As usual, your ecumenicism and defense of Orthodoxy is perfectly balanced, Kosta. I enjoy your posts on these subjects, as they can be quite sensitive.
I only would like to add to your above comment - which I agree with. "What consists in communion"? We both agree it is an expression of unity - Latins deny Protestants but allow Orthodox. I wonder what is the "guideline" for each of our churches that determines my question? Apparently, the Latins are more open/more lax - however you want to look at it. But at what point do we draw the line? What doctrines or disciplines make this determination?
Regards
ping to #8033 for your input.
That is a good question. Going back to the patristic times, as we always do to establish veracity of our beliefs, we see that the Church was not uniform but that it was, nonetheless, Eucharitically united despite such differences as semipelagianism and Augsutinian teachings that reach deep into our understanding of sin.
Things that directly affected Christology or the Holy Trinity, or the Theotokos, were rejected. Anyone who rejected Ecumenical Councils (non-Chalcedonians), taught false Christology as to the Nature and Will of Christ, or denied that Theotokos is the Mother of God (which is the only "dogma" of the Orthodox Church as far as BEV Mary is concerned), was ex-communicated. Anything that was against the Holy Tradition (i.e. the Apostolic Teaching, the Scripture and the Councils) was rejected (i.e. iconoclasty, anabaptism, etc.)
The Protestants have no Apostolic authority since not a single bishop joined Luther's heresy when it was legitimized by the German authorities. Without apostolic lineage and authority through laying of the hands there can be no valid priesthood and no valid sacaraments. It is a man-made "church."