What is keeping Orthodox and Lutherans from unifying?

[JonNC]

And yet the Catholic Church has united with Protestants who it explicitly doesn’t believe have Holy Orders quite recently (as have we Orthodox).

If there is any doubt about Holy Orders they are easy enough to bestow in the face of unity. All you need is a bishop.

Nine_Two, which protestant group did Orthodoxy recently unite with? Just curious.

Jon

 

[Memaw]

Well, it can’t mean “everything”, because there are some groups that the Catholic Church recognizes as having valid orders, but they are not in communion with. Which brings me back to my original point; mutual rejection of the pope’s claim to universal jurisdiction is not enough to bring about unity between Lutherans and Orthodoxy. There are other issues.

I think Nine_Two’s point would be that for union to be the case, the assumption is that agreed-upon valid orders has taken place, or would.

Jon

Well of course there are other issues. but the main one is Apostolic succession, without that there can be no Unity. The Orthodox have that so true unity with them would be much easier than with Protestants. The Papacy was instituted by Jesus Christ and will be with the Catholic Church until the end of time. No getting around that. God Bless, Memaw

 

[JonNC]

Well of course there are other issues. but the main one is Apostolic succession, without that there can be no Unity. The Orthodox have that so true unity with them would be much easier than with Protestants. The Papacy was instituted by Jesus Christ and will be with the Catholic Church until the end of time. No getting around that. God Bless, Memaw

Aside from the Catholic view of valid orders, a bit over a decade ago, the ELCA and TEC, under a document called, “Call to Common Mission”, instituted full altar and pulpit fellowship. For that to happen, the ELCA had to accept succession through TEC’s Anglican lines. This was done without any problem.
Orders is probably one of the easier issues to solve.

Jon

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two, which protestant group did Orthodoxy recently unite with? Just curious.

Jon

Not all that recent, but the Evangelical Orthodox Church.

 

[AveChriste11]

I’m thinking the Orthodox would find any trace of Augustinian or Anselm’s theology within Lutheranism objectionable. I don’t know how far the Lutherans go, compared to Catholics when it comes to substitutionary atonement, carrying the “guilt” of Adam and Eve, etc. but the Orthodox look at the Gospel message in a much more unique way than many Western Christians might be accustomed to.

At the same time, I’m not even certain the Catholic Church really is that objectionable as some claim her to be. Or how misunderstood the atonement, and Augustine’s understanding of original sin (compared to the Greeks), etc. actually is.

 

[JonNC]

I’m thinking the Orthodox would find any trace of Augustinian or Anselm’s theology within Lutheranism objectionable. I don’t know how far the Lutherans go, compared to Catholics when it comes to substitutionary atonement, carrying the “guilt” of Adam and Eve, etc. but the Orthodox look at the Gospel message in a much more unique way than many Western Christians might be accustomed to.

At the same time, I’m not even certain the Catholic Church really is that objectionable as some claim her to be. Or how misunderstood the atonement, and Augustine’s understanding of original sin (compared to the Greeks), etc. actually is.

I actually think you are quite right in paragraph 1. Maybe Nine_two could respond.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Everything, if your a Catholic. God Bless Memaw

Just curious if a comma is supposed to be after “God Bless” followed by Memaw?

I don’t think you are blessing yourself repeatedly!? Right?

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m thinking the Orthodox would find any trace of Augustinian or Anselm’s theology within Lutheranism objectionable. I don’t know how far the Lutherans go, compared to Catholics when it comes to substitutionary atonement, carrying the “guilt” of Adam and Eve, etc. but the Orthodox look at the Gospel message in a much more unique way than many Western Christians might be accustomed to.

At the same time, I’m not even certain the Catholic Church really is that objectionable as some claim her to be. Or how misunderstood the atonement, and Augustine’s understanding of original sin (compared to the Greeks), etc. actually is.

I don’t have a very good understanding of modern Lutheran theology, so I can’t answer this as well as others might be able to. I don’t think Augustinian theology would be a big issue - we’ve never anathematized him and we do consider him a saint, and atonement theology, though not used much in the modern East, is not itself objectionable, St. John Chrysostom himself wrote about it. It only becomes objectionable when used exclusively.

I think the biggest issues would be the five sola’s, and the rejection of the priesthood.

But the eastern vs. western view would certainly be a hurdle.

 

[Khalid]

It would really be nice if you would stop putting words in my mouth. And I do believe Jon is big enough to defend himself without your insults. Like I said before, to know something and to believe it are two different things. When Jesus told the crowd that He was going to give them His Body and Blood; Eat MY Flesh and drink MY Blood, MY flesh is Food indeed, MY Blood is Drink indeed. Most of them walked away saying ‘This is a hard saying, who can believe it.’ And Jesus let them go. He didn’t change a thing. But he turned to His Apostles and ask, “Would you leave ME too?” and Peter said, “To whom would we go LORD, YOU have the Words of Eternal life.” That is what I meant when I said if you truly believed it you couldn’t walk away from the Holy Eucharist.God Bless, Memaw

You are being hard-headed, putting words in other poster’s mouths (JonNC most certainly understands transubstantiation and the real presence, but he is not a Catholic, if I may speak on his behalf, because he believes he has the real presence in the Lutheran church: he believes he has the Holy Eucharist and the real presence so feels no need to seek it in the Catholic Church), and repeating yourself ad nauseam.

He agrees on the real presence, as does everyone I’ve seen so far in this thread that’s mentioned it. You are stuck on the term “transubstantiation”, not what’s effected by the words of institution, nor the actual process or event. For example, the Catholic Church believes the Orthodox Church have a real Eucharist, and understand the real presence - but many Orthodox vehemently reject the idea of transubstantiation or metousiosis, contenting themselves instead with the idea expressed by John Damascene which was quoted earlier.

 

[Khalid]

Everything, if your a Catholic. God Bless Memaw

Why? The Catholic Church could give the group valid Holy Orders if everything else was in order, just as the Orthodox Church could, and has, with the “Evangelical Orthodox Church” (received in to communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church). If they’re orthodox, we can give them orders and apostolic succession. If they have orders and apostolic succession (I imagine at least a few of the Old Catholics still do) but are not orthodox, we can’t give them orthodoxy by the laying on of hands.

 

[Memaw]

Just curious if a comma is supposed to be after “God Bless” followed by Memaw?

I don’t think you are blessing yourself repeatedly!? Right?

Look back on some of my previous posts and you might get the idea. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Why? The Catholic Church could give the group valid Holy Orders if everything else was in order, just as the Orthodox Church could, and has, with the “Evangelical Orthodox Church” (received in to communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church). If they’re orthodox, we can give them orders and apostolic succession. If they have orders and apostolic succession (I imagine at least a few of the Old Catholics still do) but are not orthodox, we can’t give them orthodoxy by the laying on of hands.

It took about 2 years for the Anglicans to study the Catholic Faith and they had to profess that they believe everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches before they could come into the faith. And their ministers had to study for the Catholic priesthood and be ordained by a Catholic Bishop. God Bless, Memaw

 

[cath4alltime]

Like I said several times, to “know” something and to “believe” something are two different things. And I never once used the word “condemned.” God Bless. Memaw

No, but you did imply that. It was the West who left in 1054

 

[Memaw]

No, but you did imply that. It was the West who left in 1054

No I didn’t, that’s a strong word to be putting into someone else’s mouth. Your thoughts not mine. What’s your problem?? I may disagree with someone but I NEVER condemn them. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

You are being hard-headed, putting words in other poster’s mouths (JonNC most certainly understands transubstantiation and the real presence, but he is not a Catholic, if I may speak on his behalf, because he believes he has the real presence in the Lutheran church: he believes he has the Holy Eucharist and the real presence so feels no need to seek it in the Catholic Church), and repeating yourself ad nauseam.

He agrees on the real presence, as does everyone I’ve seen so far in this thread that’s mentioned it. You are stuck on the term “transubstantiation”, not what’s effected by the words of institution, nor the actual process or event. For example, the Catholic Church believes the Orthodox Church have a real Eucharist, and understand the real presence - but many Orthodox vehemently reject the idea of transubstantiation or metousiosis, contenting themselves instead with the idea expressed by John Damascene which was quoted earlier.

Actually, I’m “stuck” on Apostolic Succession and the Teachings of the Catholic Church. I could believe with all my heart that the moon is made of green cheese too but that doesn’t make it so. God Bless, Memaw.

 

[Symphorian]

It took about 2 years for the Anglicans to study the Catholic Faith and they had to profess that they believe everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches before they could come into the faith. And their ministers had to study for the Catholic priesthood and be ordained by a Catholic Bishop. God Bless, Memaw

That doesn’t seem to have been the case with the English Ordinariate who’s members were fast tracked through a 40 day period of preparation before being received into full Communion.

 

[Memaw]

That doesn’t seem to have been the case with the English Ordinariate who’s members were fast tracked through a 40 day period of preparation before being received into full Communion.

Show us some facts. I haven’t heard of that.God Bless, Memaw

 

[KP3243]

That doesn’t seem to have been the case with the English Ordinariate who’s members were fast tracked through a 40 day period of preparation before being received into full Communion.

What Ordinatiate, Chair of Saint Peter, Walsingham, Our Lady of the Southern Cross?

 

[fallow_spirit]

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.

You misinterpreted my post. I wasn’t trying to say I disagree with the papacy, personally I agree with the Catholic view on the matter. I was just pointing out that disagreement about the papal office is the main reason why Orthodox and Lutherans have not reunited with Rome. Though I admit, my post probably wasn’t worded in the best possible way so I see where the confusion might have come into play.

 

[Khalid]

No, but you did imply that. It was the West who left in 1054

Then why are you in the Western church? The story may be apocryphal, but, even if so, is too typical to resist. At one of the Anglican synods (that of Lambeth?), in the late 19th century around the time that Papal Infallibility was made a dogma, the Anglicans invited Orthodox to the synod, and one of the Anglican bishops asked the Orthodox priest or bishop, “What must we do to rid our church of all of the negative and unforeseen effects of Protestantism?”, to which the Orthodox replied, “To get rid of your Protestantism, you must first get rid of your Romanism”, the last thing the Anglican was expecting. But it is true that Protestants and Catholics share the same Latin theology, and disagree only on its interpretation, whereas the framework itself is not shared by Orthodox, which makes nonsense if Eastern interpretations are jammed in to a Latin (i.e. Augustinian) framework (cf. Augustine in Orthodoxy).