Since the protestants split much later than the orthodox, doesnt that mean we "share" more history\doctrine? while the orthodox were separated so long ago they became a totally different issue? is it because of sacramental validity? I know orthodox have a really intelligible theology about "essences and energies of God, plus the toll house stuff in some churches. Will the future Popes maybe emphasize reunion with traditional lutheran churches before seeking union with orthodox?
Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the "Holy Supper" but his tree bore such bad fruit that there is an immensity of Protestant churches that try to rationalize the issue by saying that Christ can only be seated at the right hand of God the Father; I believe this made Lutheranism a stranger in the nest of the vast divided kingdom of Protestantism; in that sense orthodoxy is a more solid and united movement to seek reunification primarily through sacramental theology.
Luan is right. I am not sure what other doctrinal differences exist but my understanding is that the main issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from the Father and the Son. The latter being the belief of the Catholic Church as professed by the Athanasian creed. The other differences are to do with practices such as ordaining married men. However in the Orthodox Church married priests may not be bishops. Progress has been made in that we share communion with the Greek Orthodox. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that there was now no reason for the Lutherans not to return to Rome as Luther’s main differences had been addressed by Rome and an agreement signed. I’m sorry but my failing memory prevents me from recalling the title of the document. As for other Protestant churches, unity is not even close as most don’t recognise the 7 sacraments and hold to other tenets contrary to our Faith, such as the Calvinist double predestination. Some Protestant and non-conformist groups believe that Catholicism is demonic. We may have had a a shared history for longer with Protestants but our beliefs mean that there is much less chance of reconciliation
Luther expressed that he did not believe in Transubstantiation, but Consubstantiation That is, he believed Christ was present but the substance of bread and wine were still present. We as Catholics believe that only the accidents (appearances) of bread and wine remain after Consecration; the "substance" has been truly transformed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. So Lutherans think Christ and the substance of bread and wine subsist along side each other, Luther denied Transubstantiation. The Orthodox do not maintain that the substance of the bread and wine remain. The Orthodox Eucharist is valid, Lutherans do not have the Eucharist. Orthodox Holy Orders are valid, Lutherans do not have validly ordained priests. In addition, Luther wrote that the sacrifice of the Mass is blasphemous, ungodly, abominable, work of devil and ministerial priesthood is man-made and work of devil. The split with the Lutherans was closer in time to the present, but was far deeper.
I don't believe he ever made such a statement. A joint declaration by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation of spiritual justification was signed on October 31, 1999. This overcame just one problem separating Catholics and Lutherans (justification theology). In fact, in 2010 when visiting a Lutheran church, according to Zenit News Agency, the Catholic leader (Pope Benedict) warned those present against being content “with the successes of the ecumenism of recent years,” regretting that Protestants and Catholics still “cannot drink of the same chalice and we cannot be together around the altar.” https://rcg.org/realtruth/news/100326-001-religion.html
he believed in the real presence of Christ in the elements of the "Lord's Supper" but without changing the substance of the bread and wine, my previous post wanted to highlight the fact that many Protestant churches distorted even this Lutheran concept of real presence because they maintain that Christ could not be in multiple places at the same time other than the right side of God the Father, Pentecostal, Adventist and many Baptist churches follow this position which differs from the "father of the Protestant Reformation" and ignores the power of Christ's omnipresence. I believe this motivated the conciliar popes to seek dialogue with the Lutherans.
I think the unification is more than just agreeing on doctrine. It is more about Authority. The Lord set up the Catholic Church to carry the Truth throughout the generations and give them the Sacraments until His return to earth. The Lord promised and has safeguarded this Truth intact for 2000 years now no matter how evil the persons who have been in charge. That in itself is a huge miracle! If a person rejects Jesus' Church, they reject that authority and ultimately the Truth. If a person HAS no other option in their country but to attend an orthodox church, the Catholic Church in it's mercy says those sacraments are valid so that they can receive the graces of salvation. If a person who is not enslaved politically to attend an orthodox church, and has access to a Catholic Church but chooses an orthodox church, they are now a Protestant, and are in huge danger of being led astray by Satan because they don't acknowledge the Authority Jesus gave His Church.
I think it’s important here to distinguish between the church and “The Church”, I.e. between the institutional and the mystical. An orthodox priest (validly ordained) is no more or less a priest than a catholic priest (validly ordained), just as a validly baptized Protestant is no more or less a Christian than someone baptized catholic. The same rules apply to everyone as there is only one church, the Catholic Church founded by Christ, and encountering a valid sacrament is, whether the person administering it knows it or not, still a catholic thing. (I’m sure the Lutheran minister who baptized me would love to hear that - lol). That being said, the orthodox churches have all seven sacraments; the lutheran churches, alas, have only two - baptism and holy matrimony. Luther had no ability to ordain because he wasn’t a bishop, so the apostolic succession ended in the Lutheran church when the last validly ordained priest died, which was probably around the reformation itself. That brings me to another point - I occasionally see some Catholics calling Protestants heretics and calling the orthodox schismatics. This is very wrong as a blanket statement. To be a heretic or a schismatic someone had to have been catholic at some point - so someone raised Lutheran who has never fully embraced the church is not a heretic (they almost undoubtedly believe some things which are heretical, but error as a result of ignorance isn’t a crime). Edit to clarify the last paragraph - By “had to have been catholic” I meant admitted the church’s authority, not whether their baptism was valid.
This is the TRUTH. The Great Schism was about the refusal of the Orthodox to accept the Pope in Rome. Great post.
My comments in Red: For a fuller explanation visit the link below: https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/0...d-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/
Well I think this is just a bit off... The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;" One does not have to have been a Catholic to be a heretic, only a baptized Christian. You are correct that to be correctly called a heretic one has to refuse to be corrected, OR unaware that what he is saying is against Church teaching. A Lutheran who is ignorant of Catholic Church teaching which contradicts what he is saying is not a heretic. Nor is a Lutheran a heretic who espouses a belief which contradicts Catholic teaching, but is willing to be corrected. But a non-Catholic Christian who is aware of a Catholic Church teaching, and obstinately refuses to be corrected, and still still holds to the heretical teaching, is correctly called a heretic.
That doesn't have to do with the validity of the mass, it has to do with obedience to authority and giving scandal. The orthodox are in a state of schism so of course we should attend catholic masses where available.
Well, yeah, my point was that because Lutheranism contains heresies it doesn't mean that Lutherans are necessarily heretics unless they were previously Catholics (or happened to believe something true with good will and then accept correction from the Lutheran "church" - shudder to think of that). If a Lutheran, or any Christian, denies the trinity, for example, then of course they'd be a heretic.
Yep, And any other article of faith that must be believed. Including, for example, the teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
Synod of Jerusalem, (1672), council of the Eastern Orthodox church convened by Dosítheos, patriarch of Jerusalem, in order to reject the Confession of Orthodox Faith (1629), by Cyril Lucaris, which professed most of the major Calvinist doctrines. The synod rejected unconditional predestination (the doctrine that God has eternally chosen those whom he intends to save) and justification by faith alone, while it affirmed the essentially Roman doctrines of transubstantiation (the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the mass) and of purgatory. Against Rome, however, it continued to affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The synod also decreed that the church and Scripture are equally infallible, that there are seven sacraments, and that the books of Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon are canonical books of the Bible. https://www.britannica.com/event/Synod-of-Jerusalem
