|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I may have many criticisms about Anglicanism but one thing they have got right, in my opinion, is their welcome to the eucharist of all professing Christians.
I am still to be convinced why the RC and OC think they have the monopoly on the sacrament of the eucharist? Did Our Lord discriminate when he fed the 4k or 5k. Didn't he say that we are to go into the highway and byway and compel others in - into the banquet of the Lord.
Surely by virtue of our baptism we are all baptised into the church, the body of Christ. How then can RC and OC prohibit fellow Christians from enjoying table fellowship and coming to Our Lord? What would Jesus do?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Gunner
I don't see the revamp of this old question getting anyone anywhere anytime soon. Why can't we just agree to differ? The difference in practice reflects different and incompatible ecclesiologies. I don't see any prospect of agreement in that area at all.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Dear Fr G,
does this mean we give up?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I think it is great that the Anglican Church is inclusive - that is one of our strengths. But I don't think it is right to try to force other Churches to be inclusive.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
And this Roman is very glad of the inclusive table in her parish.
Only 2 drinking days till Ash Wednesday.....
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Gunner
quote:
Dear Fr G,
does this mean we give up?
No, it means we talk about the real issue ... why are our ecclesiologies different?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Agree with Father Gregory. There's no point raising this issue again and again but then refusing to listen to the Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies, which form the basis of their positions. Gunner, when you say we are all baptised into the Church, you presuppose an Anglican model in which the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican bodies are branches in a wider church catholic. For Catholics and Orthodox Christians, that's a deficient understanding - and it's telling that this understanding is the basis of Anglican sacramental openness.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
If I may be forgiven for being a bit blunt (only to make the point) -
The communion meal - amongst many other things - is an expression of community; with our fellows and God.
In the middle east (and this is for the point of my argument, though I am sure the same applies elsewhere), if you have anything to transact with anyone, you would be expected to observe the rules of courtesy, which would mean that you would not presume upon your hosts welcome without sorting out any outstanding issues. The correct word for this is "atonement". You would then transact your business, and upon completion your host would offer you (and you would be expected to accept) a celebratory meal - to both celebrate and demonstrate that you were "at one" with another.
The problem is, we (I speak as an Anglican, but any other shipmates owing their origins to the reformation can likewise join in) are in schism. It wasn't our fault to be sure. And there were pressing reasons at the time. But we are still in schism. Doctrines such as the invisible church and the branch theory may give us some comfort, but in fact they act as a comfort blanket that shields us from the serious and pressing need to recover unity. By what right do we, who are heirs of those who stormed out of the family, demand the right to sit down with them at their expression of community? We have not sorted the differences between us yet - we have not atoned.
Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one. There is an element of conditionality about that - it is expressed in the subjunctive. Would it not be better to concentrate on how we may better be one rather than pretend we actually are one?
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
IanB, I don't disagree with you, except to point out that we were all invited by the Lord of the table. Personally, I would never demand anything from the other guests. If anyone is treated as unwelcome, the dispute is between the Host and those presuming to take his authority for themselves. I am content to wait for him to put things straight.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Gunner,
We've had this conversation before, of course, as others on this thread have noted. Let me tell you once again why a Christian who is not Orthodox can't receive communion at an Orthodox Church.
For us, the Eucharist is to the Church what sexual intercourse is to marriage. So, just as a man and a woman must be joined to each other in the Sacrament of Marriage before it is permitted for them to participate in the act of love, a person must be joined to the Church in the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation before it is permitted for them to participate in Holy Communion.
I understand that you disagree with us about the nature and meaning of the Eucharist. But it seems to me that, once you understand what *we* believe about the nature and meaning of the Eucharist, it is boorish, to say the least, to insist that you really should be permitted to join in.
Imagine, if you will, a person who sincerely believes that any two people who love each other should have sex with each other to celebrate, affirm, and manifest their love. Imagine that they suggest such a celebration to a friend who believes that sex is only proper within marriage. If the two are to remain friends, which one must compromise?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elizabeth Anne
Altar Girl
# 3555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
For us, the Eucharist is to the Church what sexual intercourse is to marriage. So, just as a man and a woman must be joined to each other in the Sacrament of Marriage before it is permitted for them to participate in the act of love, a person must be joined to the Church in the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation before it is permitted for them to participate in Holy Communion.
Remember what happened when Jesus himself tried to be that exclusive?
Matthew 15:21-28 (RSV)
"21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. "
I think this is an apt metaphor for communion. Faith is what should matter the most. If a person has the faith of the Canaanite woman, should it matter whether she's, if you'll pardon the expression, officially "joined the club" yet or not? I don't think it should.
I understand the Roman and Orthodox Churchs' position on this, and I know this argument has been hashed and re-hashed a dozen times before, and that I haven't taken into account the legacy of centuries of schism, etc etc, but this is what I believe.
--------------------
Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in my eyes...
Posts: 974 | From: New York | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
I think this is an apt metaphor for communion. Faith is what should matter the most. If a person has the faith of the Canaanite woman, should it matter whether she's, if you'll pardon the expression, officially "joined the club" yet or not? I don't think it should.
Love is what should matter the most in a marriage, right? So if a man and a woman really love each other, should it matter whether they've, if you'll pardon the expression, officially "signed the papers" yet or not? What if one of them has already married someone else? Why should that make any difference, if they love each other? Maybe some days you like roses and candy and perfume, and another day you like bicycle rides in the park -- why should you settle for just one spouse?
Sorry, Elizabeth Anne, but while faith is a necessary element of the relationship that would allow someone to share the Holy Mysteries in the Orthodox Church, it's not sufficient, any more than love is sufficient to allow two people to share the mystery of sexual love.
If someone should claim to be offended because another person declined to have sex with them, and insisted that anyone who didn't welcome them into their bed was arrogant and uncharitable, most of us would find their position ludicrous. Even if *they* believe, with all their heart, that free sex is a good thing, good for everyone, we expect them to refrain from making demands on another whose understanding of sex demands a more exclusive relationship.
quote:
I understand the Roman and Orthodox Churchs' position on this
You may know what the Orthodox position on this is, but you show no signs of understanding it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Oldie
Shipmate
# 1756
|
Posted
The trouble with the RC church is, of course, that it thinks it has a divine right to act as some sort of custodian of their Eucharist. However, there is one huge flaw in this argument -the Eucharist does not belong to the RC church - it belongs to God, who is totally inclusive. I believe that if a baptised Christian eats or drinks unworthily he or she will have to account for it on the day of judgement.But it will be God's judgement and not that of a human being!
Posts: 91 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Josephine and Elizabeth Anne
Josephine, I fully endorse your position and explanation without reservation. Additionally, I think I may have identified the ecclesiological point that divides our position from that of Elizabeth Anne.
You said ....
quote:
a person must be joined to the Church in the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation before it is permitted for them to participate in Holy Communion.
Indeed, such a person must but the confusion on Communion arises from the NATURE and IMLPLICATIONS of the acceptance (however defined) of each other's baptism. The different "takes" on this lead IMHO to the different understandings of communing one another.
For Protestants generally there are two groups ... those who think that authentic baptism must precede Communion and those who do not. There are some Baptists who will give Communion to young persons before they are baptised. I find this difficult to understand because if this is so, presumably it's done on the basis of some sort of declaration of faith .... and if a person is ready for that then why not believer's baptism first? If there is no profession of faith then such a Baptist would presumably commune a Hindu who had not renounced Hinduism but who attended worship in a Baptist Church. Although, therefore, I readily concede that such churches / practices exist I do not think that the practice is either coherent or biblical. Of course if coherence or biblical fidelity are not thought to be primary then ewe have very little common ground. Because I believe this practice is exceptional, unprecedented and impossible to justify I shall move on.
The second and majority witness in Protestantism is that ALL baptised Christians should have the POSSIBILITY of communing across the different churches. One can imagine situations where such persons might not want to receive Communion or be barred from receiving Communion in their own church but this would not compromise the principle of inter-Communion based on a common acceptance of baptism. (Where baptism is not accepted for some reason then we're back to the first situation).
It is when we consider this second and majority witness concerning the Sacraments in Protestantism with the common position of Catholicism and Orthodoxy that the differences emerge on the significance and implications of baptism for Communion (Eucharist) and communion (unity) between the churches.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy (mostly) accept the baptism of other churches provided that it is trinitarian and with running water. This acceptance is based on the FORM and INTENT of baptism. The form is readily identifiable (trinitarian, running water). The intent, (one Lord, one faith, one baptism), however, for all its sincerity remains an unfulfilled ideal so long as ACTUAL unity is not in place. In other words there is a comon agreement on the form and significance of a mutually accepted baptism but not its IMPLICATIONS.
For Orthodoxy and Catholicism, communing in the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) cannot be separated from being in full communion with one another (hence Josephine's comparison with exclusive marital union and fidelity). The reason WHY we can't separate these is that issues of our believing as Christians cannot be separated from issues of our belonging as Christians. The Church exists to present Christ to the world and the world expects to see Christ in a visible Church ,,, a Church whose members liove together in ONE Body. The trouble is that this unitary Body is differently understood by Catholicism / Orthodoxy and Protestantism. The majority view in Protestanttism, (I believe), is that the Church is the aggregate of believers wherever the Word and the Sacraments are celebrated. The consistent view in Orthodoxy and Catholicism is that such aggregations (communities we would prefer, which is not the same) and celebrations are to be manifest in one visible Body (the Church) which has absolutely no impairment of relations within and between different communities. In so far as we do not have that, communing one another is not yet possible. We have to work hard at resolving those other differences first on the way to restoring the full unity of the Church / churches.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
I may have many criticisms about Anglicanism but one thing they have got right, in my opinion, is their welcome to the eucharist of all professing Christians.
Many times in MW it has been said that isn't the case. Only those who have been baptised and confirmed are welcomed to the Anglican table.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
Well that certainly isn't the case in my church.At the moment I'm looking at a copy of Parish Papers (weekly) which states that communicant members of other churches are welcome to receive Holy Communion with us
I'm not sure about the actual canons in either the Welsh or English Anglican churches,but this does seem to be common practice.
You would be right though that this was the case in the past
Incidentally I think other churches than the RCC and OC (I believe the LCMS is one) also fence the Table
This subject has been done to death,hasn't it??
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Indeed it has been done to death Stephen ... many many times here. There is a reluctance to accept (whilst disagreeing) our positions manifest by either incredulity, offence or repeated attempts to try and assert the moral and spiritual superiority of the "open table" view. That approach is going nowhere.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
bb said:
Many times in MW it has been said that isn't the case. Only those who have been baptised and confirmed are welcomed to the Anglican table.
Communicant members of other denominations in good standing with their own Church are also permitted to receive in the Church of England - I do fairly fre
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Sorry - computer being strange.
I receive Communion fairly frequently at Anglican celebrations because my College Chapel is Anglican, and in Anglican eyes I am not confirmed.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
I may have many criticisms about Anglicanism but one thing they have got right, in my opinion, is their welcome to the eucharist of all professing Christians.
Many times in MW it has been said that isn't the case. Only those who have been baptised and confirmed are welcomed to the Anglican table.
As others have said that isn't quite true because people from traditions that don't use confirmation are welcomed to the table.
And, in practice, unbartised children are in many churches as well - we had a whole thread on this just the other day.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Communicant members of other denominations in good standing with their own Church are also permitted to receive in the Church of England
Sorry, I should have mentioned that. I find it interesting that the CofE is quite happy to communicate with members of other denominations, but require that 'their own people' be baptised and confirmed.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
bb said:
Many times in MW it has been said that isn't the case. Only those who have been baptised and confirmed are welcomed to the Anglican table.
Communicant members of other denominations in good standing with their own Church are also permitted to receive in the Church of England
So do I. I even help distribute Communion (the cup), although I am not confirmed and I am not in good standing with any other church. It is somewhat irregular - but not uncommon, I suspect.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The fact is Seasick and Babybear that Anglican practise has changed markedly since 1981. Then those of non-anglican tradition could only receive at express permission of the Anglican Bishop. I believe that at the time that was even seen as a move on their part. Today it seems to me to be customary in Anglicanism to keep an open table in England which is adopting a practise held by non-conformists, at least of the Reformed persuasion, in England for far longer. Even Presbyterians in England kept open tables dating back to the 1950s or earlier.
I think those who are Anglican should be patient in their urging Rome and Constantinople to adopt quickly what Canterbury has been so slow in adopting.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Cross-posted with bb.
As I said, my situation is "irregular".
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
I understand the Roman and Orthodox Churchs' position on this
You may know what the Orthodox position on this is, but you show no signs of understanding it.
Is she not allowed to understand it and think it wrong?
Are you saying that there are no real disagreements, only misunderstandings?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
babybear said:
I find it interesting that the CofE is quite happy to communicate with members of other denominations, but require that 'their own people' be baptised and confirmed.
I think that it makes sense. Beginning to take Communion is not something that should be done lightly, and one should prepare for it in an appropriate way, which for Anglicans is Baptism and Confirmation (roughly... leaving aside the increasing popularity and occurence of communion after Baptism only). If you are a communicant in your own denomination then you have presumably prepared in the way that is customary there.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is she not allowed to understand it and think it wrong?
Of course she is. But it seems to me that we've got a bit of equivocation going on here. You appear to be using "understanding" in a purely (or primarily) cognitive sense; I was using it in an emotional or social sense. When my 7YO son wants to escape from the classroom, it's easy for the teacher to say, "I know that you want to leave, but you need to stay here." It's much more difficult to try to get inside his skin and figure out *why* a bright, energetic 7YO boy would be *so* unhappy in the classroom that the only answer he can find is to grab his coat and backpack and run. Even if the teacher is right (and she is!) in what she said, the problem can only be worked through if, in addition to the cognitive knowledge (I know this child wants to leave), she also has some emotional knowledge of where the child is coming from. If she doesn't have, or at the very least attempt to build, an understanding of how my son *feels*, if there is no emotional understanding, no personal connection, it's much harder to come to a satisfactory resolution of the situation.
quote:
Are you saying that there are no real disagreements, only misunderstandings?
Not at all. What I'm saying is that, if you fail to understand the reason behind another person's position, you don't understand the position, even if you can recite it verbatim. Knowledge is not the same thing as understanding.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
josephine, I'm certain you don't intend it this way, but it sounds as if you are saying that if she really understood your position she would certainly agree with it.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
I understand Islam ... I don't just know things about Islam. I am not a Muslim and I believe that they are profoundly wrong on a number of things.
Understanding = knowledge + some feel for the subject. "Feeling for the subject" does not necessarily involve agreement. I deal with children 3 days a week as a teacher. They are assessed separately on "knowledge, understanding and evaulation." Knowledge and the retention of knowledge is a low level skill. My best students have a feel for the subject and can reflect personally on the implications of their discoveries for their own world view.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Thank you for the lesson, but I think you've missed the point.
I understand the Orthodox Catholic ecclesiology. I disagree with it. To suggest that my disagreement is due only to an implicit lack of understanding is rather offensive, don't you think? Since I am sure that josephine did not mean to offend, and I was to warn her against doing so accidentally.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
To suggest that my disagreement is due only to an implicit lack of understanding is rather offensive, don't you think?
Sure is. Good thing nobody's done that.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
*sigh*
This is what I get for trying to be circumspect and tactful in making my points. In the future, I'll remember to apply them with blunt force.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elizabeth Anne
Altar Girl
# 3555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Are you saying that there are no real disagreements, only misunderstandings?
Not at all. What I'm saying is that, if you fail to understand the reason behind another person's position, you don't understand the position, even if you can recite it verbatim. Knowledge is not the same thing as understanding.
But I do understand. I was once Orthodox. I was brought up in that church. And even when I was Orthodox, I disagreed with the reasoning behind it.
--------------------
Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in my eyes...
Posts: 974 | From: New York | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
*sigh*
This is what I get for trying to be circumspect and tactful in making my points. In the future, I'll remember to apply them with blunt force.
Then you'd just be wrong.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
You and I are using "understand" in different senses. I am NOT using the "You don't understand!" sense ... but rather the appreciation (but still radically disagreeing) sense. The "appreciation" here is for the "logic" of our position ... not its alleged inherent persuasiveness which, of course, you cannot accept.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
josephine, I'm certain you don't intend it this way, but it sounds as if you are saying that if she really understood your position she would certainly agree with it.
No, I didn't intend it that way at all. In fact, I suspect she would still disagree.
Look, Scot, supposing a male friend of mine suggested we have sex. I tell him no, I'm married, and I understand the marriage relationship to be exclusive. He says, "I understand that, but I don't agree with you. I think adults should have sex with anyone they like. And you like me don't you?" "Well, yes, but for me, sex doesn't belong outside marriage." "I know how you feel. But I disagree. Why don't we go have sex?"
At that point, I think I have two options. I can believe that, despite what he says, he doesn't *really* understand how I feel, or I can believe that he has no respect for me at all, and that he's simply a jerk.
I'd rather believe that he just doesn't get it. And if he's a friend, I would want to give him another chance -- not so that I can persuade him that he should share my beliefs about marriage, because that's none of my business. Rather, I just want him to understand how I feel about marriage, so that he can treat me and my marriage with respect.
Does that make sense to you?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I think that the issue of understanding cuts both ways - we must try to be understanding of the Orthodox (and RC) POV but I think there needs to be a bit of understanding the other way. From my side of the fence, as a baptised and confirmed Christian, being excluded from the Holy Communion means that I must be in some sense deficient. Now, you will say something along the lines of not judging people outside of your group, but to me, actions speak louder than words. I know, of course, having read this thread (and others like it) that this stems from differences of theology and so on, but time after time it seems that the issue put forward is that those of us who are not Orthodox or RC must become more understanding and sympathetic to those traditions without any corresponding give.
I generally dislike attending RC masses (and suspect I would find the same at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, though I have never attended one) because I find it so hurtful not to be excluded from the Holy Communion.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
I said:
I generally dislike attending RC masses (and suspect I would find the same at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, though I have never attended one) because I find it so hurtful not to be excluded from the Holy Communion.
'I find it so hurtful to be excluded' is what that should read - apologies.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
On Saturday at an ecumenical symposium in our Church on Orthodox Mission I explained as usual about not receiving but taking the agape at the end of the Liturgy. One (non-Orthodox) guy whom I know and hearing this, (knowing already the position anyway), still came up to receive.
Strictly speaking, knowing him to not to be Orthodox , I should have asked him to take a blessing and return to his seat. However, I am not a bastard and I wouldn't humiliate or antagonise him by such an action ... so I did not withold the chalice. However, I did feel "used", manipulated ... a victim of someone else's conscience ... someone who considered his own understanding to take precedence over our community norms. Can you read the emotion of that?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Seasick,
But that's just the thing. For Catholics, your understanding of Christianity is deficient. We're not claiming to be another denomination that people can hop along to when they feel like a bit more structure in their liturgy or some quotes from the Pope - we claim to be the Church Christ founded, in which resides the fullness of Truth. I'm not saying this to be triumphalistic, but just to say that if you're feeling that the Catholic position suggests that Protestantism/Anglicanism is a deficient form of Christianity, that's probably because Catholics genuinely believe that it is, insomuch as it contains, to varying degrees depending on the flavour, errors and omissions.
If you want to learn more about the Catholic view, you may find the recent Dominus Iesus useful.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
such a Baptist would presumably commune a Hindu who had not renounced Hinduism but who attended worship in a Baptist Church. Although, therefore, I readily concede that such churches / practices exist I do not think that the practice is either coherent or biblical.
I'm a Baptist who fits your description. I would happily share communion with a Hindu, or indeed, anyone who wanted to join the celebration. I don't see why this is incoherent or unbiblical. Communion links us to the work of Christ, which was for all humankind, his death 'for many.' The institution pointedly included the faithless Judas. Communion is a clear enactment of the gracious, generous, unconditional love of God, not some narrow pact with those willing to sign up for it.
Linking communion with ecclesiology seems to me to be an attempt to misappropriate God's generous initiative, to control what is gift, to put a meter on grace, to put a bridle on Christ and say 'you must conform to us before you can walk with Christ.' Jesus said he had other sheep, not of this fold. The ecclesiological tricks of the Orthodox look to me like an attempt to shut out those who, Christ says, know his voice.
How can you accuse me of being incoherent and unbiblical when I simply relay Christ's generous invitation to any who are heavy laden and hear his voice? You would put a burden of belief and submission on people. Shame.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
From my side of the fence, as a baptised and confirmed Christian, being excluded from the Holy Communion means that I must be in some sense deficient.
I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can do is tell you that it is not our intent, and hope you'll believe me. If you don't, there's nothing I can do -- the one thing you ask isn't permitted. But you can be assured that, in the eyes of the OC, *YOU* are not deficient. You'll notice, in an Orthodox liturgy, that when the deacon censes the people, there is no attempt made to separate the Orthodox from the non-Orthodox. Every person is censed because every person, Orthodox or not, is an icon of the Most High God, and we, corporately, venerate the image of God within you.
At an Orthodox liturgy, you'll also be offered, not the Eucharist, but the antidoron, the blessed bread from which the Eucharist bread was cut. We use a large loaf for Communion, and a square is cut out of the middle of it, and only that square is consecrated. The remainder of the loaf is blessed, and we treat the bread with great reverence, because it was the Loaf from which the Gifts were taken, and we share it with all who come.
quote:
time after time it seems that the issue put forward is that those of us who are not Orthodox or RC must become more understanding and sympathetic to those traditions without any corresponding give.
We go as far as we're able, seasick. But we can't share the Holy Mysteries with you, unless you choose to be sacramentally united with us first. But we're looking for a long-term relationship. We just don't do one-service stands.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PeterY
Shipmate
# 3962
|
Posted
Originally quoted by JL:
quote:
For Catholics, your understanding of Christianity is deficient.
and by Josephine:
quote:
But you can be assured that, in the eyes of the OC, *YOU* are not deficient.
Having read this thread, and many others - and looking at all the Roman documents JL links to, it really does seem that there is quite a difference in the way the Orthodox and Roman Church express their views. One is, on the whole, kind, gentle and loving (indeed almost Maternal!); the other just plain cold, stern and uncaring. One seems to want unity, the other conformity. If the latter is the complete voice of that Church, then I suspect that there is no hope of unity, and we shouldn't waste time either seeking or praying for it.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 120 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
I suspect the perceived difference has more to do with my defective personality than anything else. Apologies, and please bear in mind that there are more readily friendly Catholics out there.
I don't think we should water down our positions for the sake of appearing caring, however. Dishonesty will not help bring about unity.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scandal
Shipmate
# 4185
|
Posted
Shhhh.....
Can you hear the sound of God weeping?
Posts: 145 | From: uk | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I suspect the perceived difference has more to do with my defective personality than anything else. Apologies, and please bear in mind that there are more readily friendly Catholics out there.
I don't think we should water down our positions for the sake of appearing caring, however. Dishonesty will not help bring about unity.
Domine Iesu actually does use those words "gravely deficient", but in the context of a warning against cockiness in the faithful and an exhortation to treat other, non-Christian religions with respect, without falling into the trap of religious relativism. Thus at para 22:
quote:
22. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”. [My emphasis] One understands then that, following the Lord's command (cf. Mt 28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church “proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life”.
It's an uncompromising call of conversion from other religions to Christ and to Christianity - through the Catholic Church.
There is one Catholic Church and it is unified in Christ and Christ in it. However,it would be quite wrong to suggest that other Christian churches are not part of salvation. By baptism in those communities, their members are incorporated in Christ and are thus in communion with the Catholic Church, although in an imperfect communion. ( Domine Iesu para 17). At para 20 quote:
For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
And having said that, I agree with Scandal that God weeps to see Christians divided.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
Dear F G,
giving the non orthodox person the sacrament may not have been official policy but it was pastorally caring and a loving gesture. And surely it is that loving gesture which is closer to the gospel of love than the strict observance of rules.
I was also there on Saturday and respected the situation. However I felt the pain of being with fellow Christians and yet excluded from receiveing Our Blessed Lord in this Holy Sacrament. It is that pain, the notion that human weakness prohibits us from being whole that has to be bridged. If fellow Christians can't meet and enjoy table fellowship with each other what hope is there?
Surely the only real thing to do is one of love and that we all of us eat the crumbs from Our Masters Table. He gives to his people generously it is we church officials who hinder rather than help promote church unity.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Fr. Gregory said:
Strictly speaking, knowing him to not to be Orthodox , I should have asked him to take a blessing and return to his seat. However, I am not a bastard and I wouldn't humiliate or antagonise him by such an action ... so I did not withold the chalice. However, I did feel "used", manipulated ... a victim of someone else's conscience ... someone who considered his own understanding to take precedence over our community norms. Can you read the emotion of that?
Certainly, I can. I would never receive communion in a Church in which I know that the Church would be unhappy for me to do so. Especially, if the position had been made clear beforehand - I would feel excluded and sad, but I would not attempt to receive.
quote:
josephine said:
We go as far as we're able, seasick. But we can't share the Holy Mysteries with you, unless you choose to be sacramentally united with us first. But we're looking for a long-term relationship. We just don't do one-service stands.
I'm not actually looking for you to say 'Goodness he's right - from now on we'll communicate other Christians', just for a little understanding of the other perspective (not agreement - the disctinction between the two having been pointed out earlier).
quote:
Jesuitical Lad said:
But that's just the thing. For Catholics, your understanding of Christianity is deficient. We're not claiming to be another denomination that people can hop along to when they feel like a bit more structure in their liturgy or some quotes from the Pope - we claim to be the Church Christ founded, in which resides the fullness of Truth. I'm not saying this to be triumphalistic, but just to say that if you're feeling that the Catholic position suggests that Protestantism/Anglicanism is a deficient form of Christianity, that's probably because Catholics genuinely believe that it is, insomuch as it contains, to varying degrees depending on the flavour, errors and omissions.
Yes, I know.
(and I wouldn't go the Romans for more structure in my liturgy...)
At the end of the day, this isn't going to change any time soon - but some understanding of the issue as it appears from our side of the fence would be nice.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
I would suggest that the difficulty here is not in the meaning of the word ‘understand’ , but in what it is that is being understood.
Paraphrasing, the Orthodox position is that the Orthodox understanding of Communion is such that Communion should not be given to those who are not Orthodox – in the same way that sex is reserved for those who are married to one another.
I think that the problem here is not with the logical progression form the understanding of the meaning of Communion to the practice of Communion, but in the understanding of the meaning of Communion.
The argument from an ‘open table’ perspective might be something like
quote:
I understand that the Orthodox believe that Communion should be extended only to those who are Orthodox, as sex is reserved for those inside marriage. I believe that this is wrong, not because the logical progression is wrong but because (in my opinion) this understanding of Communion is wrong. Communion is (in my opinion) not like sex, it is like a family meal – which is shared by all the family and by strangers under their roof to whom hospitality is offered.
Putting it algebraically: if A logically leads to B, this does not prevent B being wrong, if A is wrong.
In this way it would be (in my opinion) entirely reasonable for someone to say, “I understand the Orthodox position on reserving Communion only for those who are Orthodox, but I think that it is wrong.”
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
