What is keeping the Anglicans and Lutherans from unifying?

[Bergon]

Drinking warm beer doesn’t count.

It is the only type that does count. Please don’t conflate very cold, effervescent beverages containing ethanol as beer!

 

[Novocastrian]

It is the only type that does count. Please don’t conflate very cold, effervescent beverages containing ethanol as beer!

Lager is to ale what St Peter’s is to St John in Lateran. Fine in itself, but not the real deal. Mater et caput cerevisiae!

 

[Bergon]

And Norfolk was the senior non-royal, in Henry’s day, too. But from 1525, when Hank created his illegitimate son Duke of Richmond and Somerset, he ranked as the first peer of the realm, save only for any subsequent legitimate sons of Henry’s own body. Which held until Somerset’s death eleven years later. An oddity. But I don’t see the relevance in this thread, either.

GKC

Agreed: the actual order of precedence isn’t not always applied, especially not then. I interpreted the poster as saying Norfolk is currently the senior peer. That’s what makes it utterly irrelevant to a discussion on why Lutherans and Anglicans don’t unite. (A question I find interesting but to which I have no answer.)

 

[GKC]

Agreed: the actual order of precedence isn’t not always applied, especially not then. I interpreted the poster as saying Norfolk is currently the senior peer. That’s what makes it utterly irrelevant to a discussion on why Lutherans and Anglicans don’t unite. (A question I find interesting but to which I have no answer.)

Agreed.

And hasty posting curtailed Richmond and Somerset into Somerset.

Could have said Earl of Nottingham, but that was a junior title.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

History is like that, yes. Complicated. Full of people and stuff.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11196321]

Sorry…Jon…I was not nitpicking…I was just saying that…there are hundreds of theologians who had read Luther’s works…and someone should have found the passage/quote…writing…where Luther actually defines what SS is…and that statement should have been readily cited and available for anyone.

I didn’t mean it to sound like an accusation. Sorry.
That the Confessions claim to reflect Luther’s view of the role of scripture seem sufficient to me.

But which one…right?

The one we’re talking about.

ok…thanks for claryfying. But still nothing directly from Luther…so it is a development of a principle…?

Well, again, I don’t have any evidence of a “development” of the practice, though I suspect there possibly was. I think I mentioned before that there are those who seem to think that the practice of Lutherans resembles that earlier times in the Church, so I don’t know have much “development” went on.

One more thing from your quote…Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.

As I understand…this psalm was in oral form before it was put down in writing…so “Thy Word”…how could then this refer to the written word?

If I say something out loud, and someone writes it down, are the words effectively different? I don’t object to the understanding that written word often was once spoken. That said, from our perspective, and that of the 16th century Church, the Psalm is indeed written.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So Jon…where would you draw the line on what is important and what is not? What would be your basis?

Is it going to be a pick and choose as one sees fit?

No. What is important from my perspective is what is in the Confessions. That’s where I draw the line. That doesn’t mean there aren’t many wonderful things Luther didn’t write. Indeed there are. And there are things he wrote that were a waste of good ink, his late in life tirade about the Jews, for example. But in the discussion of doctrine, for us it is the Confessions.

Jon