Wittenberger
New Member
Great post, Wittenberger--this is something that I've thought and wondered about as well.
It does seem very unlikely, but with God all things are possible.
And within the 'orthodox' and within the 'evangelicals' there are divisions as well. Of course, I've know of confessional Lutherans who've preferred the term 'Evangelical'.
That's probably a safe bet.
Good question. It would be hard to see how, since the latter have abandoned the historic episcopate (and so have many Lutherans for that matter).
.
Many in the Reformed camp would argue that they don't believe in a 'symbolic baptism or communion' at least in the Zwinglian sense, and many in the same camp would also bristle at rock-concert style worship services. However, it does seem to be the trend among Neo-Evangelicals to do the whole seeker-friendly service thing, complete with smoke, rock music, power point presentations, theatre style seats, and Starbucks coffee.
There are however Evangelicals who do consider Church history and the early patristic consensus important in establishing doctrine (Thomas Oden and D H Williams come to mind)--they just need to be more consistent in their application of this principle. :smilewinkgrin:
Not as easy as you would think. There's the whole Papal infallibility and supremacy thing along with the Filioque. There are some other issues as well, but these are the biggies. I could see the latter being resolved more easily (ie dropping the Filioque altogehter or changing it to "THROUGH the Son"), but the issues regarding the papacy would be much more complicated to resolve to the satisfaction of both--I think the RCC would have to do a lot of creative backtracking on papal infallibility to satisfy the EOC (and other Christians)
But neither the RCC or the EOC agree with justification 'sola fide', strictly speaking, particularly given James 2. I think that perhaps the relevent Anglican Articles and Homilies on Justification can provide a common ground to come up with a well-orbed statement on Justification that carefully considers both St. Paul's and St. Jame's concerns. However, I do know that there has already been a joint statment of sorts on justification by the RCC-Lutherans if I'm not mistaken.
I DO think it's important for all sides to agree that the MERITORIOUS GROUND of our justication is Christ's work alone and that we receive this by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
I also am all for giving Our Lady the proper respect, but some of the prayers or statements I've read about her in both the EOC and the RCC are somewhat scary in that they seem to dangerously blur the distinction between her role and the unique role of her SON (the Akathist hymn comes to mind).
I believe this is important to agree upon.
This is more or less true I'd suspect.
True, but before this takes place, the different groups would have to be in communion with each other again first (which would involve ironing out the differences listed above) in order to have a truly Church wide council. The RCC and the other 'orthodox' groups would have to agree on the role of the papacy. The East and West would have to agree on 'the Filioque'. The RCC/EOC would have to agree with the Lutherans and Anglicans about justification. And the Copts and other Oriental Orthodox communions would have to accept the teaching of councils 3-7 (if not the exact wording)
Western Christians should drop the Filioque. It is an addition to the original Nicene Creed. That would be a western compromise to bring the EOC into the reunified Church.