quote:

---

I was taught 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 XXXXX Church.

Some will say there aren't any Christians outside the Church -- if you're not XXXXX, you're not Christian.

Others will say that those outside the Church are related to the Church in the same manner as those who are temporarily excommunicate -- they're Christians, they're members of the Church, but are simply out of Communion.

Others would say that those outside the XXXXX Church are related to the Church in a manner analogous to unbaptized children of Christians. They already belong to the Church, although the relationship hasn't yet been fulfilled.

Some will say it's none of our business; it's between them and God.

But I've never heard any discussion of how any other Church relates to the XXXXX Church, since I've never heard any other XXXXX Christian say there *is* another Church outside ours.

---

• We love and honour one of our senior retired clergy, one Lloyd Geering, the only Presbyterian in NZ to have been tried and acquitted of heresy in the last century
• We have a lesbian minister, and our parish has been staunchly pro-gay since about 1984
• We have a study trust which examines the interface between religion and society
• We are committed to interfaith dialogue (don't laugh - somebody tried to bring a heresy charge on this very issue at GA last year)
• We don't believe that God's revelation is entirely contained by the Bible
• etc., etc., etc., all of which I find quite normal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Funny, Mousethief, but I didn't know who the author of the original post was until you just mentioned it.

---

So?

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
So I didn't initially interpret the OP as having anything to do with Orthodox ecclesiology. And given the redaction, it doesn't strike me that it does now.

That's all.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Fair enough. But is it your job to say how it struck, or should have struck, me?

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Well, since I've been "outed" on this thread (thanks, sweetie! ) I figure I might as well explain the point I was trying to make.

The thread in question had moved from Eucharist to ecclesiology, with a large side of "why do all Orthodox always say the same thing? why do you all agree with each other all the time?" In a fit of pique, I said, if you want a subject on which Orthodox will disagree, the Eucharist ain't it. The Church ain't it. Try something else. Like, maybe Christians outside the Church. There, if you had 100 Orthodox Christians talking, you might find some differences of opinion.

I could have picked some other areas where there are wide differences of opinion. Like whether taxes should be raised or lowered, whether war in Iraq is justified, how best to fix the educational system in this country, or exactly what happens to the soul after death. But Christians outside the Church was rather closer to the thread as it was going on than any of those topics.

FWIW, I've never actually met an Orthodox Christian who believed that there are no Christians outside the Orthodox Church, although I have been assured that they exist (mostly in parts of Eastern Europe where they've never met any Christians who aren't Orthodox).

Again, though, I was not attempting to be disrespectful to Christians who are not Orthodox. If anyone feels that I was, I ask you to forgive me.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Mousethief wrote:

quote:

---

Fair enough. But is it your job to say how it struck, or should have struck, me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The day I take a “swipe” at Orthodoxy, there won’t be any mistaking it. I promise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aig:
we are the only ones who know the truth (that there is no single repository for truth).

---

Nope. Sorry to disappoint, that is not an Anglican thing.

But getting back to the OP, I have come across groups where they do seriously think that they are the ONLY ONES! When I was growing up, that was what seemed to be coming from the local RC church, but hey, we (CofS) didn't actually believe that they were Christians anyway, they worshipped Mary! (well, that was what was said at the time)

There were some Baptist who also seemed to have the same attitude, and they didn't want to associate with people who claimed to be Christians, cos they were so 'tainted' by the world.

In a Pentecostal church I went to for a few years it was being filled with the Spirit that was the thing. Any Christian who did not have at least one of the gifts was little better than a heathen.

That was 15-25 years ago. What is so wonderful is that they are all now talking and sharing in worship. They work together with Christian aid and Cafod. They hold joint Lenten study groups. They have joint carol services. When one of the churches is having a 'do' all the others are invited.

The churches are all still seperate. They give differing importance to parts of their worship and life. But they have realised that the differences add interest, and they are not a barrier to to being the Body of Christ.

bb
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I am glad Scot has started another thread because the spat between Hatless, Bonzo, Scot, myself and Josephine on the "in the eating or in the bread thread" was tangential. I will now quote my last reply there because it is relevant here. However, I will do a Scot and substitutes "kisses" for Orthodoxy to keep the question more broadly based, (for it does apply to many Christian groups who make similar claims).

quote:

---

ALL (XXX) subscribe to the view that the (XXX) Church has the fullness of faith and life but they differ widely on Christianity outside (XXX).

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 (XXX) ....

(1) The fullness of Christianity subsists in (XXXy/ism) ... (referring to the matrix of belief and life eather than the named Church itself). I say (XXXy/ism) rather than in the (XXX 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 (XXX) churches, (undeniably XXX - adjective), became judged by others as uncanonical ... ceasing to be seen by these as belonging to the Church.....

(2) There are many churches, Christians and other groups that practice (XXXy/ism) more or less completely but which are not part of the (XXX) 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.

---

quote:

---

the church is an identifiable body which has descended from the first century church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Is it true that you personally believe orthodoxy (and presumably RC) to be 'special' because the governing body of these churches can trace their lineage back to the early church?

If that is true, why is it true?

---

Hmmm. I don't know about "special."

But the point is that we believe the Orthodox church is, historically speaking, the same church that Christ and the Apostles founded. Not because we woke up in the 19th century and looked around and said, "which is the right church?" but because we believed that in 101 AD and then in 102 AD we believed it too, and in 104 we kept believing it, and then in 105 it was still true, and so forth down to the present. There is no break along the way, there is no point which you can point to and say "before this, this continuing entity was the Church, but after this it wasn't because blah blah blah."

As Josephine said, the RC's are a special case. Either they are in schism from us, or we are in schism from them. Depends which side you ask, of course.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
What basis is there for the claim that organic continuity is the defining feature of the Church? For that matter, what basis is there for the claim that organizational unity is desirable? From diversity comes strength and creativity.

It seems odd to me that any group would claim a parochial status as the sole entity of the Church. Such a claim appears to be self-serving in the near term and self-destructive in the long term. In either case, such a claim is as unwise as it is unfounded.
 

---

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

quote:

---

What basis is there for the claim that organic continuity is the defining feature of the Church? For that matter, what basis is there for the claim that organizational unity is desirable? From diversity comes strength and creativity.

---

quote:

---

It seems odd to me that any group would claim a parochial status as the sole entity of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Such a claim appears to be self-serving in the near term and self-destructive in the long term. In either case, such a claim is as unwise as it is unfounded.

---

• I am a Christian
• Others who have a different theology then mine are Christian
• Except those who's theology is so far away from my understanding of Christianity as to preclude them from me labelling them as Christian

quote:

---

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Whether the Catholics intend it or not, such rejection of full communion with other denominations seems to imply that they think other Christians are not truly Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief

But the point is that we believe the Orthodox church is, historically speaking, the same church that Christ and the Apostles founded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
So I didn't initially interpret the OP as having anything to do with Orthodox ecclesiology. And given the redaction, it doesn't strike me that it does now....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
CorgiGreta,
...I'm not aware of the other episode, but if someone from a Christian community not approved by the Catholic Church received, then that too was unlawful under Canon Law, as well as a sign of gross disrespect to both the Eucharist and Catholics.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I agree, Greta. I have received in a Roman Catholic church as well, and as I believe in the Real Presence I have no concerns about doing so. The priest where Tony Blair attended Mass didn't seem to worry so much about it either until the press found out!

---

quote:

---

JL is very much a traditionalist, very conservative, Opus Dei Roman Catholic.

---

quote:

---

I know plenty of Roman Catholics round here - we had two priests at benediction on Sunday in our Anglican church - and I don't honestly recognise much of what he says in their approach, which is far more inclusive and sceptical of the current conservative hierarchy

---

I've already addressed your silly approach to Catholicism on the "Forward in Faith" thread, and I have better things to do than repeat myself here.

Rossweisse,

When you read the word "Catholic" in my posts, assume that I mean what an Anglican would mean by "Roman Catholic" unless I specifically say beforehand that I'm using "Catholic" in some other sense. How's that for a compromise?



(Rest assured that your desire not to revisit that particular dispute is wholly shared by me.)
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
'Silly ' approach - ah, you mean the one which doesn't tally with yours. What insight!
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
'Silly ' approach - ah, you mean the one which doesn't tally with yours. What insight!

---

No, I mean one which is, to be frank, ignorant. Some anti-Catholics at least educate themselves about what they're going to hate (admittedly, any proper education will generally lead to conversion, but I digress) prior to ranting.

One example of your confusion will suffice: the claims that I'm a "traditionalist" and that I'm a member of Opus Dei are obviously contradictory to anyone who knows anything about the way Opus Dei works in the contemporary Catholic Church, and the nature of the Traditionalist movement.

That said, since this isn't Hell, and I do try to love people even when they drive me nuts: may God bless you, and bring you ever closer to the splendour of His Truth.


 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

Belief in the Real Presence manifests itself as much in how we approach it as in what we think happens during consecration. I don't want to go any further with this, because I'm in danger of turning an interesting thread Hellish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

quote:

---

Belief in the Real Presence manifests itself as much in how we approach it as in what we think happens during consecration. I don't want to go any further with this, because I'm in danger of turning an interesting thread Hellish.

---

If someone believes as Roman Catholics do, approaches the sacraments in the same way they do, why do you say "I will pray for your souls" with the clear implication that we will be damned?

---

quote:

---

With all due respect, I think the number of Roman Catholics who are happy to give communion to Christians who have catholic belief far outnumbers the number of those who think that both those priests who give and those who receive are damned for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Some anti-Catholics at least educate themselves about what they're going to hate (admittedly, any proper education will generally lead to conversion, but I digress) prior to ranting.

---

I had twelve years of Roman Catholic schooling, in which we were taught the official doctrines of the church, and it sent me running far away from the church in ANY form for six years. I have especially fond memories of being separated from the Roman Catholics by a row of empty desks, lest we heathen Protestants contaminate their precious souls.

Roman Catholicism is very clear on who is in and who is out.
 

---

Posted by David (# 3) on :
 
Ah, but Erin. You obviously didn't receive a "proper education", because otherwise you would have been converted.
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
That remark wasn't intended entirely seriously, Dave.
 

---

Posted by David (# 3) on :
 
Not entirely seriously, Lad? Which part was intended seriously then, and which part wasn't?
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
When I said "admittedly, any proper education will generally lead to conversion, but I digress", it was tongue-in-cheek. I do think a lot of anti-Catholics would cease to exist as such if they actually bothered to study what the Catholic Church teaches, but I'm also aware that there are some people for whom no amount of study will bring them to accept Catholicism.

Anyway, I'll be sure to mark it up the next time I'm not being entirely serious with a suitable array of flashing graphics.


 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Jesuitical Lad wrote:

quote:

---

I'm also aware that there are some people for whom no amount of study will bring them to accept Catholicism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Self-destructive? Wouldn't you say that Protestantism's fragmentation into over 25,000 denominations puts the boot on the other foot on that one as well?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What basis is there for the claim that organic continuity is the defining feature of the Church? For that matter, what basis is there for the claim that organizational unity is desirable? From diversity comes strength and creativity.

---

The basis is the basis of your own body Scot. It is that defining sense of self that is represented by your psychosomatic integration notwithstanding the glorious diversity and plasticity of the human organism. I am sure that St. Paul had that in mind in 1 Cor 12. Being one body is no use if the body snatchers take over tomorrow.

---

In this analogy, it is the head that decides what is a part and what is not a part. Christ is the head of the Church. Any denomination pretending to be the whole Church is nothing more than a foot, or some other body part, that has fallen asleep and forgotten that it is connected to a greater whole.

You seem to equate organism with organization in a way that I believe is arbitrary and flawed. Ecclesial structure is only one of the possible criteria that could be used to define the boundaries of the Church organism. Some have said that membership in the true Church is conferred by bloodline, race, or speaking in tongues. In each case, an arbitrary standard was chosen and elevated in a way that perverts the inclusive nature of the gospel of Christ.
 

---

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

I am saying that the human body in its organic unity / diversity coherence is the way we should look at Church unity, (after 1 Cor 12). A human body "sings the same tune" as it were ... if it doesn't it will be cancerous. The problem with denominations is that they don't sing the same tune even on essentials and sometimes not even on core beliefs, (I am using the definition/ distinction I used before). As such I believe denominationalism to be cancerous and ultimately fatal to those churches that are infected by it. It is certainly no basis on which to construe any kind of unity.

Occasional Protestant church "movements" come along and proudly trumpet "we are not denominational ... we're just here to serve the other churches." When the other (Protestant) churches don't want to be served, the wraps come off and, hey presto!, we have another deonomination.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
Gregory,

The mouth, brain, tongue and lungs are involved in singing a tune, but when it comes to filtering out bodily waste, a kidney or two works better I find.

There will be no one church, no one denomination that has everything right and no one denomination which will suit all sorts of humans. Your orthodox church has a very liturgical style of worship which will suit some people down to the ground. My baptist church has a strong sense of social right and wrong which is why I go there. While I would love there to be a church which was broad enough to encompass all these good ideas, I fear that human nature and intolerance of other people's ideas makes the current situation the best of a bad job. You changed anglican to orthodox. I changed from anglican to baptist.

If there was only the orthodox church, then I would be unable to, say, take communion, my needs would be ignored, you would insist that I assented to your view of the Eucharist as the correct one, or forgo it. If there was only my baptist church, you would feel unable to take communion with us. So because we are human don't you think it's a good thing that both churches exist? Isn't this variety a good thing, when you consider the alternative?

I know you don't believe that the orthodox church is right in everything it does, any more than I believe that my baptist church is 100% right. So let's be clear here. When it comes to the idea of one denomination (A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy) it's a non starter for most christians.
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
Gregory

If all are to sing the same tune then there must be compromises by all. If this is so important to you I suggest that you get talking to create greater commonality between the Orthodox and then onto relationships with the Roman Catholics. At present your tone is a schismatic as the most obstreperous of Protestants. It sound too much like "if you do not play my way I am going off".

However as any choir master will tell you a melody however good does not of itself make a good piece of music. You need the harmonies and the discords to create a full sound.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Ecclesial structure is only one of the possible criteria that could be used to define the boundaries of the Church organism. Some have said that membership in the true Church is conferred by bloodline, race, or speaking in tongues. In each case, an arbitrary standard was chosen and elevated in a way that perverts the inclusive nature of the gospel of Christ.

---

quote:

---

we believed that in 101 AD and then in 102 AD we believed it too, and in 104 we kept believing it, and then in 105 it was still true, and so forth down to the present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I do think receiving communion when not in a state of grace and not a member of the Catholic Church is profoundly foolish and dangerous, but it's not my job to say who's damned.

---

quote:

---

Given this failure, it amazes me all the more that Anglicans are willing to receive in Catholic churches. Is there something wrong with the sacraments on offer in Anglican churches all over the country? Is it possible that subconsciously, you've accepted the Catholic view of Anglican sacraments?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps not. I'm tempted to think that this behaviour is actually not so much a capitulation to Rome as a continuation of the historical anti-Catholicism - symbolic violence an' all - which has plagued this country since the Reformation. Thankfully I don't suffer from the affliction of thinking that my suspecting something therefore makes it the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
My wife has been a bit startled by this thread. She has taken communion in an RC church several times when visiting with a friend. Nobody told her she wasn’t allowed, and it never occurred to her to ask. In my mind, this leads to some questions.

What is the effect of her ignorant participation in an RC communion where she was not welcome? Did she somehow corrupt the sacrament for the rest of the congregation?

---

quote:

---

Did she incur the wrath of God?

---

quote:

---

If not, then what harm was done?

---

quote:

---

Was the communion efficacious for the rest of the congregation, but not for my wife?

---

quote:

---

Does it make a difference to the result if she has a memorial understanding of communion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eanswyth:
I was baptized and confirmed in the Roman Catholic church. I now worship in an Episcopal (ECUSA) church. Would I be allowed to receive communion in a RC church today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
Personally I still don't think I did anything wrong; I certainly had no intention of disrespecting the RC Church, it's customs, laws, clergy or members. I asked a practicing Catholic if I could receive communion in his church. He said "Yes." Could he be in trouble? Could the priest?

---

Personally, I don't think you did anything wrong either, FWIW! It just so happens that in my own case, wherever I have attended an RC church service, I have always been known as a non-Catholic, and the priest has always observed the protocol of his Church not to communicate non-Catholics.

Or sometimes, I have been in the company of Catholics who I definitely know would be offended if I tried to receive, and would consider it a provocative and rude thing to do. As it is 'their' church, I've always deferred, and simply asked for a blessing.

Like many on this thread, I, too, have a lot of friends and acquaintances who have been encouraged by RC priests to communicate, even though they have stated their denomination, or asked about the validity of it all. I also know a number of folk who regularly holiday abroad in Europe and attend local RC churches, where they are known to be Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists or whatever, by the congregation and priest who welcomes and communicates them at Mass.

Whenever I've happened to mention that I wouldn't expect to receive communion from a Catholic priest, I, too, have met the mystified and almost worried response of some folk, to whom it never occurred to question whether they were doing the wrong thing in sharing the sacrament.

As I hinted at in my previous post, I don't believe I am doing the 'right' thing in not expecting to receive; just the polite thing. While I may respect the RC Church's protocol on who should and shouldn't be fed by Christ at their altars, I'm not compelled to agree with it. But then I suspect that's why they'd rather people like me don't receive
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Ecclesial structure is only one of the possible criteria that could be used to define the boundaries of the Church organism. Some have said that membership in the true Church is conferred by bloodline, race, or speaking in tongues. In each case, an arbitrary standard was chosen and elevated in a way that perverts the inclusive nature of the gospel of Christ.

---

I had thought that baptism defined the boundaries of the Church ? Anyone who wants to draw a boundary elsewhere should please be clear on the role of baptism and what that means if it is not what some of us thought it was.



Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
When I said "admittedly, any proper education will generally lead to conversion, but I digress", it was tongue-in-cheek. I do think a lot of anti-Catholics would cease to exist as such if they actually bothered to study what the Catholic Church teaches, but I'm also aware that there are some people for whom no amount of study will bring them to accept Catholicism.

Anyway, I'll be sure to mark it up the next time I'm not being entirely serious with a suitable array of flashing graphics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
If you choose to disrespect the Catholic Church's teaching on who can receive the Eucharist at our Masses, that's your choice. So a priest approved? As recent events have shown, priests are far from uniformly perfect in following the teachings of their Church.

---

Disclaimer: JL, just so you know, I quite like your posts in other topics, and, since I violently disagree with your stance on this issue, in Christian love I'm going to ham slap you for a bit here.

Also, I feel I should preface this with the admission that I'm a crunchy iconoclastic Protestant who has no love for any religious empire's power structure, regardless of name or history. [somewhat tongue in cheek] I'm not prejudiced; I hate them all. [/somewhat tongue in cheek]

Okay, on with my post.

IMHO quite obviously you disapprove of CG receiving that communion from the priest, and such is your right. However, I strenuously disagree with both your stance and the RCC doctrine limiting communion participants to fellow RCs absent extreme, life-threatening situations anyone else might be in.

Communion, as I understand it, is the rememberance of the Passion of Christ, a rememberance of His life and His death, His sufferings and His resurrection afterward. Am I incorrect in this definition?

I Cor. 11:23-30:

quote:

---

(23)For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, (24)and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." (25)In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." (26)For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

(27)Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (28)A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. (29)For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (30)That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
New York’s Cardinal O’Connor condemned Clinton's illicit reception of Holy Communion.

---

JL, your use of the word 'illicit' here knots my knickers something fierce. How on God's good earth can someone receiving Communion do so "illicitly"?! If I marry a woman while I'm married to another woman, then yes, I married illicitly by committing bigamy. But if I am a Christian, presumably saved by grace and in relationship with God, and I receive Communion from an RC priest under less than life-threatening circumstances (as Clinton did), how the frick does "illicit" enter into the equation, apart from a "technical foul" of RCC Canon Law?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I'm not aware of the other episode, but if someone from a Christian community not approved by the Catholic Church received, then that too was unlawful under Canon Law, as well as a sign of gross disrespect to both the Eucharist and Catholics.

---

quote:

---

I see nothing about qualifying Communion recipients according to denominational membership.

---

quote:

---

"Tremendous violence was done to you . . . when the Body of Christ was denied to you," Edwards said, referring to the contention of the three that refusal of Holy Communion had prompted their actions. "As a member of your church, I ask you to forgive the church."

---

quote:

---

Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Washington, said a member of the shrine staff misidentified the three as members of the Rainbow Sash movement and told the priest. The priest declined to give them Communion at the Nov. 11 service, Gibbs said, because the Rainbow Sash group had informed the church that members planned to receive Communion as a form of protest.

"The Eucharist is the core of our faith and a sign of our unity," Gibbs said. "It is very rare to deny Communion, but since it was publicly announced it would be a protest and not a sign of faith, the Rainbow Sash group was denied the sacrament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Russ - if baptism is the sole criterion for decideing who is a member of The Church (which you have defined as 'the entire body of Christian believers'), can I just throw a little spanner into the works, by reminding you that there are some Christian groups who do not practice baptism. Well there may only be one actually - the Salvation Army (I am unaware of any others, but that's beside the point).

Nothing is ever quite as simple as we want to make it!!

---

Quakers do not practice baptism.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I must say that neither Anglican nor Roman Catholic theology (the two sister churches to which I have had the greatest exposure, of course) states that members of other Christian churches are not Christian, nor that they are damned. In fact, exposure to such an idea at all comes from reading (news media), Internet discussions and the like, not from my rather extensive personal experience.

I do not see that the leaders of the Reformation (in relation to theology) saw Roman Catholics as not being Christian. Their arguments against Rome's having maintained integrity were both more subtle and more complex than that.

The heresy trials, anathemas, and the like of past centuries, deplorable though they were, need to be seen in the light of a totally different mindset. I have no fondness for some of what went on during the middle ages (my area of speciality), but an era when heretics (who often were guilty of horrid crimes) were thought to be in league with the devil, and given special powers to allow them to lead people to hell, would be far different from our own.

In any time, to say that "XX's writings or teachings are not in accord with Christian doctrine" is not a condemnation to hell! If someone, for example, denied the Incarnation, this indeed is out of accord with Christian belief - where is saying so a judgement of the person's soul?!

I must admit that one idea I sometimes see on the Ship boards, which totally puzzles me, is why seeing a doctrine as truth (revealed by God) and professing belief is considered a condemnation of others.

(As an aside - Were I to ask a Roman Catholic priest if I were permitted to receive Communion, and this permission was granted, I would think this showed a great respect for the Eucharist - not the opposite.)
 

---

Posted by ekalb (# 2642) on :
 
Here's an interesting, possibly heretical view:

What if all the churches and denominations are wrong and God has simply moved on to bigger and better things (?)

Now before anyone interjects, I ask all of you to think about your views on Judaism.

facetiously yours,

ekalb
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
As a non-sacramentalist, I find this discussion both interesting and sad. I am discovering in great detail how certain groups within the church exclude each other about sacrements.

One good thing: the next time somebody says we Anabaptists are into creating barriers between Christians, I can say something about people with glass houses.


 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Geez, you post something and then you realise you missed a post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Og,

.......
Any sacrament is an outward sign at one moment in time of an inward reality which may be gradual over a long period of time. A man and his wife grow together into "one flesh" over many years, but for administrative convenience are classified as unmarried before the wedding ceremony and married afterwards.

---

quote:

---

Similarly, becoming a Christian may take a lifetime, but we make the outward sign at one particular moment in time when we are baptised. And are "administratively Christian" thereafter.

---

quote:

---

If your understanding of baptism is significantly different, by all means explain it.

---

quote:

---

I'm just pointing out that I perceive a certain lack of logic in believing in baptism as a rite of entry to the Church and then rejecting baptised people as "not really Christian" if they don't belong to one's own denomination.

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eanswyth:
I was baptized and confirmed in the Roman Catholic church. I now worship in an Episcopal (ECUSA) church. Would I be allowed to receive communion in a RC church today?

---

You would have to go to Confession prior to receiving in a Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear kenwritez

I don't think I should intervene in your gauntlet before JL, (although to be fair I am qualified since Orthodoxy takes a similar but a less stringent canonical view on the matter).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
However you did say this which I feel should be flagged as a non-argument.

quote:

---

I see nothing about qualifying Communion recipients according to denominational membership.

---

.... which is hardly surprising since denominations were 1800 years away in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Explanatory note ...

Some would say that as soon as the Reformation started to fragment western Christianity it would be proper to talk about denominations and in one sense that is true. However, it was only in the 19th Century that a denominational ecclesiology grew in strength within Protestantism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
Disclaimer: JL, just so you know, I quite like your posts in other topics, and, since I violently disagree with your stance on this issue, in Christian love I'm going to ham slap you for a bit here.

---

Ham slap?!

quote:

---

Communion, as I understand it, is the rememberance of the Passion of Christ, a rememberance of His life and His death, His sufferings and His resurrection afterward. Am I incorrect in this definition?

---

quote:

---

The above represents my understanding of Communion. I look at the above passage, and I see nothing about qualifying Communion recipients according to denominational membership. Instead, I see only a warning about eating and drinking the elements unworthily, which, in the context of the verse and chapter, is defined as not recognizing the elements for what they represent: The Blood and Body of Christ.

---

quote:

---

JL, your use of the word 'illicit' here knots my knickers something fierce. How on God's good earth can someone receiving Communion do so "illicitly"?!

---

quote:

---

But if I am a Christian, presumably saved by grace and in relationship with God, and I receive Communion from an RC priest under less than life-threatening circumstances (as Clinton did), how the frick does "illicit" enter into the equation, apart from a "technical foul" of RCC Canon Law?

---

quote:

---

But holding that such a reception is disrespectful of the Eucharist is, AFAIC, the worst sort of antinomial perversion of what the Eucharist symbolizes. Who is the RCC to decide to keep me away from the blood and body of Christ? I as a Protestant may accept the Eucharist from an RCC priest only in extreme situations at best? Who is the RCC to lay down limits to God's grace and power? WTF do they get off abrogating to themselves the right to perform a "sniff test" on each supplicant for the Eucharist?

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I think Communion can--and should--be administered to the Body by the lay members of the Body as often as professional clergy do so.

---

quote:

---

JL, were you to be sitting in my house on a night when I served Communion to those believers gathered there, you would be as welcome to partake (or not to partake) as anyone else. I would--and will--offer you the bread and wine with my own hands, knowing that I am following Christ's command to remember Him when I am gathered with other believers, you, a fellow in the body of Christ, among them.

---

quote:

---

FWIW, I bear you no ill will and if I have been graceless in my argument, then I apologize and ask your forgiveness.

---

Not at all. I hope I've answered the points without sounding too dogmatic or narrow-minded. I do think people should be honest about their beliefs on these issues, though.

As Newman's Own intimated, we do believe non-Catholics to be Christian. Mistaken on certain issues, yes, but Christian nonetheless!


 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Some have asked here concerning the Orthodox position. I see it as no different than the Catholic position as described by JL with two small caveats ... the first interesting, the second amusing ...

(1) I think we can have the same eucharistic doctrine as pertaining to sacrifice and presence without the Aristotelian formulation of St. Thomas Aquinas.

(2) 1054 AD .... who split from whom? That's funny. Same story ... inverted participants. I hear the sound of God banging our heads together.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
[In my own unique way, my point was that Jesus never, ever laid down regulations on who may or may not participate;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Kenwritez

I was merely saying that one cannot extract information about present day practice in the context of today from the eucharistic fellowship context of the apostolic era because they are radically different situations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It seems strange that Christians who take a pretty relaxed view on applying primitive criteria to today in other spheres suddenly get all "let's here it for the 'ole time religion" when it suits them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Do you accept all the dogmas outlined above about the nature of the Blessed Sacrament? If you do, we'll happily receive you into the Catholic Church as a convert! If not, why would you want to receive?

---

Does the participant's belief make the dogmas any more or less correct? If yes, then you'll make a fine protestant! If no, then this can hardly be a good criteria for exclusion of any professing Christian.

The reason a non-RC would want to receive is twofold. First, Christ commanded it. Second, communion brings unity, not only with God, but also with our Christian brothers and sisters. Our fractious reputation notwithstanding, that unity is something that most protestants prize greatly.
 

---

Posted by PeterY (# 3962) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

The Eucharist is the sacrament in which Christ, under the forms of bread and wine, is truly present, with His Body and Blood, in order to offer Himself in an unbloody manner to the Heavenly Father, and to give Himself to the faithful as nourishment for their souls. It's the centre of our Faith, prefigured in the sacrifices of Abraham and Melchisedech, the manna in the desert, and the Old Covenant's sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb.

But it's not just that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist, with only the accidents of bread and wine remaining after the change of substance. So too are His Soul and His Divinity. And this sacrament, which we worship, must not be received by Catholics (forget non-Catholics for a moment) who are not in a state of grace. That's a de fide dogma for us.

And what is the Mass? For us, it's a true and proper sacrifice. In it, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is made present, its memory celebrated, and its saving power is applied. And it's not just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but it's a sacrifice of expiation and impetration too.

---

quote:

---

Do you accept all the dogmas outlined above about the nature of the Blessed Sacrament? If you do, we'll happily receive you into the Catholic Church as a convert!

---

Well, that doesn't seem to be quite true. Most of the things the Roman Catholic church teaches I would agree wth, but certainly not all. Those things with which I do not agree are mainly concerned with discipline and ecclesiology. Now, I fully realise that not having full agreement with those things would disqualify me from being welcomed into the Roman Catholic church; it is, quite rightly (IF you agree with them) an all or nothing package (Of course, this does make one wonder, in a very frivolous way, how many Roman Catholics are in fact Roman Catholics )

But I am a Christian, I am accepted as being a Christian. But I am a Christian outside the Church (there being only one). Can this be? Surely not. To be a Christian is to be joined to Christ; to be joined to Christ is to be a part of His Body; and is not the Church the Body of Christ? I am not a part of the Church (there being only one) so I cannot be part of His Body; so I am not joined to Him; so I am not a Christian? Something does not seem to be right.

I must admit that I would find the Roman Catholic arguments much more convincing if they were to go back to the old traditional way of just saying that everyone else was damned. It showed the rest of uswhat we really were!

Deep down, I am glad that there seem to be a lot of Roman Catholics who hold slightly different views from the Authorities; it gives hope to the ecumenical movement.

[fixed UBB for quote]

[ 06. February 2003, 09:34: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
Communion, as I understand it, is the rememberance of the Passion of Christ, a rememberance of His life and His death, His sufferings and His resurrection afterward. Am I incorrect in this definition?

---

Ok, well, for a Catholic such a definition is woefully deficient, for starters.

---

quote:

---

Obviously, for those who reject any of the above to receive is scandalous to Catholics, because it's disrespecting not just Canon Law (which, for all its worth, is human in origin) but also the true nature of that which is present. With the Orthodox, we know we're dealing with people of sound theology. But for anti-sacramental Protestants, or Anglicans who have rejected the notion of mortal sin or the need for a state of grace to receive, it's just not possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Do you accept all the dogmas outlined above about the nature of the Blessed Sacrament? If you do, we'll happily receive you into the Catholic Church as a convert! If not, why would you want to receive?

---

Does the participant's belief make the dogmas any more or less correct? If yes, then you'll make a fine protestant! If no, then this can hardly be a good criteria for exclusion of any professing Christian.

The reason a non-RC would want to receive is twofold. First, Christ commanded it. Second, communion brings unity, not only with God, but also with our Christian brothers and sisters. Our fractious reputation notwithstanding, that unity is something that most protestants prize greatly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
The recipient's beliefs... ...do affect whether or not that recipient is worthy to receive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Anselmina,

If you think Kenwritez's definition is sufficient, then that's simply further evidence of the chasm that exists between us and the sham that intercommunion would constitute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
The recipient's beliefs... ...do affect whether or not that recipient is worthy to receive.

---

I'm sure that's not right, taken as a proposition in everyday language.

First, none of us are worthy to (i.e. deserve to)receive God. As all Catholics acknowledge in the words of the Mass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Any progress yet on my question?

---

I'm not sure I know which question you mean...
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Many apologies, JL, I must have been speaking too softly again! I'm often accused of that, though rarely during worship!

Let me repeat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
Communion, as I understand it, is the rememberance of the Passion of Christ, a rememberance of His life and His death, His sufferings and His resurrection afterward. Am I incorrect in this definition?

---

Ok, well, for a Catholic such a definition is woefully deficient, for starters.

---

'Deficient' according to whom? The RCC, JL or God? It's possible that for Christians, including Catholic Christians, who have read Luke 22, Kenwritez's description might be more than sufficient as a definition of what's going on in the Eucharist.

If a Catholic were not able to give the definition JL does for the Eucharist, to whom is the 'deficit' in knowledge and understanding owed? Who is being shortchanged? Certainly not Christ, if the passage from Luke is anything to go by.

---

It's really just a question of clarification on your comment that Catholics would find Kenwritez's definition 'deficient'. This implies that if a Catholic was not able to come up with your very fine definition of Eucharist, they would somehow be letting someone or something down, by not having a sufficient knowledge of the Sacrament. I was just wondering to whom they owed the debt of having a sufficiency of knowledge about their Sacrament, that's all.

I further suggested that if it were to God, then it was a possibility that Kenwritez's definition being based on a gospel account of Christ's institution of the Eucharist, might well be considered amply sufficient.
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
I reccall a survey Mr. Gallup conducted a few years ago among American Roman Catholics. I cannot provide a citation, but my memory is holding up fairly well during my golden years.

The question involved the nature of the Mass. A bare plurality of respondents professed belief in transubstantiation. This group was followed by approximately one third of those surveryed, who subscribed to a response that basically boiled down to the doctrine of the real presence. More than one quarter felt that the Mass is a memorial only and that the bread and wine are purely symbolic.

Greta
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
For what it's worth, I would guess that a similar survey among Anglicans would produce roughly the following:

Real presence: 60%

Symbolic only: 35%

Transubstantiation: 5%

Greta
 

---

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Don't forget there are quite a few Anglicans who subscribe to Receptionism too,which is somewhere between Real Presence and Memorial.I myself would subscribe to the idea of the real presence of the Risen Christ in,with and under the bread and wine,in a spiritual and indefinable manner 'Thou art here,we ask not how'.This is different from transubstantiation of course and I would not attempt to take Communion in a RC or Orthodox church as I would not wish to cause offence.That does not mean however that I agree with their positions just that I've never been the type to gatecrash at parties and I don't intend to start now!!
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I reccall a survey Mr. Gallup conducted a few years ago among American Roman Catholics. I cannot provide a citation, but my memory is holding up fairly well during my golden years.

The question involved the nature of the Mass. A bare plurality of respondents professed belief in transubstantiation. This group was followed by approximately one third of those surveryed, who subscribed to a response that basically boiled down to the doctrine of the real presence. More than one quarter felt that the Mass is a memorial only and that the bread and wine are purely symbolic.

Greta

---

quote:

---

ONLY 30% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS BELIEVE THE DE-FIDE DOGMA ABOUT
THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

namely, that at Communion they are really and truly receivng the Body and Blood,
Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and
wine, which is known as the Real Presence.

70% OF NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS NOW HOLD AN HERETICAL BELIEF IN
THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
actually, it sounded sort of Missouri Synod-ish

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Anselmina,

It's woefully deficient because it doesn't fully describe the situation. It's deficient according to God, whom the Catholic Church serves. Not all Catholics could give a full description of eucharistic dogma - but they'd assent to Church teaching on the matter, unlike Anglicans or anti-sacramental Protestants.

---

Thank you for your answer. I understand what you're saying from the point of view of the Catholic Church (I think!), but IMHO I can't imagine God being overly concerned with how full an understanding - Catholic or otherwise - communicants have of the Sacrament in which they are participating. I would suggest that we're all in trouble, if that were the case .

I've always thought it was more about what was going on within the heart that mattered most to God. So, I wonder how it really could be 'deficient' in God's eyes, to have a heart devoutly concentrating on receiving the sacrament, but yet a mind happily ignorant of the intellectual implications?

Though I entirely take your point that the RCC has very clear teaching on the Eucharist and Catholics wishing to respond obediently and faithfully to their Church's teaching would make themselves aware of it.

quote:

---

As for who is being short-changed - well, I'd say it's the people who settle for less than the fullness of Truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad

But Catholics don't see themselves as part of denomination in a bigger church. We are the Church.

---

quote:

---

As Newman's Own intimated, we do believe non-Catholics to be Christian. Mistaken on certain issues, yes, but Christian nonetheless!

---

quote:

---

It is still a dogma of the Catholic Church that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

---

So, there are many Christians who cannot be saved???

And I go back to my original point. I am a Christian, I am accepted as being a Christian. But I am a Christian outside the Church (there being only one). Can this be? Surely not. To be a Christian is to be joined to Christ; to be joined to Christ is to be a part of His Body; and is not the Church the Body of Christ? I am not a part of the Church (there being only one) so I cannot be part of His Body; so I am not joined to Him; so I am not a Christian?

Something does not seem to be right.

 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Well, the way it's explained (although they use far nicer-sounding terminology than this, but here's the gist) is that non-Roman Catholics are only saved through the works of the RCC. That is, the RCC effects your salvation out of the goodness of its heart.
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
PeterY,

Your definition of "Christian" is a rather narrow one, and not one I would share. Being a Christian does not necessarily involve being a member of Christ's Church - because there are Christians who have cut themselves off, or are cut off, from the Church Christ established. When I say they're Christians, I mean their religion is centred on the person of Jesus Christ, and involves belief in the significance of his death and Resurrection.

As for salvation - yes, there probably are Christians who will not be saved, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. The fewness of the saved seems to be a difficult-to-avoid feature of Jesus' teaching. The dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is nowadays generally understood to mean that if any non-Catholics are saved, it is through the Catholic Church.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
It strikes me, Jesuitical Lad, that you (and those who believe within the RCC as you do) are to the RCC what the Jensens are to the Anglican Communion...

* "We have the full truth, and we only."
* "Other people might be Christians, but they are on dodgy ground because they are not Calvinist-Evangelical/Traditionalist Roman Catholic."
* "Ask those in areas where Catholicism/Evangelicalsim dominates, where liberalism hasn't snuck in, and the results would be far different on X issue."

Frankly I am happier on the middle ground. Give me the Anglican Church any day. At least we
(as a church) make no arrogant claims like this, in this way.

But I suppose you would retort: "Well no wonder, you hardly have a leg to stand on being a "church" founded on a King's divorce... whose sacraments aren't valid. "

Maybe if the way in which certain dogmas were expressed by the Roman Church, people like me would not be so totally repelled... The Orthodox seem to making similar claims, but look at the way they express it. It is much less in-your-face. Much more "winning". And I respect them enormously for this.
 

---

Posted by dsiegmund (# 908) on :
 
The LCMS position is spelled out in their FAQ at
LCMS FAQ
They are pretty scrupulous about practicing closed communion. My husband is Missouri Synod and has been to my Episcopal Church and never takes communion there. The FAQ answer is pretty generous towards other denominations, but I have heard some less generous views from some Missouri Synod members.

Q. A non-Lutheran Christian friend of mine recently stated that he believes that Catholics are not saved and should not be considered Christians. What is the Synod's belief regarding the salvation of Catholics who adhere to Roman dogma? If one truly believes in Christ but also worships the saints and papacy, can he be saved?

[/B]Of course, personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as "Christians" by the Synod—only God can look into a person’s heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues.[/B]
At this site they outline their specific objections to a wide variety of different denominations.

Denominational Differences

Dana
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
As for salvation - yes, there probably are Christians who will not be saved, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. The fewness of the saved seems to be a difficult-to-avoid feature of Jesus' teaching. The dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is nowadays generally understood to mean that if any non-Catholics are saved, it is through the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Maybe if the way in which certain dogmas were expressed by the Roman Church, people like me would not be so totally repelled... The Orthodox seem to making similar claims, but look at the way they express it. It is much less in-your-face. Much more "winning". And I respect them enormously for this.

---

Maybe. I tend to lose patience when people brag about receiving communion in Catholic churches when they know they shouldn't. But thanks for your advice - I shall strive to sound more charitable in future..
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Please understand what I meant in terms of disposition, rather than status.

---

quote:

---

The dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is nowadays generally understood to mean that if any non-Catholics are saved, it is through the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Then those who don't believe shouldn't be receiving either.

---

quote:

---

PS to Father Gregory - everything trivially symbolizes itself. To say that X is Y is to say more than X symbolizes Y, not to deny that X symbolizes Y.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
What about those who don't care and have never thought about it, who go up to communion because this is just what you do ? What about those who answer "don't know" ?

---

Unlike Catholics (and many Protestant churches), intellectual understanding is *not* required of communicants. We communicate all who are members of the Church, including infants, the severely mentally retarded, and those who have never thought about it one way or the other.

But only if they are members of the Orthodox Church. If you have not been received as a member of the Orthodox Church through baptism and chrismation, we respectfully decline to share the Eucharist with you, and invite you to receive the antidoron as a sign of fellowship and love.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'm probably being a bit thick, but what is the antidoron?
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
Wow I'm learning lots of new words here. No idea what they mean though, except that they are obviously connected with the Orthodox church. Its a whole new world to me.

So what's chrismation and what's the antidoron?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Gracious Rebel and Alan

It's lexicon time!

ANTIDORON [anteethorown] (literally ... "instead of the Gifts.")

This is unconsecrated bread (real bread - prosphora) from which the "Lamb" (piece for Communion) has been removed. The bread is blessed and shared between all present at the end of the Liturgy, (we include a drink of unconsecrated wine as well). It's a relic of the original agape meal ... the context of the Eucharistic offering.

The Holy Gifts are our words for Holy Communion, (although we use that phrase as well ... also the Holy Mysteries).

CHRISMATION

... is the anointing with the myron (holy oil) at baptism or subsequent to baptism if a person is being received into the Orthodox Church from another (trinitarian) Christian church. The oil is for the gift of the Holy Spirit (analogous to the laying on of hands in the west ... but practised also in the west by the Roman Catholic Church and certain Anglican churches ... and others for all I know). The anointing is for all parts of the body (steady on! ) ... eyelids, ears, nose, mouth, chest, hands, feet. Upon each anointing the priest exclaims: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit!" and the people respond: "Sealed!"
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
From that Missouri Synod Website:

quote:

---

While the Scriptures are the inerrant source and norm of all doctrine and while God's Truth is one, sinful human beings can and do err. Hence, division occurs in visible Christendom.

The same can be said for modern denominationalism. While there are historical, cultural and sociological factors involved in the formation of denominations, disagreement regarding the understanding and application of biblical doctrine remains the fundamental reason for division between and among them. We hold that there can be only one Truth, and that denominations exist because some Christians have departed from what is faithful to biblical doctrine.

---

So, if you disagree with the Missouri Synod, you are sinning?
 

---

Posted by dsiegmund (# 908) on :
 
Og,

That would seem to be the implication. If I hadn't married one and his extended family, I would have given them a respectful, if wide berth. The LCMS is full of decent, caring people, but they don't possess much in the way of ecumenical feeling. The controversy over the 9/11 prayer services I think illustrates it very well.
See:
Benke Suspended for 'Syncretism' after 9/11 Event Lutheran minister suspended for 9/11 service

"As the Benke controversy unfolded in the fall, Kieschnick said that the real tragedy of the Sept. 11 attacks "is that in all likelihood, many of those people who died in that atrocity are not in heaven today — they're in hell — because they did not know or accept Jesus Christ as Savior."
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
What about those who don't care and have never thought about it, who go up to communion because this is just what you do ? What about those who answer "don't know" ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Upon each anointing the priest exclaims: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit!" and the people respond: "Sealed!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
One area in which the LCMS was not "strict" was with regard to consumption of alcohol.

---

quote:

---

He sometimes attended a church near Cape Canaveral where the preacher, remembering him on Sunday, made a point of saying that Rick was going to heaven, but "I don't know about the others."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD:
Hate to be a pedant (no actually I don't, I love it), but surely the original question is a contradiction in terms?

Surely the John Wesley thing about not knowing whether you're saved or not is for one obvious reason - that only God knows who are Christians.

---

• quote:

  ---

  originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
  

  quote:

  ---

  Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.
  §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
  
  §3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.
  
  §4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

  ---

  
  
  That's from the Code of Canon Law.

  ---

• quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
  I do think receiving communion when not in a state of grace and not a member of the Catholic Church is profoundly foolish and dangerous....

  ---

• quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
  It's the duty of Catholics to - politely - inform visitors that they should not be receiving communion unless they fulfil the conditions in Canon Law.

  ---

• quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
  Some have asked here concerning the Orthodox position. I see it as no different than the Catholic position as described by JL with two small caveats ... the first interesting, the second amusing ...
  (1) I think we can have the same eucharistic doctrine as pertaining to sacrifice and presence without the Aristotelian formulation of St. Thomas Aquinas.
  
  (2) 1054 AD .... who split from whom? That's funny. Same story ... inverted participants. I hear the sound of God banging our heads together.

  ---

• quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
  But if you reject the Church that Christ founded, wanting to receive communion there strikes me as slightly incoherent. Second, it doesn't bring unity if by receiving you are actually going against our understanding of Church, the Eucharist and who can receive in our churches. It's antagonistic. It's also, in our view, blasphemous since you don't worship the Sacrament and instead treat it as just a piece of bread or a drink of wine. You also, I'm guessing, wouldn't accept that the Mass is a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
  The recipient's beliefs don't affect the dogmas about the Mass, nor do they affect the status of the sacrament. But they do affect whether or not that recipient is worthy to receive.
  
  It is still a dogma of the Catholic Church that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

  ---

Fr. Greg and JL have been very clear, very honest, and have not soft-soaped their positions: Christians who are non-adherents to their faiths cannot (and should not) receive Communion in those bodies. JL further posts RCC canon law that non-Catholics cannot be saved. Period. In good conscience, I cannot assent to several key planks of the RCC pantheon of doctrine, therefore I am not, and until I change my mind, will not and cannot, be a member of the RCC. Therefore, according to RCC Canon Law, I am without salvation. (If I am misinterpreting RCC cannon, please correct me.)

I have no complaint against those people who are members of the Orthodox/RCC/LCMS church, or those in any other body that so discriminates against other "wrongly flavored" Christians. My argument is not at all with them, but with the doctrinal policies of those bodies.

Now, I'll heft my lance while someone will please point me in the direction of those windmills?
 

---

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Indeed there is a huge chasm,not only between the RCC and Evangelicals but also between RCCs and Anglicans like myself who tend towards the High Church (although certainly not as High as some people - whom I like,actually! - on MW) as I would say that anyone who is a communicant member would be welcome to receive the Sacrament.An acknowledgement that Jesus is Lord is enough,and as a communicant member of a Christian denomination that is surely the case.My take on it that it is not an Anglican altar or a Lutheran altar or a Presbyterian altar,but the Lord's Table,at which we are all welcome
This I think would not normally be an issue but it can be an issue when you go on holiday,at weddings funerals and so on.I think the answer there is that we can't receive,not because I think I'm putting my soul in danger - my truly candid opinions on that could not even be expressed on the Hell board!! - but simply out of politeness.....that of not wishing to cause offence
As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned they are slightly different,in that they distribute the antidoron.Now I know this is not the same as Holy Communion,but a non-Orthodox Christian is a lot more likely to feel at home and a lot less likely to feel left out than at the Roman Mass.
And it is here that I think we have to agree to disagree with JL,the chasm between us is deep indeed
I am a little bit surprised however as going from what I have read and also contributions from other RCC members on this board,I was under the impression that since Vatican 2 things in the RCC had changed rather a lot.Certainly I'm used to a lot of variety in my own Communion,from Tridentine Anglo-Catholics to MOTR to Mattins every Sunday to Evangelicals.The thought that has come into my mind is how representative JL is of RC thought - has the RCC become like us in some ways,from Tridentine Roman Catholics to people who are Low Church Anglicans - or ev en lower!
But that perhaps is subject for another thread,and there's hoovering to be done and lunch to be eaten!
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
From the RC's I know,I would say that JL is not representative of them at all, and is representative of its very conservative wing. Owing to the current Papacy, that is in official ascendance, but it doesn't mean that is the case at parish level.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
From the RC's I know,I would say that JL is not representative of them at all, and is representative of its very conservative wing. Owing to the current Papacy, that is in official ascendance, but it doesn't mean that is the case at parish level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I'd love to understand what you mean, but "disposition" isn't in my vocabulary. I understand "disposed to" in the sense of "feeling inclined to" (which is something that only the person themselves can judge) but that doesn't immediately make any sense to me. Unless you're saying that Catholics don't feel inclined to share their sacraments with outsiders ? Any chance you could explain ?

---

quote:

---

Am I right to think that you believe that God may choose to save some non-Catholic Christians ?

---

quote:

---

And that He may choose not to save some Catholic Christians (such as those unrepentant of mortal sin?)

---

quote:

---

If that's so, maybe we're not so very far apart. That implies that whether or not a Christian is a member of the Catholic Church is not a salvation issue - not something we have to defend to the last because of its cosmic significance.

---

quote:

---

Do you believe that what unites us (Christians) is more important than what divides us ?

---

quote:

---

What about those who don't care and have never thought about it, who go up to communion because this is just what you do ? What about those who answer "don't know" ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Thus far, this has been one of the most interesting threads (if a bit heated from time to time) that I have ever seen on SOF.

---

quote:

---

Ross:
Am I right to think that you believe that God may choose to save some non-Catholic Christians?

---

quote:

---

Jesuitical Lad:
He may choose to. It depends how one interprets the dogma that outside of the Church there is no salvation. I'd probably choose to say that they were implicit/anonymous Catholics if they were saved.

---

quote:

---

Catholics don't see themselves as part of denomination in a bigger church. We are the Church.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Jl, you have been misinformed. MY church (Methodist) is the Church.

The one true Christian Church (now called Methodist) began with the Apostles and went along fine until Henry VIII's time when the then Bishop of Rome got angry at Henry and branched off in a huff starting his own denomination and calling it "Roman" Catholic. Meanwhile the true Church carried on in England in a perfectly straight upward line (I picture it like a difenbachia plant) until John Wesley made some reforms centered around a perfected "method" of lifestyle designed to afford a greater chance at salvation. At that time another stubborn denomination branched off like a great big leaf and called itself the church of "England" but through it all we remained the one true Church rooted in the rock of Peter. I picture us as a sober little star on top of the straight line of the plant.

 

---

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :
 
There is a huge Christian bookshop in my city- always has good prices... But it keeps the Catholic books amongst the Cult section of the shop. I once asked "Why?" Their answer was "It's self- obvious to us"
Never could figure that out.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Twilight and Rowen,

Thanks for the above. It just stopped me posting something near-hellish.

cheers,

m (just there in The Cult)
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
This could indeed get "hellish" unles we keep an important distinction in mind. The OP is not about the status of different Churches ... it's about whether or not certain Christian traditions really can be considered Christian.

I guess everyone's answer will differ somewhat given a comprehensive list. Personally and in Church position terms I/we would not consider Christian anyone or any Church that denied certain key beliefs ... eg., the resurrection, the divinity of Christ, the Incarnation, the Trinity etc. We would be hard pressed to distinguish those groups from, say, Liberal Judaism or Islam in respect of those particular issues, (other matters aside).

The trouble is that the word "Christian" is often misapplied as an ethical adjective or "a saved person." So, if one denies the title "Christian" to someone, reactions based on these misapplications invariably involve questions of holiness or salvation. The term "Christian" should not include such judgements, (let alone differences in ecclesiology!)
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I agree with Father Gregory.

I do not mean this in any nasty fashion, but, given Jesuitical Lad's participation here, may I ask if there are other RC scholars who could provide clearer explanations of the points he is making? JL (not that this is unusual) is using terminology that is largely Thomistic, and very confusing to those who are unfamiliar with the specific context. As well, some turns of phrase (such as that God may choose to save some non-Catholics) are poorly used.

Karl Rahner (who was not especially gifted with clarity of expression, but remains one of my favourites) was using 'anonymous Christians' to speak of all as being redeemed through Christ - but he did not use the Augustinian approach to original sin or later approaches to atonement, and was referring more to a cosmic redemption, with the Incarnation as key in creation. In effect, he saw all of us (aware or not) as part of the Church according to his views about God as lord of all creation. (I am over simplifying, but including this because those who are unfamiliar with the full scope can see 'anonymous' something as highly insulting.)

I agree with Greta that this thread is very interesting, and that I hope it continues.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I have serious misgivings about any group which either applies or denies the description "Christian" to any person in defiance of that person's own claim. I have extremely serious misgivings about any group which sets itself up as the sole rightful owner and arbiter of the term.

It would be like one of my children deciding that he was going to be the one to judge whether his siblings could rightfully claim to be my children. Whether he is correct or not, it is not his judgement to make. He may regret his arrogance if I catch him offending my other children in my name.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

quote:

---

Am I right to think that you believe that God may choose to save some non-Catholic Christians ?

---

He may choose to. It depends how one interprets the dogma that outside of the Church there is no salvation. I'd probably choose to say that they were implicit/anonymous Catholics if they were saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
If someone wants to argue that Catholics do not have a saving relationship with Christ based on our actual beliefs, then I think that's a line of reasoning worth debating.

---

Oh please! That might require research!!

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Erin,

How can you possibly know whether your ignorance is vincible or not? As for this being similar to the "Romanists burn eternally" line of reasoning - hardly! That position is almost always based on ignorance of what we actually believe. If someone wants to argue that Catholics do not have a saving relationship with Christ based on our actual beliefs, then I think that's a line of reasoning worth debating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Not much complexity to either position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Not much complexity to either position.

---

Not when you put it like that, no. But that's because your representation of the Catholic position is simplistic - and also, as I tried to hint earlier, not representative of current understandings of the dogma in question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Not much complexity to either position.

---

Not when you put it like that, no. But that's because your representation of the Catholic position is simplistic - and also, as I tried to hint earlier, not representative of current understandings of the dogma in question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
It would be like one of my children deciding that he was going to be the one to judge whether his siblings could rightfully claim to be my children. Whether he is correct or not, it is not his judgement to make. He may regret his arrogance if I catch him offending my other children in my name.

---

quote:

---

1 Peter 2:9
You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Is there any RCC sacrament that should be withheld from non-RCC? Why shouldn't non-RCC be ordained? Consecrated? If you could convince us to make you pope, then you could really tell us how we should do things.

---

Speaking for myself, I don't really care what the RCC does with its sacraments or who it dispenses them to. I avoid RC churches these days because I believe the closed table to be an offense to the gospel, so that's a non-issue for me.

I'm not too thrilled when people say that I'm really a Roman Catholic at heart, especially when I know better. I find that offensive -- not because being Roman Catholic is a horrible thing, but rather because of the implication that if I were really open to Jesus I couldn't be anything else.

Grrrrr.
 

---

Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Hear Hear!
I am overwhelmed by the eloquence of the exposition of the errors of our Catholic Faith.
I remain underwhelmed by the ambition of those who have done so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:

quote:

---

1 Peter 2:9
You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood ...

---

Is there any RCC sacrament that should be withheld from non-RCC?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Why shouldn't non-RCC be ordained? Consecrated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
If you could convince us to make you pope, then you could really tell us how we should do things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
no,no, no ken, hang onto the frocks and the sung Latin: the RC woman has limited options for cocking a snook at the clergy without these accoutrements!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
How in the world does this differ in any practical way from "if you're not Roman Catholic you're going to hell"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
To me, what is simplistic is the RCC dogma that appoints to the RCC the determination of who is "officially" redeemed and in fellowship with God, or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
"disposition"... being properly disposed towards it

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure what the question means. I can't break up my beliefs and organise them into two brackets of "unite" and "divide", because I don't think it's Catholic teaching that causes division, but rather it's the decision to reject it that does so.[quote]

Are you really saying that you don't know what are the points of agreement and disagreement between Catholics and other Christians ?

And surely you must recognise that it takes two to argue...

[quote]True unity can only be grounded in Truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Tortuf,

What if Jesus set one up? Would that suggest God cared?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Like going on the wagon?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by JL:
When you say "if you're not Catholic, you're going to Hell" without any qualification, to most people that will mean only those whose Catholicism is explicit. So, considering what I think is nowadays the most popular understanding of the dogma, it would be a simplistic presentation if let to stand alone. That's all.

---

quote:

---

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord... [etc.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I don't subscribe to the view that the Truth changes according to whether someone somewhere finds it offensive or not (a lot of Muslims find the Incarnation offensive - uh-oh, there goes Christianity) so all I can say is I hope you find some way to reconcile your emotions with the fact that Catholics accept "outside the Church, no salvation" as dogma.

I would love to hear why it's offensive, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Would you be offended if someone kept telling you that you were really a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, despite your protestations to the contrary? And every time you disagreed, apologized for your inability to grasp the truth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Where I think I differ from JL is that it seems to me that it is being a member of Christ's body that is crucial, not one's canonical status vis a vis the Church of Rome. Indeed, I'm rather surprised to see him interpret Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus as meaning "outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation." It seems that the Church's clear teaching is that all baptized non-RC's are part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and so the issue of those extra ecclesiam would be irrelevent.

---

But rejection of the Pope's authority places one outside of the Church, despite the validity of any Trinitarian baptism. That's the clear teaching of Unam Sanctam. (Full text here.) And, as Unam Sanctam states - in a manner which sounds pretty much like an infallible statement to me, given how it's presented - "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

I'm just waiting for someone to call me a Feeneyite...
 

---

Posted by David (# 3) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
...And, as Unam Sanctam states - in a manner which sounds pretty much like an infallible statement to me, given how it's presented - "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

---

Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Not if it wasn't true, Dave.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
pardon me if i'm dubious.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I don't subscribe to the view that the Truth changes according to whether someone somewhere finds it offensive or not (a lot of Muslims find the Incarnation offensive - uh-oh, there goes Christianity) so all I can say is I hope you find some way to reconcile your emotions with the fact that Catholics accept "outside the Church, no salvation" as dogma.

I would love to hear why it's offensive, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
But rejection of the Pope's authority places one outside of the Church, despite the validity of any Trinitarian baptism. That's the clear teaching of Unam Sanctam. (Full text here.) And, as Unam Sanctam states - in a manner which sounds pretty much like an infallible statement to me, given how it's presented - "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Because you keep tell Erin, Scot, me, et al., that as we are not in communion with the see of Rome, we're going to hell. How hard is it to understand that?

---

quote:

---

(I'm not sure if the orthodox also claim Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus; Fr. Greg[ory]?).

---

quote:

---

Me:
Because you keep tell Erin, Scot, me, et al., that as we are not in communion with the see of Rome, we're going to hell. How hard is it to understand that?

---

quote:

---

Jesuitical Lad:
Well, if I had said that, I'd understand your getting upset. However, as I have pointed out several times now, the dogma is generally interpreted by Catholic theologians as meaning that those who are saved are members of the Catholic Church in some sense, or at the very least receive their salvation through the Catholic Church. I have never, ever said that anyone is going to Hell for failing to explicitly profess allegiance to the See of Rome - and I have most certainly never committed the mortal sin of telling people that they're going to go to Hell.

---

quote:

---

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

---

quote:

---

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church --for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church -- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church -- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

To make a distinction of contrast or opposition between Christian belief and "ecclesiastical belief" is the root of the problem here.

---

quote:

---

Unless we can narrow the difference between these two different ecclesiologies we will never make progress on other derivative matters

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It's that disjuncture between Cyprianic rigour and post-schism accommodation which is so fiicult for many people to square.

---

No doubt. I too find them hard to square in theory. But I think some middle path through namby-pamby inclusivism and eccelsiastical triumphalism seems to me the only path forward.

Also, the Roman Catholic Church has a long history and has had to address different times and circumstances. In a sense, it is no surprise that Unam Sanctam and Lumen Gentium speak with different voices, since they speak to very different circumstances. I suppose the challenge (one that I have not myself ever taken up) would be to see how they can speak with such different voices and not be flat-out contradictory. I suppose my implicit faith in Church teaching would lead me to presume that they can somehow be reconciled.

FCB
 

---

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

The recognition of baptism FOLLOWS a recognition of the practice of initiation in running water and the name of the Trinity as a common practice and mutual designation of the term "Christian." Baptism is imperfectly realised in the sense that we have One Lord, One Baptism but not One Faith. Now, I know that some will say that we do have One Faith and things like total depravity, the flioque, the Immaculate Conception etc. are not really important differences. That claim can only be made by those who support it. It does not have a wider currency amongst those churches that uphold such teachings. As baptism is imperfectly realised in Christian unity terms the full expression of unity, (Holy Communion), we hold to be not yet fully interchangeable. I recognise the plausibility of the argument that "inter-Communion" might be a route to unity at other levels but historical experience I think shows that it has not led to such agreement in churches that practice inter-Communion with one another. Of course, this sends us right back to the question of what is important and what is not. That is where we should start because inter-Communion practice (yes OR no) is not going to change without that.

Dear Asher

It is not only Christians of course who meet Christ (as we might say) in the poor. I don't think we can define "Christian" by the practice of compassion and justice. We have no monpoloy on such things and, therefore, they cannot serve to define what is distinctively Christian unless there is an argument that it's HOW we do it that counts, (I would not be inclined to support such an argument ... disinterested unconditional sacrificial love may be practised by anyone.

Dear FCB

 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Brief, but I could not resist a comment:

Unam Sanctam (1302) was a direct result of a conflict with Philip the Fair of France, and had a good deal to do with Philip's overruling ecclesiastical authority. One main point had to do with taxation that would finance the Crusades.

Within that century, conflicts of this type would lead to papal 'exile' to Avignon, and the western Catholic world would be left to puzzle, soon afterward, over which of the two or three popes on offer was the true one.

Unam Sanctam was specifically designed to deal with the conflict with France. Lumen Gentium was a statement of a Council with a pastoral emphasis, and directed to the Church at large.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
I think what bugs people JL is the whole idea of:
'Well, if you get saved, we did it, even if you don't think so.' That wouldn't sound just a tinsy bit arrogant now, would it?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by OgtheDim:
I think what bugs people JL is the whole idea of:
'Well, if you get saved, we did it, even if you don't think so.' That wouldn't sound just a tinsy bit arrogant now, would it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterY:
Yes, I agree, but it still does not answer why the sharing of the Eucharist is primarily a matter of ecclesiastical unity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
But while I am not opposed to drawing lines, I'm not sure there is a need to draw one here.

As to how the above statements fit with Unam Sanctam. . . well, I suppose that's an intra-Catholic debate over the hermeneutics of church documents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pope Eugene IV:
The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OgtheDim:
'Well, if you get saved, we did it, even if you don't think so.' That wouldn't sound just a tinsy bit arrogant now, would it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I explicitly reject those, and I'm having a bit of a problem with someone popping up to tell me that no I'm not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
... as I have pointed out several times now, the dogma is generally interpreted by Catholic theologians as meaning that those who are saved are members of the Catholic Church in some sense, or at the very least receive their salvation through the Catholic Church.

---

I'm not as familiar with RCC teaching as I'd like to be, though this thread is very instructive, I must say. But the quote above seems to be saying, to my under-tutored mind, that the salvation wrought by Christ (in whichever way we believe that to have been accomplished), is actually dispensed alone by the ministry of the RCC, rather than by the ministry and grace of the Holy Spirit ('who blows where it chooses - where it comes from or where it goes, nobody knows' Jn:8)?

I'm not saying, btw, that the RCC doesn't have the Holy Spirit within her - of course she does. And I know it's probably a rather Protestant question, but it does sound a little bit as if Jesus has lost the patent on his own salvific efficacy ?
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
JL wrote:

quote:

---

I suppose the problem I have with what you've quoted is that it nowhere says anything which denies the absolute necessity of subjection to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved....

---

Yeah, but nowhere in any bible I've seen does it say I have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. I understand you are quoting dogma JL; but some of us will emotionally react to that dogma, either because we are or we are just .
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Jesuitical Lad:

There are several reasons why the idea that if I'm saved it's because I'm in some sense a Catholic offends me.

First, as I seriously considered becoming a Catholic and made an informed decision against it, it implies that I'm somehow incapable of discerning what is best for my spiritual life. Now of course I may (and of course do) make all sorts of poor decisions, but as my spiritual life has flourished in the Anglican communion, I feel sure that this was not one of them.

Erin brought up another of the reasons:

quote:

---

what's bothering me is that I'm being told that I'm really something I'm not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I suppose the problem I have with what you've quoted is that it nowhere says anything which denies the absolute necessity of subjection to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved.

---

• I don't think it is a denial of the Church's capacity to teach universal truths to place any one of those teachings in its historical context and read it accordingly. Even sacred scripture requires interpretation. For example, I don't think any Catholic would want to read what Paul says about the Law in Galatians apart from the context of the particular situation he is addressing. Even more so, I would think, could the same be said for Papal statements.
• I tend to think of the Petrine office, like the sacraments, as a "means of grace" (to use a good, Reformation term). In other words, it is a means by which God helps us to be better Christians: to love God better and to seek the unity of Christ's body. But while God has bound himself to the sacraments, he is not bound by the sacraments. God can give grace apart from the means that he has ordained. Similarly with the Petrine office. I suppose that your response would be that you are allowing for something like "Baptism of desire" with regard to the Papacy. My fear in the position you outline is that (to use Thomistic language) it turns the Papacy into the "material object" of faith, which should only be God.
• I don't want what I have said to be construed as a downplaying of the importance of the Papacy. I myself don't find your position arrogant or smug -- any claim to speak truthfully can be subjected to such a charge. But I also don't agree with it. As to those who do find your position arrogant, I suppose my question would be, don't you believe that conservative RC's, when they see God face to face, will realize that they were wrong about the Papacy, and that you were right? I don't see how this is any less subject to the charge of arrogance.

quote:

---

JL wrote:the absolute necessity of subjection to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
If you follow what Jesus said you must believe in subjection to the Roman Pontiff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I don't want what I have said to be construed as a downplaying of the importance of the Papacy. I myself don't find your position arrogant or smug -- any claim to speak truthfully can be subjected to such a charge. But I also don't agree with it. As to those who do find your position arrogant, I suppose my question would be, don't you believe that conservative RC's, when they see God face to face, will realize that they were wrong about the Papacy, and that you were right? I don't see how this is any less subject to the charge of arrogance.

---

Point well taken. But I think that in fact when we meet God face to face we will all be struck with how foolish and arrogant we have been, though not all about the same thing. (And I don't make a point of going around telling conservative RCs they're wrong about the papacy, or issue long documents in Latin on the subject. )
 

---

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

quote:

---

big, shiny, powerful

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Ruth

As God, Jesus is certainly "big, shiny and powerful." I just react when people start going on about the Church being "big, shiny and powerful." It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Ruth

As God, Jesus is certainly "big, shiny and powerful." I just react when people start going on about the Church being "big, shiny and powerful." It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Third, there's an air of smug arrogance inherent in the statement - I don't mean to accuse you personally of being smug or arrogant, but I find that it comes part and parcel with the statement. "If you're saved, you're really one of us in spite of yourself" is automatically off-putting - which is why I will no longer be saying comparable things about non-Christians. It's got the feeling of a clubby, self-congratulatory in-group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I just react when people start going on about the Church being "big, shiny and powerful." It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
I think its time people quit taking offense. People know their beliefs to be truth, or they would not believe them. Truth is exclusive. i.e. anything which is not within the truth cannot be true. In the case of people who believe salvation cannot be achieved without "subjection to the Roman Pontiff . . ." that is their belief, whether anyone else thinks it is true, or offensive, or not.

---

quote:

---

Peter, and his successors the Popes, are the Church.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Archimandrite:
Is it a bad time to introduce the concept of the Magesterium of the Church into the discussion?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Fr.Gregory:
As God, Jesus is certainly "big, shiny and powerful."

---

Are there two concepts of "worshipping Jesus" emerging here ?

One which says, Jesus was humble and self-emptying, let us individually and collectively be as like him as we can.
One which says, let's baptise all the bigness, shininess, powerfulness in the world, put it to good use in His name to proclaim His message and His kingdom.

Or is your argument more along the lines that "we look up to things and people that are big, shiny and powerful, therefore worshipping Jesus means attributing these characteristics to His underlying nature, regardless of how little He exhibited them in His life on earth" ?

Russ
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
FCB:

"Wow, Fr. Gregory speaking up for the Church of Rome?

Next he'll be extolling the virtues of the Filioque."

Perhaps, like Erin, he is, unbeknownst to himself, a Roman Cahtolic after all.

Greta
 

---

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

My only target here is the superior attitude which I believe is betrayed by the comment. The superiority is invested in the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is a grandiose corrupt organisation that perverts the simple message of Jesus. This MAY not what was intended by the sanitised reconstructed phrase "big, shiny and powerful" but it does read in the subtext as traditional Protestant polemic. That's why I think it is a glib cheap shot. I would challenge and defend any church that was spoken of in a similar way ... so I am not a closet or anonymous Roman Catholic nor am I about to buy into the flioque!
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
This was Scot's post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
If you follow what Jesus said you must believe in subjection to the Roman Pontiff.

---

I realize that this is tangential to your main point, but I disagree with this statement. There is no reason to assume that in order to be founded on Peter, a church must trace its lineage through the big, shiny, powerful official Holy Roman Catholic Church. Jesus's own ancestry provides a fine example of how lineage does not always follow the expected or obvious path. It often veers though the minor, the weak, the obscure, and the seemingly insignificant.

---

quote:

---

I just have a problem with the idea that one must in some sense be a part of such a church to be saved.

---

... and there we can be in complete agreement.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Please forgive me for being unclear. When I made the statement" If you follow what Jesus said you must believe in subjection to the Roman Pontiff" it was not to imply my personal belief, but to set out what I understand to be a Roman Catholic belief. My personal belief is that one need not be a member of the Roman Catholic church to be either saved or a christian.

My central point was that people ought not to take the beliefs of others personally.

Just as a question, what exact aspect of big, shiny, or lockstep did Mother Teresa display in the slums of Calcutta?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Ruth

quote:

---

I just have a problem with the idea that one must in some sense be a part of such a church to be saved.

---

... and there we can be in complete agreement.

---

Yikes!
 

---

Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
O man...

I just popped over to Cybergrace and posted on the Bible beliefs > Suffrage & Feminism thread, and while I saw some posts I could agree with, I also got to wade through a WHOLE LOT of "you aren't a real Christian if you don't agree with me" posts, and, as a result...

JL and FG, I disagree with lots of RCC and OC doctrine and policy, but, FWIW, thank you both for never exhibiting the level of snot I saw on that thread from some of those posters.

"Now I must away to bathe and refresh myself with water nobly hot and with rare scented oils and costly unguents, for lo, I do feel as though I have tap-danced daintily across the heaving crust atop a mighty river of sewage."
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
RuthW, thank you for reading my post carefully.

Fr. Gregory, if you would read as carefully as RuthW does, you would see that my phrase was descriptive rather than judgmental. In fact, my entire post was about the danger of making value judgments on the basis of size, appearance or strength. It would be refreshing if on occasion you could respond to what I actually write instead of assuming that my words are just “traditional Protestant polemic.” That is your bogeyman, not mine.

Tortuf, my post spoke of the RC church as an institution, not of individual Catholics. My point was not “Catholic bad, Protestant good” as Gregory would have it. Rather my point was that we have no reason to assume that the RC church is the only descendant of the original Christian church. The fact that it is the biggest does not make it the only. Thus, it is hard to claim that Jesus commands subjection to the Pope.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Well, now that we have established that:

• The RC church has some exclusivist dogma
• The Missouri Synod is rather exclusivist

Is this the end of the exclusivist's among us?
Come on...there has to be somebody else?
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by OgtheDim:
there has to be somebody else?

---

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)


 

---

Posted by Theophilus (# 2311) on :
 
Let's introduce some new material. Which of the following do you consider 'not Christian' and/or 'not saved' (phrases to be defined as you see fit.) No particular order. For 'deny' clauses, assume that the person believes all other tenets of what you consider to be orthodox Christianity (Not that this would, in all cases, be rationally possible, but never mind.)

(For 'not saved', I'm not trying to say that anyone is definitely 'going to Hell', but that believing or not believing this particular belief or set of beliefs impairs the salvific effiacy of the message of the Gospel.)

Orthodox Jews
Mormons
Literal inerrantists
Jehovah's Witnesses
Unitarians
Those who deny the physical resurrection
Those who deny the Virgin Birth
Those who deny any penally substitutionary element in the atonement
Those who deny the authority of Scripture
Those who deny the authority of the Church

My answers:
No/No
No/No
Yes/Yes
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/Yes (Saved, but not Christian, in the sense that I think the VB is a central tenet of historic Christianity.)
No/No. (Sorry. Start throwing things, people.)
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes

Hope that gets the ball rolling.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
So are you saying that Orthodox Jews and Mormons are not saved? Regardless, I don't agree that anyone is automatically not saved. God can save whoever he wants however he wants, and I cannot even begin to imagine that he'd limit himself to a human institution or theological checklist.
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Theo,

"Those who deny the physical resurrection
Those who deny the Virgin Birth
Those who deny any penally substitutionary element in the atonement
Those who deny the authority of Scripture
Those who deny the authority of the Church"

These may be viewed as trick questions. Do you mean those who explicitly deny these propositions, or do you mean those who IN YOUR OPINION (or in the opinion of some group of people) deny them? I think it might make a difference in the way some respondents answer the questions.

A litmus test for Christian belief cannot easily be articulated and will be even more difficult to apply.

Greta
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
This one is easy:

maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe, and finally
maybe

Exclusive categorization and litmus testing are exactly the sort of thing that gets my hackles up.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Wait a second.
Dear Scot,
Are you suggesting that Orthodox Jews maybe are Christians?
Thanks.
Just checking.
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
These people seem to believe one can be Christian and Jewish simultaneously: http://www.ifmj.org/english/index.html

Greta
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I don't think the problem is the simultaneous part. Rather it's another one of those things where somebody is told that they're really something they vehemently claim to not be.

Reader Alexis

[infinitives split while you wait]
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Erin, Fr. Gregory, amd Messianic Jews. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Greta
 

---

Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on :
 
Doesn't the word Christian (in it's original sense, at least) simply mean one who believes in Christ as Lord and Saviour and tries to follow his example: one who accepts that he/she is far from perfect, but does his/her best, and accepts other people imperfections and all, with Christ's help ?

Isn't the rest irrelevant, except in the sense that it reflects our personal preferences?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Karin 3

quote:

---

Isn't the rest irrelevant, except in the sense that it reflects our personal preferences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
saying "I believe in him" or "I follow him" begs a lot of questions.

---

quote:

---

If such an agreement is a starting point, what do you conceive as the next step in the journey?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think many Baptists would be reluctant to engage in anything that resembles assent to a creed. They are historically non-creedal. They would probably have little difficulty affirming the beliefs that are expressed in the creeds, but they oppose the codification of these beliefs in creedal form

Greta

---

True, but I know some who have found it's not so terrible after all.

I imagine it's about being open to God and not being afraid to try something from a different tradition if God seems to lead us toward it.

Of course, it's probably easier for me because I didn't grow up in any Christian tradition.

Are any of you familiar with the concept of Renovare? The idea is to achieve a balance of the 6 disciplines practised by the different Christian traditions:
Contemplative: The Prayer-filled life;
Holiness: The Virtuous Life;
Charismatic: The Spirit-Empowered Life;
Social Justice: The Compassionate Life;
Evangelical: The Word-Centered Life;
Incarnational: The Sacramental Life.

Richard Foster looks at these at length in his book, "Streams of Living Water".
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think many Baptists would be reluctant to engage in anything that resembles assent to a creed. They are historically non-creedal. They would probably have little difficulty affirming the beliefs that are expressed in the creeds, but they oppose the codification of these beliefs in creedal form

Greta

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fatprophet:
I believe a christian is one who believes and follows a divine Jesus (however that divinity is understood) but it at least includes the idea that he is Lord of heaven and earth, time and eternity.
This is the bare irreducible minimum of christian religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophilus:
Those who deny any penally substitutionary

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophilus:
Tiff, 'penal substitution' is, put simply, the idea that Jesus got punished for our sins instead of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]]do I detect a proposition that "religion" is the aim ?

Don't get me wrong. What you say sounds sensible in terms of criteria for identifying people who think sufficiently like you do to feel not-too-out-of-place in your church. And I think it's great that you place no limits on the grace of God, and don't look down on those "followers" who don't share your premises.

But I'm reminded that when Jesus called the disciples, he said "Follow me" and they did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fatprophet:
In fact one could say that one would have to share all of Jesus' religious and moral convictions if one was a Christian. We can argue what those religious convictions were, but we can't give up trying to approximate to them if following Jesus is not just a slogan.

---

An excellent attempt at unpacking "believing in and following", which I wouldn't want to argue with.

Jesus' attitude to the institutionalised religion of his day is one of those convictions. The extent to which it is applicable to the institutionalised religion of our own day is one of those things on which Christians differ. So that the word "religion" can carry both positive and negative overtones.

My image of Jesus is such that I imagine His view of an unrepentant serial killer would be that he should repent. But that His view of a would-be follower from a culture that has been shaped by Buddhism wouldn't necessarily involve trying to convert him/her to western philosophical views on the nature of divinity, authority, time, etc.

I guess I'm just saying that we have to try to beware the temptation of identifying our version of Christianity (along with all its cultural preconceptions) with the "believing in and following" itself.

Russ
 

---

Posted by silverfran (# 3549) on :
 
Having read the whole thread (yes, really!) there are a couple of points I want to make:

1) It's interesting that in anthropology of religion there are 7 basic definitions of religion that range from the very basic (eg a belief in a deity and a community of worshippers) to the very complex (eg a belief in a deity, a community of worshippers, rituals, priesthood, etc etc) and Christianity fits all of them!
make of this what you will.

I am not saying this is all there is to Christianity (I do believe quite happily that Christianity is more than the religion of pagans/tribal/classical society, but now I write this I can't think how to explain it properly)

2) On the Eucharist. I have been raised Protestant, with an unsacramental view of faith. However through certain circumstances I have ended up on the road of converting to Catholicism. I do attend mass and have only taken communion once (and taht was an accident, no one had told me to cross my arms over my breast when I went up for a blessing. This confused the priest and I was too embarassed to ask for a blessing at that point). That was a year ago and I have not taken communion since. I do miss it, but taht's not the point. The point is that if faith is sacramental (which I believe it is) the path of faith is upheld by both moral and spiritual boundaries. If our faith in christ is to mean anything then they must be made to count.
I understand people's frustration at not being able to take communion with Catholics (do I mean just Roman here? There is so much jargon floating about I am confused), but if you do not believe what the (ROman?) Catholics believe it is fair enough that you should not take communion. Perhaps it is harder on people like me who do believe in transubstantiation who still cannot take communion?? Yet oddly I have little problem with this.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0