What is keeping Orthodox and Lutherans from unifying?

[SPH1]

I have no problem with their terminology. As I said, I don’t believe our views concerning the Eucharist are dramatically different. In fact, I think all of us westerners would do well to heed John of Damascus’ quote: “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit.”

Amen.

Jon

But your views, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox, ARE dramatically different from that of the Catholic Church?

 

[dvdjs]

I’m concerned about this statement, in that it seems to minimize Orthodox belief, implying they only reject Transubstantiation for argument’s sake (unless I misunderstood). If we go down that road, one could say that, since the use of the term Transubstantiation is a later innovation, it is Rome that fans the flames.
I don’t believe either to be the case, as I believe both communions to be sincere in their beliefs.

From decree 17 of the Confession of Dositheus, Synod of Jerusalem 1672

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. … He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord,…; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

 

[JonNC]

But your views, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox, ARE dramatically different from that of the Catholic Church?

I can’t speak for Orthodoxy, nor am I speaking for other Lutherans, but recent dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics indicate there is not a dramatic difference, even though the way we express the real presence differs.

Eucharistic Presence

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

**The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. **The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Bolding mine.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

 

[KP3243]

I don’t remember which radio program I was listening to but, they were talking about how right after Pope Benedict allowed the Anglicans back into the church by creating the Personal Ordinarate of the Chair of Saint Peter and creating an Anglican rite, a group of Lutherans wanted to be back in communion with Rome and the radio host said that the Pope wasn’t ready to go there yet but he never expanded on it anyone know why?

 

[JonNC]

I don’t remember which radio program I was listening to but, they were talking about how right after Pope Benedict allowed the Anglicans back into the church by creating the Personal Ordinarate of the Chair of Saint Peter and creating an Anglican rite, a group of Lutherans wanted to be back in communion with Rome and the radio host said that the Pope wasn’t ready to go there yet but he never expanded on it anyone know why?

You are probably thinking of the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church. I don’t know what their current status is, but I know they had petitioned Rome.

Jon

 

[Memaw]

I’m concerned about this statement, in that it seems to minimize Orthodox belief, implying they only reject Transubstantiation for argument’s sake (unless I misunderstood). If we go down that road, one could say that, since the use of the term Transubstantiation is a later innovation, it is Rome that fans the flames.
I don’t believe either to be the case, as I believe both communions to be sincere in their beliefs.

Jon

One may be very sincere in their beliefs but sincerely wrong. The term “Transubstantiation” simply means what the Catholic Church has always believed about what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper. We believe HE truly meant what HE said. This IS MY BODY, this IS MY BLOOD. Eat MY FLESH and Drink MY BLOOD, and HE made it possible for us to do so in the action of Transubstantiation. Read the 6th chapter of John and the Acts of the Apostles. And a priest needs the Sacrament of Holy Orders to be able to change the bread and wine into the BODY and BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST. Study up on Eucharistic Miracles, that only happens to the validly consecrated Body and Blood of Our Lord! God Bless, Memaw

 

[JonNC]

=Memaw;11158960]One may be very sincere in their beliefs but sincerely wrong. ,

I understand that. I was concerned that the comment might mean the poster didn’t think the Orthodox were sincere. At least that was how it sounded, without questioning the poster’s motives.

The term “Transubstantiation” simply means what the Catholic Church has always believed about what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper. We believe HE truly meant what HE said. This IS MY BODY, this IS MY BLOOD. Eat MY FLESH and Drink MY BLOOD

We don’t use the term or construct of Transubstantiation, but on this we absolutely agree.

and HE made it possible for us to do so in the action of Transubstantiation.

He may have done it that way. We have no way of knowing, since Christ does not go into details on how the mystery is accomplished.

Read the 6th chapter of John and the Acts of the Apostles.

No mention of substances and accidents in either.

And a priest needs the Sacrament of Holy Orders to be able to change the bread and wine into the BODY and BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST.

As ours have been rightly called and ordained.

Study up on Eucharistic Miracles, that only happens to the validly consecrated Body and Blood of Our Lord!

Every Eucharist is a miracle. I witnessed it this morning

God Bless,

His blessings also with you,
Jon

 

[Memaw]

I understand that. I was concerned that the comment might mean the poster didn’t think the Orthodox were sincere. At least that was how it sounded, without questioning the poster’s motives.

We don’t use the term or construct of Transubstantiation, but on this we absolutely agree.

He may have done it that way. We have no way of knowing, since Christ does not go into details on how the mystery is accomplished.

No mention of substances and accidents in either.

As ours have been rightly called and ordained.

Every Eucharist is a miracle. I witnessed it this morning

His blessings also with you,
Jon

I would suggest you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Its very clear you have no idea what the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches about the Holy Eucharist, and has believed and taught ever since Jesus Christ instituted it at the Last Supper.God Bless, Memaw

 

[fallow_spirit]

the Pope

technically is Satan that is always trying to keep the Church divided but the papal institution is the main doctrine that keeps the Orthodox and Lutherans away from Catholicism

 

[JonNC]

I would suggest you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Its very clear you have no idea what the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches about the Holy Eucharist, and has believed and taught ever since Jesus Christ instituted it at the Last Supper.God Bless, Memaw

Well, that was pleasant.

Tell me, Memaw, where did I try to tell you what the Catholic Church teaches?
I think I reserved my comments to describing what we believe.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

I would suggest you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Its very clear you have no idea what the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches about the Holy Eucharist, and has believed and taught ever since Jesus Christ instituted it at the Last Supper.God Bless, Memaw

Frankly, If there’s one non-catholic that understands what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, it would be JonNC.

 

[KP3243]

Quote:
Read the 6th chapter of John and the Acts of the Apostles.
No mention of substances and accidents in either.​

From John 6: 51 on its pretty clear Jesus talking about eating His own flesh, so much so disciples walk away. 1 Corinthians 11:27 is also pretty clear “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” You can’t profane a symbol.

 

[KP3243]

the Pope

technically is Satan that is always trying to keep the Church divided but the papal institution is the main doctrine that keeps the Orthodox and Lutherans away from Catholicism

Why did Jesus quote Isaiah 22 in Matthew 16:18 - 19? What’s happening here? Well, in verse Isaiah 22: 19 it says, “I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.”

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It’s a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

Now, what is going on here? I’ll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like Margaret Thatcher is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that’s why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David.

Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I’ll read the quote. In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel." In other words, the Prime Minister’s office. It’s why Catholics call the papacy the Petrine Ministry.

 

[JonNC]

Quote:
Read the 6th chapter of John and the Acts of the Apostles.
No mention of substances and accidents in either.​

From John 6: 51 on its pretty clear Jesus talking about eating His own flesh, so much so disciples walk away. 1 Corinthians 11:27 is also pretty clear “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” You can’t profane a symbol.

Well, of course He is talking about eating His own flesh. Who is talking about a symbol here? He says, “Take and eat, this IS my body.” And so it is. I was a communion assistant this morning, taking the chalice to those communing. The words we are to use are, “Take and drink. This is the true blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.” We receive His true body and blood not just by faith, but also orally by the mouth. I don’t need a metaphysical construct to know that I am receiving and eating and drinking His true and substantial body and blood.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

the Pope

technically is Satan that is always trying to keep the Church divided but the papal institution is the main doctrine that keeps the Orthodox and Lutherans away from Catholicism

It is not the papal institution, per se. It is the belief that the pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Let’s also remember that there are other issues, as well.

Jon

 

[KP3243]

Well, of course He is talking about eating His own flesh. Who is talking about a symbol here? He says, “Take and eat, this IS my body.” And so it is. I was a communion assistant this morning, taking the chalice to those communing. The words we are to use are, “Take and drink. This is the true blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.” We receive His true body and blood not just by faith, but also orally by the mouth. I don’t need a metaphysical construct to know that I am receiving and eating and drinking His true and substantial body and blood.

Jon

I am not sure I understand, during the consecration, I am not thinking oh this is transubstation, So we agree on what is happening.

 

[concretecamper]

Well, of course He is talking about eating His own flesh. Who is talking about a symbol here? He says, “Take and eat, this IS my body.” And so it is. I was a communion assistant this morning, taking the chalice to those communing. The words we are to use are, “Take and drink. This is the true blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.” We receive His true body and blood not just by faith, but also orally by the mouth. I don’t need a metaphysical construct to know that I am receiving and eating and drinking His true and substantial body and blood.

Jon

Since Trent was the official response to the reformation, and Traditions normally get clarified in writing during councils, is it possilbe that the Church’s definition using transubstantiation was because Luther somehow diminished the Real Presense? If there was no heresy …the council would not have addressed it?

 

[StevenFrancis]

There have been a few threads about Papal supremecy and jurisdiction. The Lutheran and Orthodox contingents are untied on this issue. So…what is keeping the Orthodox and Lutheran from uniting? Is it because the roots of Lutherism is from Rome? From reading some very good posts, it appears there is VERY little differences?

While I am not EO, I WAS a Lutheran growing up. I ended up as Catholic (after a long journey through Buddhism and the “new age” movement that’s not really applicable to the thread). I am actually pretty optimistic about reconciliation between the RCC and the EO. Possibly in my lifetime, (I’m 56). We are separated by very little in the grand scheme of things. But for reconciliation with the Lutherans, there would be a good deal of ground to cover. The issues between the EO and the Lutherans it seems to me would be about the same as between the RCC and the Lutherans. Neither of you agree with the RCC about the primacy of Peter among the apostles, as the first among equals. This is true. But, like the RCC, the EO has full apostolic succession. A valid priesthood. Valid bishops. Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation. Veneration of Mary as Theotokos. Seven Sacraments instituted by Jesus. Real presence in the tabernacle. The divine liturgy. Those are the obvious things that stand out to me. I haven’t studied this that much though. There are probably others.

There are a couple things which have been ironed out between Lutherans and the RCC/EO however. I don’t want to sound pessimistic. The agreements on justification was HUGE. We had all been saying the same thing in different ways, but it was one of the “solas”!!! God can do anything, and I don’t doubt that He will. It’s hard to imagine that a fragmented Christian Church (body of Christ) is the will of God.

I was amazed at the establishment recently in the RCC of an Anglican ordinariate for Anglicans who have realized the importance of unity, while retaining their own liturgical rite from the Common Book of Prayer. I can see perhaps other movements like this taking place as time moves on, and we get closer to our common eschatology.

May God bless us richly with ability to become One Holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church as all of us proclaim in our creed.

Yours in Christ,

Steve

 

[KP3243]

It is not the papal institution, per se. It is the belief that the pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Let’s also remember that there are other issues, as well.

Jon

I assume because the Church doesn’t honor Constantine as a Saint and the Orthodox do it is also a problem.

 

[JonNC]

I am not sure I understand, during the consecration, I am not thinking oh this is transubstation, So we agree on what is happening.

Ok. And I’m not thinking this is Sacramental Union. So, yes, we agree.

Jon