Posted on 04/24/2008 2:55:06 AM PDT by markomalley
One such thing would be to simply note that the late dogmas are a product of councils that did not include the Orthodox, and therefore are local Latin beliefs, consistent with Orthodoxy but not detailed with such precision by it. I wouldn't even call it concession.
The Orthodox, on the other hand, would be well advised to note that the body of scholastic thought produced in the West, -- I am talking of the procession of the Holy Ghost, original sin, limbo, venial/mortal sin distinctions, -- is not strictly speaking dogmatic, and can be assessed critically by the Orthodox in light of their own theological tradition.
That would depend on what needs to be decided, wouldn't it?
A council of local Bishops is all that is needed to deal with local issues.
Questions that concern the entire Church and that have not previously been answered by the Seven Ecumenical Councils would require an Ecumenical Council comprised of the 5 ancient Patriarchates at the very least.
Luther never wanted to split from the Catholic Church or create his own denomination. Our liturgy is essentially the same the as the Catholic liturgy, so are our hymns. We also believe in the real presence (though not transubstantiation - we leave it more open than that, as the presence of Christ "in, with, and under" the bread and wine - without specifying in what manner). However, we have only two Sacraments - those with visible, outward signs - Baptism and Communion.
I think Lutherans would come back into the fold before any of the other Protestant denominations because as you have noticed, some of them are completely out there and reject any and all trappings of the Church or the Sacraments.
Christians need unity, and I believe that means a single head of the Church, too, in some fashion, to speak for "Christendom". I think that it is effective to have such a figurehead (though as I said, I see a downside to it, as well). But one thing that "shames us" in front of the world, is our disunity. I'm just not sure how the Christian world would ever achieve such unity.
those with visible, outward signs - Baptism and Communion
But you have marriages and confessions, do you not? On the other hand, annointment of the sick and confirmation are with the visible signs, and marriage has a physical sign as well, even though it is usually done in private...
As to the Sacraments, we see Baptism as having the visible sign of the water, and Communion has the visible sign of the bread and wine. Confession is not a sacrament because there is no visible sign. Marriage...well, okay, maybe you have a point...but that part doesn't happen in the Church...
I don't know if we have anointing of the sick, but if we do, I don't believe it's considered a sacrament.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.