What is keeping the Anglicans and Lutherans from unifying?

[Peter_J]

Hi Randy. I must say, this ^^ is probably the least promising opening-post that I’ve ever seen.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Frank is fine. Informed is, too.

Henry didn’t request a dispensation to marry Catherine. His father did, in order to keep both the dowry she brought, when she married Arthur, and to keep the political ties that the arranged marriage provided with the Spanish Monarchs.

For a good understanding of Henry’s motives and drives, and also Clement’s, for that matter, the best book is Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII. I recommend it.

Thanks for the information but it still doesn’t support the Anglican position today which refuses to accept the authority of the Pope, an authority you just proved Henry’s father recognized by requesting the dispensation for his son to marry Catherine, and an authority Henry proved he recognized by asking the Pope to free him from the dispensation his father got him into so he could get the Popes approval to marry Ann Boleyn. One would think Henry would have lived up to his convictions against Papal authority and just said to hell with getting the approval of a Pope you claim he didn’t believe had any authority over the universal Church in the first place. Yet he didn’t do this until the authority of the Pope opposed him and came at a personal cost to his dynasty.

Sounds more like a spoiled brat loving their parents until their parents tell them “no”. Yet instead of stopping there the child continues on by accusing the parents of being fakes and says its going to run away from home. No more parents no more parental authority to worry about. I mean it figures, since how many times do you think Henry was told “no” when he was king? Or when he was the son of the King for that matter. Nah it sounds like Henry knew the only way he was going to get what he wanted was by denying the authority of the Pope and breaking communion with Rome. The continuation of his dynasty and gaining an heir was more important to him than living his Catholic Faith.

As in all things historical, it’s complicated. Theology and politics.

Henry didn’t get what he wanted so he threw a King size tantrum and broke away from the Church. Yet I give Henry credit for at least doing that much, unlike the politicians today that spew all sorts of muck, but still stay in the Church.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the information but it still doesn’t support the Anglican position today which refuses to accept the authority of the Pope, an authority you just proved Henry’s father recognized by requesting the dispensation for his son to marry Catherine, and an authority Henry proved he recognized by asking the Pope to free him from the dispensation his father got him into so he could get the Popes approval to marry Ann Boleyn. One would think Henry would have lived up to his convictions against Papal authority and just said to hell with getting the approval of a Pope you claim he didn’t believe had any authority over the universal Church in the first place. Yet he didn’t do this until the authority of the Pope opposed him and came at a personal cost to his dynasty.

Sounds more like a spoiled brat loving their parents until their parents tell them “no”. Yet instead of stopping there the child continues on by accusing the parents of being fakes and says its going to run away from home. No more parents no more parental authority to worry about. I mean it figures, since how many times do you think Henry was told “no” when he was king? Or when he was the son of the King for that matter. Nah it sounds like Henry knew the only way he was going to get what he wanted was by denying the authority of the Pope and breaking communion with Rome. The continuation of his dynasty and gaining an heir was more important to him than living his Catholic Faith.

Henry didn’t get what he wanted so he threw a King size tantrum and broke away from the Church. Yet I give Henry credit for at least doing that much, unlike the politicians today that spew all sorts of muck, but still stay in the Church.

I do suggest more reading on the subject. Good luck.

GKC

 

[benjohnson]

The continuation of his dynasty and gaining an heir was more important to him than living his Catholic Faith.

It’s not quite that easy pin all this on Mr. Fidei Defensor.

Remember, at this period of history, the Pope was at the beginning of the attempt to wield both swords. If it wasn’t Good Ol’ Hank, then it would have been some other prince who would have rejected this new encroachment on secular authority.

Thankfully, such times have ended.

 

[GKC]

It’s not quite that easy pin all this on Mr. Fidei Defensor.

Remember, at this period of history, the Pope was at the beginning of the attempt to wield both swords. If it wasn’t Good Ol’ Hank, then it would have been some other prince who would have rejected this new encroachment on secular authority.

Thankfully, such times have ended.

True. Much more detailed, but true.

GKC

 

[Hypnotoad]

It’s not quite that easy pin all this on Mr. Fidei Defensor.

Remember, at this period of history, the Pope was at the beginning of the attempt to wield both swords. If it wasn’t Good Ol’ Hank, then it would have been some other prince who would have rejected this new encroachment on secular authority.

“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.” --Matthew 22:21

Correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression that marriage was on those God things, and that Ol’ Hanks dynasty was one of those Caesar things. If I’m not mistaken it is the Popes duty to protect the things which are God’s and to ensure that others take care of them. Hardly fair to say he was over stepping his office by telling Ol’ Hank to give up his Caesar things so that He may render to God the things which are rightfully His.

Would either of you sacrifice your Caesar things to give God what is His due? Do either of you think it is valid reason to brush off the proper keeping of the things which are God’s in order to save the things which are Caesars?

Thankfully, such times have ended.

Yeah sure while on earth it’s probably nice to have a Church you could ignore and which could never impose on you a requirement to sacrifice your Caesar things in order to save those which belong to God. Kind of makes life easier, like Christ without that pesky cross.

 

[GKC]

“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.” --Matthew 22:21

Correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression that marriage was on those God things, and that Ol’ Hanks dynasty was one of those Caesar things. If I’m not mistaken it is the Popes duty to protect the things which are God’s and to ensure that others take care of them. Hardly fair to say he was over stepping his office by telling Ol’ Hank to give up his Caesar things so that He may render to God the things which are rightfully His.

Would either of you sacrifice your Caesar things to give God what is His due? Do either of you think it is valid reason to brush off the proper keeping of the things which are God’s in order to save the things which are Caesars?

Yeah sure while on earth it’s probably nice to have a Church you could ignore and which could never impose on you a requirement to sacrifice your Caesar things in order to save those which belong to God. Kind of makes life easier, like Christ without that pesky cross.

Again, I suggest some reading as to what was actually going on. Scarisbrick’s book is very good on that.

GKC

 

[benjohnson]

If I’m not mistaken it is the Popes duty to protect the things which are God’s and to ensure that others take care of them.

I seem to remember that at this period the Church was carving out huge swaths of land for it’s own use - and they didn’t pay duty or taxes. Basically, the church was becoming a rival in the secular world - not only in England, but most of the continent.

The issues with Hanks bedroom were just the tipping point frankly - between the Church and the State, things were coming to a head at some point in Europe.

You can see this in the Reformation - Luther little band of misfits not only got support from those that thought the Pope was wrong, but also from those that thought the Pope was too powerful.

 

[benjohnson]

Yeah sure while on earth it’s probably nice to have a Church you could ignore and which could never impose on you a requirement to sacrifice your Caesar things in order to save those which belong to God. Kind of makes life easier, like Christ without that pesky cross.

Please don’t put words in my mouth then proceed to disagree with those words.

The Lutheran church is not ignored by it’s members.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy. I must say, this ^^ is probably the least promising opening-post that I’ve ever seen.

I really thought high church Anglicans and conservative Lutherans might have some common ground…guess not.

 

[steido01]

I really thought high church Anglicans and conservative Lutherans might have some common ground…guess not.

Sure we do! While I’m pleased that confessional Lutherans and orthodox Anglicans adhere unwaveringly to their respective doctrines, we do work together where we can; just as the RCC seeks to work with other Christians without sacrificing sound doctrine.

A few months ago, the LCMS, LC-C and the ACNA released a joint statement in defense of marriage and families. Google should find it easily (sorry, I’m on my phone!). We have worked together in other matters, where we can.

 

[Peter_J]

I really thought high church Anglicans and conservative Lutherans might have some common ground…guess not.

Not looking for a rehash of the whole thread (in fact, I’d very much prefer if we *don’t *do that ) but I’m curious whether you changed your mind based on something in particular, or based on the thread overall.

 

[Peter_J]

Sure we do! While I’m pleased that confessional Lutherans and orthodox Anglicans adhere unwaveringly to their respective doctrines, we do work together where we can;

Reading this, I was going to say “Don’t forget us!” but then I saw that you remember us in the next part:

just as the RCC seeks to work with other Christians without sacrificing sound doctrine.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sure we do! While I’m pleased that confessional Lutherans and orthodox Anglicans adhere unwaveringly to their respective doctrines, we do work together where we can; just as the RCC seeks to work with other Christians without sacrificing sound doctrine.

A few months ago, the LCMS, LC-C and the ACNA released a joint statement in defense of marriage and families. Google should find it easily (sorry, I’m on my phone!). We have worked together in other matters, where we can.

Actually, this is more like what I would have expected given the doctrinal agreement on a number of critical issues.

However, the issue of the filioque has been enough to drive a wedge between Catholics and Orthodox, so I don’t doubt that one side or the other will find something to justify remaining autonomous.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not looking for a rehash of the whole thread (in fact, I’d very much prefer if we *don’t *do that ) but I’m curious whether you changed your mind based on something in particular, or based on the thread overall.

It seems to me that the Orthodox and the Lutherans have many shared beliefs…real presence, rejection of the papacy as Catholics understand it, etc.

OTOH, the matter of sola scriptura rears its ugly head once again, and that cannot be acceptable to the Orthodox.

Maybe that is the one issue alone that makes communion unattainable.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It seems to me that the Orthodox and the Lutherans have many shared beliefs…real presence, rejection of the papacy as Catholics understand it, etc.

OTOH, the matter of sola scriptura rears its ugly head once again, and that cannot be acceptable to the Orthodox.

Maybe that is the one issue alone that makes communion unattainable.

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me that the Orthodox and the Lutherans have many shared beliefs…real presence, rejection of the papacy as Catholics understand it, etc.

OTOH, the matter of sola scriptura rears its ugly head once again, and that cannot be acceptable to the Orthodox.

Maybe that is the one issue alone that makes communion unattainable.

See point number 11.

Jon

4th Plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission
27 May - 4 June 1987, Crete/ Greece

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

1. The divine revelation in the Old and in the New Testament of the saving intervention of God (oikonomia), consummated in the person of Jesus Christ, is communicated to the world through the operation of the Holy Spirit. This saving intervention of God through the Son in the Holy Spirit is the essence of the “euangelion” of salvation.

1. The word of God made known to the prophets is revealed to us through the incarnation, the life and teaching, the passion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and the sending of his Spirit at Pentecost. By all this Jesus Christ accomplished and secured the unity of the testaments and the continuity of the once and for all offering of his body and blood for our salvation and his abiding presence with us to the end of the ages. Therefore, the “euangelion” of salvation, to which holy scriptures bears witness, is not simply speech from or about God but the hypostatic Word of God incarnate. This “euangelion” of Jesus Christ, which by the operation of the Holy Spirit is communicated to us by the church to the end of the ages, is the holy Tradition.

1. The holy Tradition is the authentic expression of divine revelation in the living experience of the church, the body of the Word incarnate. The church in its sacraments and spiritual life transmits this “euangelion” of our salvation through the operation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, apostolic faith is not only a matter of proclamation but an incarnate faith (Heb. 11:1,; enhypostatos pistis, Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones 25, PG 90, 336D) in the church.

1. This "euangelion"of salvation is the content of the holy Tradition, preserved, confessed and transmitted in scripture, in the lives of the saints in all ages, and in the conciliar tradition of the church.

1. The Orthodox and the Lutheran churches have the same Bible, comprising the Old and New Testament, but the following ten books of the Old Testament have varying degrees of authority in our churches: Judith, 1 Ezra, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. In the future we will have to discuss the problem of the canon in more detail.

---

1. Therefore, those church decisions which have been received by the catholic church as true expressions of the intent of the holy scripture can be considered authentic criteria of the church’s faith and its confession (cf. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, 2,3; PL 50, 640). The church’s doctrinal definitions which confess the holy Trinity and God’s saving act in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit are guidelines for defending truth against falsehood. Proclaiming, confessing and living in Christ, the church communicates the mystery of God’s revelation. The church’s doctrinal statements are rooted in its whole spiritual life and at the same time are shaped by it. As St. Basil affirmed about holy scripture and holy Tradition: “… regarding the true faith, both of these have the same value” (St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, XXVII, 66, PG 32, 188A). In another place St Basil argued for the formula “the glory is common to the Father and to the Son” (he doxa koine Patri kai Hyio) first on the basis of some of the fathers; then he continued: "But it is not sufficient for us that it is a tradition of the fathers. For even they followed the intent (boulema) of the scriptures because they have used as principles the testimonies of the scriptures as mentioned shortly before (St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, VII,16; PG 32,96).

1. The function of holy scriptures is to serve the authenticity of the church’s living experience in safeguarding the holy Tradition from all attempts to falsify the true faith (cf. Heb. 4:12, etc.), not to undermine the authority of the church, the body of Christ.

11. Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church.

1. Pointing to scripture is pointing to the “euangelion” of salvation, to Christ and therefore to the holy Tradition which is the life of the church, to act as criterion of its authenticity and so to stress the church’s unity and catholicity for the joyful common praise of the triune God.

helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#scri

 

[Randy_Carson]

See point number 11.

1. Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church.

Boiling this down, it says, “the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to 1) God’s revelation, 2) Jesus, and therefore to 3) the holy Tradition of the church”.

Luther always intended sola scriptura to point to the Tradition of the Church?

Now, how the heck did all those theologians miss that little detail 500 years ago? And if true, then exactly what was Luther ranting about?

:ehh:

 

[benjohnson]

Luther always intended sola scriptura to point to the Tradition of the Church?

There’s some tricky phrasing there - SS eventually pointing to the holy Tradition of the Church as opposed to human tradition.

 

[Novocastrian]

Luther always intended sola scriptura to point to the Tradition of the Church?

Now, how the heck did all those theologians miss that little detail 500 years ago? And if true, then exactly what was Luther ranting about?

Let me prefix this by saying that I’m not a Lutheran.

Sola Scriptura does not entail the rejection of all tradition. It says that the measure of tradition should be Scripture. If Luther or other reformers had rejected all tradition, then they would have rejected infant baptism. The staunch resistance to this on the part of Luther and Calvin suggests that some traditions of the Church were considered to be catholic and evangelical in the light of the Scriptures.