus... What is his canonical status within the Roman Catholic Church? Is he considered a Saint?

No

Excomunicated?

No

Considered a master theologian?

No, master humanist perhaps.

Are his works frowned upon?

No, but heavily criticized, although it is acknowledged that they are of some value, particularly in light f understanding the anti-ecclesial culture of the time and the growing humanist sentiment.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Thanks for the information!

John

 

[Simon_Templar]

Paladin, your argument is only historically correct in the sense that its the same church because its in the same nation. You might as well argue that the Lutheran churches are the same as the roman catholic churches which were in those localities prior to the reformation.

The anglican church during and after Henry VIII was not simply a return to the ancient traditions of the pre Norman church. The Anglican church can trace its roots back, especially because of Apostolic succession.. However, like it or not, the Anglican tradition as it exists today can not realisticly be said to have existed prior to Henry VIII. The best you could possibly say is that the Anglican tradition born after Henry VIII retained many elements from the earlier tradition(s). Anglicanism may have retained its catholicism and its orthodoxy, but it can not be denied that the anglican tradition was created as a result of mixing in a good deal of "reformation" thought. In fact, for the first 300 years or so of the "anglican tradition" it had alot more protestant influence than it even does today.


A note on the celtic church. Very little reliable information exists today on what the celtic church taught and practiced. The celtic church was almost destroyed, not by Roman influence, but by barbarian conquest. The celtic church pretty much ceased to exist in most of "england" because it had been over run by pagan saxons and angles.. not roman missionaries When Augustine arrived he found very little in the way of an active church among the saxon's etc. Thus he was not so much going to bring the celtic church into line, as to evangelize the pagan tribes that had settled in southern england. At roughly the same time there was a resurgance of celtic christianity in the north with the influence of the Lindisfarne community and so on. The two churches eventually met in the middle and when their divergent practices came into conflict the council of whitby was held to resolve the differences.

It is interesting that the only major issue addressed at Whitby was a calendar issue, the method by which easter should be calculated. There are comments by some of the Roman people of the time about the celtic liturgy being backwards or barbaric in terms of language, but no indication that it had any significant difference in theology or doctrine. Thus there is no particular reason to assume there was ever a great conflict between celtic and roman churches over anything but the calendar.

There have been alot of theories about pelagian vs. anti pelagian doctrines being a difference, but there is little or no historical evidence that I've ever been able to find that lends real proof to any of that.