|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In the bread or in the eating?
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo: quote:
To choose one belief is to deny that holding the opposite belief brings the believer closer to God. God is omnipotent, God can cause any belief to bring the believer closer to God, therefore there is no reason to choose any belief.
My point entirely, I have chosen no dogmatic belief w.r.t the Eucharist.
Have you chosen "dogmatic" belief in anything? If you do, I would like to ask how your faith evades the inescapable logic you advance against eucharistic theology?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Though the technique/philosophy/understanding of the Eucharist may well be of supreme importance to orthodox christians as important as sex is to marriage. Don't you think that communion between the whole church is what Christ wanted?
Yes, of course. The question is, of course, who, or what, is the Church? For us, the Church means the Orthodox Church. The Anglican Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Baptist Church, isn't the Church, or part of the Church, or a denomination within the Church. None of those things are possible for us.
quote:
Incidentally, I don't believe it's less important to me than it is to you.
Nor do I. But I do think it means something different to you. Not something less important, but something different.
quote:
Conversing here with orthodox christians, it's obvious that the orthodox church has much to recommend it. But I get an underlying current of 'the orthodox do this' or 'the orthodox do that' and it feels like I'm not talking to a person with opinions of their own, who is evaluating what I'm saying and is prepared to modify their position.
I'm *not* prepared to modify my position on anything on which the Church has ruled. That's part of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian; I accept the Church's teachings. It's not offered on a cafeteria plan -- you take the whole thing, or none at all.
But there are many things on which the Church has NOT ruled, areas where there is wide diversity among Orthodox Christians. Like, exactly what happens after you die? Bring that up in a group of Orthodox, and you'll get *lots* of opinions! Or whether taxes should be more or less, or how schools ought to go about teaching reading, or whether Christians should vote.
But wrt the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Sacraments, the Theotokos, you won't get a wide range of opinion.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
quote:
Firstly, that hierarchy within the church is a problem because it can steer the church away from unity and rebukes those who dare to be different, however well thought out their opinions. I now believe more strongly than ever in the priesthood of all believers.
Secondly, that a strong belief in 'tradition' within a denomination is untrustworthy. Tradition leads to entrenchment. It's rather like people saying that Shakespere is the greatest playwright ever, even if another, better, playwright comes along, opinion will never recognise her because everybody knows that Shakespere is the best!
Thirdly, that a denomination should never believe itself to be the church.
I am afraid none of this reflects our position at all although it certainly represents your response to certain understandings that we do not share. Allow me to explain ...
This has absolutely nothing to do with hierarchy. Orthodox Christians do not intercommune because a hierarch, priest, whatever tells them not to, but because so to do ... short of organic unity ... would compromise OUR understanding of the Church ... clergy and lay people together. NONE of our congregation would commune in, say, an Anglican Church NOT because I have told them not to but because they affirm a position where they freely choose not to. You would have to speak to some Orthodox people to confirm that ... but it is true.
Tradition is not historical subservience to the forms of the past as best ... because they are "past" ... as I said ... it is all though things I mentioned before which together stretch from the past to the present and from thence unto the future all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ... Scripture as the normative core, patristics, councils, creeds, saints, art etc. The latest addition to the Tradition stream from the see of Antioch has been the newly glorified Saint Rafael (Haweeny) of Brooklyn ... an Antiochian bishop who did much to unite and provide a common vision for Orthodox mission in America. No one says ... "Oh ... St. Rafael was better than St. Seraphim of Sarov or not as significant as St. Symeon the New Theologian." Each has his or her won place. We love them all.
True ... a denomination should not consider itself to be the true Church. A denomination is a fragment named (nomine - Latin) after its founder of founding principles. No one before the 19th century used the word denomination or had an ecclesiological position represented by that term. I know many here can't accept this but the word "denomination" cannot be used of any Church who by its continuous historical lineage in faith and life originates from Pentecost. Denominations seek to continuous with the early Church spiritually but they are not continuous with the early church organically. That matters to us as a criterion of truth-fulness. The only way to remedy that retrospectively is to seek and work for organic union. Until this impasse between the Protestant Churches on the one hand and the Catholic / Orthodox Churches on the other hand is resolved there will be no definitive progress from our point of view on the ecumenical front.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Gregory
We will have to agree to differ. I could say a number of things in answer to this but I'm afraid I'd come up against that old brick wall again.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This has absolutely nothing to do with hierarchy. Orthodox Christians do not intercommune because a hierarch, priest, whatever tells them not to, but because so to do ... short of organic unity ... would compromise OUR understanding of the Church ... clergy and lay people together.
Father Gregory is absolutely right on this point, Bonzo. There is church law that forbids sex outside of marriage, and there is church law that forbids intercommunion. But I don't refrain from sex outside marriage because my priest or bishop said I should, nor do I refrain from intercommunion because my priest or bishop said I should.
I don't *want* to take communion anywhere else.
Please, Bonzo, think about what I've said. From my POV, you're like the Don Juan who thinks that any woman who turns him down must be frigid. Let me assure you, that's *not* the problem.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I have said it before, and I say it again now: I believe that the Orthodox church is in grave error on this issue. However, I respect the right of individual Orthodox to choose to be bound by their own church's teachings and traditions.
Please do not worry about me; I am not hurt or angered by your choice to refuse communion with me and my church. I am saddened, but any injury is yours alone.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
What Scot said. However I also think that Christ himself must be saddened by this.
I long for the day when Christians can have the lattitude to share communion together, but it's evident that it's a way off. Should we not pray for the obstacles to be removed?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I too am sad. I have tried to bring an open and questioning mind to this discussion, and as regards eucharistic theology the discussion is far from finished, but time and again 'The Orthodox...' whatever - belief, practice, position, understanding, tradition - is invoked and a door slams shut.
There is a grave injury to us all here.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
quote:
Should we not pray for the obstacles to be removed?
Indeed we should ... moreover we should WORK to remove those obstacles. For example ... your church Bonzo will not baptise babies. Mine must. Your church emphasises the believer's faith for baptism to mean anything. My church emphasises God's grace and mystical joining. If we are not even agreed on the core of baptism (which makes us members of the Body of Christ) how can we fully share that other sacrament, the Holy Eucharist where the Body receives the Body?
There are many many other examples .... suffice it to say that for the Orthodox obstacles of incompatible beliefs and practices must be removed first or else unity is a sham. The Eucharist can only be shared by Christians who are thus united in the Lord ... not onoy by virtue of our common relationship with Christ but also by virtue of what we do in our churches to express and celebrate that unity.
If this is a brick wall then I suggest we need to meet on another groundf where our irreconcilable positions can be looked at in a fresh way. Communion is the last piece to fall into place for us ... not the first.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
[QB][...The question is, of course, who, or what, is the Church? For us, the Church means the Orthodox Church. The Anglican Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Baptist Church, isn't the Church, or part of the Church, or a denomination within the Church. None of those things are possible for us.
QB]
If I understand this correctly, then it really makes me sad. Because there is no room to even discuss intercommunion, no room for mutual recognition as members of Christ one with another.
Oh well. As Fr. Gregory suggested, it's on to another topic, I guess.
(sigh)
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo, Scot, Hatless and Lou,
I posted this earlier and got no reply:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo: quote:
Originally posted by me:
To choose one belief is to deny that holding the opposite belief brings the believer closer to God. God is omnipotent, God can cause any belief to bring the believer closer to God, therefore there is no reason to choose any belief.
My point entirely, I have chosen no dogmatic belief w.r.t the Eucharist.
Have you chosen "dogmatic" belief in anything? If you do, I would like to ask how your faith evades the inescapable logic you advance against eucharistic theology?
If you could explain to us how your beliefs aren't inconsistent with the above, then maybe RC/O would be better able explain their beliefs to you.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Dear Ley Druid,
I'm not sure I understand your post properly.
Dogmatic is a dirty word for me. My beliefs, such as they are, are my attempt to make sense of things. They are provisional, have changed and will change.
My private reflection on this thread and various people's attempts to understand each other and explain ourselves, is that it is good to sit light to dogma*. The Orthodox retreat into 'it's a mystery,' is one of the aspects of Orthodoxy I like. I don't know quite how Christ is present in the Eucharist, and I don't really care, and I think it is unhelpful to speculate too much about it. 'When does the bread become Christ's body?' for instance, is a question we should not answer. It will only lead us into foolishness.
In my church we do the 'Do this,' and don't have a settled view of exactly what we are doing or how it works. I expect some people think it's all about the bread changing, and some think it's just a memorial. Most of the time most of us don't think about it at all, we just do it, and that seems good. I think this is healthy. We should not have dogmatic beliefs, we really don't need them. A fluid consensus based on custom works pretty well.
I suspect dogma. I think it is there to keep others out, or to bolster the power of an abusive structure, or to safeguard the positions of the clergy.
(Incidentally, I hope you're not going to suggest that my desire to avoid dogma is itself a dogmatic belief. Cos it ain't.)
* perhaps we should set light to dogma.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Dear Ley Druid,
I really have nothing to add to hatless's answer. All beliefs are provisional for me too. I express them in levels of certainty which never reach 100%. The thing I'm doggedly determined not to do is to sign up to any dogmatic belief.
Bonzo
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fuzzy old Gamaliel would like to share some personal experience here which may, or may not, be helpful. I'm intrigued by Josephine's comparison between eucharistic fidelity and sexual fidelity within marriage. I like that. I can see how this works.
Now then. Am I eucharistically promiscuous?
I took communion at the Baptist chapel around the corner from my mam's in South Wales on Christmas Eve and then at the parish Eucharist at the Anglican church across the fields on Christmas day. Last summer, visiting my local parish church here in Leeds the vicar was delighted that I'd felt free to approach the communion rail. I occasionally take communion on a Wednesday lunchtime in a parish church near where I work - despite worshipping in a Baptist church on Sundays.
This would only be reprehensible if my ecclesiology was such that I felt myself to be committing spiritual adultery. I'm still broadly evangelical and belong to a church that practices believer's baptism. Yet I have no problem having communion with non-evangelicals and paedobaptists.
Some people would probably find this shocking. Or more likely feel that I've set myself up as my own Pope and do what I like.
Now then ... and I'm coming to my main point ... I used to have a problem with RCs and Orthodox not allowing intercommunion until I visited Fr Gregory's church. I was more of a hard-line evangelical then(1998)so my acceptance of my not being allowed to communicate was partly down to Protestant unease with what was the 'Highest' church service I'd ever been in. I was half expecting something to jump out and 'get' me.
Despite all that, something sort of made sense. I didn't feel excluded or affronted. Not to receive meant respecting the integrity of what was going on. And besides, those principled but often cuddly Orthodox do put aside the 'antidoron' for non-Orthodox Christians to eat. And very hospitable this is too. Why don't RC's do that?
I can understand why Bonzo and hatless and the others get vexed at the Orthodox, but tolerant and fluffy soul that I am, I can also understand why the Orthodox take the stance they do. And I respect it. Where it does worry me is when non-Orthodox Christians get a hard time in Orthodox countries. As I've said before, I know of genuine instances of Greek women beaten up and hospitalised by their husbands for converting to evangelical Protestantism. My brother-in-law tells me that some Orthodox Bishop in the Balkans somewhere recently said that evangelicals out to be shot.
Now there are a few I can think of who ought to go before a firing squad ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Now,I'd equally accept that many Orthodox are genuinely ecumenical and eirenic. Often more so than some Protestants.
So ... that may or may not have helped. I'm not upset that I'm not allowed to communicate in an RC or Orthodox Church. At one time I'd have said to the Catholics 'I don't believe in transubstantiation anyway so nah-nah-nah-na-nah you Papists.' I'm not sure what I'd have said to the Orthodox. 'Like your hat,' probably.
I would be upset if I were only allowed to communicate in a Baptist church and couldn't do so in an Anglican or Methodist setting though.
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
You still didn't explain why Catholics willingly share Communion with Orthodox, but not vice versa except in extremis. If you share Eucharistic theology with Rome, why not inter-communion?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Paul
For us it cannot only or simply be a question of us have the same or similar eucharistic theology as Rome. Communion and membership / faith / order / life are a whole package for us. We tend to be a bit more measured because we have a clearer focus on the remaining problems between us and Rome. Rome can afford to be more inclusive because it is numerically and financially stronger in the west and it suits its longer term objective of "getting everyone in" (especially according to this Pope ... being an eastern European ... the Orthodox) to be "open for business" as far as we are concerned. That makes perfect sense for Rome ... less sense for us.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Now then. Am I eucharistically promiscuous?
<snip> This would only be reprehensible if my ecclesiology was such that I felt myself to be committing spiritual adultery.
Exactly, Gamaliel! That's what I've been trying to get across, and failing so miserably at.
I know that many of my friends have sex with people they're not married to, and I don't have a problem with that. But I *would* have a problem if they insisted that I join them in casual sex. We've made different choices, and I expect us all to respect each other.
Respect does NOT include insisting that I have sex with someone other than my husband, to avoid hurting someone's feelings, or to prevent some sort of unspecified injury caused by my refusal. You can't expect me to commit adultery to protect your feelings. And the fact that it would not be adultery for *you* doesn't change the fact that it would be for *me*.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Moving on...
quote:
Where it does worry me is when non-Orthodox Christians get a hard time in Orthodox countries. As I've said before, I know of genuine instances of Greek women beaten up and hospitalised by their husbands for converting to evangelical Protestantism. My brother-in-law tells me that some Orthodox Bishop in the Balkans somewhere recently said that evangelicals out to be shot.
The husbands ought to be excommunicated (besides being arrested), and (forgive me) the bishop ought to be deposed. In the Orthodox Church, the requirement for a husband to love his wife is a serious one -- the meaning of that love is revealed to us every year during Holy Week, when the Icon of the Bridegroom is brought out for our veneration. There's no room in that love for abuse.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Josephine
I am with you 100% on the analogy and its conclusions. Our approach reflects that in Ephesians 5 where the analogue between marital union and the union of Christ and His Church is explicit.
The hurdle we are falling down on here though with our Protestant friends is not the Eucharist but the doctrine of the Church. The west has, generally, followed the Augustinian rather than Cyrianic model both as to salvation and identity. So, the validity (western term) of sacraments is down to form and intent. The Orthodox do not look at the Eucharist in isolation from other issues, (neither does Catholicism but the emphasis is different I think). I do think though that there is common ground between certain emphases in Orthodoxy and the 2nd Vatican Council concerning ecclesiology, [this is referred to in "The Orthodox Church" by Bp. Kallistos (Timothy) Ware]. Many Orthodox, whilst saying that the fulness of the Church is to be found in Orthodoxy, would not deny but rather celebrate orthodoxy wherever it may be found. This is the basis of the old adage .... we know where the Church is but not where it isn't. This is the basis for qualifying the otherwise total and absolute ban on opening our altars (in a VERY restricted and limited sense) to other Christians ... primarily Roman Christians (but not clergy) when they do not have their own church near. I would be interested to know for example whether or not more liberally minded Orthodox clergy in Russia give Communion to Russian Catholics if their own nearest community is hundreds of miles away, (which will be the case in some parts of Russia).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
typo ... "Cyprianic" not "Cyrianic."
Some here may wonder why different rules apply to clergy.
This is one aspect of Orthodoxy that I find puzzling .... even incoherent ... particualrly as private masses are uncanonical for the Orthodox. Maybe it's because we say: "well, he - a Catholic priest - can say mass by himself by his own Church's rules." BTW ... can he still do that? It doesn't really explain the differentiation though since even if I was on my death bed I couldn't receive the last rites from a Catholic priest if no Orthodox priest was available.
Can we just take the expressions of shock, disgust, outrage etc. etc. from our Protestant friends on this one as "red" please? Please don't get angry on my behalf. I am a man under authority and I don't jump up and down down every time I come across something I find difficult to understand (but not difficult to accept).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Good morning Father Gregory!
I've heard of Russian Catholics living in the more remote parts being permitted to receive the sacraments from Orthodox clergy (I think there was an article about it in The Tablet some time back, in fact.)
Oh, and I think the expression is "take it as read", not "red"! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Hello JL! Yep ... sorry for the typo. On the other question ... are private masses still canonical in Catholicism and do any priests still say them?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Father Gregory,
Yep, they are, and they do. As the current Code of Canon Law puts it, "remembering always that in the mystery of the eucharistic Sacrifice the work of redemption is continually being carried out, priests are to celebrate frequently. Indeed, daily celebration is earnestly recommended, because, even if it should not be possible to have the faithful present, it is an action of Christ and of the Church in which priests fulfill their principal role." (904)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
[QB]Dear Bonzo, Scot, Hatless and Lou,
I posted this earlier and got no reply: ...
Have you chosen "dogmatic" belief in anything? If you do, I would like to ask how your faith evades the inescapable logic you advance against eucharistic theology?
...QB]
Ley Druid,
My thinking has moved away from dogmatic belief as that once meant in my life. Your question implies that there is an absolute objective eucharistic theology. I don't think this is true. I have, and all the posters in this thread have, a eucharist theology. Clearly these theologies differ. But there is one constant, as I tried to state in one of my previous threads. No matter how we understand the questions posed in the OP, all of us can and do affirm the words of Paul in I Cor, and the words of Jesus in Jn 6. As has been clearly shown here, the rub is our various ecclesiologies.
The Rev. Doctor Kenan B Osborne, OFM, writes in his preface to CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS IN A POSTMODERN WORLD: A THEOLOGY FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM (Paulist Press 1999): "That the challenges of postmodern thought clearly make one radically rethink sacramental theology will be seen in the remaining pages, and this radical rethinking in itself might be interpreted negatively as a denial of "true" Christian sacramental theology. My basic hope, however, is to indicate that postmodern ways of thinking and onto-thinking truly have something powerful to say in the ways in which we Christians in the third millennium not only theologize about sacraments, but ALSO LIVE SACRAMENTS" (emphasis mine) (pg.2-3)
Even the pope, in his encyclical FIDES ET RATIO makes the point that "the Church has no philosphy of her own nor does she canonize any particular philosophy in preference to others." (no. 49)
The history of dogmatics in the RCC world has been a canonization of Scholasticism, and a mistrust of theological thinking that is "outside the box." Edward Schillebeeckx is one of many theologians who have been criticized heavily by the Vatican for proposing new language for the discussion of sacraments. Is there another way to speak of the bread and the action within the catholic tradition? Certainly. I believe that it was Schillebeeckx who proposed the term "Transsignification" or "transfinalization" as a more appropriate term than transsubstaniation. And I would agree.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I am with you 100% on the analogy and its conclusions. Our approach reflects that in Ephesians 5 where the analogue between marital union and the union of Christ and His Church is explicit.
The hurdle we are falling down on here though with our Protestant friends is not the Eucharist but the doctrine of the Church.
Okay, this makes sense then.
After I joined the Church, I found it necessary to gain a full understanding of the Church's teaching about marriage. I was married at the time, and it was, well, a difficult marriage. I had to figure out what to do about the situation I was in, and to know what to do, I had to understand what the Church taught about marriage.
I read everything that's been written on the subject from an Orthodox POV (or at least, everything that's made it into the English language), and I was amazed to discover how intertwined our teachings regarding marriage, ecclesiology, and Eucharistic theology are. You can't understand one of them without understanding the others.
It was a very fruitful study, one which allowed me to end my first marriage with the support (not the blessing, for he couldn't give that, but the support) of my priest, and which, with the help of God and the prayers of the saints, has allowed me to have a second marriage that is a truly Christian marriage -- which is, of course, the Sacrament of Love.
So, that's a long way around saying that you're right, to understand the Eucharist, you have to understand the Church, and to understand the Church, you have to understand marriage.
But I *did* try to explain that (but apparently not very well). Hatless, Bonzo, Scot, Lou -- were y'all not responding to the analogy I used because it just seemed like a rhetorical device, and not really a point that needed to be responded to? Or was it just completely opaque? Or something else? I'm really curious, because I feel like I completely failed to get across what I was trying to say, and I don't know why.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Josephine
quote:
I'm really curious, because I feel like I completely failed to get across what I was trying to say, and I don't know why.
Don't worry. I feel like that much of the time here. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
Josephine,
I understand your analogy regarding fidelity. My problem is the ecclesiology. I see the Church in broader terms. I am reminded of St. Paul in the beginning of I Corinthians when he scolds them for their incipient sectarianism. (I belong to Apollos; I belong to Paul; etc.) and he reminds them and us that we all belong to Christ.
When I approach the table of the Lord it is real sacrament for me, and embodying of my faith in Christ and my belief that we are, all of us, One Body in this One Lord. When we pray the prayer after communion we give thanks that we are "very members incorporate in the Mystical Body of Your Son." This is very real for me. The fidelity/marriage analogy does work for me, but I my ecclesiology is broader, and I have no problem coming to the Lord's Table with any group that gathers in faith to celebrate these Sacred Mysteries.
I expressed a feeling of sadness in a post above. That sadness comes from the recognition of the walls that divide us. My MO seems to be to tell a story from the past. So, here goes...
Some years ago, while I was an active Roman Catholic, an Episcopalian friend tried to convince me to attend an interfaith Cursillo weekend. I was ready to sign up, but I asked what would happen on Sunday morning. He told me that in the past, they used to celebrate eucharist all together. (I knew this, and I had known the RC priest who concelebrated with the ECUSA priest at the weekends.) But the RC bishop of San Francisco had disciplined the RC priest, and the shared eucharists had ended. Now, the RC's gathered in one room, and the Episcopalians gathered in another and they simultaneiously celebrated separate eucharists. The image made me unbearably sad, and I could not bring myself to participate. Yet we do the same thing Sunday after Sunday, don't we?
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Josephine, I'm sorry for seeming to ignore you. That wasn't my intention.
Communion is, for me, not like the private and sacred intimacies of sex. It does not constitute the Church and is not the property of the Church and does not belong only to the faithful. It is an open sacrament. I would say that it is really Christ who invites people to eat at his table, and that he is the true president. It is not for us to limit who may sit down, but to repeat the offer of fellowship that included, at the Last Supper, even Judas and those who were about to break the covenant of discipleship.
Allowing all and sundry to sup does not seem at all like sexual promiscuity to me. Communion is a moment of gift and grace. It is not sullied or cheapened by having the wrong sort of people share it, indeed it is for sinners, for those who are not sure they are worthy, who are not sure they belong or believe or are acceptable. It is undeservable generosity, a powerful and dynamic thing. At the table, no one has the right to sit by virtue of anything they are or have done. We all are invited and offered something from the hand of Christ. In this place where we can bring nothing of our own, we receive our true worth.
The Church is formed of people who have put their faith in Christ. It is not a pact between believers, controlled by believers, organised and codified by believers. We first enter the company of Christ - our Christian fellowship is secondary to this.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In typical Gamaliel fashion (for I did not choose my moniker without some care) I'd say that I agree both with Hatless and with Josephine here. I feel that Protestants need to appreciate why the Orthodox feel the need to protect their 'sacred mysteries' and guard them so jealously. It's because they are precious to them, that's why. Which is why Josephine's analogy of monogamous sex within marriage makes sense to me as a way of describing it.
Sure, I'm an advocate of open communion but I don't feel that I'm spiritually promiscuous. For me there's an objectivity about the Eucharist, Lord's Supper, call it what you will that operates irrespective of good, bad, indifferent, worthy or unworthy we feel. That applies however we do it. I've been to ecumenical services where we've separated with the Catholics at the interval to share communion in different rooms. This does sadden me. Yet I understand and accept the reasons for it. It doesn't stop me from enjoying fellowship with them on other levels. I might have female friends other than my wife, but it would be very, very wrong of me to have sex with them. Any other female relationships I might have must remain strictly platonic.
I do think that if I ever became Orthodox I would find it desperately, desperately sad that I was unable to share communion with my Protestant brothers and sisters. But I daresay I'd have to accept that as part of the package and have done with it. It might mean that I was able to share communion with Catholics though! Which wouldn't compensate ... not that I've got anything against them but it's just that I'm not a Catholic, I'm a Protestant ...
It feels funny writing this. As I've gone on I'm finding I'm becoming more sober, reflective and less flippant. These are weighty things. In practice though,I think all of us would agree that we often find more in common with individuals in other traditions than we do with some in our own tradition. I'm certainly not on the same wavelength, same planet even, as many evangelicals. They'd probably say the same about me.
Back to the plot though. I often feel just as about the Orthodox on these boards as they do with us - and probably with as much justification. That said, I do feel that some posters are all to quick to pounce on our Orthodox friends going 'Nah-nah-na-nah-nah it's those hoity-toity Orthodox on their high horse again.'
Listen up friends.
We've just ... got ... to ... keep ... talking ...
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back to the plot though. I often feel just as about the Orthodox on these boards as they do with us - and probably with as much justification.
I'm sure that's true! I've said sometimes that the problem isn't that we get different answers, but that we ask different questions, based on different assumptions, so that it's almost as though we're not even speaking the same language. It can be frustrating to try to really *understand* each other -- and, honestly, you don't know whether you agree or not until you really, truly understand.
Thanks for you thoughtful posts, Gamaliel. At least on this, I feel that you have understood. And I appreciate that!
And Lou and hatless, thanks for responding. I understand how y'all feel -- I grew up with open communion, and never thought I'd ever feel any differently about it. But my life has been full of surprises.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Dear Hatless, Bonzo and Lou
Thank you very much for your honesty. quote:
Originally posted by Hatless:
We should not have dogmatic beliefs, we really don't need them.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
The thing I'm doggedly determined not to do is to sign up to any dogmatic belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Lou:
My thinking has moved away from dogmatic belief as that once meant in my life.
I think that honest reflection on what you have said reveals an a priori bias. No matter what arguments are advanced supporting RC/O dogma, you have decided beforehand that ANY DOGMA is indefensible. I think it is unfair for you to suggest that RC/O are closed-minded because they refuse to adopt your prejudice, or despite their efforts, they are unable to disabuse you of it.
Experimental science subjects its dogma to experimental verification. That is no reason to dismiss all scientific dogma as only equally probable or useful as any other explanation. Such a suggestion has no experimental motivation. So science will determine its own dogma by its own criteria.
Experiment is of limited use in theology as in art. Does that give greater license to dismiss dogma? Shouldn't we ask the purveyors of theology or art what their dogmas are? What does it mean to ask Snoop Dog about the dogmas of classical music, or the Pope about dogmas of Jewish orthodoxy?
Anyone is free to criticize any dogma they want, but it should come as no surprise that criteria foreign to those holding the dogma will be of little import to them.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Following on from Ley Druid ...
Before you can play a game you need to know the rules and play by them. Let's say that there are two games ... the Dogma Game and the No-Dogma game. Both games have their own rules ... both have different possibilities inherent in playing out of those rules creatively. However, there is now an impasse. The No-Dogma game devotees claim that the Dogma Game is no game at all and should be denied a place in the Truth Olympics. According to No-Dogma theorists, the Dogma Game is a charade because all the possible moves are mapped out in advance. There is no creativity in playing. Indeed there is no pointing in having two players or more at all. There is no risk of losing. The game has stacked all its chances as certainties for its players. Imagine what happens when a third team comprising Dogma and No-Dogma theorists tries to develop a new game ... Ecuplay. The No-Dogma team first tries to convince the Dogma theorists that no synthesised game that incorporates Dogma principles will either work or interest them. Perhaps the Dogma Theorists can change their rules so that Ecuplay can work on entirely different (but as yet unspecified principles). This sounds attractive but the Dogma Theorists soon discover that every gaming insight they wish to incorporate based on Dogma principles is ruled illicit by the No-Dogma theorists. Ecuplay is not an even handed venture at all. The Dogma theorists withdraw. Can they convince the No-Dogma theorists that the Dogma game is truly creative and not deterministic? Can the No-Dogma theorists persuade the Dogma theorists that their game actually has rules ... that it's not an individualistic free for all (as the Dogma game theorists claim)? Who knows. There are no easy answers.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Yes, Ley Druid, I think I am, a priori, against any dogmas. I do not rule out any beliefs. I am open to be persuaded of any beliefs, but I am opposed to the holding of beliefs rigidly, inflexibly, and without reasonable support - just because a church teaches them.
It's not the beliefs in themselves I am opposed to, it is believing dogmatically I have a problem with.
I am inclined to think that it is in the nature of Christianity to be about growth and change. Jesus's teaching led people to a radical revision of their understanding of religion. Ever since, there has been a radical side of Christianity that is unable to accept institutional religion but rebels against it. You can see it in the Desert Fathers, in Francis and the other monastic reformers, in the radical communistic movements of the early middle ages, and of course in the Reformation and the shattering of Western Christianity.
Coming to faith and renewing faith are about moving on, about throwing away old understanding and recoining belief. I used to think it was a great sadness that the Church was divided into many churches, but perhaps that is its natural state. Christianity is fissile stuff.
I don't much mind what someone thinks and believes, what affects whether I will be able to get on with them is whether or not they are on a journey. Are they someone open to change and development? If so, we can talk and I can respect.
For me, true faith is not something that could even in theory be expressed. True faith is a dynamic thing, not a position but a journey, it is the adventure of self-searching, of discovery, of the dark night of the soul, of questioning and questing. Faith is the leap.
I fear that Orthodoxy has become a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity, a flight from faith. My hunch is that a good look at Orthodoxy would show that it has changed as much as any other branch of Christianity, that its claims to be the one and indeed the only Church are not only bogus but the most breathtakingly arrogant bit of propoganda around.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Hatless, Bonzo, Scot, Lou -- were y'all not responding to the analogy I used because it just seemed like a rhetorical device, and not really a point that needed to be responded to? Or was it just completely opaque? Or something else? I'm really curious, because I feel like I completely failed to get across what I was trying to say, and I don't know why.
I did not respond to your analogy because it is appears that we have little common ground on which to discuss it. I recognize that this is likely a result of extreme differences in ecclesiology. However, since you asked, here goes.
Your formulation implies that Eucharist is primarily expressive of a relationship between the believer and the Church. I do not agree. I believe that Eucharist is expressive of a relationship between the believer and Christ himself. Taking communion in a church other than your own is not analogous to having sex with a man who is not your husband. Rather, it is analogous to doing it with your husband, but somewhere other than your bed. Therefore, I object to any claim that it wrong to take communion in another church (although I have no problem with declining based on simple preference).
As individual Christians, we are all members of the body of Christ. As members of my body, all of my limbs are equally entitled to have sex with my wife. For my left hand to deny the right of my right hand to marital relations is absurd. No member has exclusive rights to a thing which is proper for the whole body. Thus, I object to exclusion of any Christian from communion.
I still respect your collective right to practice as your conscience and church dictate. Just as you think I am wrong, I think you are wrong. The difference is that your church makes the disagreement a basis of exclusion and division.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear hatless
quote:
I fear that Orthodoxy has become a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity,
And what is your evidence for that fossilisation hatless? You then go on to remark that Orthodoxy HAS changed. Presumably we were all comatose at the time and didn't notice it happening.
quote:
that its claims to be the one and indeed the only Church are not only bogus but the most breathtakingly arrogant bit of propoganda around.
We are clearly not the ONLY Church on the block. All you have ever heard here is the uniqueness of Catholicism and Orthodoxy here based on the idea of fulness. I know that strikes you as just as arrogant as "only" but as a hypothesus it is like any other ... it can only be refuted by evidence. Simply saying "it's preposterous" is as subjective as my saying: "It isn't."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear hatless
quote:
I fear that Orthodoxy has become a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity,
And what is your evidence for that fossilisation hatless? You then go on to remark that Orthodoxy HAS changed. Presumably we were all comatose at the time and didn't notice it happening.
I am suggesting that the appeal of Orthodoxy is that it sidesteps the heterogeneity of Christianity and claims to offer one, allegedly original, version of the faith. I am also saying that this claim is false, that Orthodoxy's unchanged continuity is untrue. I don't say it has fossilised, I think it has always changed. It is the members of the Orthodox churches who say, falsely, that it is unchanging. quote:
quote:
that its claims to be the one and indeed the only Church are not only bogus but the most breathtakingly arrogant bit of propoganda around.
We are clearly not the ONLY Church on the block. All you have ever heard here is the uniqueness of Catholicism and Orthodoxy here based on the idea of fulness.
Josephine wrote:
"For us, the Church means the Orthodox Church. The Anglican Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Baptist Church, isn't the Church, or part of the Church, or a denomination within the Church."
This does indeed strike me as arrogant. quote:
I know that strikes you as just as arrogant as "only" but as a hypothesus it is like any other ... it can only be refuted by evidence. Simply saying "it's preposterous" is as subjective as my saying: "It isn't."
I didn't describe it as preposterous. I said it was propoganda. Given the complex multiplicity of denominations it is the church that claims not to be one of the many denominations but the only true church that has to come up with the evidence.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Gregory,
I think there seems to be some difference between your view of the orthodox church and those of other orthodox christians on this thread. That's good. At times it feels like we're talking to 'the orthodox' rather than individuals. I really wish that we'd hear more opinions expressed as those of individuals rather than an expousal of the doctrines of a church, although we're all guilty of that from time to time.
But back to the topic of 'the church', do I understand you correctly that you see the orthodox church as a part of the wider church of Christ rather than the 'real' church which has everything right while the rest of us are only partly right?
After all, if we'd all stuck to the original church that Christ worshipped in then we'd all be worshipping in synagogues.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't much mind what someone thinks and believes, what affects whether I will be able to get on with them is whether or not they are on a journey. Are they someone open to change and development? If so, we can talk and I can respect.
Hatless, if you'll forgive me, I know that you didn't call me by name here, but the context of this remark makes it sound rather as though you are talking about me, and that you think that, because I hold to some small number of dogmatic beliefs, that I am not on a faith journey.
The idea that you could say that, or even suggest it, rather takes my breath away. What kind of presumptions underlie your reasoning to get you to that conclusion?
For me, coming into Orthodoxy wasn't the end of the journey -- it wasn't "a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity, a flight from faith." It was the end of *preparing* for the journey, and the beginning of the true journey.
It hasn't been easy -- and it hasn't been static. There are parts of Orthodoxy that don't change -- but on this journey I have found that the stability of Orthodoxy has allowed, encouraged, forced *me* to change. I don't have to revisit established dogma over and over again, to make sure I still believe it. As a result, I have the liberty for "the adventure of self-searching, of discovery, of the dark night of the soul, of questioning and questing."
Although my Church hasn't gone anywhere, *I* have traveled far since I became Orthodox. And I still have far to go -- there's no end to this journey.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
But back to the topic of 'the church', do I understand you correctly that you see the orthodox church as a part of the wider church of Christ rather than the 'real' church which has everything right while the rest of us are only partly right?
You'll have to forgive me, Father Gregory, but I was taught that exactly what Bonzo says here, that we are the one true Church, and that while there are Christians outside the visible organization of the Church, there is no Church outside the Orthodox Church (with even the Catholic Church being not a separate Church, but a schismatic patriarchate of the Church).
Of course, if folks are looking for a point where all the Orthodox on the board will likely disagree with each other, this is likely to be it: how are Christians outside the Orthodox Church related to the Church?
Some will say there aren't any Christians outside the Church -- if you're not Orthodox, you're not Christian.
Others will say that those outside the Church are related to the Church in the same manner as those who are temporarily excommunicate -- they're Christians, they're members of the Church, but are simply out of Communion.
Some would apply the second position only to Roman Catholics, and the first position to everyone else.
Others would say that those outside the Orthodox Church are related to the Church in a manner analogous to catechumens and the unbaptized children of Orthodox Christian. They already belong to the Church, although the relationship hasn't yet been fulfilled.
Some will say it's none of our business; it's between them and God.
But I've never heard any discussion of how any other Church (save the Roman Catholic) relates to the Orthodox Church, since I've never heard any other Orthodox Christian say there *is* another Church outside ours.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine
You'll have to forgive me, Father Gregory, but I was taught that exactly what Bonzo says here, that we are the one true Church, and that while there are Christians outside the visible organization of the Church, there is no Church outside the Orthodox Church (with even the Catholic Church being not a separate Church, but a schismatic patriarchate of the Church).
So you'll be trying to convert me from my heathen ways then? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Hatless and Bonzo
Josephine has fairly described (obviously) what she was taught AND the breadth of opinion amongst the Orthodox concerning other churches and our relationship to them, (this discussion can also be found in the famous tome "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy (Bp. Kallistos) Ware.
Josephine and I do differ on this .... and you are wrong Hatless in thinking that we Orthodox believe that NOTHING has changed in our Church ... but I digress.
The fact that Josephine and I DO differ on this reflects the fact that there are many issues in Orthodoxy (unsettled) that admit a wide variety of views and vigorous debate.
ALL Orthodox subscribe to the view that the Orthodox Church has the fullness of faith and life but they differ widely on Christianity outside Orthodoxy.
There is a problem with the word "church." The word is being forced to contain too many meanings .... local church, canonical church, a denomination, a collection of denominations, invisible association of the elect, visible manifestation of a heavenly reality, .... all these and more are covered by the word "church." Some people like to make a rough distinction between church / churches / and Church ... but by no means consistently or coherently.
This is my take on the matter having from the beginning examined the dioversity of opinion WITHIN Orthodoxy ....
(1) The fullness of Christianity subsists in Orthodoxy. (I say Orthodoxy rather than in the Orthodox Church because, although the latter is more correct and we certainly don't subscribe to the "invisible church" doctrine ... at times there have been situations when certain Orthodox churches, (undeniably Orthodox), became judged by others as uncanonical ... ceasing to be seen by these as belonging to the Church. This is difficult for many Orthodox to admit but in my view, for example, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is fully a part of the Orthodox Church although it is (wrongly) regarded by many as uncanonical).
(2) There are many churches, Christians and other groups that practice Orthodoxy more or less completely but which are not part of the Orthodox Church by anyone's estimation having never had any organic union with us nor ever having sought it. These churches could be thought of as having their own "circles" overlapping with our own. The overlaps refer to commonality of belief and practice notwithstanding the lack of unity at the organic level. Ecumenism means for us applying ourselves more earnestly to the search for organic unity with these who, already, share much in common and calling for more dialogue with those who share less in common.
Just my take on the matter, (but, Josephine, not an exceptional view in Orthodoxy).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think Fr. Gregory has hit the nail on the head that equivocation on the word "church" makes discussion of this question rather thorny.
The creed says "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church."
The sticking point is the word "one." Looking out at the multitude of bodies that call themselves "churches" (as Fr. Gregory enumerated), the church would appear to be anything but one.
And yet we want to hold on to the creed.
So what is the solution? For the Orthodox it's to say, "our church is the one the creed is speaking of" -- because it always has been that way, and we're not sure how the splintering of western christendom changes our status.
For the Protestant the most common solution is the so-called "invisible church" idea-- in spite of the plurality on the surface, underneath we're all the same "church" because we all love Jesus (or some variation on same -- not meaning to be disrespectful but trying to sum up briefly).
And those two views are mighty hard to reconcile, hence the disagreements and bickering on this thread and a couple others I could mention.
Are we, then, talking at cross-purposes? I'm afraid that much of the time this is so. But we keep talking to try and understand one another, and that can't but be a good thing, assuming that we are really trying to understand one another and not just beating one another over the head with our respective ecclesiologies.
Or so it seems from my vantage point.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I dare to poke my lurker's toe in this very informative thread just to add that my favourite 'definition' of church is the idea behind such scriptures as Ephesians 1:22-23, which describes the church as being Christ's body, 'the fulness of him who fills all in all.'
Linking it with the warnings about various bits of the body saying to each other 'I don't need you' reminds me to try, at least, to respect and understand what it is the other bits do, and why!
For example, while I understand Josephine's analogy of sex/marriage, eucharist/faith, and can see how it works well when used in the way she's using it (it's really helped me to understand the Orthodox position on receiving and distribution of communion), it's not an analogy that I, personally, recognize to be useful or active in my own understanding or experience of the Eucharist.
But nevertheless, I'm grateful to have had it explained as it furthers my understanding of why a particular 'bit' of Christ's body does what it does, and why.
The assertion, by Josephine, that 'church' is not to be found outside of the Orthodox faith, is naturally a harder statement to respond to with charity ( ). But, naturally there are going to be areas of huge disagreement, even between body members...... Still, I believe, probably too simplistically, that the 'fullness' of Christ is to be found in the whole (and wholeness) of the Body, which incorporates every Christian.
I know ecclesiology is much more complex than this, though, and I'm being a bit of a simpleton..... (aha! but which bit, you might ask? )
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
So what is the solution? For the Orthodox it's to say, "our church is the one the creed is speaking of"
That's so sad.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
It almost boils down to "church is the thing I am pointing at when I say the word 'church'"
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ken
No ... the Lutherans say that the Church exists wherever the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered. Catholics say it is those churches in Communion with the See of Rome which itself is based on the acceptance of Catholic faith and life. Orthodox say that it is that Church stretching back to Pentecost and beyond which is in communion with those churches that uphold this unbroken and unfolding Tradition. All churches have their definitions ... all those definitions have criteria that are not circular in their application. It is not simply a matter of naming.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But how do we know which earthly churches are in those definitions?
The Lutherans (and of course the Anglicans - what you quoted is more or less what it says in the Prayer Book, & I suspect Protestants in general) can at least look to see if the word is being preached in a church & sacraments are administered there, and if those things are done according to scripture.
The Romans have, no doubt, a long list somewhere of which churches are in and which out and only the Pope is allowed to change it.
But how can someone not already part of your tradition or willng to accept the definitions of that tradition know which are in that tradition? We have no time machine to see how things are done in every generation between now and the Lord?
It's almost like the problem of the Apostolic Succession (as interpreted in the Brain-Dead Anglo Catholic way, not the usual Roman Catholic way). If at some time in the past someone on the chain between the Apostles and your congregation got it wrong, how do you know whether you are in or out?
At least, I suppose, a church shich is outside the tradition can move into it by changing the way they do things. But they'd still have to identify the one true tradition to find out what it was.
And, of course, none of this has anything to do with the definition of the eternal Church, the Body of Christ, the fellowship of all saints, which is not co-terminous with any visible or local church.
(Not intending to suggest that all, most, or even any Anglo-Catholics are brain dead - but there have been in some times and places in the past a BDAC interpretation of apostolic succession that had it working almost mechanically, restricting the Holy Spirit to being passed about like a magic fluid being poured from jar to jar in baptism, confirmation, ordination, and consecration A Donatist heresy of course.)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ken
quote:
At least, I suppose, a church shich is outside the tradition can move into it by changing the way they do things. But they'd still have to identify the one true tradition to find out what it was.
Identifying the Tradition is really quite simple. It consists of (in addition to the Scriptures of course but these admit of a fairly wide interpretation in the Christian world):-
(1) The 7 Ecumenical Councils, their decrees, definitions and canons. (The canons are subordinate in the sense that they vary more with culture than other elements).
(2) The Fathers, Mothers, the Saints and their teachings. These are gathered together in the Orthodox Church in a huge collection called the Philokalia
(3) The worship services of Orthodoxy ... "lex orandi, lex credendi."
If all this is in place there remains but one important piece of the jig saw ... coming into Communion with the other Orthodox churches. The list of who is canonical and who isn't is just as clear as any list maintained by the Anglican and Roman churches.
quote:
And, of course, none of this has anything to do with the definition of the eternal Church, the Body of Christ, the fellowship of all saints, which is not co-terminous with any visible or local church.
Not all members of every local Church is NECESSARILY to be found amongst the company of the redeemed on the last day but it is quite another thing to claim that the "true" Church is ontologically different from that constituted here on earth. We do not believe that the Church on earth is simply an aggreghate of her individual members. She is the bride of Christ AND his body. The metaphors are deliberately mixed because they all contribute something important to the overall picture of the Church as the beloved of God, his covenant community. This is entirely consistent with the visible manifestation of the Israel of God in the Old Testament ... which Church we also uphold in continuity with our own. Such continuity is not mechanistic or derived from simple lineages or formulae ... it is organic in a deeper mystical sense.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Is this thread still open for new posts?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
It's not supposed to be, sorry.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
