There was talk of union during the Reformation, including during HRH Elizabeth I and Eric XIV's tenure (the latter courting the former, as well as Mary Queen of Scots and Christine of Hesse, daughter of the polygamous Lutheran Landgrave Philip I) between the Anglicans and the Lutheran State Church of Sweden, which also claimed (and claims) Apostolic succession. Talks were resumed when as a common front against "Apostolicae Curae"
I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.
What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...
Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense. Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist. This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.
Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.
I didn't know Elizabeth sympathized with the Lutherans but that's not surprising. Still, the Anglicanism she re-founded may have been a backtracking from the radicalism under Edward VI (the 1552 Prayer Book, Cranmer's Zwinglian beliefs), because the government was trying to persuade English Catholics to obey (so you have things like the black-letter saints' days in the English BCP; almost all the medieval Catholic saints are named but there is no real liturgical commemoration of them), but was far from the ceremonial conservatism of the Lutherans at the time or Catholic belief about the Eucharist. There's also the Black Rubric in the English BCP, defending kneeling for Communion by denying the Real Presence starkly, in contrast to both Lutheranism and Catholicism.
Thanks. I didn't know that background but again it's not surprising. As I wrote earlier, the Swedes (and Finns and other churches claiming the episcopate from them) claim succession but, being Lutherans, don't think it's necessary. Turns out neither did classical Anglicanism. So despite Anglicanism's more radical roots with Cranmer, the claim to the episcopate made it the equivalent of Swedish Lutheranism. As I wrote, long before the 1930s official intercommunion between the Church of England and the Church of Sweden, Anglican and Lutheran have long been interchangeable. I'm sitting in what used to be the Swedish colony in America, sold to the British, where they founded a few parishes; when they changed languages they adopted the Book of Common Prayer, Gloria Dei here in Philadelphia was built in British colonial times by English designers and craftsmen so it looks just like an Anglican church of the time, and after independence, after the last Swedish priests died (yes, the Swedish church calls them priests), the congregations voted to join the Episcopal Church.
Norwegian, Danish and I think Icelandic Lutherans don't claim succession; again, Lutherans don't think it's necessary. Norway's interesting: they got rid of bishops and had district superintendents (like American Lutherans historically have), then they brought back the old system with its titles (bishop) but without trying to bring back the succession. I think the Danes and Icelanders are like the Germans: no bishops.
In America the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (Germans who came here after the government interfered with and watered down the local Lutheranism) and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ditto) don't have bishops. The mainline (liberal) ELCA, a merger of the Scandinavian-American churches (19th-century immigration to the Midwest: why Minnesota has its accent), was like the Norwegians, with bishops but not as a lifetime office (they'd serve a term then go back to being just pastors) and without the claim to succession; the Episcopalians grandfathered them in, in their union, but the new ELCA bishops and pastors have Episcopal succession.
Then there's the Episcopal claim to valid orders through Old Catholic including Polish National Catholic bishops participating in Episcopal bishops' consecrations and priestly ordinations, 'the Dutch touch' as an English now-Catholic priest called it. Rome and the East have never bought the argument; such clergy are always received as laymen and reordained. Anyway, I thought of that because now ELCA has that claim, through the Episcopalians. ELCA's presiding bishop has it.
That Old Catholic 'line of succession', based on St Augustine's Western Catholic theology of holy orders (which is how Catholicism includes the Orthodox among real bishops), is the stock and trade of vagantes
, the little wacko 'independent Catholic' churches and wannabe priests as Fr Nathan Monk was for about 10 years before his eight months as an Orthodox.
(The Old Catholics have broken up. The main body, a tiny European denomination, has gone in a little over 100 years from not recognizing Anglican orders, just like Catholics, to essentially becoming Episcopalians. They ordain women. The Episcopal Church is their official representation/stand-in in America. The Polish National Catholic Church, founded in America a little over 100 years ago by a liberal, went the other way, more conservative, breaking with the Episcopalians and eventually with the main Old Catholics over women's ordination. There are similar relatively conservative splinter Old Catholics, a splinter of a splinter, in Eastern Europe, priests who switched to get married and that's about it.)
circus and now the respectable ELCA bring up the good question: how far can that 'line of succession' argument go? Moot to Catholics and Orthodox, who don't play that game; real churches, socially speaking (including the Anglicans and Lutherans), have the 'lines' but don't need to brag about them. The Orthodox have a point about being in the church trumping lines of succession. A good rule of thumb is if a priest in person or online mentions his 'lines', run. He's a dangerous wannabe.
The Nordic Lutherans have been ordaining women since about the '50s. Interesting how it happened. The bishops or leaders and parishioners didn't want it at the time but because they're state churches (or were until recently: the Church of Sweden was disestablished around 2000), the government voted in the change and imposed it on them. Norden (Scandinavia plus Finland; maybe Estonia too, as they're the Finns' cousins, and are Lutherans too) is famously irreligious, even more than Britain and the rest of Europe. Next to nobody goes to church, and the few religious often don't go to the official Lutheran churches.