|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship
|
Brown Scapular
Shipmate
# 11687
|
Posted
Thank you for your reply and welcome.
I will wait with baited breath to hear what Father Gregory has to say on the subject. Sadly i still have to rack up some more posts before I get to climb aboard Stella Maris.
BTW I presume that all Orthodox can communicate in each others churches, ie. Greeks in Russian/Romanian/Bulgarian et al churches. Also would/could you communicate in a Uniate or Maronite Church?
--------------------
Crux Sacra sit mihi Lux
Ne Draco sit mihi dux
Posts: 288 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brown Scapular:
Thank you for your reply and welcome.
I will wait with baited breath to hear what Father Gregory has to say on the subject. Sadly i still have to rack up some more posts before I get to climb aboard Stella Maris.
Ahhh. I hadn't realised that one had to achieve Shipmate status. That's easily done. Just play some of the games in the Circus. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I don't know whether Word Association is still going but if so, you can probably do it by the end of today. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
BTW I presume that all Orthodox can communicate in each others churches, ie. Greeks in Russian/Romanian/Bulgarian et al churches.
Oh yes, certainly! We're all Orthodox. The different Orthodox jurisdictions are perhaps the equivalent of the Catholic Bishops' Conferences. That's all. The Russian and Antiochian jurisdictions are no more divided than the Catholic Bishops' Conferences of the USA and England & Wales. They aren't directly equivalent but it's the nearest comparison I can think of. There are some structural and administrative difficulties between some of the jurisdictions but this is not a division of faith or Orthodoxy and does not prevent laity receiving the Sacraments in each other's churches.
quote:
Also would/could you communicate in a Uniate or Maronite Church?
No. These are Catholic churches, just like those of the Latin Rite. The rite they use is insignificant. In the same way, a Western Rite Orthodox parish is no more Catholic than a Byzantine Rite Orthodox parish is. They are both Orthodox, regardless of the rite they use.
[misplaced apostrophe ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ]
[ 29. July 2006, 11:15: Message edited by: Saint Bertolin ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brown Scapular
Shipmate
# 11687
|
Posted
Could you also enlighten me about the brouhaha in the Russian orthodox church at the moment. As far as i know the Russian Orthodox Church in exile won't speak to or recognise the Orthodox Church in Russia as thay think of them as communist aparatchiks. A friend of mine had a terrible time with her wedding to a Russian, deciding between the Orthodox church with the lovely blue onion domes you can see from Hammersmith flyover or the one in Knightsbridge who apparently are spitting vitriol at each other! Please to explain!?
--------------------
Crux Sacra sit mihi Lux
Ne Draco sit mihi dux
Posts: 288 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brown Scapular:
Could you also enlighten me about the brouhaha in the Russian orthodox church at the moment. As far as i know the Russian Orthodox Church in exile won't speak to or recognise the Orthodox Church in Russia as thay think of them as communist aparatchiks. A friend of mine had a terrible time with her wedding to a Russian, deciding between the Orthodox church with the lovely blue onion domes you can see from Hammersmith flyover or the one in Knightsbridge who apparently are spitting vitriol at each other! Please to explain!?
I'll try to summarize very briefly here, mainly because we had two very detailed threads about just this in Purgatory not long before you joined the Ship. The Russian Orthodox Church in Exile changed its name many years ago to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, aka, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
Any tales of that sort of vitriol should be seriously outdated, as both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad jurisdictions have founded a joint monastery, have begun to ordain each other's clergy, and have both agreed that they have an ultimate goal of restoring full Eucharistic Communion. You can read more about this on the website set up to report on the All-Diaspora Council of the Church Abroad from May this year.
I'm sorry your friend has had difficulty with her wedding. Many of the older Russians still remember the difficulties of the last century and there is still some upset. It may simply be the case that the make-up of the parishes in question is largely older Russians who have experienced the difficulties first-hand. I'm also not completely comfortable with the implication that the unpleasantness is purely on the side of the Church Abroad, although I understand that, as an outsider looking in, you're only aware of what you have been told. There was ill-feeling and unpleasantness on both sides and there was wrongdoing on both sides. Fortunately, those days are largely behind us.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with matters of Faith, and while there are administrative issues to be ironed out, and some property disputes, the faithful of both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad may freely receive the Sacraments in each other's churches.
If you'd like to know more, while the thread has been deleted, it seems that at least part of it was cached by Google.
I hope this helps.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Hi Saint Bertolin,
Thanks for replying to me. Sorry that I haven't got round to responding until now but life is busier than my ability to keep all these topics in the air!
Firstly, I am most humbly sorry if the strong tone of my post offended you. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone, so please forgive any trespass ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Just to clarify...of course I WOULDN'T embarrass myself, an orthodox priest or any congregation by presumming to receive communion in an Orthodox church. You are all my brothers and sisters in Christ and I have no intention of inducing anyone to 'stumble' because of my actions! My 'case study' was purely rhetorical to show how the 'embarrassment' as you so clearly describe it would confirm that there IS a barrier to approaching the table (albeit a 'social' one in this case). My point was to show that the Orthodox church is NOT the inclusive church which you claim it to be (not, that is, according to any meaningful and contemporary use of the word 'inclusive').
To try and get to the heart of the matter I would suggest this concerns the subject of 'justification' - namely how we know that 'we' or anyone else is 'within the kingdom'.
Obviously this is a venture fraught with difficulty precisely because it is God alone who has such absolute knowledge (and who is the only one able to judge the secrets of all human hearts), however he did not intend us to be absolutely ignorant in this matter.
What, then, is the criterion for valid 'justification' (a 'judgement' which, by the way, must presently remain 'ahead of the time' until the real judgement day)? Well it appears that the Apostolic approach was to accept a confession of 'faith' in Christ. To acknowledge his incarnation, his death and resurrection for the 'remission of sins', his Lordship over all and his return to judge everyone. As Paul says, to be able to make such a declaration is a gift of the Spirit and all who thus 'call on the name of the Lord, will be saved...'.
However, even this has an inherent 'tension', since Jesus himself told us that 'not all who say Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom' and we have the parable of the 'wheat and the tares'!
How are we, thus, to discern?
Well, I would suggest that it is NOT our place to discern (the meaning of the wheat and the tares - both will grow up side by side until the 'judge' decides between them), and the only criterion we have to go on is a profession of 'faith in Christ' (according to the apostolic model described above).
Since the desire to 'participate in Christ' at the communion table is a simple outworking of this 'justifying faith' to deny someone the elements is to pronounce their faith 'invalid' and is thus doing something which no human (or collection of humans) has the authority to do.
I agree with the Orthodox that 'faith in Christ', producing a desire to participate in Christ, flows into communion within the Church. However the stumbling block is that the Orthodox see their community of faith as THE (only) articulation of 'church'. Thus to refuse to join the Orthodox community of faith is to refuse to be part of 'the church' and thus to refuse to be part 'of christ'. Following this logic, how - then - can anyone partake of the eucharist who has refused to be part 'of christ'? This, I believe, is the Orthodox argument for a 'closed table'.
This, of course, is a purely exclusive claim (that our 'community of faith' is the only 'true' church). We find such understandings within many strict baptist churches/exclusive brethren etc.. and it's interesting to see that they (being true to the same eucharistic logic) also practice 'closed communion'.
This claim goes too far for me and is simply ignorant of the life and work of the Spirit which is at work in many other Christian communities. I am inclined to agree that the Orthodox church has preserved a most authentic and apostolic tradition of the faith, but this doesn't mean that it is the 'only' church but, instead (perhaps) the 'best' one!
Best wishes,
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
One further thought....
Within Orthodox thought, does the definition of 'Church' proceed from the Eucharistic event or does being 'in the Church' preceed communion?
I'm thinking here that one definition of 'Church' would be of the congregation of many individual humans, each professing 'faith' in Christ, around a table and then the collective participation in the sacramental elements. Thus 'Church' arises from the dynamic process of:
Personal faith > Collective gathering > Communal sharing in the body of Christ
According to this view one is only part of the 'Church' in that they have partaken in the eucharist. So there can be no notion of 'joining the church' prior to taking communion.
The 'Orthodox' church would, thus, be the communing gathering of all those whose 'profession of faith' is 'Orthodox' (i.e. in keeping with the Apostolic canon of faith).
So.....if I approach 'a' communion table professing the orthodox and apostolic faith in Christ (so, perhaps, the Apostles creed) then, in joining with other such individuals making the same valid confession, I am becoming the Orthodox church.
Thus the 'Church' is constantly renewed and re-enacted in and through the eucharist and the apostolic confession of faith.
The rest is just roles, admin, buildings, structure which is necessary to facilitate the eucharistic communion but which isn't the 'ground' of ecclesial identity.
Any thoughts?
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Church is a body, the Body of Christ. Eucharist didn't bring Christ's body into existence. Eucharist is a function of that body, not its defining characteristic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Hi Saint Bertolin,
Thanks for replying to me. Sorry that I haven't got round to responding until now but life is busier than my ability to keep all these topics in the air!
Firstly, I am most humbly sorry if the strong tone of my post offended you. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone, so please forgive any trespass
Richard, you have nothing to apologise for. It was I who became agitated on the other thread and transferred that here. I'm sorry for having over-reacted.
quote:
My 'case study' was purely rhetorical to show how the 'embarrassment' as you so clearly describe it would confirm that there IS a barrier to approaching the table (albeit a 'social' one in this case). My point was to show that the Orthodox church is NOT the inclusive church which you claim it to be (not, that is, according to any meaningful and contemporary use of the word 'inclusive').
I think we can both agree that there is a barrier. The difference between us is that I don't see this barrier as being imposed on non-Orthodox by the Orthodox Church but rather a self-imposed barrier by those who do not come to Orthodoxy, to which they would be warmly welcomed. Therefore, I don't see this as diminishing the inclusiveness of Orthodoxy. Of course, you touched on this later in your post and I'll respond to that below.
quote:
To try and get to the heart of the matter I would suggest this concerns the subject of 'justification' - namely how we know that 'we' or anyone else is 'within the kingdom'.
Obviously this is a venture fraught with difficulty precisely because it is God alone who has such absolute knowledge (and who is the only one able to judge the secrets of all human hearts), however he did not intend us to be absolutely ignorant in this matter.
I'm agreeing with you completely thus far.
quote:
What, then, is the criterion for valid 'justification' (a 'judgement' which, by the way, must presently remain 'ahead of the time' until the real judgement day)? Well it appears that the Apostolic approach was to accept a confession of 'faith' in Christ. To acknowledge his incarnation, his death and resurrection for the 'remission of sins', his Lordship over all and his return to judge everyone. As Paul says, to be able to make such a declaration is a gift of the Spirit and all who thus 'call on the name of the Lord, will be saved...'.
However, even this has an inherent 'tension', since Jesus himself told us that 'not all who say Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom' and we have the parable of the 'wheat and the tares'!
How are we, thus, to discern?
Well, I would suggest that it is NOT our place to discern (the meaning of the wheat and the tares - both will grow up side by side until the 'judge' decides between them), and the only criterion we have to go on is a profession of 'faith in Christ' (according to the apostolic model described above).
Since the desire to 'participate in Christ' at the communion table is a simple outworking of this 'justifying faith' to deny someone the elements is to pronounce their faith 'invalid' and is thus doing something which no human (or collection of humans) has the authority to do.
And the last line, I think, highlights where we differ. The Orthodox understanding is not that the Church is merely a collection of humans. It is certainly that, but it is also the Mystical Body of Christ, the ark of salvation through which God reveals to us his Truth and bestows to us his grace which has Christ's promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fulfilled at Pentecost, to lead it into all Truth. Therefore, from our perspective, the teaching, life, worship, and practice of the Church is not simply the corporately approved statement of a collection of humans, however holy or unholy they may be, but is Holy Tradition - the revealed Truth of God, which leads into this:
quote:
I agree with the Orthodox that 'faith in Christ', producing a desire to participate in Christ, flows into communion within the Church. However the stumbling block is that the Orthodox see their community of faith as THE (only) articulation of 'church'. Thus to refuse to join the Orthodox community of faith is to refuse to be part of 'the church' and thus to refuse to be part 'of christ'. Following this logic, how - then - can anyone partake of the eucharist who has refused to be part 'of christ'? This, I believe, is the Orthodox argument for a 'closed table'.
This, of course, is a purely exclusive claim (that our 'community of faith' is the only 'true' church).
That's true, but we have to look at the reasons why that is, and it is what I said above. We don't take the approach of looking at the current situation of many bodies who claim the name Christian, and deciding that ours is the right one, because we consider that to be a flawed approach. Rather, we look at where we've come from.
Because of our understanding of what the Church is, a denial of the teachings of the Church cannot be consonant with being part of the Church, for it is to imply that Christ has failed to keep his promise of the Spirit of Truth and that the Holy Spirit has been leading the Church into error. For us, this is not compatible with faith in Christ. That's whay I said in an earlier post that we consider the branch theory and developments of it to be heresy. So when we hold to the belief that Orthodoxy is the Church, it isn't that we're being arrogant and triumphalistic. On the contrary, many of us, (and, as it happens, most of us Orthodox on the Ship), are converts to Orthodoxy who have shed any arrogance and pride that we may have had when we came to the painful realisation that the traditons that nourished us up to that point - for many of us, all our lives - for all of their riches and value, and for all the joy and love we found there, were not part of the Church, for they had, at some point in their history, separated themselves from it and had never been reconciled to the Church. Surely enough, that wasn't our personal doing as it happened centuries before we were born, but it didn't change the fact that it had happened.
quote:
This claim goes too far for me and is simply ignorant of the life and work of the Spirit which is at work in many other Christian communities.
This is only true if you believe that God is incapable of operating outside the Church. Some Orthodox will tell you that, outside of the Church, there is definitely no grace, there is definitely no salvation. Many others will tell you that within the Church, we are assured of God's promise of grace, for He has established his Church in the New Covenant but that outside the Church, we acknowledge that God can do as He pleases (it's his creation, after all), and that while we cannot say with any certainty that outside the Church there is grace and salvation (for we only know what God has promised to us within the New Covenant - the Church), we also cannot say with any certainty that there is not. This is one of those areas where there is variance within Orthodoxy but neither is a denial of any revealed Truth.
As for me, I fall within the latter category. It's just that the Church does not have the authority to depart from what God has established, and to extend what God has given as a means of grace within his Church to those who remain outside it. As I have said elsewhere on the Ship many a time in the past, I have faith and hope in the mercy of God and so I pray that God would extend that mercy to those who do not come to his Church and give his grace to them, but who am I - who is anybody - to decide to state that He does?
Regarding your second post, I think Mousethief summed it up with a lot less waffle than I could have. The Eucharist is the summit of our life in Christ but is not the defining characteristic of it.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Hi Guys!
Thanks for responding.
I went back and read some +John Zizioulas (who I find v.v. profound) and got some clarification on the eucharist/church thinking.
He basically states (and I agree) that it is the Spirit who constitutes the 'body of Christ'. And this is a 'body' in every nuance of the term - the physical body of Jesus, the community of the saints and the eucharistic elements. All of these represent 'transformed' creation (through the epiclesis of the Spirit).
Thus the 'original', ontological impulse which constructs the 'church' is the Spirit himself. From this initial impulse (historically first 'revealed' through Jesus of Nazareth), all else flows. The 'people' who make up 'church' become the 'body of Christ' through the agency of the Spirit (who produces the 'faith' which we proclaim) and the eucharist becomes the 'body' through the Spirit's transformation of the physical offerings of the people.
So I agree that the eucharistic event proceeds from the 'church' which proceeds from Christ and all only occur through the agency of the Spirit.
I think my point was that the 'church' is ALSO redefined in the eucharistic event (through the transformation that the Spirit effects in us through it) and this was where I think I was coming from. The old 'chicken and the egg' argument where clearly the church takes some of it's 'being' from the communion which is 'proclaims'.
Good to clarify that one!
On the issue of the 'entry point' into the New Covenant community. I think the difference between us is currently how each of us understands the phrase 'faith in Christ'. I'm making this out to be a 'confession' (i.e. a belief and verbal statement) and, I think, you'd like to 'solidify' this 'confession' somewhat and include in it the notion of obedience to the church's traditions.
I don't know where to go with this exactly. I agree that if one 'confesses Christ' then one will 'work out' this confession within the 'community of faith' and I agree that the Orthodox church presents (to me) the most uncorrupted traditions of the Apostles. However I think I would still insist that it is 'awareness' of confidence in Christ which marks the first obvious entry 'into Christ' and would like to make a subtle distinction between this initial 'confidence' and the subsequent outworking of it.
I think I'm trying to say that, as much as other Christian groupings might have deviated from some of the early traditions, they still represent a 'home' for those who experience 'confidence in Christ' and thus they should still have access to the communion table (since they show that Christ has clearly joined himself to them).
To say that one has to be joined to Orthodoxy prior to access to the commuion table is setting a 'test of excellence' on one's faith and, as good as this might be for theosis/transformation, I still think that one has to begin 'somewhere' and this is - perhaps - where many of the other 'churches' are currently at.
It's a fine line between Orthodoxy presenting itself as the 'better way' and insisting that it is the 'only way'.
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
It's a fine line between Orthodoxy presenting itself as the 'better way' and insisting that it is the 'only way'.
As an Orthodox, I wouldn't say either. I would say it's the Way that was founded by Jesus and his disciples, the one that He said would prevail against the gates of Hades. We have the warranty for this one; we can't vouch for any other. I wouldn't say they can't save, but rather they're not the ways that have the Apostolic Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
--------------------
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 Richard
Should we base eucharistic communion on a saving faith such as "Jesus is Lord" or should we go on to insist that it is the full confession and mutual recognition that is required. This is a parallel question to that which seeks to account for the relationship between, say, "faith" (confidence in Christ) and THE Faith (of which "X" Church claims to be the fullest expression).
Mousethief is right to put down the marker that in (say) Orthodoxy we know what we have got, so to speak, without commenting on others beyond "they don't go the whole way with respect to our confession."
Moving on though to the issues raised in my first paragraph, one would have to say that:- "Jesus is Lord" is not enough for eucharistic communion, (1 Cor 12:3). When St. Paul used this confession and St. John the one about Christ having come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3) they were identifying two elements necessary to contend against those who taught against, respectively, the divinity of Christ and the Incarnation. There is no sense here though that such confessions THEMSELVES formed an adequate basis for eucharistic communion. Indeed, move this forward to the 4th century, and an Arian could have said "Jesus is Lord" ... but by the Holy Spirit? I think not because what an Arian would have meant by that and what an Orthodox would have meant by that would have been (and is) very different.
All I am doing here is establishing the principle that simple confessional formulae (even if they express a saving confidence in Christ) cannot by themselves serve to substantiate eucharistic communion. I would not go so far as to that mere belonging to the Church is de facto evidence of Orthodoxy and eucharistic communion. It is in a quantum sense only. There is a superposition of states until one asks the question and records the answer. The question of course is:- "What does your bishop teach?"
Now, it goes without saying that if a bishop taught EXACTLY the same as us in all respects and ordered the church for which he was responsible accordingly then his reception into communion (and therefore eucharistic communion with us) is only a hair's breadth away but what is less clear is the necessity of receiving someone (and his communities) into communion if there are material matters of dissent in faith and life. That seems to us quite inconsistent and unjustifiable.
[ 30. July 2006, 16:36: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Mousethief & Father Gregory,
Thankyou! I know we're in 'Dead Horses' but this topic is 'fresh' for me at my current stage of faith, so I appreciate your adding to my thinking!
Father Gregory, I agree with your statement about the 'creeds' i.e that they expressed an historic defense against erroneous ideas. In this regard they were constantly evolving and being added to - I wonder whether you, thus, think we need an 'updated' orthodox creed which states categorically which beliefs about God, Christ and the Spirit are right in 'todays' culture?
In reserving eucharistic communion for those ecclesial communities which 'subscribe' to this yet un-codified creed I see how one may avoid erroneous ideas being part of ones 'ecclesial network'. Thus the preservation of Orthodox thinking is maintained through a rejection (or expulsion) of any wrong thinking from the system.
This is partly how many protestant sects operate where groups constantly splinter anathematising each other and declaring their own position to be the 'orthodox one'! I guess the extent of schism (which is the proper term for any expulsion within ecclesial systems) depends on the extent of ones 'creed'. For example - 'Jesus is Lord' would group a large number of people together, but if one introduces 'who being of one substance with the father' would start to divide the previous group etc...
I agree with Saint Bertolin and yourself that if the Christian faith is to have any 'meaning' then it rests on 'meaningful' statements about God, Christ, the church etc... and thus (in keeping with my above point) some will be divided by these statements.
I guess my concern is that there are a large number of humans who happily subscribe to the historic creeds and who would probably agree with the Orthodox church on it's most important assertions (say, those within the Catholic/Anglican churches) but who couldn't commune with their fellow 'confessees' within your Church. This seems to make a mockery of the notion of the creeds themselves (whose original intention was to allow one to know who was 'orthodox' or not) and - to me - appears to place a barrier between brothers and sisters of the same 'orthodox' confession.
I do not know my bishops mind and he doesn't determine my 'confession' so insisting on such Episcopal fidelity to orthodoxy again places a barrier between me and my co-orthodox brothers and sisters (also the Anglican church doesn't structure its Diocese in such accountable terms!)
Kind regards,
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Richard
The Creeds mustn't be allowed to carry much here. They were, of course, originally, mini-summaries of basic instruction for baptismal candidates. (THe western Apostles' Creed fits this primitive category). Later they were added to and used to exclude error .... but NOT encompass truth.
It is the all encompassing holistic truth that contexualises Christian unity in faith and life and creeds alone cannot deliver that. So, although the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church both recite the Nicene Creed in the Eucharist (and that's important) this cannot sustain eucharistic communion because there are a whole host of other important things that divide us. The trouble is that many Anglicans think that these are trifles, (veneration of icons, no-filioque, fasting, devotion toward the Theotokos, apostolic continuity in ministry) ... whereas for the Orthodox they are a vital part of Church life.
[ 30. July 2006, 21:08: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brown Scapular
Shipmate
# 11687
|
Posted
quote:
As a Catholic (RC) I have read that we are allowed to receive communion in Orthodox churches if no RC is available and also if in articulo mortis (this is according to the RC catechism)
What does the Orthodox church feel about this? If i was in the middle of Siberia for a year would i be refused communion in church or on my deathbed? I was under the impression that Orthodox and RC understandings of the Blessed sacrament were similar if not identical!
Any thoughts?
Father Gregory i would be most interested to hear your thoughts on this! As far as i can see the differences between the RC and Orthodox Church are the Filioque clause and beliefs about purgatory, (oh and a certain reticence about 3D representations of holy figures).
--------------------
Crux Sacra sit mihi Lux
Ne Draco sit mihi dux
Posts: 288 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think the Orthodox, at Communion, are as welcoming as their ecclesiology allows them to be, and more welcoming than they are giving themselves credit for.
One factor that has not been taken into consideration is the practice of distributing the antidoron after Communion - bread that has been blessed but not consecrated. Since this gets distributed to catechumens and visitors, it is a friendly gesture of goodwill. (Indeed, given that many Protestants would not distinguish between blessed and consecrated bread, you could even argue that Protestants are in communion with Orthodox - by a Protestant definition of "communion".)
[ 30. July 2006, 22:06: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Brown Scapular
The rules that apply in the Patriarchate of Antioch vis-a-vis Rome are the same. We share Communion with Roman Catholics where:-
(1) ... a Catholic priest / Church is not available or accessible.
(2) The Catholic spouse of an Orthodox person.
However, we are considered to be theologically liberal in this regard by some jurisdictions with a stricter ecclesiastical polity.
I find this to be one of the more unsatisfactory aspects of contemporary Orthodox practice ... our internal inconsistency when it comes to initiation and inter-church relations.
I know, I know, we need a primacy!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Father Gregory,
Thanks for that.
I agree that confessions can take us into 'confessionalism' which is the cul de sac which afflicts much of protestantism - as we endlessly revise and reword more and more convoluted understanding of what 'faith in Christ' actually means.
I like the idea of 'living faith' which doesn't restrict 'orthodoxy' to some textual statement (like the Westminster Confession) but articulates it through liturgy, actions, song, life etc...
Also, on second thoughts re: ones 'episcopal system', I disagree with my former position! Of course it matters what 'sort' of structure one is in. Sure, one may be able to sustain Orthodoxy within even the most heterodox system, but it's hardly the 'ideal' enviroment in which to do so, and if one then falls into erroneous thinking one shouldn't be suprised.
A example of this position is apparent with the Church of England. If one's bishop hardly believes in the Resurrection then what does this mean for the life of the community over which he/she presides? These beliefs aren't 'optional extras' and are core to our whole identity. I think alot of Christians within the Church of England are simply confused about the core foundation of the faith - and this is, in part, due to erroneous shepherds. A poor leader can and will poision any system, so you're right to suggest that it matters what ones Bishop teaches. With Anglican Bishops coming and going and being appointed by Government etc.. it's almost impossible to have any confidence that if one has a 'good' Bishop that this situation will last for any period of time.
How are Bishops chosen within the Orthodox church and is there much movement between Dioceses?
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The canons provide for election to the episcopate but that is complemented by a collective process of discernment in a provinicial synod. The balance between local voice and central steering depends very much on the established practice of each autocephalous Orthodox Church. Antioch tends to be quoite "democratic" whereas, on the whole, Russia doesn't and is more centralised.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
And once chosen, does a Bishop have to stay in their Episcopal See?
I seem to remember one of the Cappadocian Fathers getting caught out by this and not being able to become the Patriarch of Constantinople because of this 'rule'.
If this is the case then I suppose it could be a little restrictive (and stops you putting 'proven' men into influential Sees) but allows for the community to be able to work with (or suffer!) one bishop for a longer period of time.
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The rules that apply in the Patriarchate of Antioch vis-a-vis Rome are the same. We share Communion with Roman Catholics where:-
(1) ... a Catholic priest / Church is not available or accessible.
(2) The Catholic spouse of an Orthodox person.
St Bertolin has argued above that those outside the visible boundaries of Orthodoxy are outside the Church, and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean the Orthodox bit of the wider Church. Doesn't your position concede that he's wrong?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Greyface
There is a legitimate diversity of approach in Orthodoxy between those who veer toward Cyprianic rigour and those who take a softer line, (still hard though by non-Orthodox standards).
Dear Richard
Orthodox bishops don't get free transfers. Occasionally there exceptions but the general rule is "stay put."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
It's a fine line between Orthodoxy presenting itself as the 'better way' and insisting that it is the 'only way'.
As an Orthodox, I wouldn't say either. I would say it's the Way that was founded by Jesus and his disciples, the one that He said would prevail against the gates of Hades. We have the warranty for this one; we can't vouch for any other. I wouldn't say they can't save, but rather they're not the ways that have the Apostolic Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
I can't quite grasp how the Orthodox Church is the "Way that was founded by Jesus and his disciples," to the exclusion of all others.
On what is this claim based?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Historical continuity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Historical continuity.
That's very strange. So, Orthodoxy could in fact be horribly in error, but since it claims to have a "direct line" to Christ, it has the Seal of Approval?
And why doesn't this apply to the Catholic Church, BTW?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well we believe Christ promised his Church would not go astray.
Of course the Catholics think they're the One True Church and we split away from them; we think we are and they split away from us. I can give you my arguments for our side; they can give you their arguments for theirs. Ultimately we'll know when our Lord returns.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Well, it's easy to demonstrate that the Church has, in fact, gone astray. And not just once or occasionally. To me, this is symptomatic of what's wrong with Christianity in general: the refusal to face reality and to admit wrongdoing. As individuals, we are called to repent and return to the Lord; if we don't, we are lost in the sickness of sin. Yet the Church doesn't ever apply this simple formula to itself. That's a problem
But as you say, that's another discussion. Probably not suited for this particular thread anyway. Thanks for answering.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
St Bertelin said:
I'd just like to politely point out that the term "closed communion" is generally understood as a mildly pejorative term by those who disapprove of the tradition to which it it refers and doesn't sit very well with those to who adopt that tradition as their own.
I wasn't aware that term was understood in that way. Is there an alternative term that you would consider more appropriate to describe churches of that tradition?
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
St. B: ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Then what on earth are we to call it? I'll be honest, I've never heard "closed communion" referred to as anything else (sometimes the D is dropped) or called pejorative. The Lutheran Church - Canada's apologia for the practice includes the phrase in its title.
Dear seasick and Liturgy Queen,
Thanks for responding.
For my part, open communion and closed communion are terms that I don't use, precisely because I don't consider that to which the latter refers to be in any way closed. For me, (and others I know), it has connotations of the sort of sentiment that underlies some people's posts in Purgatory from time to time: "How can churches shut people out like that? This isn't loving and inclusive..."
In discussion about who may receive in various churches, I simply refer to "the Catholic practice" if that church is under discussion, or "the Orthodox practice", "the Anglican practice", &c. That way, it's just a statement of fact with no attached value judgement.
I'm aware, though, that I'm speaking from a particular perspective. Despite having no desire to receive in any church but my own, I find myself in a position where the discipline of most churches in which I have, in the past, wanted to receive, would mean that I could if I so wished. I expect that this is in contrast to the position of many others.
I suppose it boils down to the fact that a person's ecclesiology will determine whether or not he views it as closed. For many who see all denominations as parts of the Church, then I suppose Orthodox practice does appear to be closed and exclusive. However, from the perspective of Orthodox Christians, communion is open to all members of the Church and all are welcome to become a part of the Church if they wish, and so for many of us, the term "closed communion" is inaccurate and does appear to be a value judgement used by those who disagree with our self-understanding.
Sometimes, in discussions on the Ship where the term is used frequently (such as this one), it's sometimes just easier to go along and use the term as it becomes established as a term of reference for a particular concept, so I concede that it can be a useful shorthand in some situations, but still one that I really dislike.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Union is not created by papal decree. Union is a matter of whether their bishops are prayed for at a certain part of the heirarchical liturgy by our bishops. They are not. Hence, no union.
Besides it's the ability of the pope to make unilateral calls like that that we're quibbling over in the first place!
Umm - so cross-church or cross-denomination Communion authorisation could be said to work in a similar manner to X400 cross-certification? Bear with me while I run through this.
I'm a Lotus Notes administrator professionally. Notes/Domino authenticates users and servers by checking for certificates in common. You typically set up a certificate for an organisation, then your organisational units, and then your users and servers. Only the organisation's certifiers will naturally talk to each other.
To allow comms between different Notes organisations down Notes comms ports - Cross-Certificates are generated. Anything UNDER that cross-certifier is then able to talk to its cross-cert partner.
Having a bishop from one "organisation" or "OU" praying another bishop from another practice - and vice versa, sets up a cross-certificate, thereby authenticating members of that doctrinal area or fellowship for means of Communion; would I be on the right lines?
To declare in X400/Notes form - a member is seen as, say, Father Gregory/UK/RussianOrthodox, and without a cross-cert existing, he couldn't authenticate with CommunionTable/UK/EasternOrthodox, or CommunionTable/Wycliffe/Baptist/Christ, or Sacrament/UK/RomanCatholic.
To extend my analogy - us "Open Tablers" have a
view that our common certifier is Jesus Christ, so there is no beef (or shouldn't be) with, say, Alex Cockell/Wycliffe/Baptist/ChurchCatholic/Christ authenticating with CommunionTable/<anything>/Christ.
Am I somewhat on the right lines?
Alex
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't know that I understand all of what you've said. One thing your model leaves out is that it's possible for one bishop to issue a cross-whatsit, and then be called on the rug by his fellow bishops, and withdraw it or be made to withdraw it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
I think, MouseThief, that around about 1054 there was a Fatal Error in the OS.
M
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
One thing your model leaves out is that it's possible for one bishop to issue a cross-whatsit, and then be called on the rug by his fellow bishops, and withdraw it or be made to withdraw it.
- openssl -revoke RomanBish.pem
- openssl ca -gencrl -config /etc/MyChurch.cnf -out crl/OrthoPlot-ca.crl
- openssl ca -gencrl -config /etc/MyChurch.cnf -crldays 7 -crlexts crl_ext -out crl/OrthoPlot-ca.crl
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ken, but aren't we supposed to use English in our posts on the Ship?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
One thing your model leaves out is that it's possible for one bishop to issue a cross-whatsit, and then be called on the rug by his fellow bishops, and withdraw it or be made to withdraw it.
- openssl -revoke RomanBish.pem
- openssl ca -gencrl -config /etc/MyChurch.cnf -out crl/OrthoPlot-ca.crl
- openssl ca -gencrl -config /etc/MyChurch.cnf -crldays 7 -crlexts crl_ext -out crl/OrthoPlot-ca.crl
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Ken, OK - so I'm not fully au fait with Unix commands for cross-certificates, but was that to export a safe copy of a cert?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Export safe copy of a cert = the granting by a bishop of Letters Dimissory for transferring a priest to another diocese....
M
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Actually I think those commands are me acting as a Certifying Authority called OrthoPlot, and revoking a certificate called RomanBish - i.e. saying I no longer trust it (or rather am no longer willing for others to rely on my trust in it). Henve potentially causing schism if the mechanism for replicating the setup to another certifier breaks down.
This is geekier than a geeky thing with squeaky geeky knobs on.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Oh, dear, ken. I'm afraid you're White n Nerdy.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I don't know that I understand all of what you've said.
I think the English version was that whether we're One Church or not should depend on whether our common ground is Christ, as opposed to any particular bishop.
A position I fully agree with...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
psalliotica
Apprentice
# 12825
|
Posted
Or in the words of the Buitoni ad, "Don't talk. Eat."
Posts: 9 | From: Another side of the tracks | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
On a closed thread in Ecclesiantics, tallmaninthecnr asked:
quote:
Why wont Catholics and Orthodox break the bread and drink the wine with me? If Jesus is willing to dwell within me, surely I am good enough to partake of the blessed Sacrament with...
In the words good enough, I perceived a degree of upset and wanted to say, tallmaninthecnr, that far from being merely "good enough", you are positively invited and welcomed to become one with us in Communion, in the hope that our love for you can in some paltry way reflect Christ's love for you. If there is anything that any Orthodox person has done or said to make you feel otherwise, I am truly sorry. However, the choice of whether or not you enter into communion with us must be your own. Nobody else can make that decision. We can only assure you that the door is open.
As we say on my parish's website:
quote:
Communion in the Orthodox Church is not closed, and it never can be, because the love of Christ is not closed to anybody. At our parish, we hope that our visitors and friends, who are always welcome, understand that we do not seek to exclude anybody - indeed, we invite all people to explore the Orthodox Faith in greater depth and to be fully united with us in Christ, and thereby to share in Communion with us. We welcome every human being, loved by God without exception or distinction, to make that decision. If, because of attachment to their own beliefs, people choose not to become one with us, we respect their choice and we continue to love them as before. However, Communion is not just a piece of bread. That piece of bread, which becomes the risen and glorified Body of Christ in Communion, is one and the same with the communion of faith, love, and life in the mystical Body of Christ, the Church. We cannot separate the two because the two are inseparable: without the one, the other is meaningless at best, and spiritually harmful at worst. That is why we must always continue to fervently pray for an end to these divisions and to welcome all to join us in that desire, but to practise what some call "open communion" would simply be to pretend that the divisions do not exist, and would be a spiritually dangerous misuse of the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord to express communion where there is no communion - not discerning the body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Communion in the Orthodox Church is not closed, and it never can be, because the love of Christ is not closed to anybody.
Closed communion is closed communion, no matter how many sentimental words you use to cover it up. If you believe Jesus Christ approves of turning back souls that reach out in faith for the Body of Christ, then affirm it with all the vigor you have. If you don't have the moxy to do that, then don't believe it.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Communion in the Orthodox Church is not closed, and it never can be, because the love of Christ is not closed to anybody.
Closed communion is closed communion, no matter how many sentimental words you use to cover it up. If you believe Jesus Christ approves of turning back souls that reach out in faith for the Body of Christ, then affirm it with all the vigor you have. If you don't have the moxy to do that, then don't believe it.
Zach, I really didn't come here to have the same arguments that we've had time and time again on these boards. I think by now we all who have talked about it before know where we stand and why, and I hope we can accept that what others say is what they actually mean, and not a cover-up for anything just because they disagree with us. I'm not being dishonest and I'm not being cowardly. This isn't about vigour, or moxy, or any sense of wanting to prove myself right before others, or anything like that. I've done that in the past and all it does is cause frustration all round.
I merely wanted to respond to a shipmate whose wording seemed to indicate hurt, and I wanted to make good. As the original thread had been closed, I did it here. With hindsight, perhaps a PM might have been wiser.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am only agreeing with you, Mike. Practically word for word. However, that passage you posted is given in the assumption that closed communion is something that needs to be clarified into charity. These threads pop up time and time again, and time and time again the Cathodox say "I'm sorry, but..." I am saying that the Cathodox ought to stop apologizing for what they believe, and I equally think we Protestants and Anglicans ought to stop expecting them to. Certainly the Cathodox here haven't had those expectations of the Protestants.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am only agreeing with you, Mike. Practically word for word. However, that passage you posted is given in the assumption that closed communion is something that needs to be clarified into charity. These threads pop up time and time again, and time and time again the Cathodox say "I'm sorry, but..." I am saying that the Cathodox ought to stop apologizing for what they believe, and I equally think we Protestants and Anglicans ought to stop expecting them to. Certainly the Cathodox here haven't had those expectations of the Protestants.
Thank you for this, Zach. That does help, actually.
I agree with you. Sometimes I see Orthodox and other apologetics that are apologetic in the other sense as well, so much so that the content of what is being said is weakened by it. It almost feels as though they don't really believe it so it doesn't come across as very convincing. I don't think that serves anybody.
On the other hand, I do think that it's important that, whatever the situation - religious or whatever - what we say should be tailored to the audience, and if it is likely to cause offence, then I think it's important to set it in such a way that people don't switch off before they actually understand what is being said. They may understand it and disagree, of course, and that's fine, but I've seen vitriol on the internet from Orthodox people that would certainly have seen me closing the website if I were encountering it for the first time, and, as far as getting the message across is concerned, I think that's equally unhelpful as people apologising for what they believe.
I suppose some people are just better at striking the balance than others.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
There is another extreme in "apologetic apologetics." Saying you are sorry when you really aren't. That passage insists that "closed communion" is an inaccurate term because the Orthodox are really so open and accepting.... open to everyone that believes and behaves exactly as they do. Honestly, it just ends up sounding terribly insincere.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
I just want to say that I have just read through half this thread & it is is one of the saddest things that I have read in a long time: The amount of hurt that we cause each other. (I found it through the thread quoted above). The hurt in that thread resonated with me. It needs to be remembered how much these devisions at communion spill over into other aspects of life. I remember starting a new school & being asked by two of my new classmates whether I was catholic or protestant before a single person asked me my name! I made a catholic friend at University & went to church with her, took communion (neither of us had much theology) & when talking to the priest afterwards, was seriouslt reprimanded and asked not to return. It took me over 15 years to re-enter a catholic church, where much to my surprise was told I could have communion - but I never managed to take it - so despite a welcome I wasn't able to eat & drink & remember/celebrate Christ with them, despite developing an ongoing relationship with the community. I agree with Scandal on p1 - you can hear the sound of Christ weeping here
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tallmaninthecnr
Shipmate
# 15429
|
Posted
a different take to the one above though I share some of the sentiments. I found this thread because I asked the question in an OP which was closed and sent me here (rightly so as it turns out).
I have not read every post but a lot from both sides and what I took from it is that while I don't fully understand all the reasons as to why I cannot partake with some denominations, to feel aggrieved about that would be all about me and how it affects me, when in reality it does not have any real impact on me at all. There are plenty of churches I can attend to participate in the Eucharist, so I am denied nothing.
I have no doubt that apart from this issue I would be welcomed in most of these congregations with love and affection as a brother in Christ.
Would it be nice to 'share', of course it would. Should it become a matter of division, it is no longer for me at least.
Posts: 197 | From: Auckland, NZ | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
It's not the same thing, of course, but I do get some comfort from the individual blessing I receive at a Catholic church Eucharist and the sharing of the Antidoron at an Orthodox church. I see them as a gently reaching across the barriers that are there for whatever theological reasons. The theological and agape meet as best they can.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
It's not the same thing, of course, but I do get some comfort from the individual blessing I receive at a Catholic church Eucharist and the sharing of the Antidoron at an Orthodox church. I see them as a gently reaching across the barriers that are there for whatever theological reasons. The theological and agape meet as best they can.
In a somewhat similar way, I have been to a Catholic Benediction and felt that it was ecumenical, because all present - Catholic and Protestant - shared in the same blessing. I really appreciated that.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
This thread is a bit old, but just wanted to post my two cents worth of toughts.
quote:
Originally posted by Sola Scriptura/Gunner:
The use of ecclesiology to defend a closed table seems offensive. I suspect that the excuse of ecclesiology is just there to hide their overt or covert desire to exculde by the powerful of the weak and vulnerable. If we are to be more Christ-like it means being far more generous than we tend to be at the moment. By virtue of our baptism we are Christians and memebers of the church.
Is it just me or is this post self-contradictory? The first and last sentence contradict each other. First Sola Scriptura/Gunner claims that to use ecclesiology "seems offensive." Then he goes on to use his own ecclesiology as a proof of that.
If ecclesiology didn't matter one would give communion to anyone - Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, satanists... Ecclesiology is the real issue, as Sola Scriptura ironically admists.
Let's tak a look at the Eucharist. Besides being our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eucharist has always been considered a sign of unity; it isn't a means to unity – it is the sign of the unity already established. The question, then, is an ecclesiological one. Do you have unity? Some people might say: "Yes, we believe in Christ." But is that enough? According to Catholics and Orthodox – and in fact quite a large number of traditional protestants (reformed, lutheran, etc.) – this unity isn't merely about 'believing in Jesus.' Or, rather, it is – but 'believing in Jesus' is defined as also having doctrinal unity. Protestants and RCs doesn't have that unity. Therefore they cannot share in the Eucharist – which is a sign of a unity, not just an instrument and a means to get united.
This insistence on doctrinal unity seems to me to be quite biblical. Of the first Christians we learn that they "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." (Acts 2,42) We can of course debate wether the Orthodox or the RCs do indeed "devote themselves to the apostles' teaching." But that is another issue. The point is that if you aren't united you shouldn't share the Eucharist. That wouldn't be a sign of unity, but merely a game of pretend.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
