[POLL] Would you rather (1) Orthodox Constantinople (only) OR (2) ALL Lutheran denominations re-unite with the Catholic Church?


Ehhhh … Lutherans hold to the same thing.
The Eucharist really isn’t the issue.

The one-sided primacy/infallability issue, the question of ordination and the surplus Marian dogma are bigger issues than the Real Presence.(and more, but I don’t bother with lengthy posts)

All of those are additions since apostolic times, including celibacy and male-only ordination. So if you think the Lutherans would rejoin the current RCC without major revisions I have to ask ”just what are you smoking?”




I think the Lutheran Confessions respond to concerns about ordination.

Celibacy is a discipline and is not universal amongst those in communion with the pope. And I am not aware of any female ordination during Apostolic times up until the century or so.


I’ve been reading this book among others

As for that, souls and persons are ordained. To separate by gender means a specific set of genitals are more worthy of celebrating mass than another. In essance, your penis is ordained and not you.
(Plz notice that I used polite latinate language. I could have been cued. I chose not to.)


Uhhhh I’m not so sure if this is true. Please explain. Each church is autocephalous.


Ehhhhh not really a “change” as much as a doctrinal emphasis that has, until recent times, been misunderstood (by both sides).


You say so, but an Eastern Orthodox will say the introduction of the filioque was a change. The previous creed read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Even the Bible says so.


Oh, intro to the creed was a change. Whether that was legitimate or not is up for debate.

But whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son” is in fact a change in doctrine is another issue. Many Eastern Christians admit there is no real difference in what the East and West are saying, once properly understood.


Orthodox follow the Bible and follow the original teaching as expressed in the Nicene Creed.


Ah, it’s convenient to simplify it that why. But unfortunately, the history is much more complex. Eastern Christians have said the same thing as the West, and you can find biblical support for both:

“Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb…” Rev. 22:1.

An Eastern Christian, the great Cyril of Alexandria, says:

Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it of essence and proceeding from it. (Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, thesis 34)

Moreover, as the Catechism points out:

The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447 (Quam laudabiliter) even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy between the eighth and eleventh centuries.

So the issue is not the theology, but whether or not it should have been introduced in the creed. That’s another issue.


That is your opinion which is not shared by many others. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.


Catholics agree…

Just not the Father alone.

I just quoted a scriptural verse above that strongly suggests that the HS proceeds from Father and Son. Here it is again:

“Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb…” Rev. 22:1.

But Orthodox and Catholics are not sola scriptura, else there wouldn’t even be the great councils and creeds, anyway.

You really ought to look into the development in dialogue between East and West on this matter.

Even, for sake of argument, the doctrine is different in the West and East, one could make an argument that this difference is not a matter to separate over. Rather, our ancestors in the Faith made it a big issue, often because both sides were full of pride and trying to point out ANY difference as heretical – like shaved priests, or unleavened bread at Mass (but these issues have since been put aside). I think the same will be done with the Filioque. It makes no real significance for the typical Christian’s life, anyway. It’s highly technical.


You are quoting from the Book of Revelation, which many people do not take literally. For example, according to the Book of Revelation, there are horses in heaven. Do you believe that there are horses in heaven ? Revelation 6:2-8; 19:11


And the thread is officially hijacked… :roll_eyes:


All are in communion with each other. If Constantinople reunites, they all do. If Moscow refuses to reunite, none do. There will be no severing of the communion. This is Orthodoxy’s greatest strength.

The Pope recognizes this strength, and would not allow the orthodox communion to be undone. The institutional Roman Catholic Church, and each Eastern Catholic Church, would have to ask and be getting granted readmission to Communion, and the each Orthodox Patriarch would, in turn, have to pledge fidelity to the Pope in his role as as the Vicar of Christ.


The individual autocephalous churches of the Orthodox communion are continually going into and out of communion with one another, and historically they’ve done so with Rome as well. There are even cases of the various particular churches not agreeing on who is and who isn’t in the communion! Your impression of Eastern Orthodoxy bears no resemblance to reality.


I remember a few years ago when Antioch severed communion with Jerusalem. Not just some obscure eparchy but the whole patriarchate was no longer in communion with another patriarchate. And all the while both were still in communion with Constantinople!


The filioque

Filioque is literally a meme issue. Proceeds from the Father and the Son means the same as Father through the Son in Latin. This is why it isn’t heretical in Latin but is in Greek. The Church Fathers even back this up. The meaning of the creed isn’t changed.
St. Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).


Ehhhh … Lutherans hold to the same thing.
The Eucharist really isn’t the issue.

I just wanted to post a meme

The one-sided primacy/infallability issue

Church Fathers
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

the question of ordination

What questions for clarification

surplus Marian dogma

what dogmas


Only in the Latin Rite. Eastern Priests can marry pre ordination.

male-only ordination

muh church fathers
Firmilian, in Epistle 75. 1-5 to Cyprian, tells of a woman who went into an ecstasy and came out a prophetess. “That woman who first through marvels or deceptions of the demons did many things to deceive the faithful, among other things… she dared to do this, namely that by an impressive invocation she feigned she was sanctifying bread, and offering a sacrifice to the Lord.”


Of course Revelation is not straightforward history or description of theology. But what else do you think these things refer to:

  • River of the water of life
  • throne of God
  • the Lamb

“Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb…” Rev. 22:1


By far the reunification of the Latin west and Greek east. We basically have the same beliefs and they still have valid apostolic succession! Actually a catholic can receive their sacraments if they are in an area that there aren’t any Catholic priests around and it is totally licit!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.