What is keeping the Anglicans and Lutherans from unifying?

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11190270]So, forgetting Luther (and there is a lot that is easily worth forgetting), Lutheran theologians suggest that sola scriptura points to Tradition?

How so? What does this mean in plain English, Jon?

Plain English:

But [this is not to be understood as if] hereby other good, useful, pure books, expositions of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, explanations of doctrinal articles, are not rejected; for as far as they are consistent with the above-mentioned type of doctrine, these are regarded as useful expositions and explanations, and can be used with advantage. But what has thus far been said concerning the summary of our Christian doctrine is intended to mean only this, that we should have a unanimously accepted, definite, common form of doctrine, which all our evangelical churches together and in common confess, from and according to which, because it has been derived from God’s Word, all other writings should be judged and adjusted as to how far they are to be approved and accepted.

And if sola fide has been reconciled with Catholicism and sola scriptura points to Tradition (though I suspect you will say that it is the final judge of Tradition), then what continues to justify the wound in the Body of Christ?

Would you say it is completely reconciled?

Universal Jurisdiction? I’m not sure three people in your congregation or mine could define it accurately. I’m not sure I could.

Perhaps not, but Lutherans have a general understanding that we disagree with this idea that the pope is in charge of the entire Church on Earth.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Of course there are some of us who, in the spirit of fraternal charity and unity, will drink a few of each. For ecumenism, of course.

Sounds like my kind of ecumenism. But you haven’t tasted true unity until you’ve had New Glarus Brewery’s Spotted Cow. The beer is only sold in Wisconsin, and it can be found on tap in nearly bar in the state - and, most impotantly, at Lambeau Field.

Meanwhile, back at the thread…

 

[JonNC]

Sounds like my kind of ecumenism. But you haven’t tasted true unity until you’ve had New Glarus Brewery’s Spotted Cow. The beer is only sold in Wisconsin, and it can be found on tap in nearly bar in the state - and, most impotantly, at Lambeau Field.

Meanwhile, back at the thread…

My daughter teaches at a Lutheran school in Wisconsin. I will have to ask her for a personal report - we plan a trip there this holiday season.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, putting it another way how would you yourself answer this question you asked this afternoon:

? (I mean “answer” in a broad sense of the word, e.g. including such “answers” as “That’s not a legitimate question.”)

Um…okay.

The Protestant Reformation (and Luther’s initiatives in particular) were built upon the five “solas”. Luther himself said that upon one of them (forgot which) “the whole thing hangs”. I think he meant the whole defiance of Rome, etc.

Now, if Lutherans and Catholics have come to a better understanding concerning one another’s views of justification, then sola fide is no longer a wedge issue. It may well be that they were each passionately describing a different side of the same coin, so to speak.

And, if what was posted about sola scriptura pointing to Tradition is as promising as it sounds, then what remains of the reasons for schism?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Presumably you know the answer. The Lutheran will say that his Church (not necessarily exclusive of yours) was founded by Jesus Christ, and that His words are far more important to Lutherans than Martin Luther’s own. That Luther’s words are listened to when they accord with Christ’s, and discarded when they do not.

We could say the same about Nestorius or Arius, but we don’t.

They have been discarded as unworthy of honor.

 

[Novocastrian]

We could say the same about Nestorius or Arius, but we don’t.

They have been discarded as unworthy of honor.

That’s fair enough. The major question then is whether Luther was a heretic. Obviously the Lutherans are not going to agree with you on that one.

 

[Novocastrian]

We could say the same about Nestorius or Arius, but we don’t.

They have been discarded as unworthy of honor.

A closer analogy might be Tertullian, who became a Montanist and is yet revered as a father of the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Um…okay.

The Protestant Reformation (and Luther’s initiatives in particular) were built upon the five “solas”. Luther himself said that upon one of them (forgot which) “the whole thing hangs”. I think he meant the whole defiance of Rome, etc.

Now, if Lutherans and Catholics have come to a better understanding concerning one another’s views of justification, then sola fide is no longer a wedge issue. It may well be that they were each passionately describing a different side of the same coin, so to speak.

And, if what was posted about sola scriptura pointing to Tradition is as promising as it sounds,** then what remains of the reasons for schism?**

Well as I said before, how would you yourself answer this question? (If you’re inclined to say, that is.)

 

[pablope]

Luther wrote volumes and volumes. I don’t own the complete Luther’s Works. But in the Solid Declaration, of the Formula of Concord, this:

You know…for such an important Lutheran principle/dogma/doctrine…there should have been readily quotable statement from Luther by now…stating specifically what SS is according to Luther…don’t you think so?

I have no reason to dispute Chemnitz and the others.

 

[pablope]

Mainly because Luther’s words aren’t the important point. The Lutheran Confessions are. And in those confessions we see precisely what those Lutheran theologians were talking about.

Jon

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?

 

[Peter_J]

You know…for such an important Lutheran principle/dogma/doctrine…there should have been readily quotable statement from Luther by now…stating specifically what SS is according to Luther…don’t you think so?

I don’t want to speak on behalf of Lutherans, but reading this ^^ post I have to ask: have you actually been reading this thread? Seriously.

 

[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?

Well, sure, when it comes to doctrine. Do Catholics not regularly say here that the Church Fathers did not set doctrine? Same thing. For us, it is the Confessions, not the man Luther, or any other man, other than Christ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11192487]

You know…for such an important Lutheran principle/dogma/doctrine…there should have been readily quotable statement from Luther by now…stating specifically what SS is according to Luther…don’t you think so?

Honestly, this sound like picking at nits. The confessions, I am sure properly reflect Luther’s thoughts.

Does “Word of God” refer to the written word alone…or the actual Word of God…as per John 1?
And is the “Word of God” restricted to the written word?

The intention of the Reformers, in this context, is the written word:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

A closer analogy might be Tertullian, who became a Montanist and is yet revered as a father of the Church.

Tertullian is an Early Church Writer, but he is not considered an Early Church Father by Catholics because he did not maintain orthodoxy.

Still, the analogy is good.

 

[pablope]

Honestly, this sound like picking at nits.

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.

The confessions, I am sure properly reflect Luther’s thoughts.

 

[Bergon]

was there not still Catholic aristocrats such as the Duke of Norfolk (a recusant) around when Henry was breaking with Rome -? I believe the Duke is the Senior Duke in GB

The peerage, the Dukedom of Norfolk, is the premier (i.e. senior) non-royal peerage in the UK. However, I don’t understand its relevance to this thread.

 

[GKC]

The peerage, the Dukedom of Norfolk, is the premier (i.e. senior) non-royal peerage in the UK. However, I don’t understand its relevance to this thread.

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

 

[Bergon]

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 think the history of England, the Papacy and Europe of the time was far more complicated than a king having a todder-like tantrum.

 

[GKC]

I think the history of England, the Papacy and Europe of the time was far more complicated than a king having a todder-like tantrum.

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

GKC

 

[Bergon]

“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.

I believe that you’re looking at historical events that happened about five centuries ago with a contemporary point of view. That can’t lead to anything fruitful. We must place historical events in their context. Yes, Henry VIII, and his contemprorary secular rulers, meddled in those things you say belong to God. When we say, “render to God …, render to Caesar …”, that must operate from both perspectives. At that time the Papacy meddled in those things you say should be rendered to caesar.