But these Byzantines basically all have the same teachings…and those not in communion with Rome…the only difference is their communion with the Pope.
No, they do not ‘basically all have the same teachings.’ There are a lot of major differences, but the papacy, and perhaps the Filiique, is the most significant one. The differences are so big, in fact, that many Byzantine Orthodox even don’t consider the Roman Pontiff as part of the one Christ of Christ. I have in fact discussed with a lot of Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians who claim that the reason the last fourteen of the councils considered ecumenical by the Roman Catholic Church shouldn’t be seen as ecumenical is not, as one would suspect, that it only consisted of part of the Church, but that the Roman Pontiff, and the churches in communion with him, is not part of the one Christ of Christ at all. That tells us that there is a lot more disagreements than ‘being in communion with the Pope.’ Are you suggesting that the only difference between, say, a diocese of the (Byzantine) Russian Orthodox Church and a diocese of the (Byzantine) Russian Greek Catholic Church is that the former has as its leader Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, while the latter has as its leader Pope Francis? Really?
From what I can glean with your posts, Father K…you believe in 7 sacraments, those on here in the USA, believe in only two…as far as I know, all Byzantines believe in 7, whether they are Orthodox or in communion with Rome.
You are approaching this from a (frankly misinformed) practical viewpoint, when the question is actually principal in nature.
First, there are much more to the split between the many Orthodox and Greek Catholic Byzantines than ‘their communion with the Pope.’ But secondly, and most importantly, the differences are of a fundamental nature. Does the Pope have supremacy over the entire Church, or does he not? That is not a minor question.
So again; why is it not a problem for the Byzantine tradition
as such that there are Byzantine churches who are not in communion with each other, while it is a major problem for the Lutheran tradition
as such – almost a proof of its invalidity – that there are Lutheran churches who are not in communion with each other?
This is NOT a numbers game. This is a principal question which demands a principled answer.
Even if one is only using the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism, the greatest number of sacraments one can come to is 3.
Says who? Where in either of these confessions does it say that there is only three sacraments? My point, which it seems that I have to hammer through repeatedly, is that you need to look at each Church, or each communion of churches, in turn. The Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism is only part of my Church’s confessional documents, namely the ‘Lutheran parts.’ You also have to take a look at liturgies, Canon Law, episcopal ordinances and orders, etc.
Now, one could say that the documents don’t reference it because the number of sacraments wasn’t in dispute. However, this wouldn’t be consistent with the writings of the Lutheran Reformers as a number of them repudiate the numbering of the sacraments used by Rome. In addition, the fact that they do include some sacraments and not others indicates that was what they thought the number of sacraments were.
You should always do your home work before making claims. The fact is that if we actually see at the history of my Church – the Church of Norway – we see that the emphasis has been on all seven, even though the word ‘sacrament’ has not been used directly in all rituals and ordinals. But there is a fact that in one of our matrimonial ordinals (from 1685, in use until approximately 1889) marriage is called a sacrament: “…and in there [Holy Matrimony] signified your beloved Son’s Jesus Christ and the Holy Church’s, his bride’s sacrament…” (“…og der i betegnet din kiere Søns Jesu Christi og den hellige Kirkis, hans Bruds Sacramente…”)*
Now, there were no doctrinal change in the Church of Norway in 1889 (where the change was made, in the ordinal, from ‘sacrament’ to ‘union’), so the Church of Norway actually do teach that marriage is a sacrament. The same with confirmation, where baptism is confirmed, with Holy Orders, which in Lutheranism denotes a grace given to the priest, and with extreme unction, where the distinct act is seen as a going back to the grace given in baptism.
And, as I never tire of repeating, Lutheran doctrine, like Byzantine doctrine, needs to be taken an a case by case basis – or better, a Church by Church basis – and it is not based on what the Reformers privately held.
- For this you will unfortunately have to read Norwegian (p.8). But there is a significant Lutheran defence of the sacramentality of holy matrimony. See Wolfhart Pannenberg, , volume 3Systematic Theology (Eearman 1998): 336-369 (‘The Ambivalence of the Word “Sacrament” and the Special Case of Marriage’).
That was not what I said. If it is a problem for me that I am not in communion with someone from WELS, that it is an equal problem for a Byzantine in communion with Rome that he is not in communion with a person in the Russian Orthodox Church.