quote:

---

He bids us eat and drink
imperishable food;
He gives his flesh to be our meat,
and bids us drink his blood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
At communion, Christ is present not so much in the bread and the wine as in the eating and the drinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by day_thomas:
I have always thought it would be fun if we did it at a long table, sat down and drunk more than sip and ate more than a small wafer / piece of bread.

---

Me too. I have often thought this.
 

---

Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on :
 
More the "eating" than the "bread."

I'm moved by the way Paul talks about it; "One who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Cor 11:29). I used to think this was about the "bread." But the verse is set in the midst of an extensive passage talking about the Church, the gathered people, as the body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:17-14:40). Receiving Christ's real presence in the eucharist may also be about the "bread", but it's largely about discerning, in the gathered Church, the Body of Christ.

Wm Duncan
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I agree with Freddy (as in so much!) Samuel Taylor Coleridge said:-

"people are generally correct in what they affirm and generally err in what they deny"

Why does so much have to be EITHER / OR?
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Hmmmm...or is Christ present in the person, and thus the actions are manifestations of our attempt to be Christ-like?

And...if people bake their own bread and make their own wine/grape juice, would that not be an symbol of God's creation?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear OgtheDim

In the Orthodox Church the people do just that .... the wine is sometimes a bit more difficult but it is still brought to Church with the baked bread or prosphora. The preparation of the prosphora is a little service in itself. More for the "AND" rather than the "OR" I see!
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I agree with Fr. Gregory. I think it's in the Bread and in the eating. In the Bread, because Christ's eternal sacrifice, once given is in the Bread. In the eating because it's the communicants who are following His command "Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me."

This isn't an either/or case.
 

---

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :
 
Bread and eating too.

day thomas, one need not feel always obliged to be happy when participating in the sacrament of communion. Some of the most meaningful ones I have celebrated are in times of great grief.... saying farewell before someone dies, after a death, at a funeral, around the bedside of someine who is severely dpresssed.
Of course, we present the great certainity of the joy of life everlasting with Christ- but it is also a way of saying to people that in the midst of their despair, Christ comes to be with them, and hold them tight.
Similarly, in church, where I am not "clergy" but a "normal" pewsitter- in the midst of whatever I might be feeling- joy, fear for the future, hope, the yuckiness of the flu, sorrow, confusion- Christ comes to be with me and hold me toght, as I watch another minister officiate, and then I consume....
 

---

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
Our friend the Blessed Richard Hooker certainly indicates that the miracle of the Eucharist in the reception. Blessed Dr Cranmer seems to believe this as well, which is why the Service of Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer is so ordered.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
It must be both : there's no point in one without the other in my view.
 

---

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
I agree with MerseyMike - should it not also be said to be in the context of the gathered community of the faithful? (I'm trying to find a wording that includes those such as the elderly/sick who may receive it at home, in hospital etc.).

Ian
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
"Christ is present by faith in the heart of the believer, through His Spirit." That is the way we were taught.

So it is in the reception of Christ Himself that we are united with Him. The bread and wine remain a symbol, reminder, metaphor, which enable us to remember and experience Christ's presence. The actual breaking apart of the loaf is also important.

I have participated in communion as you describe it, day_thomas and Freddy, the whole church gathered at a table celebrating and eating and drinking the bread (whole loaves) and wine (glasses full). Also, when eating out with friends from our church, when the waiter brings the basket of bread and the wine before the meal, we have celebrated communion. Wonderful.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
Christ is not present in the bread or the wine, well, not anymore than he is present in any bread and wine aywhere, or chips and coke for that matter.

Something special only happens when people gather together to remember him. The bread and wine are symbols of Christ but they do not become Christ.

I realise that other people may not view the bread and wine like this, I suspect that some people might want to say it's both in the bread and wine and in the people, possibly to minimise offence (I think the art of the compromise fudge is a halmark of Christian debate).

But me, I prefer to say what I think.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Bonzo

quote:

---

I realise that other people may not view the bread and wine like this, I suspect that some people might want to say it's both in the bread and wine and in the people, possibly to minimise offence (I think the art of the compromise fudge is a halmark of Christian debate).

But me, I prefer to say what I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
The baptising of unaware infants or the giving of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist to infants(in Orthodoxy) of to the senile, mentally challenged or otherwise oblivious only makes sense to someone whe believes the elements to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit and so contain the true essence of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the "true essence of Christ" is in the action of the congregation in obedience to Christ (whether to celebrate communion or baptise). Whether or not the elements themselves also contain Christ, the actions of the people of God coming together to worship and serve (through the sacraments or otherwise) is sacramental.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:

Something special only happens when people gather together to remember him. The bread and wine are symbols of Christ but they do not become Christ.

I realise that other people may not view the bread and wine like this, I suspect that some people might want to say it's both in the bread and wine and in the people, possibly to minimise offence (I think the art of the compromise fudge is a halmark of Christian debate).

But me, I prefer to say what I think.

---

Bonzo,

that I believe Christ is present in the bread and wine in the people has nothing to do with wanting to not offend people, but that I believe this is the case. (strange, I know).

I believe Christ is present in the bread and wine due to the mystery of the sacramental nature of the eucharist. (this is important because in eating the bread and wine which is the body and blood of Christ it is an expression of how close the relationship between God and the believer is).

however, Christ is present among the community because He is God and He is everywhere, aswell as residing in us through his spirit.

There, not a compromise at all, see!
 

---

Posted by Golden Oldie (# 1756) on :
 
I believe in the Real Presence, yet I always have a slight sense of unease when it comes to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament - no "ifs or buts", no eating or drinking, just worshipping a piece of bread which has become the Body of Christ. I am at a loss to explain why. Does anyone else with my belief have the same (rather unsettling) experience?
 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I can see from where you're coming, Golden Oldie. I believe in the Real Presence very firmly, and would happily affirm that the bread becomes Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. I do, however, find Benediction strange when not in the context of the Eucharist - tagged on to the end of Mass I can manage, but I find it odd on the end of Evensong.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Benediction, according to Vatican 2, should not be detached from its context, the Eucharist. There is no benediction in Orthodoxy but we do bless the people with the chalice (containing also the Lamb {= body of Christ}) after Communion.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Jengie, I belong to a church that's part of the Baptist Union, yet I find myself close to Hatless in his (her?) understanding of the Eucharist/Lord's Supper. I'm not sure if that makes me a Baptist sacramentalist. There are liturgical Baptists about so perhaps there are sacramental ones too ...

Anyway - to all intents and purposes the Baptist Union isn't that strong an affiliation. Or so it seems to me. We hardly hear anything about it. The various house-church or restorationist networks appear far more 'connexional' and denominational to me (who used to be in one).

So I daresay there's room for breadth and diversity. Mind you, I was nearly stoned to death at one house group meeting I attended where I suggested that the Lord's Supper was more than simply a memorial. Mind you, my persecutors on that occasion were both ex-Roman Catholics so they may have had an axe to grind ...

I don't know much about the URC's - I've only attended one meeting (find it on Mystery Worshipper ) - but I certainly detected a slightly 'higher' view of communion in a URC chaplain who used to come into the university where I work than is probably common among Baptists.

On balance, I suppose I incline towards the rather Calvinistic understanding outlined by Daisy May but I do have somewhat schizophrenic pangs in a 'higher' direction from time to time. Mind you, I would feel uncomfortable about venerating the wafer etc.

On Christmas Eve I received communion in the Baptist chapel round the corner from my mother's bungalow in South Wales and at the mildly High parish church just outside the village on Christmas morning. In their different ways I enjoyed (as it were) both.



So what does that tell you?

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Christ is, of course, in everything, but he's in teh bread and the wine in a way that he's not anywhere else. So much so that St. Paul said some people died when they partook "unworthily" -- ouch! Potent stuff.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Jengie, I belong to a church that's part of the Baptist Union, yet I find myself close to Hatless in his (her?) understanding of the Eucharist/Lord's Supper. I'm not sure if that makes me a Baptist sacramentalist. There are liturgical Baptists about so perhaps there are sacramental ones too ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Hatless

The bread and the wine are organically linked to eating, drinking, faith, Calvary, the Resurrection, Christ Himself in ways that the cloth, the chalice etc., aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I was contrasting objects with objects Hatless. Throughout this thread I have said that it is not either / or. The actions and the objects both need each other.

---

You weren't contrasting objects with objects, you were linking objects (bread and wine) with much more abstract things: eating, drinking, faith, Calvary, and resurrection. So I remain unclear what you mean.

Nor do I know where the either/or idea comes from. My OP used the phrase 'not so much' for the presence in the elements. If we want to discuss degrees of presence I would say that Christ is no more present in the bread and wine than in the telling of the story, say. Bread and wine are hard to do without, whereas I would say that you can celebrate the eucharist without an alter or without a plate for the bread, with people coming forwards or being served in their places. So in that sense bread and wine are more central (I would, though, be content with any local staple food and any cultural equivalent to wine - a feel-good, take-you-out-of-yourself drink.)

Perhaps it would be good to go back to the example of the service where a consecrated wafer is venerated out of the context of the eucharist. I once went to a service of Benediction. The wafer came out of the wall safe, was lifted up to a high place, we sang and prayed a bit, then it was put away again. I can see that if you were at the Mass with all its rich meaning and sense of God's present grace, then an actual wafer might recapture that occasion. Perhaps some photographs or tape recordings might be better these days. The service was an ecumenical event with people from many denominations present and variously bewildered by it all. Do people believe that a wafer used in a Mass retains the presence of Christ in a way that is real, even for someone who wasn't at that Mass, and is unfamiliar with the practice of keeping some of the wafers afterwards?

My question is, when the bread and wine have lost the context that gave them meaning and left the community which understands their significance, is there any real difference to them? Is this what sacramentalism is about? Or is it about responding with faith and and orderly respect to the presence of God in the whole event of the eucharist?
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I would prefer, on reflection, to have spelled 'alter' as 'altar,' or, alternatively, 'table.'
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Hatless

Let me make it clearer.

Is Christ in you and me? Yes.
Is Christ in the actions at the Eucharist? Yes.
Is Christ in the elements of bread and wine at the Eucharist? Yes.

Christ cannot be MORE present here or there. Indeed he is everywhere.

This has been said before on a sacramentalism thread but I am going to say it once more ...

In the Eucharist ... specified ordinary things, actions and persons become a unitary focus whereby through and in them we are lifted into the Kingdom. Wherever the Kingdom is and focussed there is Christ .... in all, without reservation, without qualification and without choosing or setting one element against another.

Beer and chips? No ... Nominalism ... go figure. Christ sets the terms ... not us.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
How odd to link bread and wine to something like eating and drinking.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Also I note that our Lord said "I am the bread that came down from heaven" and "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him" -- but never "I am the porcelain dinnerware that came down from heaven" or anything to identify himself with the tablecloth.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ha ha Mousethief - but please don't take the mickey (as we say over here). Hatless and I are both trying to understand. Of course we recognise a connection between bread and wine and eating and drinking - and with the Last Supper, Calvary, the early Church etc. etc.

And I really don't feel you need to give us a Fr Gregory. It might all be very clear to you but it ain't to us. If it were we'd all be RC's, Orthodox or High Anglicans.

Now - here's a question for you. Is Christ any more present in the bread and wine in an Orthodox Eucharist than he is in, say, a Brethren communion service? Is he slightly more present in a Church of Scotland one where they have some form of 'epiclesis'. Are we talking about a sliding scale here depending on the level of sacramentalism involved?

It seems to me that both Hatless and myself are somewhere in the middle of the sacramental scale and not terribly clear about what it is we're supposed to be missing or deficient in.

Can you enlighten us?

Gamaliel

 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Now - here's a question for you. Is Christ any more present in the bread and wine in an Orthodox Eucharist than he is in, say, a Brethren communion service?

---

We Orthodox steadfastly refuse to speculate about the efficacy of other churches' sacraments. We do our best to hold fast to the traditions we were taught, as we are commanded to do by St. Paul (2 Thess 2:15), because we believe God wants us to. What God does or doesn't do somewhere else is not our call. He is not a tame lion.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
What Mousethief said with extra large fries!

I dole out when I say that it's not "either / or" and I'm still saying it with yet more arguments and examples 20 posts down.

I think the REAL problem here is the inherent dislike of Protestantism for holy OBJECTS .... holy actions - yes, holy persons - maybe, holy objects - no. It has to do with hyperpersonalism and a rejection of a theology of "being."

2 little words .... "for me."

Now I am deliberately being a little obscure ... I'm like that sometimes.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

We Orthodox steadfastly refuse to speculate about the efficacy of other churches' sacraments.

---

quote:

---

Wherever the Kingdom is and focussed there is Christ .... in all, without reservation, without qualification and without choosing or setting one element against another.

Beer and chips? No ... Nominalism ... go figure. Christ sets the terms ... not us.

---

quote:

---

We set up the conditions. He does the rest.

---

quote:

---

We Orthodox steadfastly refuse to speculate about the efficacy of other churches' sacraments.

---

quote:

---

Yes, we set up the conditions. Not the bread. Not the wine. We do. Which is essentially what I said before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Presumably you believe that Christ ceased to specify upon his death, (or not?). Unfortunately the New Testament doesn't seem to agree with you, (if you do). The Risen Lord does and says all sorts of things and it doesn't end with his Ascension and the closure of the canon either.

---

quote:

---

You wrote:
"All" doesn't mean "beer and chips" ... it means all that Christ specified.

---

quote:

---

heinous evangelical protestant ™ tactic of denying the validity of anything which is not explicitly supported by scripture

---

quote:

---

steadfastly refuse to speculate about the efficacy of other churches' sacraments

---

quote:

---

I believe that it is Christ’s presence in the hearts and actions of the gathered believers which sanctifies the bread and wine, not the other way around.
Anyone who would claim otherwise must explain why any meal containing bread and wine is not efficacious when eaten in a “secular” setting by unbelievers

---

quote:

---

explain why any meal containing bread and wine is not efficacious when eaten in a “secular" setting by unbelievers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Scot

quote:

---

Yes, we set up the conditions. Not the bread. Not the wine. We do. Which is essentially what I said before.

---

No it isn't. You said that it was the faith of the worshippers that was operational. When I say "set up the conditions" .... I simply mean: "lay the table" ... nothing more. He does the business.

---

quote:

---

Still, I believe that it is Christ’s presence in the hearts and actions of the gathered believers which sanctifies the bread and wine, not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Your business as Orthodox Christians is to be steadfast and self-same and that's it. You set the table, and God does the rest.

I do hope there's more to it than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Your business as Orthodox Christians is to be steadfast and self-same and that's it. You set the table, and God does the rest.

I do hope there's more to it than that.

---

What more would you like it to be? Seems sufficient to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Also, if a denomination practices only one variety of belief, denying and expunging others, then it should be prepared to say why it does that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
No, it seems to me that there is more here than is readily admitted to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
If things are done in a particular way in the othodox church, and that way is the only way they are allowed to be done in the orthodox church, then it seems to me that that can mean only one of two things.

1. That the orthodox position is that other tradition's practice is incorrect.

2. That the othodox church is content to aim itself at only one sector of a number of equally valid beleifs (We do it this way here, if you want something different, then there are other valid churches).

---

quote:

---

I believe that it is Christ’s presence in the hearts and actions of the gathered believers which sanctifies the bread and wine, not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

To be more direct, neither your #1 nor your #2 is correct. We don't say that other practices are incorrect. Nor do we say that all practices are equally correct. We say that our practice *is* correct. As for yours -- we don't know.

We're not trying to be coy. We're trying to be as honest as we can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I think its fair to say you don't believe your beer and chips can sanctify anybody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The only admission I want to hear is that the source of this is a church, not the direct command of Christ.

---

quote:

---

I have no quarrel with your understanding so long as it is not promoted as definitive and authoritative for other churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Since the othodox position is that it doesn't know whether either of these acts is invalid.

---

The Orthodox position is that the Orthodox do what we have been given, and that what God does outside our walls is His concern, and we will not presume to tell Him He can't honor in someone else actions he told us not to do.

I'll try to make this as clear as I can:

1. INSIDE The Orthodox Church, we have specific rules and guidelines for doing things, and if it's not done that way, it's wrong, and people are subject to disciplinary actions if they inentionally break the rules.

2. OUTSIDE the Orthodox Church, God is free to do whatever He pleases, and we do not presume to tell Him what to do vis-a-vis somebody else's eucharistic or quasi-eucharistic practices.

HTH,

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
If the answer to either of these is yes, then I say why? Since the othodox position is that it doesn't know whether either of these acts is invalid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
In the Eucharist ... specified ordinary things, actions and persons become a unitary focus whereby through and in them we are lifted into the Kingdom. Wherever the Kingdom is and focussed there is Christ .... in all, without reservation, without qualification and without choosing or setting one element against another.

Beer and chips? No ... Nominalism ... go figure. Christ sets the terms ... not us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I think the REAL problem here is the inherent dislike of Protestantism for holy OBJECTS .... holy actions - yes, holy persons - maybe, holy objects - no. It has to do with hyperpersonalism and a rejection of a theology of "being."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I am anxiously awaiting an answer to Bonzo’s question. Would tea and biscuits be invalid for Orthodox communion? If so, why? Biscuits are certainly in the bread family of foods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I am anxiously awaiting an answer to Bonzo’s question. Would tea and biscuits be invalid for Orthodox communion? If so, why? Biscuits are certainly in the bread family of foods.

---

In the Orthodox church, bread for the Eucharist must contain only three ingredients: flour, yeast, and salt. That's it. So you can't use biscuits.

Likewise, for the wine, we use only fermented grape juice. If grapes had become extinct from that root disease that nearly wiped them out, would we have started using something else? Undoubtedly. But that didn't happen, so we still use what we've been using for the last 2000 years. Wine.

I think you've been given the reason several times already -- we use bread and wine because that's what we believe the Lord told us to use, and because we've always used it.

If you don't like our reasons, I'm sorry. But they are our reasons.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Mousethief, Josephine, I get what you are saying about doing things the Orthodox way. You have both been careful to confine your comments to Orthodox practice. I understand your position and respect it.

Several others on this thread have not drawn their lines nearly as carefully as you have. Statements have been made which have clear implications for those of us who belong to other Christian churches. It is those people and statements which I am attempting to engage.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ahhh. Thank you for making that clear, Scot. Like I've said before, you're a good egg.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Scot

quote:

---

Statements have been made which have clear implications for those of us who belong to other Christian churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

I would like to ask about the consecration of additional wine. Anglicans do this. If the wine is likely to run out, there are special words to say to consecrate extra. I would have thought that the extra wine, presumably to hand already, is already consecrated by the overall business of celebrating the eucharist, but this practice suggests it isn't the case. It suggests that consecration is the result of the saying of certain words and that it only operates on a bottle by bottle basis, not to all the wine in a certain area. Can someone explain this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Anyway, the reason for Orthodox using leavened bread and warm wine (hot water is admixed) is that it (Holy Communion / Eucharist) is for us as much a communion in the resurrection of Christ as his death. The "risen" quality of the elements is important to us.

---

quote:

---

In the Orthodox church, bread for the Eucharist must contain only three ingredients: flour, yeast, and salt. That's it.

---

That would make very strange bread. Presumably you're allowed water in it too?

Carys
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Carys

Of course. We Antiochian Orthodox are a bit naughty since we also put a little sweet spice in there as well. Other Orthodox are a bit sniffy at us for that, but we rather like it.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
Unless the communion bread is always pain de jour, I would assume it would require a dash of the finest Greek oil to keep it stable for several days.

Chesterbelloc mentioned communion under one kind. we have a couple of recovering alcoholics at my church who always take communion under one kind. I believe the idea is theologically sound.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Indeed, Paul - and don't forget, folks, that until VCII most Romans never received the PB (the reason being that one received the fullness of Christ under either species, and the PB was just too easy to spill).
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
Well, given the answers to my questions, it seems that the orthodox chrch does disapprove of all other types of communion other than it's own. It's just too polite to say so!

It's quite prepared to tell its own people off for doing things in any different way, but it doesn't want to be seen to be telling the rest of us what to do.

This stance might be plausible if it were really only a certain sort of bread and wine that were allowable, however as Gregories lot put spice in theirs, it makes a stance against tea and buscuits ridiculous.

No, the objection to tea and buscuits is really an objection to change, to changing the way things have been done for so long, to changing tradition .

So why not say so. This is the nub of so much that the church (of all denominations) hides behind. We are comfy in the surroundings we know so well, like most humans we do not like change.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
No, Bonzo - no no no no no ... Sorry and all that, but well, I mean NO. Like, not at all.
I'm not Orthodox, but I'm sorry - all your last few posts demonstrate is that you just haven't read or understood the posts in this thread properly (or of course you might be being deliberately provocative ... ) IMHO, of course.

CB
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
No, the objection to tea and buscuits is really an objection to change, to changing the way things have been done for so long, to changing tradition .

So why not say so.

---

quote:

---

We do our best to hold fast to the traditions we were taught, as we are commanded to do by St. Paul (2 Thess 2:15), because we believe God wants us to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Your business as Orthodox Christians is to be steadfast and self-same and that's it. You set the table, and God does the rest.

I do hope there's more to it than that.

---

What more would you like it to be? Seems sufficient to me.

---

quote:

---

We do what the previous generation of Orthodox Christians did, and they did what the generation before them did. Some of these questions were answered early and the answers were codified in church canons and such; for the others we've just always done it that way. Thus we always use wheat bread with just three ingredients (flour, salt, yeast), but different wines are allowed. Why? Because we've always done it that way.

"Because we've always done it that way" is not merely an acceptable answer for the Orthodox; it is the preferred one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Well, given the answers to my questions, it seems that the orthodox chrch does disapprove of all other types of communion other than it's own. It's just too polite to say so!

It's quite prepared to tell its own people off for doing things in any different way, but it doesn't want to be seen to be telling the rest of us what to do.

---

Not quite, Bonzo. We'd be more than happy to tell you what to do . The thing is, we don't want to be seen to be telling GOD what to do. We are not prepared to tell God that He can't accept a Eucharistic offering of tea and biscuits, or beer and chips, or whatever it is someone else is prepared to offer. We might shudder or roll our eyes -- we do *have* opinions on the way others offer the Eucharist, and not all of us are too polite to express those opinions -- but we are not willing to say that God can't grant grace through them. That's not our business.

What *is* our business is to serve the Eucharist the way we understand that God wants us to do it.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
Unless the communion bread is always pain de jour, I would assume it would require a dash of the finest Greek oil to keep it stable for several days.

---

It's always used the day it is consecrated, with the exception of bread that is set aside for the "pre-sanctified liturgies" during Lent. Even then we don't add oil.

To respond to somebody else's humorous point, yes, we do add water. Okay, so it's FOUR ingredients. Silly me.

Those wacky Antiochians I can't vouch for. Frankly I don't know exactly what the canons are on this one. And it doesn't matter. My priest does it the way his bishop tells him to and/or lets him do it, and Fr. Gregory does it the way his bishop commands and/or allows. Most of these slight variations go waaaaaaaaay back and nobody bats an eyelid to find out that some other tradition has a slightly different practice.

(Or, well, almost nobody. We have our lunatic fringe that make mountains out of molehills too. Alas. But for the most part they dissociate themselves from the larger lump which is to say they leave the Orthodox Church. But that's a whole 'nother thread!)

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I've killed it.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
I would have said the eating until I read Freddy, so I'll have to say both whilst, of course Father Gregory (hi me old mucker!), denying the literalism in need of an Occamian shave of transubstantiation.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We Antiochian Orthodox are a bit naughty since we also put a little sweet spice in there as well. Other Orthodox are a bit sniffy at us for that, but we rather like it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine

Not quite, Bonzo. We'd be more than happy to tell you what to do . The thing is, we don't want to be seen to be telling GOD what to do. We are not prepared to tell God that He can't accept a Eucharistic offering of tea and biscuits, or beer and chips, or whatever it is someone else is prepared to offer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine

Not quite, Bonzo. We'd be more than happy to tell you what to do . The thing is, we don't want to be seen to be telling GOD what to do. We are not prepared to tell God that He can't accept a Eucharistic offering of tea and biscuits, or beer and chips, or whatever it is someone else is prepared to offer.

---

But if you're prepared to tell orthodox christians that they're wrong if they try something different, then aren't you telling GOD what to do in just the same way as criticising another denomination?

---

quote:

---

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge

---

quote:

---

just to remind you where I'm coming from.

Posted by me earlier on inthis thread just to remind you where I'm coming from.

For some people meaning is found by believing the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Christ, and for those people, perhaps God makes this true (who knows), but it must be wrong for one person to tell another that what they're doing is wrong, when so much is down to personal understanding and interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
IMO it's wrong for someone to lay down the law over another person on this issue even within a denomination.

---

quote:

---

Posted by mousthief

How odd. We're willing to let you run things your own way in your own denomination, but you are unwilling to return the favour. Who's being closed-minded?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
If a group of people in my church wanted to celebrate a 'high' eucharist, insisting that, for them, the elements became the body and blood of Christ. I would have no problem with that although I suspect others in my church might. I think it's OK for a church to practice communion within the church service in the way that the majority want, but I would not stand in the way of those who held a different view practicing in their own way, although I would hope to be able to find some way where we could share together.

---

quote:

---

The problem with this approach, from our POV, is that, for us, the Eucharist is, for the Church, rather like sex is for marriage. It both signifies and creates the unity and intimacy of the persons; it is "communion" in a sense far more than just eating and drinking together. It is becoming one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
The notion that some of us can have communion one way over here, and some others of us can have communion differently over there is -- it starts from different presumptions than we start from, it reflects a different world view than our world view. It's just not something that Orthodox would do, because of the very nature of what Communion means to us.

And previously posted by josephine:
In the Orthodox church, bread for the Eucharist must contain only three ingredients: flour, yeast, and salt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
The question is, if some people have such deeply felt opinions to want to celebrate communion in a different way from the rest of the congregation, is it right to kick them out of the orthodox church because of that?

---

quote:

---

If, as most orthodox seem to be saying here, they are undecided on the validity of other forms of communion, then surely tolerating other forms of communion within the orthodox church must be preferrable to excommunication?

---

Bonzo, I don't know why I'm having so much trouble communicating this. Let me try again.

We are NOT undecided on the validity of other forms of communion. "Validity" isn't even a concept that we consider WRT communion! It's alien to us, to what Communion is about for us.

Communion, from an Orthodox POV, is what the Church does together. If it's done by the Church, according to the canons and rubrics and such, it's Communion. If it's not, we don't know what it is, and we refuse to speculate.

quote:

---

Doesn't the orthodox church see itself as the church, there to cater for all, rather than one of many flavours of Christianity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
How do you feel about an Orthodox celebration of communion using bread with added ingredients?

If it is acceptable, then there must be some principle which makes it so, and I am interested in hearing what that principle is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine

Communion, from an Orthodox POV, is what the Church does together. If it's done by the Church, according to the canons and rubrics and such, it's Communion. If it's not, we don't know what it is, and we refuse to speculate.

---

quote:

---

Why try and make us look at things the same way you do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
I haven't realy told you my preference for communion. In fact my belief is that Jesus wanted us to remember his sacrifice every time we sit down for a meal. There's no denomination that I know of that goes along with me on that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do NOT judge you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do NOT judge you.

---

Yes you do. You (plural) judge us not to be Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do NOT judge you.

---

Yes you do. You (plural) judge us not to be Orthodox.

---

Er ... but that would be a statement of fact, not a judgement, no? I mean, you're not covert Orthodox having a cheeky pop from within, are you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I mean, you're not covert Orthodox having a cheeky pop from within, are you?

---

Er, no (not in the sense you mean Orthodox, anyway). But the idea is rather amusing.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I like to use capitalization to make these distinctions. Orthodox is the denomination (yes, I know you don't think of yourself as a denomination, but the rest of us do). Same for Catholic. When I am referring to the concept rather than the institution I use orthodox or catholic. People seem to understand what I mean.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I like to use capitalization to make these distinctions. Orthodox is the denomination (yes, I know you don't think of yourself as a denomination, but the rest of us do). Same for Catholic. When I am referring to the concept rather than the institution I use orthodox or catholic. People seem to understand what I mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I like to use capitalization to make these distinctions. Orthodox is the denomination (yes, I know you don't think of yourself as a denomination, but the rest of us do). Same for Catholic. When I am referring to the concept rather than the institution I use orthodox or catholic. People seem to understand what I mean.

---

But you also have to be careful about the position of the word within the sentence. If you start a sentence with your ambiguous word we'll all assume it has a capital because it's the beginning of the sentence.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
It is a fairly widespread custom.

---

quote:

---

The real sticking point is that RCs/Orthodox/ and (some) Anglicans claim that something additional happens in their eucharists: bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. I would be surprised if those holding calvinist or zwinglian views would agree that this something additional happens in RC/Orthodox/Anglican eucharists.
It seems to me that, at least from one perspective, it is the low view of the eucharist which is "intolerant" of the high view.

---

Bolder yet, it seems, they would assert their view IS a Catholic or Orthodox view. That is, there is nothing more Catholic about the pope's view or more Orthodox about the patriarch's view.
I confess I have had a hard time understanding this. I think this is because the paradigm shift is very deep. Fr. Gregory keeps harping on about nominalism, and I think he is right. At the bottom of this is a conflict between idealism/nominalism and realism:
Communion is holy because I perceive Christ.
My church is Catholic because we call it that.
vs
Eucharist is holy because of God
The Patriarch of Constantinople is the head of the Orthodox church because he has been so consecrated by God.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Wrong way round. The Church - the whole Church, in time and eternity - is holy in Christ.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
We are uncovering very deep differences here and in some cases, very bitter wounds. The words "orthodox" or "Orthodox" OR "catholic" or "Catholic" are straining to contain that explosive brew which is ecclesiology and faith.

Bonzo talks about wanting acceptance of more diversity within denominations. Scot wants to call us a "denomination." as is his perogative, but that merely reflects his own ecclesiology, which, of course, we do not share. Bonzo perhaps thinks that he smells repressed dissent in Orthodoxy; perhaps not. At least, he finds it impossible to conceive that there should NOT be any repressed dissent ... anywhere in general and in Orthodoxy in particular. But this assumption is itself based on an epistemology and ecclesiology which is his own and not ours.

There is no evident solution here but there is, perhaps a hopeful invitation ... that we stop trying to define others as we define ourselves. I shall never perhaps convince Scot about my claims of nominalism. He will perhaps never convince me about the alleged defects in my apologetics ... but if we can both simply accept our differing starting points, we might then stand a chance of genuine advancement.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
I agree, acceptance of anothers starting point, and attempted understanding are important. I also think it's important that we can all question our own starting points.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
What Bonzo said.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Two questions rather unrelated to the OP, sorry.

1. Are Holy Orders a sacrament for the Eastern Orthodox?

2. If:
a: Holy Orders are a sacrament for the Eastern Othodox
and
b: the Eastern Orthodox are content to believe that their Sacraments are valid without stating whether the Sacraments of other Churches are valid
then:
why have Orthodox Churches in the past been willing to comment (positively) on the validity of Anglican Orders?

Pax out, y'all,
AngloRasc
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Anglican Rascal

We do not have the same understanding of "orders" as the Church of England although ours are certainly sacramental. The concept of "validity" is understood in a very different way. We hold that apostolic succession in terms of derivation of orders is not enough. There must be apostolic continuity in faith, orders and life. Without that continuity, validity (in a western sense) is nothing worth.

In the early decades of the 19th century, there were some Orthodox churches, (notably Constantinople) that were moving to a positive estimation of Anglican priesthood AS CONGRUENT WITH Orthodox priesthood (in other words interchangeable) on the basis of PREVAILING Anglican conditions. Moscow never accepted that so in Orthodox terms it was a non-starter.

Since then, a lot has changed in Anglicanism. We cannot have an interchangeable ministry if you have a ministry we don't accept ... women priests of course. Then there are the less easily defined variances between our churches. These have moved beyond welcome diversities, (rite, theological emphasis), and into areas that, frankly, shock us. If an Orthodox priest publicly denied and taught that a key aspect of the faith was up for grabs and probably not true he would be removed from his post. In Anglicanism that is never going to happen. An illustration ... a fellow ordinand once told his tutor at my theological college that he couldn't believe in the divinity of Christ and that he wondered whether or not he should be ordained. "No problem" was the reply ... he is now a cathedral canon. Now I know that Anglicans trumpet this tolerance as a virtue ... we regard it as a fatal weakness.

There is, therefore, no chance of recognition of Anglican orders until our respective churches come much closer together. As it is they are drifting further and further apart. These are tough and hard words but from our side of the equation they are a true reflection of our position.

Of course we shall continue to treat our fellow Christians with great civility and love and come to the consecrations of new Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury but please don't confuse that with endorsement of Anglicanism as a neo-Orthodox position. You will be disappointed if you do.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Thanks for that, Fr Gregory,

I was also interested in the question as to why - if the EOs weren't interested in commenting on the validity of our Holy Communion - they would be interested in commenting on our orders.

Pax out,
AngloRasc
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Ah ... you misunderstand me AR ... we now have a "no comment" position on Anglican orders. That way, if they ever do come on board in the future we won't have a papal bull to rewrite! It's also a good deal more charitable and NECESSARILY agnostic about what God does elsewhere.

Please ... I am not EASTERN Orthodox. Call me western Orthodox if you must. Christianity as a whole is an eastern phenomenon but that is the only concession I will make. I am, simply, Orthodox.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Ah ... you misunderstand me AR ... we now have a "no comment" position on Anglican orders. That way, if they ever do come on board in the future we won't have a papal bull to rewrite! It's also a good deal more charitable and NECESSARILY agnostic about what God does elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Ah ... you misunderstand me AR ... we now have a "no comment" position on Anglican orders. That way, if they ever do come on board in the future we won't have a papal bull to rewrite! It's also a good deal more charitable and NECESSARILY agnostic about what God does elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[QB]Odd. The Anglican tradition is that all the bread and wine is consumed there and then.
QB]

---

Ken,
That's certainly true at my (ECUSA) parish. The Altar Guild assures that the remaining elements are consumed. We have a group that bakes altar bread for the 10:30 and 5:30 services. The 8:00 (Rite I) service uses hosts, as does the midweek eucharist. Hosts and a small cruet of consecrated wine are reserved for ministry to the sick and shut-ins.

So that wedding experience was unique. But it did serve as a good catalyst for thought.

Lou
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
Fr. Gregory
This may surprise you, but I agree entirely with your position on the validity of Anglican Orders and how the position can only get worse.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
It doesn't surprise me at all Paul. It is quite consistent with your ecclesiology .... which I recognise as my own. Doubtless there are many who will differ!
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
To belabor the obvious, the look, texture, smell, taste of the bread has not changed. So what has changed? Clearly, the MEANING of the bread has changed, as well as the meaning of the actions of eucharist. And those meanings are not "just subjective." They are shaped by our traditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
rather than 'substance.' It's how I see it, but it's not how I thought Orthodox and Catholic Christians see it.

---

quote:

---

But the crumbly remnants of that celebration, in my mind, cease to signify what the loaf meant during the blessing-breaking-giving-and-eating that is eucharist.

---

So the Real Presence depends on YOU and your mind and what it means to you? And the poor bishop, is there Real Presence for him but not for you (as long as you don't throw it to the birds)? And what about God, can Christ not maintain his Real Presence after things have lost any meaning to you?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear hatless

I don't know why you include the Orthodox in your reference to "surprise." For us, it's not just the "meaning" that is involved. The bread, remaining bread, IS different. I'm afraid that nominalism is raising its head here again ....
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
Presumably

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This reflects the fact that according to both Catholic and Orthodox understandings there has been no defect, impairment or dubiety concerning the sacraments of our respective churches.

As soon as women are consecrated bishops in the Church of England this will be yey one more and perhaps final wedge in the Anglican-Orthodox reciprocity (such as it is) in ministries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do NOT judge you.

---

It seems to me that determination (judging?) that a Communion service in another church is not valid suggests a view that Christ is 'in the bread' (although this does not preclude Him also being 'in the eating'). If person A believes that they can take Communion in church X, but should not in church Y (even though they perceive their church Y to be composed of their Christian brothers and sisters) then this seems to imply that there is something about the bread in church Y which is wrong.

The more 'open' a stance on Communion the more this suggests that Christ is 'in the eating'.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear hatless

I don't know why you include the Orthodox in your reference to "surprise." For us, it's not just the "meaning" that is involved. The bread, remaining bread, IS different. I'm afraid that nominalism is raising its head here again ....

---

quote:

---

For those in the Catholic/Orthodox realm, we perceive the meaning of the bread to be really and irrevocably changed.

---

quote:

---

Is sacramentalism about how we understand knowledge and language?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The epistemological assumptions condition how we "understand" not only sacraments but anything that exists and has meaning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The epistemological assumptions condition how we "understand" not only sacraments but anything that exists and has meaning.

---

Indeed, but does an Orthodox believer have to be a philosophical realist? Are non-realists bound to have what you would consider a deficient understanding of sacraments?

---

This is a confusing question. If someone is a "non-realist" does that mean he is a nominalist on EVERY question which nominalism or realism might be used to interpret? Can I not disbelieve in say the Platonic Forms, or in the existence of "species" over and above the members thereof, or in (to use a Scholastic example) 'non-elephants' -- and yet still believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ? If not, why not?

Or by 'non-realist' do you mean somebody like Bishop Berkeley, who believed that matter was unreal and only minds existed? This seems clearly at odds with Orthodox teaching, which celebrates the becoming-matter of the Son of God quite explicitly. Certainly if this is your stripe of non-realism, then you are out of synch with the Orthodox Church and we would say your understanding of reality is deficient, not merely your understanding of the sacraments.

So I'm unclear exactly what it is you're asking.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
To be honest Mousethief ... so as I! Instead of trying to ride the wavecrest of confusion I should, like you have asked for clarification. I suspect though it's the old response:- "So you think we're defective do you?! " We're damned either way we answer that one. I may, however, be doing hatless a disservice.

It seems to me that ontological dependability depends in an Orthodox sense on the creative will and mind of God in whom we connect sensately with such "things." I think (emphasis "think") this is close to Aquinas.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It seems to me that ontological dependability depends in an Orthodox sense on the creative will and mind of God in whom we connect sensately with such "things." I think (emphasis "think") this is close to Aquinas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear hatless

I don't know why you include the Orthodox in your reference to "surprise." For us, it's not just the "meaning" that is involved. The bread, remaining bread, IS different. I'm afraid that nominalism is raising its head here again ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I am hesitent to say, as Lou does, that Christ's presence is a matter of the "meaning" of the elements. I would go along with this if we were to specify that what we are talking about is the meaning that God gives to the elements, not the meaning we give to them. But then the reality of the presence of Christ's body and blood is, ontologically, the same as the reality of any other thing: it is what it is because God knows it to be that thing.

FCB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I am left wondering if us giving meaning and God giving meaning are genuine alternatives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Maybe this is a genuine difference between Orthodoxy and both Catholicism and Protestantism combined. For "you" both it has to be EITHER bread OR the Body of Christ. That is as nonsensical as saying that Christ has to be EITHER human OR divine ...

---

quote:

---

It doesn't surprise me at all Paul. It is quite consistent with your ecclesiology .... which I recognise as my own. Doubtless there are many who will differ!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Maybe this is a genuine difference between Orthodoxy and both Catholicism and Protestantism combined. For "you" both it has to be EITHER bread OR the Body of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
In response to Ken's point both Common Worship and the MWB include a prayer that the bread and wine become the body and blood and the rubrics state that the consecrated elements be reverently disposed of. Of course, individual opinion and local practice may vary ;)but if liturgy and anecdotal evidence are guides to the opinions in the pew then I don't think that the view expressed by Ken is atypical of Anglican or Methodist views at least.

---

Along with a typical Anglican/Methodist reluctance to define. Hs this thread really got so far without anyone quoting:

quote:

---

Christ's was the word that spake it,
he took the bread and brake it,
and what his word did make it,
that I believe, and take it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
To be honest Mousethief ... so as I! Instead of trying to ride the wavecrest of confusion I should, like you have asked for clarification. I suspect though it's the old response:- "So you think we're defective do you?! " We're damned either way we answer that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I can't speak for the Romans, but plenty of Protestants are perfectly happy to say "this is the body of Christ" while acknowledging that it is bread. Hundreds of millions of us do that whenever we take Communion.

---

quote:

---

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.

---

quote:

---

We Orthodox steadfastly refuse to speculate about the efficacy of other churches' sacraments.

---

quote:

---

For "you" both (Protestants and Roman Catholics) it has to be EITHER bread OR the Body of Christ. That is as nonsensical as saying that Christ has to be EITHER human OR divine ... and for much the same reason, although, of course, in respect of Christ there is no temporal change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The trouble is that if we are forced to expose with reasons why we regard such understandings as defective some people get terribly defensive and think we are judging the efficacy of what they do. That is in God's hands not ours. So, it's damned if we don't say anything and damned if we do

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
So though orthodox Christians won't comment on the efficacy of your sacrements they will quite happily call your view of this 'nonsensical'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The trouble is that if we are forced to expose with reasons why we regard such understandings as defective some people get terribly defensive and think we are judging the efficacy of what they do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
For us it is not incoherent to say ...

THIS IS BREAD
THIS IS THE BODY OF CHRIST

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Surely Christ's presence is not material but personal and Spiritual.

---

quote:

---

I would be very much interested in hearing a reasoned argument as to why my communion might be "defective."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot

I would be very much interested in hearing a reasoned argument as to why my communion might be "defective." However, I will insist that the reasons be founded in such philosophy, theology, experience, or tradition as we might both agree is valid. Otherwise, all we are doing is berating one another in foreign languages.

---

quote:

---

Rome and ourselves have opposing views on who has the fulness but that doesn't stop us fully accepting each other at our altars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Rome and ourselves have opposing views on who has the fulness but that doesn't stop us fully accepting each other at our altars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This is the practice in the Patriarchate of Europe, Diocese in Western and Central Europe

If an Orthodox Christian or a Roman Catholic Christian is not within reasonable travelling distance of his / her own church or if he / she is "in extremis" without his / her own priest available then Communion may be received.

---

I'm not quite sure what this means.

Are you saying that it is (in general) the practice in the Patriarchate of Europe, Diocese in Western and Central Europe, and that elsewhere may happen if an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian is not within reasonable travelling distance etc...

Or that within the Patriarchate of Europe, Diocese in Western and Central Europe, if an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian is not within reasonable travelling distance etc...
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Sorry Chapelhead ...

This regulation concerns Orthodox and Catholics in the aforementioned diocese. I can't speak for other Orthodox dioceses ... our provision is not unusual though ... however, there are other Orthodox jurisdictions who take a much much tougher line. You should know that many Orthodox consider the Patriarchate of Antioch to be too liberal and progressive, (shock as some contributors begin to wonder in amzemenmt as to what a more conservative approach in Orthodoxy might look like! )
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Typo! I bet you have never seen "amazement" spelt like that before! Sorry.

"in" with reference to Catholics means geographically resident in Antioch's geographical jurisdiction.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 

quote:

---

Orthodox do not receive Communion willy nilly even in their own Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Perhaps Scot should have said that he would be very much interested in hearing a reasoned argument as to why his communion is not one in which orthodox christians would partake.

---

quote:

---

For me the problem is that the orthodox church sees itself as the church, rather than one amongst equals.

---

quote:

---

For this reason it accepts the practices of its own tradition, even down to accepting variations introduced by factions of its own tradition, but refuses to accept the practices of traditions of other denominations which are equally, if not more deeply founded in scripture.

---

quote:

---

There is an air of superiority in this attitude which I feel detracts from orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

This refusal to express an opinion, when quite obviously an opinion is being expressed within the orthodox church, for me, seems like a tactical manouvre. At best it is to avoid offence to other denominations, at worst it is because they know their stance is indefensible.

---

quote:

---

The funny thing is that, for a church which believes itself to be the church, which wants all it's congregation to share in one communion, it refuses to allow anyone with a different view to operate within its ranks, in short it actively excludes a large proportion of the christian church on this issue.

---

quote:

---

All for something it says it has no comment on! All for something it says it doesn't know about or is not sure about!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Please be careful not to misquote or misrepresent me. The statement above infers that I think your Communion is defective .... which is something I would never do ... I make no judgement on what God may or may not do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
You and I do not have the same understanding of the Eucharist ... in fact it is radically different and in unity terms we are further away. Why should eucharistic hospitality exist in these circumstances?

---

quote:

---

So if we were all penitent, and prepared, and we invited you to our communion then, would you commune with us?

---

quote:

---

Because the hospitality is not ours to give, but Christ's.

We participate in the heavenly banquet. We are the beggars, the halt, the blind, and the lame, dragged off the streets to the wedding feast of the Bride and the Lamb. It is his body and blood in which we share, and his high-priestly sacrifice that accomplished it.

Christ does not invite those who understand but those who hunger and thirst.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
So if we were all penitent, and prepared, and we invited you to our communion then, would you commune with us?

---

quote:

---

Ken wrote:
Because the hospitality is not ours to give, but Christ's.

We participate in the heavenly banquet. We are the beggars, the halt, the blind, and the lame, dragged off the streets to the wedding feast of the Bride and the Lamb. It is his body and blood in which we share, and his high-priestly sacrifice that accomplished it.

Christ does not invite those who understand but those who hunger and thirst.

---

ken, you are going to make me go all gushy.

quote:

---

Fr. Gregory wrote:
Our modifications of this stance oonly apply to Churches that share the same understanding and which, therefore, evidently fall within the same circle of authority. If you wish to interpret that as a judgement on churches I cannot help that ... but that is not our eucharistic understanding or intention.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by me

So if we were all penitent, and prepared, and we invited you to our communion then, would you commune with us?

---

Reply by Gregory

No, I thought I had made that clear. There has to be congruity of understanding in the Eucharist itself. This we have with Rome. We do not have such a common understanding with your tradition .... which leads me on to the next point .... why the same understanding must exist for inter communion ...

---

quote:

---

So the impenetrable Orthodox tradition prevents us from ever sharing bread and wine together as Christ asked us to. It seems to me that you place loyalty to tradition ahead of loyalty to Christ.

---

"Impenetrable" ... that would be the case if it was incapable of being understood. This is not the case. Not up for negotiation? On essentials, no. What are essentials and what are not? Open for neogtiation.

Tradition (uppercase T) for the Orthodox is NOT conventional practice but the whole of Scripture - as the normative core- patristics, councils, creeds, saints, art etc. In that sense Tradition is the mind of Christ. Your contrast does not work for us.

quote:

---

Gregory, weren't you once an Anglican, or have I got that wrong? Are you saying that your communions with Anglicans counted for nothing? Are you saying that you could no longer share communion with people you once called brothers and sisters?

---

quote:

---

Maybe some day we'll meet up and drink a pint or two of Robinsons bitter and a packet of Walkers crisps in the Blossoms. Maybe we'll talk about Jesus and how he was crucified for our sins. For me the beer might be the blood of Jesus and the crisps might be His body. For you, probably just beer and crisps. Who knows. But if we share food and drink together and remember Jesus, wouldn't that be good, whatever name you call it?

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that you could no longer share communion with people you once called brothers and sisters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do not have such a common understanding with your tradition .... which leads me on to the next point .... why the same understanding must exist for inter communion ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do not have such a common understanding with your tradition .... which leads me on to the next point .... why the same understanding must exist for inter communion I keep on saying that we do not judge the effiocacy of the sacraments of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Not the efficacy Chapelhead ... the status vis a vis the standard or norm.

---

This sounds to me like a 'subtle' distinction.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
It appears to me that some of y'all don't quite understand what the Eucharist means within Orthodoxy.

For us, it's not:

Eucharist:Church::Meal:Family and Friends

It's much more like:

Eucharist:Church::Sex:Marriage

I think most folks understand and respect the idea of not having sex until you've been joined to each other in the Sacrament of Marriage, even if they don't hold it themselves.

Likewise, I expect expect married people who partake of sex outside of marriage to understand and respect the preference of those who prefer to refrain from doing so.

In the same manner, it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to expect you to understand and respect our feelings about the Eucharist.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
Fr. Gregory
I understand the stance your church takes on Eucharistic sharing and I respect it. I must say that the sharing attitude the C of E takes on this is one of it's more endearing points IMO. So while I understand your unwillingness to share with protestants who may not share youe Eucharistic theology, why are you unable to share with Catholics on a regular basis, given that there is little difference between your understanding of the Eucharist? It is my understanding that the RC Church shares with the Orthodox, but not vice versa. Why?

As an Anglican with a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, I have always felt somewhat affronted by the unwillingness of my wife's RC priest to offer me Communion. He says that he would, of his own choice, but that the rules don't permit it. It's a conundrum I share with the Prime Minister, who, a few years back used to take Communion regularly in his wife's church, but when he became more high profile was obliged to stop because of complaints. In the case of a mixed family, chuerch rules can cause a lot of personal pain. When my wife visits my church she always takes Communion, though it is against the rules of her church. She says she does it for fellowship. I don't interfere because that is between her, her church and God.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
Gregory,

I find this all very sad, and I feel certain it's not what Christ intended.

Josephine,

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? Incidentally, I don't believe it's less important to me than it is to you.

For me a number of my pre-conceptions have been confirmed by this thread.

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.

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. How can they modify their position if their denomination tells them they cannot? There has been much use of ' ' by orthodox christians here, but don't you see how much of a brickwall this is for the rest of us?
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Faith.
It's not incompatible with reason, but it isn't subordinate to her either.
It's not a product of our understanding, it's a gift from God.
At best, those who do not share the faith (at least with respect to RC/O eucharistic theology) would like to see what reason justifies this faith. But it is the faith that justifies the reasoning.
At worst, they have found solace in their faithless reasoning: 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.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
However orthodox christians do choose one particular view of the Eucharist above others, and are forbidden from taking part in others.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, I don't believe it's less important to me than it is to you.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Should we not pray for the obstacles to be removed?

---

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]

---

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.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...

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
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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).
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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).
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
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"!
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
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)
 

---

Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :
 

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]

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Amen Gamaliel ... talking and listening ... me as well.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I fear that Orthodoxy has become a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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."

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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).
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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? )
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 

quote:

---

So what is the solution? For the Orthodox it's to say, "our church is the one the creed is speaking of"

---

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.

---

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.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0