quote:

---

Dear Fr G,
does this mean we give up?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I understand the Roman and Orthodox Churchs' position on this

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Is she not allowed to understand it and think it wrong?

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that there are no real disagreements, only misunderstandings?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

For Catholics, your understanding of Christianity is deficient.

---

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.


 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Scandal (# 4185) on :
 
Shhhh.....

Can you hear the sound of God weeping?
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

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.

---

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”.

---

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”.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
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.

---

quote:

---

Gunner said:
What are we saying that the magic only works for RC and OC? I doubt that very much I believe in a far more genous God that we often portray

---

Have you been reading this thread? It has graciously and patiently explained (IMO by josephine in particular) why this is an incorrect interpretation of the Orthodox/RC line. If we are to make any progress at all we must not mis-represent each other.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I was unwise to include your quote in my previous post, Gunner. I was not refuting what you said (indeed, I agree that it was loving and pastoral), just reflecting.

Of course, if anyone thinks of the Eucharist as magic, his or her theology is far off! Yet, here and there, I have known individual Roman Catholics who believed that the Reformation 'happened' entirely over the issue of whether Jesus was present in the Eucharist. They would have seen admission of non-RCs to the Eucharist as a sacrilege - it was not based on concepts of ecclesiology. As an aside, I believe that Rome was open to including the Orthodox, but that it was the Orthodox bishops who disapproved of their flocks at the RC table.

I suppose it is always difficult to see how very differently actions can be interpreted. What one may see as a lack of welcome, or as an implicit denial of others' Christianity (though churches which allow only their own members to communicate are not intending either meaning, as far as I know), can be an act of faith in the Church for another.

Several years ago, I recall seeing a news story (I cannot remember the details) about Bill Clinton, then the president of the US, receiving communion at an RC Eucharist. Though Anglicans would have no problem with including him (assuming he is a communicant in his own church), I can imagine a Roman Catholic, whose priest had informed him or her that a C of E spouse is barred from joining in communion, or a Christian waiting for confirmation in the RC church at Easter and barred from communion until then, seeing that a Baptist was admitted. It could cause a great deal of confusion.

I need to remind myself of these matters now and then, because I tend to think of the pastoral to such a degree that (admittedly) I see 'rules' as unkind - even if I know the reason for them in the first place.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
would a couple, even a quarreling couple, refuse to nourish their poartner? Would they starve their children because of some folly? Would they refuse table fellowship with husband, wives and children because of a quarrel?

---

quote:

---

What are we saying that the magic only works for RC and OC? I doubt that very much I believe in a far more genous God that we often portray

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
From our POV, non-Orthodox Christians could be seen as children of the Church who have decided they don't want to live as part of the family. They may want the freedom to show up for dinner, but there's so much more to being family than that.

---

quote:

---

The Methodist Church claims and cherishes its place in the Holy Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ. It rejoices in the inheritance of the apostolic faith and loyally accepts the fundamental principles of the historic creeds and the Protestant Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:

I once attended a Catholic wedding where the groom and his family were Catholic, but the bride and hers weren't. His family all participated in a Nuptial Mass, while the bride and her family and many of the friends were excluded. It was the most humiliating spectacle I remember.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smart Alex:
And that is where I find most pain and sorrow in this discussion. Because it isn't really a discussion - as one side doesn't really seem to see the need for change or to compromise in any way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smart Alex:
And that is where I find most pain and sorrow in this discussion. Because it isn't really a discussion - as one side doesn't really seem to see the need for change or to compromise in any way.

---

So you're only interested in talking to people when you are able to change their minds? This seems odd somehow.

Reader Alexis

---

What a load of bollocks!

That is a deliberate misrepresention of what I wrote. Your attitude appals me.

If you can't be bothered to treat others who hold different opinions with respect, why don't you just say so.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
I once attended a Catholic wedding where the groom and his family were Catholic, but the bride and hers weren't. His family all participated in a Nuptial Mass, while the bride and her family and many of the friends were excluded. It was the most humiliating spectacle I remember.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:

Not to mention that the manner in which it is presented, in well known churches which have signs or leaflets explaining the position, the wording can sound smug and condescending. The 'unity' is seldom defined.

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

[N.B. The Anglican Church is not held to be in this position.]

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smart Alex:
What a load of bollocks!

That is a deliberate misrepresention of what I wrote. Your attitude appals me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smart Alex:
That is a deliberate misrepresention of what I wrote.

---

quote:

---

Your attitude appals me.

---

quote:

---

If you can't be bothered to treat others who hold different opinions with respect, why don't you just say so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laudate Dominum:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every church believe itself to be the True Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
To follow your metaphor, Gunner, what if a child told his parents, "I don't believe in a nuclear family; I believe in the family of mankind. Therefore, I see no need to bear your name, to do things your way, to follow your rules. I will do as I please." Would the parents be wrong to say, "You may do as you wish, and we wish you well. But understand that, if this is what you choose, we will no longer be able to support you"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It is off-topic, but taking your metaphor to its extreme, yes they would be wrong. The duties of parents towards their children do not depend on the response of the children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
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.

---

But what sort of gesture was the person making who presented himself to receive communion, knowing what the Orthodox Church believes? Would he insist on shaking hands with an Orthodox Jewish woman? Serve meat to a Hindu? Spike the drink of a Free Will Baptist? If you'll forgive me, I think loving gestures are wasted on someone who has so little respect for the scruples of other people. Bullies don't understand loving gestures. They understand power, and perceive loving gestures as weakness.

But if we ignore the jerks and bullies, and just talk about those who are genuinely hurt by being excluded from the Orthodox table...

It seems to me that this matter is covered by St. Paul's admonitions about differing scruples. If you are strong in your faith, and know that there is nothing wrong with having the Eucharist open to all who come, you must bear with the weak, and not cause them to sin by flaunting your freedom in Christ. This isn't fair, of course. It presents a burden to you which we don't have to bear. But I honestly can't see any other way.

I'm not pretending it isn't difficult -- I know it is. The thing is, there's pain on this side, too. It's not the same pain, but it's very real.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
To quote Canon Law on this topic for the millionth time on these boards:

quote:

---

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

---

---

quote:

---

Those supporting an "open table" do so because the communicant is held to be in a relationship with Christ alone ... which is held to be a sufficient basis for communion with all other believers, (irrespective in many instances of what these individuals believe concerning Christ).

Those reserving Communion within a communion do so on the basis that a person's relationship with Christ is always contextualised within a community that measures its own identity and integrity in terms of those who subscribe to its faith and way of life. "Christ" means all of this to such persons.

---

quote:

---

faith is firmly based within the community.

---

We say that this faith is the faith OF the community ... not within it. I, therefore, intended no judgement on the existence of and quality of your community life in Christ!

In other words we cannot separate faith in Christ from the faith of the community that contextualises that. If there is any fundamental discordance in faith and life between Church communities then open table communion is not possible for us.
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
Neither woiuld I

Jengie
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Thanks, JL. I thought it might be something like that. No useful loophole there, then.
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
I firmly believe that faith and participation in a local congregation are part and parcel of each other. This alright centres on our UNDERSTANDING of the WORD not on the Eucharist but to suggest that am reflecting on the quality of community is ludicrous. The Word in our tradition is only truly experienced if one is a church member for it comes from the continual interaction of Congregational Life (and that of the wider Church) with the Word of God. I do not experience the Word by reading the Bible on my own. I go to my church Sunday by Sunday not for any feeling or sense of community but because I believe as a REFORMED christian that is where I experience what is central to my faith.

Jengie
 

---

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

"not on the Eucharist" - that's where we diverge .... and that's why, I submit, you cannot accept my tradition's ecclesiological take on that. For me "being Church" is not just about believing and understanding but also about belonging. The trouble is that your understanding of the relationship between believing and belonging, is, I hazard, not the same as mine ... hence the impasse.
 

---

Posted by Golden Oldie (# 1756) on :
 
The only really important reason why I (an Anglican)could never become a Roman Catholic is because the Roman Catholic church is exactly what Jesus wasn't - exclusive!
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Golden Oldie,

Care to flesh that out a bit, or is that the limit of your argument? I can't really be bothered to write a detailed response to what might turn out to be a throwaway comment.
 

---

Posted by Golden Oldie (# 1756) on :
 
For the average layman I don't think it needs "fleshing out". The RC church regards itself as having been set up by God as the only true church, and over the centuries has extended this by appointing itself as some sort of custodian with powers to deny the sacrament which I believe God gave to all baptized people. Anyway it wasn't a throwaway remark - it was a perfectly sensible one which no amount of theological gobbledegook can cover up.
A little more pastoral understanding and a little less theology would do everyone a power of good.
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Golden Oldie,

Who's forcing you to remain out of communion with Rome?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
The more I read these "glancing blows between the Orthodox/Catholics on the one hand and Pritestants on the other, the more I am convinced that EVERYONE is convinced they have the truth, open table and closed table alike. Note that us closed table folks are not encoraging the rest to follow their policy .... but they are encoraging us to follow theirs. This makes our claim to the fulness of truth sound rather tame by comparison. At least we don't try and drag you kicking and screaming into our way of doing things .... why can't you return the compliment? Oh, I'm sorry ... you're on Jesus' side aren't you? You're the infallible ones!
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I know I may be expressing this poorly, but I would not say that those of us who agree with an 'open table' see the relationship with Christ as strictly individual at all. This is not intended as a criticism of the Orthodox or RC sister churches, but I am sure that I am one of many Anglicans who believes strongly in ecclesiology.

My image is that all of us are part of Christ's Church by our baptism, and that, within that Church (though, without identifying which here, I believe some sister churches are in error on certain areas of belief), there is Rome, Canterbury, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc., just as there were in the early days. (Yes, I know Canterbury was a late addition!)

Perhaps a thread on ecclesiology would not be a bad idea.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Sorry ... I'll repost this without the errors and typos. \I was too cross to preview. I really don't see the point of these threads. We're not getting anywhere near a common mind ... nor I suspect can we do this. Irresistible force and immoveable object.

quote:

---

The more I read these "glancing blows" between the Orthodox/Catholics on the one hand and Protestants on the other, the more I am convinced that EVERYONE is convinced that they have the truth, open table and closed table alike. Note that us closed table folks are not encouraging the rest to follow our policy .... but they are encouraging us to follow theirs. This makes our claim to the fulness of truth sound rather tame in comparison. At least we don't try and drag you kicking and screaming into our way of doing things .... why can't you return the compliment? Oh, I'm sorry ... you're on Jesus' side aren't you? You're the infallible ones!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Note that us closed table folks are not encouraging the rest to follow our policy .... but they are encouraging us to follow theirs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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

---

Gunner, have you actually been reading this thread? I just fail to see how you can read into what Fr Gregory and others have written a "desire to exclude the weak and vulnerable". And as for the "excuse of ecclesiology" I've read this thread completely differently.

As I understand what has been written by our Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends, the closed table is a result of their ecclesiology not any sort of desire to exclude people from Christ. Just as our ecclesiology results in an open table.
 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Whatever one thinks of closed table approaches, I don't think they can be said to exclude people from Christ, as we presumably believe that Christ is (also) to be found in our own Churches. If one does not believe this the option of converting to Orthodoxy (following appropriate preparation and initiation etc. about which I know very little) is always there. If they said no-one who is not a current communicant of the Orthodox Church can ever become a communicant of the Orthodox Church then that would be different. But they don't.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

quote:

---

If we are to be more Christ-like it means being far more generous than we tend to be at the moment.

---

quote:

---

What is being said by those who would like to ring fence the altar is that we are better than you.

---

quote:

---

We say you can't come to the table because your are poor relations for whom we acknowlge to be family but wish they weren't. If they came into our home and eat from our table their church manners are deficient, they didn't attent the right place or live in the right neigbourhood.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps views of ecclesiology are woefully wrong and we need to review thing seriously. If we can't what is being said is that unless your naughty folk return to the fold, wash yourselves clean from the heritage you have gained, recant you can't be full members of the christian family ane enjoy all the privialges of being a member.

---

Again, who said that? It certainly wasn't me.

Oh, but that's right. It doesn't matter what I said. You know what I really meant.

Thanks for enlightening me.


 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
This is a timely topic for me.

Tuesday, for the first time, I attended a Roman Catholic funeral Mass for a good friend of mine. His widow is an even closer friend. I kept wondering how I would feel about being excluded from communion.

The priest did not even address the issue, which surprised me, but because of the (endless) discussions on the ship, I did not go up. And I wasn't mad or hurt or anything like that, maybe because it was my choice. (I don't think the priest would have objected.) I felt a trifle sad, but when it came down to it, it just seemed a matter of good manners and respect for someone else's tradition and values. I guess there was a part of me that felt a bit sorry for the "Romans" but that's just my Episcopalian snobbery coming out.

I understand that some ECUSA churches now have such open communions that you don't even have to be a baptized Christian to partake. This is now the case at my church. My response is "Well, why the heck did I bother to be baptized and confirmed". So I think I can understand a bit of what Roman Catholics or the Orthodox would feel.

Are there to be no rules whatsoever?
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I guess there was a part of me that felt a bit sorry for the "Romans" but that's just my Episcopalian snobbery coming out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
However, I would like to thank Josephine for the gracious, imaginative, and sensitive way in which she has explained the Orthdox position here. I don't agree with that position, but I feel I now understand it (in an emotional as well as an intellectual manner) and can honour the eclessiology that lies behind it. Thank you for showing me so clearly the love and faithfulness that was always there (but which I had failed to grasp before).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I understand that some ECUSA churches now have such open communions that you don't even have to be a baptized Christian to partake. This is now the case at my church. My response is "Well, why the heck did I bother to be baptized and confirmed". So I think I can understand a bit of what Roman Catholics or the Orthodox would feel.

Are there to be no rules whatsoever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The older I get, the more liberal I get, evidently, because IMO Communion tables should not have ANY restrictions placed on them, ever. I would be very happy if my church were to welcome even the *gasp* unbaptized to the table.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Would you include chidren and infants? I would, though most Baptists, hooked on believing and personal decision as we are, wouldn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Would you include chidren and infants? I would, though most Baptists, hooked on believing and personal decision as we are, wouldn't.

---

In a heartbeat.

---

quote:

---

Although I'm not at all sure it's necessary or even meaningful for them,

---

In the Orthodox Church we admit ALL ages from birth up to Communion as a matter of conviction. The Eucharist is necessary because it is a vitally important means of spiritual nourishment not imited to age and it is always meaningful to any age in a way appropriate for that age. Sacraments are gifts not payments for understanding.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Yes, Fr. Gregory, I understand the sacramentalist approach to the question. I'm sure you see that it is a different matter from a nonsacramentalist point of view.

Amusingly, I am not sure which I am anymore. If I aired my "more than just a memorial" views at my church, they would surely denounce me as a filthy traitor to protestantism. On the other hand, in this forum my views earn me the title of filthy Christ-denying nominalist. Is there such a thing as a semi-sacramentalist? Since I am stuck in via media, maybe I am really an Anglican!
 

---

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

Walking down the middle of the road is not advisable. You are more likely to be hit from both directions. Sod the "via media" .... Anglicanism should have more to say than "we are between these two."
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Amusingly, I am not sure which I am anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Sacraments are gifts not payments for understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Walking down the middle of the road is not advisable. You are more likely to be hit from both directions. Sod the "via media" .... Anglicanism should have more to say than "we are between these two."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Sacraments are gifts not payments for understanding.

---

... he contradicts himself mightily.

You've been saying all along that the sacrament is only to be extended to those who share your understanding.

Now, all of a sudden, it is a gift.

Which?

---

I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on this.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Ken and Erin

Sorry! Read what I have been saying please!

quote:

---

You've been saying all along that the sacrament is only to be extended to those who share your understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
indifferentism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I suspect that everyone is considered extreme from the vantage point of indifferentism.

---

quote:

---

it is usually the church that decides whether a person can be accepted at the table.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregory:
Dear Chapelhead

quote:

---

it is usually the church that decides whether a person can be accepted at the table.

---

Not a person .... the church that the person belongs to. We make no judgement at all about the "state of grace," "understanding" etc. of the individual. For the Orthodox there is only one question. "Is this person's church / bishop / congregation etc in communion with us or not?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
However, Gunner is right in one thing, and this has not been addressed - namely, does our chosen ecclesiology actual reflect the approach to table fellowship that, according to the apostolic tradition, Jesus himself practiced........

---

quote:

---

But the decision remains on whether the person belongs to the Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
what more could they do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
what more could they do?

---

Well, for a start we could stop this nonsense about Methodists (or any other trinitarian denomination that practices the dominical sacraments, for that matter) having to be ordained "properly" by an Anglican (because, of course, our order are so regular and accepted by everybody in the whole world)

---

quote:

---

One says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Peter"; and another, "I follow Christ".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregory:
Dear Dyfrig

Yes, because the covenants were with Israel as a whole. The Church did not even start out as a sect of Judaism. Non-messianic Judaism made it that but effectively it rapidly became a "heresy" and was expelled. The original schism is here ... not 1054.

---

quote:

---

I don't think that actually answers the question - at least, not for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregory:
Why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
As an Anglican, I favour open table communion, but only among Christians in good standing with their church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
Elizabeth Anne
Perhaps a baptized and communicant member of a Christian church is the best guide. No priest in any church can ensure that each person coming to Communion is in the right state of grace with God. That has to be a matter for the conscience of the communicant.

---

quote:

---

does our chosen ecclesiology actual reflect the approach to table fellowship that, according to the apostolic tradition, Jesus himself practiced........

---

quote:

---

Yes, because the covenants were with Israel as a whole. The Church did not even start out as a sect of Judaism. Non-messianic Judaism made it that but effectively it rapidly became a "heresy" and was expelled. The original schism is here ... not 1054.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps because it sounds to me heavy on jargon but unrelated in a comprehendible way to the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Panda:
The Times (UK) has printed this, explaining why Tony Blair can't have communion with his family (more on that here).

It seems as if this is the biggest obstacle to overcome - more important even than recognising each other's orders.

So why is Rome committed to shutting other churches out? How can any one person (or committee) be so absolutely persuaded of their own rightness before God that they can talk about other churches being 'defective'? Is this not arrogant in the extreme? And very sad, at that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Eluia:
As an Anglican I certainly think it's wrong--it's the Lord's table, not mine and not even the Pope's--but it's completely consistent with Roman Catholic teaching on the nature of the Church. Where I think it's inconsistent, though, is that they consider Protestant baptisms valid but put a fence around the Eucharist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I don't take communion when I am in a Roman Catholic church. Neither would I in any church that believed the elements are more than symbols. It is not a problem with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't take it when I go to mass with a friend, my denomination's open communion nonwithstanding...

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I don't take communion when I am in a Roman Catholic church. Neither would I in any church that believed the elements are more than symbols. It is not a problem with me.

---

I feel the same. As I don't share that belief, it could be seen as disrespectful by those who do believe that the elements are more than symbols. However, that does not make a Communion celebration by those that share my beliefs somehow 'defective'.

Sieg

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Oldie:
Those of us in an interchurch marriage (where one partner is an RC and the other is a practising Christian of another denomination) are well used to the Vatican attitude by this time. I am an Anglican and my wife is an RC and for the entire 47 years of our marriage we have never been able to share communion OFFICIALLY in a church of either of our denominations. Tony Blair and Cherie got away with it for a while and I imagine they still do when in Tuscany!
There just might a glimmer of a theological argument in favour of the ruling, but in my opinion and in the opinion of thousands like us, it is far outweighed by pastoral considerations. Sadly, these seem to count for less and less in the way the Roman Catholic Church treats its own and other Christians these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
However, I and all High Church Anglicans do believe exactly the same thing about the Eucharist as the Roman catholics. I think its a great pity.

However, locally, there is plenty of intercommunion going on, and I think that will probably continue. Have I accepted the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic church ? In both France and Spain, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
I worked in a Catholic school for a while, and simply took communion without a second thought. I had no qualms about receiving, even if I don't accept trains in substandard stations as a doctrine, unlike state rail.

I could never, ever deny the body and blood of Christ to someone who reached out their hands in longing. I would certainly have raised a stink if someone had tried to deny me the sacrament at that school, although I do recognise that religious have a bit more leeway than parish priests in that they don't have to answer to the bishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden key:
FWIW, I'll take communion wherever I happen to be. Jesus said do it, not shut each other out from it.

This may be shocking...but perhaps the Blairs could do Eucharist at home, and ask God to bless the elements. After all, God's the one who really does, anyway.

---

quote:

---

44. Precisely because the Church's unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord's sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty, in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so 'with one heart'”.

45. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.

This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed. This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

46. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.

The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.

---

quote:

---

FCB:
46. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.

---

Is this 44. notwithstanding? Is it just restating 45, ie. where grave need exists Catholic priests can minister the sacraments to non-Catholics; or is it allowing non-Catholics to receive on a case by case basis?

In this diocese there appears to be provision with the permission of the Archbishop for non-Catholics to be 'received' into the Catholic Church eg. I know of an Anglican child attending a Catholic school who has special dispensation from the Abp to receive communion in the Catholic Church.

Does 46 mean that if I present myself to the Catholic priest and affirm the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, I can receive Communion from him (having attended confession prior)? I don't take communion out of respect when I attend the Catholic church, but I think to myself how ironic it is that in all probability I believe Catholic teaching about the Eucharist more closely than some of the people going up to receive.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
Does 46 mean that if I present myself to the Catholic priest and affirm the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, I can receive Communion from him (having attended confession prior)? I don't take communion out of respect when I attend the Catholic church, but I think to myself how ironic it is that in all probability I believe Catholic teaching about the Eucharist more closely than some of the people going up to receive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Many people on the SOF believe in the real presence of community here.
Some people come along scoffing at the idea, ridiculing people in authority and by extension the community that delegated that authority to them. Such people will be asked not to partake in communal activities if they don't believe in the real presence or respect those in authority and the community that delegated it to them.

Sound familiar?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin on the Merseymike, get your sorry ass in here thread:
Oh yes, and one more thing -- anyone whose counterargument boils down to some variation of "it's just a website" can (a) kiss my ass and (b) go the fuck away. Seriously, we don't want you here. If it's "just a website", then you don't belong, because the view of the people in charge (and not just me) is that it is a lot more than that. So you are out of place here and you can go find somewhere else that the administration treats as "just a website". This place IS NOT for you.

Buh bye.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
After reading this thread I couldn't help but make this addition:

Many people on the SOF believe in the real presence of community here.
Some people come along scoffing at the idea, ridiculing people in authority and by extension the community that delegated that authority to them. Such people will be asked not to partake in communal activities if they don't believe in the real presence or respect those in authority and the community that delegated it to them.

Sound familiar?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
SOF will not tolerate what it perceives as a threat to this community. The recent policy change and various people who have been banned are examples of this. Acting on the belief that one is free to threaten this community will lead to exclusion. Participating in SOF requires conforming to the will of the community.

Similarly, receiving communion in the Holy Roman Catholic Church requires conforming to the will of that community.

---

quote:

---

The Church draws her life from the Eucharist.-- ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
...people with views that differ on the nature of the Eucharist are in fact a threat to Rome's survival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
But going back to the beginning of this thread, a better understanding of community is a prerequisite. SOF could offer useful parallels.

---

quote:

---

Lip service:
In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity [original emphasis retained]. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians.

Sabotage:
Precisely because the Church's unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord's sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Let intercommunion begin, and let unity begin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
...people with views that differ on the nature of the Eucharist are in fact a threat to Rome's survival.

---

In the same way that people with a different view on posting suicidal ideation are a threat to SOF, for example. It doesn't surprise me that SOF leadership is the judge of that threat.
There was discussion on this point in Styx as there is discussion in the RCC on the eucharist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
As the second half of your post implies, that is not really a call for ecumenism, it is a requirement to join the church of your choice and never commune with other Christian churches.

---

quote:

---

In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity [original emphasis retained]. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin in The Styx:
...the Ship is in no way to be used as a substitute for counseling services -- be they legal, medical, psychological, psychiatric or spiritual. Posts which seek to elicit such responses are very strongly discouraged, and repeated posts along those lines will be deleted.

---

The fact that, for the good of the community, some people or their posts are excluded from SOF, suggests that there has to be limits to pluralism. Does this make SOF "a monolithic community under one central authority"?
I understand there are many differences between SOF and the RCC, and that which might appear similar to me might appear different to others, but I don't see how a priori condemnation of exclusion, a prerogative of a community, or insistence on more pluralism leads to a better understanding of SOF, the RCC, or any community.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
You're still comparing apples and mailboxes, LD. I don't care what people believe -- they are free to believe that women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, for all I care -- my only concern is their ACTIONS. Whereas you have repeatedly said that BELIEFS are a threat to the RCC.

They are two completely different kettles of fish.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
I'm back! And I hope no one gets upset if I steer back to the open/closed communion topic, because this is a dead horse I love to beat. I'll state my biases from the beginning: I grew up as a fundamentalist in the "Churches of Christ" group, and converted to Orthodoxy about three years ago. So I've had experience being excluded from Communion as well as being part of a group that excludes.

There are several points to make, but let's start with the simple ones. First, Communion is to be taken in a worthy manner (1 Cor. 11). Not that everyone always does, but this is the ideal. If you're not Orthodox and thus not part of the parish, it's hard to know if you've properly prepared, since who knows what religion you come from? Note that not even all Orthodox take Communion all the time; certain serious sins (adultery, murder, and such) can cause you to be barred from the Eucharist for a time, even years, as a matter of church discipline. Though I must admit that I don't know for certain whether such punishments are still prescribed; but if, God forbid, I should ever suffer one, I'll let you know.

Next, as others have stated, it's a matter of ecclesiology. Some churches believe they are the One True Church. Others believe they are A True Church, But Not The Only One. Others believe that anybody who wants to be a church is, provided they hold a certain very basic common ground.

But it's also a matter of one's doctrine of the Eucharist: some churches believe in transsubstantiation, others in consubstantiation, others in representation only, and some use the fuzzier idea "Real Presence" but definitely believe there's a change in the elements.

You can see where it gets complicated. Start with the Eucharist: If you believe it's mere representation, then from that point of view, anybody can partake (unless your ecclesiology bars it). If, however, you believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, then you're bound to remember those reports of people getting sick in Corinth by receiving the Eucharist improperly.

Furthermore, if I believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, but you believe they just represent Him but don't change, what sense does it make for us to partake together? I'd believe that your Eucharist isn't the real one, because there's no change accounted for in your services; you, meanwhile, would look on my Eucharist ritual as weird, pagan, or dead ritual. Are we supposed to pretend those differences don't exist?

As for ecclesiology, if the Eucharist is just remembrance for you, and you believe in the "invisible Church" idea, then of course open communion is your thing. But for the Orthodox, for instance, this doesn't fly.

First off, the Orthodox Church believes that it is the One True Church. This claim does not mean "We're going to heaven and you're going to hell" or "You're a bunch of pagans." It means that we Orthodox believe our Church has been blessed by the Holy Spirit to have preserved true Holy Tradition down through the ages while others have gone astray. I believe there are substantial reasons for believing this, which is why I converted, but listing those is not my purpose; just know that in Orthodoxy this belief exists. We do not consider ourselves "one lung" or "one branch"; we see the Roman Catholics as having split from us, and then the Protestants from them, and we beckon both to return. You may disagree, but I'm just explaining this because if you don't grasp it, you won't understand the Orthodox doctrine of closed communion. (And while you may be offended by it, remember that I'm a convert; I was a bit offended by it, but also intrigued.)

Secondly, the Orthodox Church is visible. We don't believe in the "invisible church" idea. Now we don't put limits on where God's grace can work or where His Spirit can wander, but we also believe that the Church is and has been, since its inception, a physical community, not an "invisible communion of all believers." Just as Israel was a visible group, so the Church. And just as there were "righteous Gentiles" referred to in Scripture who were nonetheless not Jews and not part of Israel, so, perhaps, we might view those outside the visible Church. But that doesn't mean we can assume that they're part of the Church.

Thirdly, the Orthodox Church has two main symbols of unity: the bishop and the Eucharist. Each church has one bishop (though these days, bishops are more widespread and priests represent them), and the bishops are all in communion with each other. Likewise, each parish celebrates the Eucharist with the bishop (or, these days, with the priest, but only as the bishop's delegate and by his authorization).

Now our quite visible bishops are not in communion with Roman Catholic or Anglican bishops, much less Protestant bishops (not to mention Protestant churches that don't have bishops). Therefore, failing this clear, visible unity, we can't celebrate the Eucharist with them. Certainly it would be possible for unity to be achieved, but Orthodox doctrine does not allow us to simply pretend that we all believe the same and take the Eucharist together.

As for those who make a point of Jesus' table fellowship, without speaking in more detail, I'll just say that while we Orthodox would love to break bread and dine with you, the Eucharist is a ritual, a rite, a symbol of our unity in Christ, and to us it makes little sense to celebrate the symbol without possessing the reality; to us, as Orthodox, it would make as much sense as writing an icon of a saint who never existed.


 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
How can you be back if this is your first post? Do you have two registrations sitting out there? If so, why? You need to contact a member admin to get this sorted.

Oh, wait a minute... are you Ryan?

[ 29. May 2003, 07:20: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
A friend of mine once defined himself as a Christian agnostic. "Agnostic" probably wasn't the best choice of word but what he was trying to express was that although he believed in Christ as the Incarnate God and that in some manner he was saved by Christ's offering, he didn't know exactly what he believed about the spiritual mechanics of it all. He justed trusted that it was so. And this man was an ordained Presbyterian minister.

There are all sorts of beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist and my opinion is that they are all hemmed in by our human limitations. It is like us as English-speaking, 3-D humans trying to describe the multi-universes by aproximation. If we know the math we can get a lot clearer description but we are still not like a hypothetical being who has the senses to perceive the physics directly. Say, like God.

If we had to wait until we get our ideas in a God-like order before we could enjoy the benefits of the Holy Eucharist, we'd be still waiting at the church door. Christ made the Eucharist the way it is, however it really is. We can accept the gift. Or we can try to control it, because whatever our ideas, in our opinion, the Holy Spirit and the Bible and the tradition are always on OUR SIDE.

So if the RCC or the OCC want to make it their own private dining room, if some Protestants want sniff and consider Transubstantiation or Real Presence as idolatry and insist it's just symbolism, if some Anglicans want to feel superior about their comparative openness, if some Shipmates want to rail at each other about exclusivity and forcing points of view, Christ will still be present in the Eucharist in the same way he always has been, our understanding or lack of it not withstanding. That is something we don't control.

Lyda Rose
 

---

Posted by David (# 3) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, wait a minute... are you Ryan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Are you a real, Orthodox now Ryan? Last time we talked you were only jumping through the hoops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Are you a real, Orthodox now Ryan? Last time we talked you were only jumping through the hoops.

---

I would hope they let him in after four years!

---

Yep, it's me, Ryan, and I'm now a genuine Romanian Orthodox, as it was in Romania that I was received into the Church. I could tell for days the long version of the story, but the short one is that I went to Romania back in '99 to travel around for ten weeks or so, met a cute girl, ended up staying a year and teaching English there while courting her, converted to Orthodoxy in March 2000, and got married in May 2000. And came back to the USA (with my wife, of course) shortly thereafter.

Ironically, my wife is not Orthodox; and ethnically she's Hungarian, not Romanian. Most Hungarians are Roman Catholic or Reformed; my wife was brought up Reformed, if "brought up" can connote "baptized as a baby and never been back." But she comes to Liturgy with me and is herself close to converting to Orthodoxy.

The main fly in the ointment is her mom, to whom a conversion to Orthodoxy would mean a conversion from Hungarian to Romanian; we're still talking over how to deal with that. I've learned a lot about these ethnic factors I never considered before.

Since I got back I've been trying to work as a programmer, with only modest success, and am pondering going to seminary next year since I'm better at foreign and ancient languages than programming languages.

And now you're all caught up.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Wow. Always fascinating to see an original clamber back on board. Not too many of us left. Of course, there weren't too many of us to start with.

I do owe you, though, because if it hadn't been for a fight you and I had a long, long time ago, I wouldn't be The Boss™ now. So thanks!

[ 29. May 2003, 13:36: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
A hearty welcome back, Kyralessa. Since the formalities are over, let's get right down to business.

You've done the wrong thing going to Romanian Orthodoxy. You need to stay in the Hungarian tradition, but you should join the Transylvanian Unitarian Church. I traded fundamentalism for Unitarianism. It will solve your in-law problems and your personal problems. Trust me, I'm extremely wise as you will see. [chuckle chuckle]

Your post is a complete disaster from my reading, like too many Orthodox posts here. Why? I am sick to death of ecclesiology as an excuse for every impediment to unity. It's too harsh to say, "you are too different because you're not in my church" but so intellectually PC to say, "no offense but my ecclesiology regrettably causes me to see you differently from the way you see me." Like my "handiology" prevents me from shaking your hand. I'm gonna barf the next time I hear ecclesiology as some big fat hairy deal here.

Your description of what I would think of you and you would think of me during communion is ridiculous. Look. Two people at the communion rail, one believes in capital punishment, the other not. One believes in abortion, the other not. One believes in just war, the other not. Life and death differences. No problem. But one believes that the precise mechanism by which communion draws Christians together in unity is an outmoded 2000 year old Greek picture of the physical universe as interpreted by a 12th century Monk and another that it is a mystical process whose physical basis is unknown and immaterial...Whoa! Stop the presses! Everybody check their ecclesiology! Ack! And look, the Catholics want to stick in "and may we grow in love for our Pope as well" or they're not going to swallow. Please! I can't stand it!

Seriously, this is the most depressing thing about The Ship. I see people go after fundamentalists, then I see PhD's, programmers, and intellectuals of all sorts haul out ecclesiology and stick to it to the death on closed communion. There is no freaking hope!!

So get out now, Kyralessa. Say it was temporary insanity. Become a Hungarian Unitarian. They are the originals, and they have a liturgy. Not like kooky American Unitarians.

Tell 'em Brother Jimmy sent ya.
 

---

Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

Transylvanian Unitarian Church

---

quote:

---

In the year 1568, King John Sigismond called a Diet (debate) in the city of Turda to determine which of the established religions in the area would be declared the official religion of his realm. During that lengthy debate, Francis David held his ground against all the other established religions in the region and convinced King John Sigismund that to declare one religion as the state religion and to compel his people to follow that religion was wrong. King John proclaimed religious freedom throughout his realm, the first such declaration known in history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
King John Sigismond called a Diet (debate) in the city of Turda

---

 

---

Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Nothin' like a Turda Diet...

Jim, the Kolozsvár Unitarian Kollégium choir is actually coming sometime in June to the UUA church nearest to me.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Wally, go. Eastern European religious music is the best. Not enough to become Orthodox though!

JL, that is funny isn't it? I'm going to start telling people that my religion is based on the Turdville Diet. That is so appropriate.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
A hearty welcome back, Kyralessa. Since the formalities are over, let's get right down to business.

---

Formalities over, indeed. I always insist to my wife that when I tease her, it's my way of showing affection (being a guy embarrassed to show too much affection in front of others); I will therefore accept your tirade, JimT, as an affectionate welcome to the community, and I hope you will realize the same affection as I gently but firmly expose the utter wrongheadedness of your Unitarianity.

Actually, I might have ended up, with slightly different influences in my life, going to something like Unitarianism, but sooner than that I discovered Orthodoxy, a tradition which, unlike the fundamentalism of my youth, held out the promise of faith that wouldn't require the crucifixion of one's brain to hold. Doubtless you are right about the in-law problems, and now that you mention it I do recall Hungarian Unitarianism as having a more respectable reputation than its American cousin. Should I take this path, I will contact you as to the entry rites. (Presumably these rites would be whatever I wanted them to be...)

Ecclesiology, you say, is another way of saying "You're too different because you're not in my church." I myself am someone who bristles at meaningless jargon (e.g. "proactive"), so I'll acknowledge your regurgitative response to the term "ecclesiology" and try to look at things differently. I will also agree that "differences in ecclesiology" is perhaps a fancy way of saying "you can't take communion because you're not in my church."

Perhaps a better approach would be to say that it seems likely that everyone who endeavors to practice Communion in any way having something to do with the New Testament will put some limits on it. Let me explain what I mean.

At the most basic level, setting aside questions of the Real Presence, proper preparation, and unity, we know that Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me." That is why we do it; I would submit that at this very basic level, if what you practice with bread and wine is not "in remembrance of Jesus," then whatever else it may be, it's not the Eucharist of Christianity. It may be a communal feast, an offering and partaking of the firstfruits of the harvest, or an occasion to sample various vintages, but it is not the (at least) memorial ritual of the New Testament.

Furthermore, the Eucharist clearly has some symbolic importance. It must, JimT, or you wouldn't be so offended at being excluded from it. What exactly that importance is to you is something only you know precisely. But clearly it's not enough for you to say "Hooray, we're all united!" Clearly at some level you accept the Eucharist as representing unity, and the failure to share the Eucharist as representing disunity.

Up the street from our apartment is a Masonic lodge. I have no idea what goes on in there, but I suspect, from what I've heard about the Masons, that there are certain secret ceremonies and rituals that take place. I strongly suspect that if I knocked on the door and asked to be included in everything that takes place, I'd be refused; first one must be initiated, perhaps invited, I don't know. But it's really not important to me; I know the Masons would exclude me, but I don't care because being a Mason or having some sort of unity with Masons doesn't seem worthwhile. Likewise Mormons would bar me from their temple, and Muslims wouldn't allow me into Mecca, but I don't make an issue of it.

Curiously, though, JimT, your exclusion from the Orthodox Eucharist irks you. Why is that? What importance does Orthodoxy hold for you? Is it because of their historical claims, or simply the fact that they and you both claim to be followers of Christ? There must be some reason that you want to be admitted to the Eucharist in Orthodox Churches. and it's hard to know how to approach this without knowing that reason.

Now if I had to guess, I'd say the reason is roughly that Communion is something that Christians do, that you are a Christian and so am I, and that therefore we should be able to share Communion. But even if we agree on a statement like "Christians can celebrate the Eucharist together," what is a Christian? History has had many different answers to that question; councils have been held, people have been excommunicated, over doctrines which boil down to differing answers to that question. Perhaps only those who baptize by immersion are Christians, or only those who hold the Lord's Supper every Sunday, or only those who believe the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church. You may believe it's only those who profess some belief in Christ, regardless of what that belief is. But that still excludes someone. It still draws a boundary between those who have this nebulous faith and those who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ in any way, shape, or form.

To everyone, his lowest common denominator is the only reasonable lowest common denominator. To the immerser, those who sprinkle are heretics and liberals, and those who insist on threefold immersion and are not content with singlefold are needlessly restrictive. To the occasional partaker of the Lord's Supper, those who hold it every Sunday are a bit more zealous than need be, and those who hold it once a year are rather lax. Perhaps to the Unitarian, those who require membership in their church for admission to the Eucharist are irritatingly closed-minded. But perhaps there really are no restrictions whatsoever for receiving in a Unitarian church, in which case, based on things I've mentioned above, I would question whether you're really celebrating the Eucharist at all.

What you're really asking, JimT, is for me to remove my faulty understanding of unity and communion and replace it with your correct understanding. You see your position as neutral ground; I see mine the same way. I base my position on the Tradition of the Church; you base yours on...well, maybe you can tell me.

In fact, I find that a lot of the issues that divide Christians (in the loose definition) are based on other issues, such as the source of authority, and that failing to face these more fundamental issues leads to a lot of .

So, JimT, ball's in your court. You know where I get my beliefs about the Eucharist; where do you get yours?


 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Welcome aboard, Kyralessa! I'd say Welcome Back like all the others, but I wasn't here when you were. But it's good to have you around!

[tangent alert]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
The main fly in the ointment is her mom, to whom a conversion to Orthodoxy would mean a conversion from Hungarian to Romanian

---

Since you've moved from Europe to the USA, you could join an OCA parish, and then when your wife joined that, instead of becoming Romanian, she'd be becoming American. Would her mom accept that?

That sort of thing worked for a couple I used to know -- she was Greek Orthodox, and he was willing to become Orthodox, but he was not willing to become Greek. When they found an Antiochian parish that was mostly former Protestants with names like McGee and Elliott, he converted.
[/tangent alert]

Oh, and your last post here?
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Josephine, thanks for stopping by this thread and welcoming Kyralessa. Very sweet of you. His post was very kind and showed he was a good sport. It was great in that sense. You of course are not aware that he is wrong in his support of closed communion but I do want to thank you for not trying out the "it's like having sex--only allowed for husband and wife" again. I know that you know how much I appreciate that.

OK, so Kyralessa let me set you straight that Unitarians don't practice communion at all. Why do I care about closed communion? Because I have Catholic and Orthodox family members and I visit them. Relgious extremism has torn my family apart for centuries beginning in 1632 in New Haven, Connecticut with Puritans, Maryland Catholics in 1785, and Mennonites in Central Pennsylvania in 1834. Those are just the blood relatives from whom I descend. Then there are the in-laws. So I scream here at the faceless Christian world to unify in the neurotic belief that it will unify my family and restore me to them. A harmless neurotic hobby that entertains dozens and has not yet driven me back to psychotherapy.

You are right that I fervently and hopelessly desire that you correct the error of your ways. I would be so happy I would probably become a normal human being. No pressure though.

I'll assume you've read the Bible as many times as I have and read as many theologians, so forget that stuff. My view boils down to this, from my gut, from my soul: if someone walks up to the communion rail, understands that this is a ceremony "remembrance of Christ" who represents moral perfection in human flesh, and they want to participate for whatever reason, you let them. They are not going to get sick, like it says in Corinthians. They are not going to drive away Jesus. They are not going to spoil it for everybody else. This is so basic it makes no sense to me to quote a verse or point to a doctrine or council to back it up. No doubt that is why this topic is dead, and relegated to Dead Horses. The reply is always, "that's not Biblical or traditional and I reserve the right to be Biblical and traditional so don't tell me I'm wrong." Well OK. But you are. No you are. No you. Dead Horse.

The best explanation I heard for my view was above, from the incredibly sagacious Lyda Rose of Sharon:

quote:

---

If we had to wait until we get our ideas in a God-like order before we could enjoy the benefits of the Holy Eucharist, we'd be still waiting at the church door. Christ made the Eucharist the way it is, however it really is. We can accept the gift. Or we can try to control it, because whatever our ideas, in our opinion, the Holy Spirit and the Bible and the tradition are always on OUR SIDE.

So if the RCC or the OCC want to make it their own private dining room, if some Protestants want sniff and consider Transubstantiation or Real Presence as idolatry and insist it's just symbolism, if some Anglicans want to feel superior about their comparative openness, if some Shipmates want to rail at each other about exclusivity and forcing points of view, Christ will still be present in the Eucharist in the same way he always has been, our understanding or lack of it not withstanding. That is something we don't control.

---

That is the most beautifully eloquent explanation of my idea of communion, and how wrong it is for denominations (pardon the demotion from "one true church") to think that closed communion accomplishes anything other than needless discord.

You no doubt bridle at "private dining room" and can go on for days and thousands of words to the contrary. Be my guest. I will probably stop talking just because I think I've finally said everything I feel like saying, and heard someone else say exactly what I was thinking. Won't you join us, Brother Kyralessa?

Just joshin' ya. Thanks for the chat.


 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Whilst walking to work I realised why Ley Druid is so completely wrong in their attempt to equate a "closed-communion" policy with agreed levels of behaviour on the Ship.

The Ship is a voluntary coming together of people who choose to post here. It makes no claim that it is the only website, that it is organically linked with Jesus' own webiste or that it's Adminstrators and Hosts are the true followers of the Apostles and the only people who can administer the website (well. maybe TonyK thinks he is, but let's just humour him.)

It doesn't claim to have the fullest expression of websiteness or that it is the only place where truth can be found on the web. Nor does it require that posting on another website affects the final destination of one's soul, or attempto to exclude from posting those who do not agree with any particular doctrinal statement (it excludes on the basis of agreed, signed-up-to patterns of behaviour and legal requirement, but you do not have to believe any objective real presence in Erin's avatar in order to post).
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
If I were a Transylvanian I would be very pissed off that every time we got mentioned someone brought up cheesy movies...

Transylvania has been a a great contributor to the course of European thought over the centuries! As Most of the people were Magyar or German speakers and they have mostly followed Reformed Christianity - thpough as Jim said it was a bit of a hotbed of early liberal Protestantism as well.

But I'm not a Transylvanian, so:

Throw the switches, Igor! We need more power! MORE POWER! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

---

Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

Wally, go. Eastern European religious music is the best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
<snip> or that it's Adminstrators and Hosts are the true followers of the Apostles and the only people who can administer the website (well. maybe TonyK thinks he is, but let's just humour him.)
<snip>

---

Dyfrig, my boy, am I right in assuming that there should be a smiley or equivalent somewhere in the last eleven words above?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Josephine, thanks for stopping by this thread and welcoming Kyralessa. Very sweet of you. His post was very kind and showed he was a good sport. It was great in that sense. You of course are not aware that he is wrong in his support of closed communion but I do want to thank you for not trying out the "it's like having sex--only allowed for husband and wife" again. I know that you know how much I appreciate that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Mousethief, if I ever stop by for beer and chips you can bet I will be the model gracious guest...

---

JimT, I should note here that even though Orthodox do so much fasting through the year, it is my understanding that beer is not something fasted from at any time; one more reason to leave your unitarian nebulosity and enter the One Single Only Exclusive True Church.

quote:

---

Sadly, there are a few more topics that can bring out an indefensibly pricky side in me. For the record, and in the interest of public confession, they are:

---

• the necessity of tongues for "full" Christianity;

• the superiority of fundamentalism because it is spreading in the Third World while "mainstream" Christianity is dying in the second;

I well remember how shocked I was to read James Barr's Beyond Fundamentalism and discover that I was a fundamentalist.

• people leave conservative churches because they are rebellious and want to sin or think they are smarter than everyone else;

• demons exist and possess people;

• Hell exists and is a place of eternal torture;

• Hell is required because God wants to give people the option of rejecting his perfect, wonderful, and giving love;

• and Hell is actually God loving people but them experiencing it as torture because they rejected it and can never have it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Mousethief, if I ever stop by for beer and chips you can bet I will be the model gracious guest...

---

JimT, I should note here that even though Orthodox do so much fasting through the year, it is my understanding that beer is not something fasted from at any time; one more reason to leave your unitarian nebulosity and enter the One Single Only Exclusive True Church.

---

quote:

---

Depart freely from love to the everlasting torture of hate, unknown and foreign to Me and to those who are with Me, but prepared by freedom for the devil, from the days I created My free, rational creatures.

---

quote:

---

Depart freely from love to the everlasting torture of hate, unknown and foreign to Me and to those who are with Me, but prepared by freedom for the devil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I was under the impression that the prohibition of drinking "wine" on certain days applied to all alcoholic beverages and not just wine literally.

Reader Alexis

---

Being raised fundamentalist, alcohol was something I strove to keep from my lips. Now that I'm Orthodox and it's not so big a deal, I find that I just don't like the stuff.

Nonetheless, so far as I've been able to dig up, along with the exception on boneless sea creatures (i.e. lobster, shrimp, etc. are OK to eat during the Orthodox fast), there seems to be an exception for reptiles (alligator, frog legs, etc.) and also on beer, which is not considered like wine for reasons that escape me. Your fun facts for the day.

Of course, the standard Orthodox caveat applies: When in doubt (or even when not), talk to your priest.

As for me, I can't stomach food that still looks like the animal it came from, which rules out shrimp and lobster; reptile doesn't tempt me a bit; and alcohol of any sort, even beer, doesn't taste good to me. So none of these "exceptions" do me much good. Ah, but thanks be to God for the gift of peanut butter!


 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
I'm not suprised there's an exception on beer, Mousethief, before safe water supplies people commonly drank beer in the way we would consume soft drinks today. It was considered to be safer than water and was regarded as part of a basic everyday diet. It was often brewed weak (small beer) precisely for this purpose and was consumed by the whole family from small children up.

Here's some notes from the Pepys Diary website.

I imagine it wouldn't have been too different in Russia.

L.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Whilst walking to work I realised why Ley Druid is so completely wrong in their attempt to equate a "closed-communion" policy with agreed levels of behaviour on the Ship.

The Ship is a voluntary coming together of people who choose to post here. It makes no claim that it is the only website, that it is organically linked with Jesus' own webiste or that it's Adminstrators and Hosts are the true followers of the Apostles and the only people who can administer the website (well. maybe TonyK thinks he is, but let's just humour him.)

It doesn't claim to have the fullest expression of websiteness or that it is the only place where truth can be found on the web. Nor does it require that posting on another website affects the final destination of one's soul, or attempto to exclude from posting those who do not agree with any particular doctrinal statement (it excludes on the basis of agreed, signed-up-to patterns of behaviour and legal requirement, but you do not have to believe any objective real presence in Erin's avatar in order to post).

---

Or, as Schleiermacher put it, "The general concept of the church, if there is to be such a thing, must be derived from ethics because the church at all events is a fellowship created by the voluntary actions of men, and only through these does it continue to exist." (Quoted in Church and Eucharist in the First Four Centuries, Werner Elert.)

Anybody around here hold this view?


 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Dyfrig, I see that your final indoctrination is not yet complete. Please submit yourself to Erin for further programming. Of course this is the only one true website
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
I for one would love a round of beer and chips with Jim T. It would give me a chance to try to convince him that among the many sins of fundamentalism is its tendency to create Unitarians.

Seriously, I think this thread topic has become an outstanding example of what constitutes a Dead Horse. For most of us the logic/moral worth/simple human decency of our own position is so obvious to us that those who disagree with us might as well be speaking one of those African click languages: we can't understand them, they're kind of interesting at first, but after a while they just give you a headache.

FCB
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
FCB, I have to playfully retort that the best Unitarian sermon I ever heard was from an ex-Catholic nun.

And yes, we have a classic Dead Horse here. Long may it die.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
FCB, I have to playfully retort that the best Unitarian sermon I ever heard was from an ex-Catholic nun.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I admit to being dyslexic - how could anyone really make so many tupos?

As for the lying that is harsh and doubt that is a reality. I admit to asking questions and playing the devils advocate and I have apologised for hurting folk. But I will not constantly grovel and if that is what you want then I guess there is not much point me being in the room.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Funny, some of the best Unitarian sermons I've ever heard have been given in Catholic Churches by priests in good standing.

---

At least the worst us evangelical Anglicans usually get is semi-Pelagian modalists.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
What's a semi-Pelagian?


 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I've heard Orthodox called semi-Pelagian. A true Pelagian thinks we save ourselves. An anti-Pelagian thinks God saves us whether we will or not. A semi-Pelagian thinks we must cooperate with God in our salvation.

At least that's how I've heard it.

In which case, yes, Orthodox are semi-Pelagian.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Was Pelagius a Pelagian? I don't think he actually believed that we save ourselves.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
FCB, you have to be kidding me about Unitarian priests. Unitarian tenet #1 is "no credal tests allowed." Tenet #2 is "no such thing as heresy--every individual's belief system is sacrosanct." Tenet #3 is "no Trinity, Jesus was a man to be admired, studied, and perhaps emulated but not adored as God (thus the name "Unitarian"). In what sense are the priests to which you referred "Unitarian?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
You guys have the closed table. I have a profound theological disagreement with that.

---

This is from your "I'm sick of being an Anglican" thread, Erin. I read back through this Table Fellowship thread to see if you'd ever mentioned what your theological disagreement is, but all you stated is that you know what the Catholic and Orthodox positions on closed communion are, and that you disagree. I wanted to ask on the other thread what your disagreement is, but I figured it would stray into Dead Horse territory. So, here we are.

What's your theological disagreement with closed communion?
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Kyralessa - have you advised Erin to come here?

I know she seems to find her way onto the most obscure threads when least expected, but even she is not omniscient (I hope )
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
Kyralessa - have you advised Erin to come here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I truly do not believe that Jesus would have said "wait! Let me check your credentials before you come to me". It seems to me to be the very opposite of everything he said and did.

---

quote:

---

no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father -- John 6:65

---

quote:

---

Lord, to whom shall we go? -- John 6:68

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And I still think it's wrong. You're not going to convince me otherwise. So stop trying.

---

Okay.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
But the church is a community and communities have boundaries.

---

That is what I like about the Church. The boundaries are blurred.
 

---

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

I know you're a lost cause. It needs to be said though that there are reasons for our practice even if you and many others don't agree with them. We don't set out to be nasty.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:

quote:

---

no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father -- John 6:65

---

Some might say the end of John 6 isn't about the eucharist, but let's assume it is.
It seems from the beginning the eucharist has been a difficult and divisive teaching -- not open, ambiguous, inclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
That line from John's gospel has to me always seemed to mean the exact opposite of what you take it to mean. Assuming that it's about the eucharist, to me it says that no one would approach the holy table if God weren't calling them to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
One of the things I love about the Anglican Church is its policy of welcome at the Lord's Table. But my Catholic and Orthodox friends all disagree. They say that intercommunion with churches who don't share their theology is akin to sex before marriage.

I can respect this and I always do in a Catholic scene where I'm not known, but I would like to ask Catholic and Orthodox Christians "What is your bottom line for intercommunion? An acceptance
of the Nicene Creed? If not, what other acceptable
formula could apeal to the diverse expectations of the church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Paul

I don't think that the Nicene Creed would be sufficient. Let's say that the Anglican Communion was to drop the filioque comprehensively and formally. Would the Orthodox and Anglicans be then ready to marry? Of course not. Anglicanism does not in practice move beyond the 4th ecumenical council and you have women priests, (2 of quite a long list). Communion between us would still be impaired. Movement from the Orthodox would involve the following at least ....

(1) An acceptance of the western rite (with an epiklesis in the Eucharist).
(2) An incorpration of western piety where not incompatible with Orthodoxy. This would include western hymns and, say, customs particular to the west, (ashing at the start of Lent for example).
(3) A reception of existing Anglican clergy by concelebration with an Orthodox bishop, (not possible at present except for Catholic clergy).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:
We all accept the creeds. The problem is everything since then, particularly the nature and extent of the authority of Tradition, Scripture and Reason. All our differences flow from this, including are attitudes toward Holy Communion. That's ok, in my book. Diversity is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekalb:
To answer the Thread title - The end of the world!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
There is no answer to the question "what do I have to believe in order to have intercommunion with you?" because it slips in a false presupposition -- that the bottom line is what you believe. It's not about belief it's about membership / community / belonging. It's about being one body, being subject to the same disciplines under the same bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden key:
Re the opening question:

(Warning: stong opinions ahead!)

Getting it through our dense little hearts and heads that we *are* the body of Christ, whatever our creeds or tat or beliefs about What Happens During Communion.

Jesus said to *do it*, not to make silly rules and shut each other out from it. We act like kids keeping other kids out of our clubhouses.

If we wait until everyone's theological ducks are in a row, the papers are signed, and everyone is happy,...hell will have frozen over, and God will have died of boredom and frustration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We are the body of Christ but we are not practising body of Christ life until we resolve our differences. Ignoring them to achieve unity on some other reduced basis is no solution.

I agree Mousethief that belonging is an essential component but not one that I would want to emphasise against other components. On belonging grounds alone St. Athanasios would not have stood against Arianism in those dioceses (most) that went over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
There is no answer to the question "what do I have to believe in order to have intercommunion with you?" because it slips in a false presupposition -- that the bottom line is what you believe. It's not about belief it's about membership / community / belonging. It's about being one body, being subject to the same disciplines under the same bishops.

---

Can I dig at this one a bit?

Surely the Orthodox Church as a whole is made up of a large number of essentially self-governing sub-churches - e.g. as well as the ancient Patriarchates you have the Church of Greece, of Russia etc etc.

Now, from time to time some group must approach Orthodoxy as defined by the Ecumenical Patriarch sufficiently to join the Orthodox Church as a whole - and at that point they do indeed belong to your community, in the sense of both belief and intercommunion.

PaulTH seems to be asking what it would take for a group to be accepted as Orthodox *before* it's accepted into that community, yet you're implying that there's no answer to that because if you're not in, you're not in and the only way you could be in would be to leave your existing church and join an existing Orthodox group - but from my faint recollections of Orthodox history this isn't the case is it? For example, an Orthodox bishop can end up being out of communion with the EP for a time, yet be accepted back into the fold later without renouncing whatever ties he had and joining one of the Patriarchates. If this happened then you would be essentially letting an entire church (re)join the global Orthodox Church simply on the basis of its belief.

Please explain if I've missed your point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Gregory:
(3) A reception of existing Anglican clergy by concelebration with an Orthodox bishop, (not possible at present except for Catholic clergy).

---

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? This wouldn't happen without the Orthodox bishop judging Anglican clergy to be sufficiently Orthodox in belief (and practice?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Grey Face

quote:

---

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? This wouldn't happen without the Orthodox bishop judging Anglican clergy to be sufficiently Orthodox in belief (and practice?)

---

You are indeed correct. I was sketching what Orthodoxy would move on IF prior agreement had been reached. I would only demur on the phrase: "Anglican clergy." It is not the clergy per se but the whole church that is the focus of this process.

quote:

---

Now, from time to time some group must approach Orthodoxy as defined by the Ecumenical Patriarch sufficiently to join the Orthodox Church as a whole

---

This is a widespread misunderstanding of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch. He is not our "Pope" and has no defining role whatsoever. My bishop is Bishop Gabriel of Great Britain and it is to him and him alone that I owe obedience as a pastor under God. The Ecumenical Patriarch has absolutely no jurisdiction over the Patriarchate of Antioch whatsoever. His role is similar to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion.

In my reply to Mousethief I think I have elucidated why being Orthodox is not simply a matter of belonging. If, for example, any Orthodox bishop was judged by the Church to be teaching heresy, knowingly and without retraction; then the canons say that I MUST leave him with my people and seek out another Orthodox and not heterodox bishop. Belonging has its limits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
In answer to the OP, if this isn't exactly the same as ekalb,

the Second Coming??

Mind you, there are some who might not believe that either if it hadn't been submitted earlier, examined, proved, re-assessed, discussed, then stamped with an imprimatur!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This is a widespread misunderstanding of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch. He is not our "Pope" and has no defining role whatsoever. My bishop is Bishop Gabriel of Great Britain and it is to him and him alone that I owe obedience as a pastor under God. The Ecumenical Patriarch has absolutely no jurisdiction over the Patriarchate of Antioch whatsoever. His role is similar to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion.

---

I can't see how this works practically, because if one is defined as being part of a Community by being in communion with one person, such as Rowan Williams or the EP, then *should he choose to exercise it* that person has the power to determine doctrine.

If ++Rowan were to go on a power trip, he could declare himself out of communion with ECUSA or the church of Nigeria (entirely hypothetically of course ) and they would be out - effectively deciding the doctrinal position of the AC by ejecting a province on the basis of the beliefs of its Archbishop. The EP can no doubt *in theory* do the same. So how is this different from the position of the Pope?

I can only conclude that there are control mechanisms in place within both the AC and Orthodoxy that would prevent the focus-of-communion person doing this but I don't know what they are. If the EP declared himself out of communion with the Patriarch of Antioch over the colour of his hair, what recourse would you have other than to say sod that, Constantinople is no longer Orthodox at all? And isn't this essentially what happened in the Great Schism from the Orthodox point of view? Obviously the disagreement was over something considerably more serious than that.

Not intending to sleight the character of any of the people mentioned here of course. I'm just attempting to get at the mechanics of inter- and intra-communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
being subject to the same disciplines under the same bishops.

---

Bishops , you can count me out.

I can see no reason that all of Christendom has to be in communion. What is important is that all parts of the church recognise that none of them hold a monopoly on the truth, and that all churches are on a journey. For me this is more important than trying to thread all those journeys together. A little bit of respect doesn't have to end in communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Unity requires the mutual recognition between ecclesial bodies that what another body does is really "Church", i.e. that the community is proclaiming and living the story about Jesus (as evidenced by its teaching and practice). Unless and until Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism accept that what Anglicans or Reformed Christians do is really "Church" then there will be no unity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
I tend to think that intercommunion at an institutional level is both a lost cause and a non-issue. It is an old battle, which has absolutely nothing to do with the way the church will develop over the next hundred years or so.

I think a clue is in the title of this thread. The idea that there is something called 'Christendom' - a kind of Christian empire with rules, structures and clearly delineated dogma - is one which is foreign to most contemporary Christians. Whilst there are plenty of ecclesiologies to choose from, for most people it is what happens at a local and parochial level that defines what 'church' is. When one throws Christians together at points of engagement - such as shared ministry with the sick, or education, or struggle for justice - the old divisions soon become meaningless. How many of us here have seen what happens when Christians share mission with one another - only to discover they cannot share the bread and the cup together?

A Christendom ecclesiology, in which the church is defined at a macro-level, is dying. Most Christians are not swayed by the pronouncements of ecclesial figures denying the truth so plainly evident. What would it take to restore intercommunion in Christendom? For people to do it.

Let's face it, intercommunion happens all over. The Marist brothers in a school where I worked where mortified to think I might be denied the sacrament at the weekly Mass. Anglicans already have an open table, and no one is open to discipline even for giving the sacrament to an unbaptised person. To make intercommunion a reality will take courageous women and men to tell the powers-that-be where to shove it.

The arguments for denying intercommunion (and I know this has been covered before) are too thin to stand up to any real test. The arguments only work in the academy - they do not work at the coalface. They do not work where the spirit draws Christians together in mutual love and mission. They do not work where love draws families together of differing denominations. They do not work wherever Christians seek to proclaim the all-embracing love of Christ. In all of these instances, denial of intercommunion brings division, hurt and profound sadness.

There is absolutely no chance that any magisterial body of any denomination or all of them will get together and just decide to have intercommunion. There is too much at stake for churches which have defined themselves by their ability to exercise control and to maintain exclusivity. Like most progressive movements in the church, it will happen by radicals at a local level, until finally the heirarchy catches up, probably after persecution and anathemas galore. Any takers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Grey Face and Jugular

From the Orthodox point of view you are both making the same mistake but in different ways and from different angles.

It isn't about what ANY individual (be he Patriarch or Ship of Fools poster) believes, thinks, says or does at all that constitutes the unity of the Church. ALL are subordinate to the WHOLE in Orthodoxy and, practically, this means that each and every one is under the same obligation and mutual relation to the truth.

You are not, then, Orthodox simply by being in communion with any one individual no matter who he or she is ... neither are you Orthodox simply by loving Jesus and following an arbitrary set of common beliefs or by belonging to the same local group. Neither is unity constituted by simple tolerance. The Orthodox (at least) know what Orthodoxy is and we live it and believe it together. Of course there are different points of view on contested issues but the range and depth of these is very much more limited than in the Protestant world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
...When one throws Christians together at points of engagement - such as shared ministry with the sick, or education, or struggle for justice - the old divisions soon become meaningless....

---

This reminds me of an old story, that on a Friday, someone donated a large pork roast for the dinner for the poor. The Roman Catholic priest sliced, and the Rabbi served the plates.

---

quote:

---

I originally wrote:
If the EP declared himself out of communion with the Patriarch of Antioch over the colour of his hair, what recourse would you have other than to say sod that, Constantinople is no longer Orthodox at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
If someone is part of the body of Christ, what basis do you have for refusing to share in that body with him/her?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:
Is the technical definition, in terms of community within the Orthodox Church, not that your bishop must be in communion with the EP?

---

quote:

---

If so can the EP remove himself unilaterally from communion with a bishop or does it require a council of Patriarchs or something similar?

---

quote:

---

I think it would be useful for you to be explicit on how this works, not just for the Dead Horse thread but also in order to answer PaulTH's question in the closed thread as it seems to me to have a direct bearing on the question of authority within Orthodoxy, and thus on who would decide if a church was sufficiently orthodox to be, well, Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
If someone is part of the body of Christ, what basis do you have for refusing to share in that body with him/her?

---

This is the 6th page of this thread. Have you read any of the first 5?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
As to the messiness of Orthodox ecclesiastical polity ... yes; it's there ... but I am rather glad that it's there because it means that reconciliation in truth with separated brethren becomes less complicated; (separated brethren including Rome that is). The trouble is that those churches that want everything nice and tidy are unlikely to be happy with us. Orthodoxy is like a family home ... there is love but there are also occasional rows and untidy rooms.

---

Thanks for clearing up the question of what would happen if...

But the trouble with this situation you have, it seems to me, is that an outsider can't see who's Orthodox and who isn't. If you had Constantinople out of communion with everybody else, how can an outsider choose which is the Orthodox Church and which is heterodox? It's been said that the laity as a whole makes this decision, but that implies one member, one vote, and on that basis the outsider would have to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the guardian of orthodoxy, not the Eastern Orthodox.

If you don't vote by numbers then you're back to the (Western?) Protestant situation of simply trying to decide for yourself (with guidance, obviously) which doctrines are true and which aren't, rather than accepting the teaching of the Church, yet Orthodoxy doesn't seem to present itself that way.

This is almost completely off topic now. I don't apologise for that because Alan moved the thread before the horse was completely dead

[ 20. November 2003, 08:23: Message edited by: Grey Face ]
 

---

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

There are different uses of the word "Orthodox" and they need distinguishing AND relating one to the other.

(1) "orthodox" lower case is taken by us to designate those churches, groups or persons who make no claim to belong to the Orthodox Church however defined (see later) but whose believing and living is recognised by us as having considerable overlap with that of our own. So; Bishop Launcelot Andrewes was "orthodox" on that score ... but Zwingli not. The use of "orthodox" lower case should not of course be taken to infer anything about salvation. That is God's perogative.

(2) "Orthodox" uppercase covers those churches, groups and persons who are in communion with at least one other Orthodox church ... itself being in communion with at least one OTHER church and so on, (definition of canonical Orthodox). So, ROCA / ROCOR, being in communion with the Serbs is caninical Orthodox but being in an anomalous situation now with regard to Moscow its progenitor, it does not have ALL the rights and privileges that attach to being in communion with Orthodoxy as a whole. This is a disciplinary matter touching on the episcopal college and, apart from some Greeks who ought to know better frankly, this does not affect the people who may receive Communion in and between the churches quite freely. (ROCA in America is a good deal less inclined to relate to Moscow I think that ROCA in continental Europe. We are dealing in relations between flesh and blood humans after all).

(3) Those who call themselves "Orthodox" but who are not in communion with ANY other Orthodox church are regarded by us as more or less "orthodox" lower case but are not canonical and we do not share eucharistic hospitality with them. These groups are often bizarre and extremely litigious (especially in the US, surprise, surpise). That is why I am not naming them here!!! However, there is this link ...

Religious Groups That Use "Orthodox" in their names

(In scanning this list you need to pass over the author's personal gloss in the sub section about "targeting gays" ... the list is useful for the character of its canonical assessments on the grounds I have explained ALONE).

(4) Finally, there is "Orthodox" as in Oriental Orthodox ... meaning the Copts, Armenians, Syrian Orthodox, Ethopian Orthodox, Eritreian Orthodox etc. We are not in communion with any of these churches but we do not use the lower case "o." Relations between us are now very close and we MAY be on the verge of a reconciliation, ("verge" in Orthodox terms of course doesn't mean next week! ). Many Orthodox are happy to receive these as Orthodox bar a whisker. Others not perhaps ... but notwithstanding my respect for the holy fathers ... I don't live on Mount Athos.

Primarily the relations between Orthodox and non-Orthodox churches (however defined) is a matter for bishops and synods. The crucial question, therefore, is "who is your bishop?" ... and has been since at least St. Irenaeus who asked the same question in similar circumstances.

As to the EP ... well, yes; he has first place of honour in Orthodoxy (if and until Rome comes back on board) but he has no jurisdiction or defining place in Orthodoxy.
 

---

Posted by Grey Face (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
(2) "Orthodox" uppercase covers those churches, groups and persons who are in communion with at least one other Orthodox church ... itself being in communion with at least one OTHER church and so on, (definition of canonical Orthodox).

As to the EP ... well, yes; he has first place of honour in Orthodoxy (if and until Rome comes back on board) but he has no jurisdiction or defining place in Orthodoxy.

---

In your first paragraph, you missed out the final piece of the jigsaw that I'm trying to pin down - I can see that to be an Orthodox bishop you have to be in communion with an Orthodox bishop who's in communion with... etc, but where does this stop? With the EP? You've already said this isn't the case citing Nestorius but then you can have the situation where, hypothetically, Antioch, Alexandria, and Greece might become separated from the rest of Orthodoxy on some issue, yet have to my mind an equal claim to be the genuine article.

The argument seems to be based simply on the idea that there's a generally agreed body of Orthodox churches that believe themselves to be the real thing, and you're not in communion with anybody else because they're not (by this I mean not Orthodox, not not Christian). But I still don't see how this can be justified other than by pure numbers - there could be any number of (from your point of view) quasi-Orthodox bishops around who are in communion with each other but not with any of those you recognise to be Orthodox.

The site you link to states "every canonical local or worldwide Orthodox Church is in full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch"

which was my basic understanding of how you could tell the difference between an Orthodox and a quasi-Orthodox bishop - the existence or not of a chain of communion eventually including the EP. If this is not the case, and it's not the first time I've seen the definition, then surely your definition is meaningless because you have no reference point of canonical Orthodoxy.
 

---

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

The site (as Josephine has said) is not correct in saying that communion with the EP (AS AN INDIVIDUAL BISHOP) is of the sine qua non of being Orthodox ... ie., the position of Nestorius etc. Even Orthodox web masters make mistakes.

"Where does it stop?" is a linear ... dare I say "western" way of looking at it; top-down as it were. Orthodox conceptions of authority are more circular than linear.

Provided that a Church has the signs of Orthodoxy and is in communion with at least one other major centre, we do not canonically disenfranchise them.

Furthermore, it is not about numbers; rather congruence in faith and life. Because there is such a firm commitment to Orthodox faith and life amongst the faithful (aided by the fact that we know what is in Orthodoxy and what is not ... what is established and what is legitimately provisional), this is an easier discernment that might be the case elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Basically, Grey Face, it boils down to this. Orhtodoxy believes not that is part of the Church, but that it is the Church in its fullest manifestation. It, collectively, cannot countenance "communion" with any ecclesial body which do not demonstrate those things that Orthodoxy believes are essential signs of the Church. This is not unlike groups like the Partiuclar Brethren or Partic Baptists - the difference being that Orthodoxy is bigger and has a longer history and, obviously, have very different ideas about what manifestations to look for.

The Anglican Church, on the other hand, recognises that Church is manifest in different places - see the list at the back of Canon Law as to the Churches with whom the CofE is in friendly relations with - and doesn't claim that everybody has to do it a particular way in order to claim the name "Church" (of course, when it comes to talk of formal structrual union, these issues do come into consideration; but only a fringe of the CofE really believes that Methodists and URC aren't really Church).

Now, if you believe that Orthodoxy has it right, then not only will you not see any point in "shared communion" until those "visible signs" of the Church are present, you will also believe that such talk is meaningless - ultimately, Orthodoxy is the Church and therefore anything that is not Orthodox is not Church. Some people hold this view. Having read far more about Orthodoxy than almost anything else in the last 10 years, I can understand why this is. It is not a position I can embrace, which is why (amongst other reasons) I am not Orthodox.

As I said on the thread in Purgatory that was closed, full table fellowship can only happen if Roman and Orthodox Christians accept that what goes on in Anglican and Reformed Churches are really "Church". That, frankly, is an impossibility, because Orthodoxy won't accept anything other than its own definition of Orthodoxy, and Rome won't accept anything other than reintegration under the Bishop of Rome, neither of which (it seems to this Reformed Anglican with Orthodox leanings) are either desirable or necessary to salvation.
 

---

Posted by Grey Face (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Provided that a Church has the signs of Orthodoxy and is in communion with at least one other major centre, we do not canonically disenfranchise them.

Furthermore, it is not about numbers; rather congruence in faith and life. Because there is such a firm commitment to Orthodox faith and life amongst the faithful (aided by the fact that we know what is in Orthodoxy and what is not ... what is established and what is legitimately provisional), this is an easier discernment that might be the case elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It seems to me that people jump too quickly from "fullness" to "only one." It is not a jump we make at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
I cannot see how such a jump can be avoided (and Schmiemann implicitly makes it in his essays on ecumenism). If Orthodox has "fullness" then not-Orthodoxy is, be definition, "not-fullness". Whilst it is gratifying to hear individual Orthodox say that they will not say where the Spirit is not, it really does come across as polite double-think.

If you know what the Church ought to look like and you can determine where the Spirit is, you are implicitly indicating that where those criteria are not met, neither the Church nor the Spirit is present. All statements, however positively stated, exclude - saying that 2+2=4 in base 10 at the same time implies that 2+2 does not equal 3 or 5 in base 10.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:
From your second paragraph, you say that you know what's Orthodox and what isn't... but I see this being qualitatively identical to the process that goes on in other denominations (if you'll forgive the term) particularly given that bishops actively disagree on what's Orthodox. If they did not, then every Orthodox bishop would be in full direct communion with every other and that is plainly not the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
the various denominations grew away from the fullness of the faith at some point, but have not entirely rejected the faith.

---

As I said, polite double-think. Why is it important to have "fullness" if it does not affect salvation? Why are some views rejected if they do not affect salvation? Why was it so terrible that whole world woke up to find itself Arian one morning if it had no effect on salvation? If you don't believe that there is soteriological import in holding the Orthodox faith in its fullness, then Orthodoxy has no grounds upon which to deny other denominations' equality with it. If it doesn't matter to our eternal salvation what we believe, then you have no impetous to want the world to find the fullness of Orthodoxy.

Now, I happen to believe that Orthodoxy is wrong in its claim to be the place of fullness , but that's not your problem. The problem is that if Orthodox is really and truly "right praise" and "right belief", then anything that is not Orthodoxy is "not-right-praise" or "not-right-enough-praise", which means that it is defective. Why should such a defect worry anyone if it has nothing to do with our salvation?
 

---

Posted by Grey Face (# 4682) on :
 
Note to self: Never say publicly that you're finished asking questions

Josephine,

When your Metropolitan brought the EOC into Antioch, did he risk disciplinary action for it, or is there a fair bit of leeway on these things? Obviously there's the possibility from what you've said that the EP's objection to EOC was for administrative reasons rather than doctrinal.

To use a ridiculous (at least by JimT's calculations ) example, if one bishop tried to bring the Unitarians into Orthodoxy without a change in their beliefs, I'd imagine just about every other bishop would sever communion with him, as the only way to prevent the action.
 

---

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
As I said, polite double-think. Why is it important to have "fullness" if it does not affect salvation? Why are some views rejected if they do not affect salvation? Why was it so terrible that whole world woke up to find itself Arian one morning if it had no effect on salvation? If you don't believe that there is soteriological import in holding the Orthodox faith in its fullness, then Orthodoxy has no grounds upon which to deny other denominations' equality with it. If it doesn't matter to our eternal salvation what we believe, then you have no impetous to want the world to find the fullness of Orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:
When your Metropolitan brought the EOC into Antioch, did he risk disciplinary action for it, or is there a fair bit of leeway on these things? Obviously there's the possibility from what you've said that the EP's objection to EOC was for administrative reasons rather than doctrinal.

---

There were raised eyebrows worldwide when His Grace brought the EOC into the Church, but there was no risk of disciplinary action. AFAIK, the EP has never said why he wouldn't receive the EOC, but I suspect it was that he didn't believe they were sincere. My guess is that he thought they were just faddish Americans jumping on the next fad. So he refused to bring them in.

[qutoe]To use a ridiculous (at least by JimT's calculations ) example, if one bishop tried to bring the Unitarians into Orthodoxy without a change in their beliefs, I'd imagine just about every other bishop would sever communion with him, as the only way to prevent the action. [/QUOTE]

The other bishops couldn't prevent the action. If he wanted to baptise and chrismate a bunch of Unitarians, he could do so.

But, yes, I suppose if a bishop were to do that, he would end up as the minister of a Unitarian congregation, and not a bishop of the Orthodox Church. No one in the Church would recognize him as an Orthodox bishop any longer.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
It didn't really make much sense in Peter Gilquist's book as to why EP refused. My cynical suggests that (like Josephine suggested) there was distrust of this new group, and maybe there were subtle, jurisdictional arguments going on which EP didn't want to make worse. Moscow certainly wouldn't have touched them with a barge-pole - part of me wonders whether Antioch took them so as to gain a stronger foothold in the States.
 

---

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

Remember the Lutherans who went to Constantinople at the Reformation ... remember the Non-Jurors who were oh-so-close but couldn't venerate icons? Constantinople has seen it all before and has a long (if rather weary) memory. Believe me; Constantinople is very hot on its contested but claimed perogatives in the west. I suspect they thought that NOBODY would have the EOC. We had similar attitudes on a smaller scale with the Greeks in the UK .... complicated by a desire not to upset the CofE, (Cyprus factor). Antioch was bold. It makes progress by being bold. We thank God for Antioch because without that boldness only a handful would have become Orthodox in 1995 in the UK and not hundreds.

As to your other argument ...

I'm sorry but this "you haven't got it" argument is a complete non sequitur from our point of view. The choice is between "yes" and "don't know" ... not "yes" and "no." Remember that our salvation doctrine allows for the fact that God may save non-Christians. Do people find grace in Hinduism. We don't know. We will not say that they don't. Why should we have any opinion on that other than to hope that God saves all?
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
If Orthodoxy truly is a "yes"/"don't know" position (which I don't altogether accept, but we'll run with it for now), the difference between Orthodoxy and, say, Anglicanism is thus a difference in what to do with that situation.

Orthodoxy will only allow participation in the eucharist instituted by our Lord to the definite "yes" camp - it will not allow the "don't knows" in. Conversely, Anglicanism nowadays starts from a position of allowing the "don't knows" (from its perspective) to participate, and let God sort out the rest. IO think it is here we find the symbolic and practical expression of what keeps certain churches apart.
 

---

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

I agree.
 

---

Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Jeff

Doctrinal indifferentism when it comes to worship and fellowship isn't how I read the New Testament.

---

quote:

---

However they do not appear to have been a basis for deciding whether to break bread with a fellow believer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Jeff

I am pleased that you should consider yourself Orthodox. In order to contribute to the wider unity of the Christian family perhaps you should contact a godly Orthodox pastor as soon as possible ... not with an intention to convert but with a mind to understand how far we have moved together and what yet needs to be done.

quote:

---

However they do not appear to have been a basis for deciding whether to break bread with a fellow believer.

---

"Fellow believer" begs a lot of questions. Those who deny that Christ has come in the flesh, (and there are many "believers" who do that nowadays), would not be included in the Eucharistic fellowship no matter how much they loved Jesus, (Muslims love Mohammed but do not of course worship him).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl, Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Canon 844 §3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

---

Question is - which churches does the Apostolic See so judge? If not the Anglicans, who?

Just asking for information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I am aware of Anglicans receiving eucharistic hospitality when in RC territory for extended periods-- certainly with the knowledge of the priest and the tolerance of the bishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Duo- I believe that the RCs mean the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches (aka the non-Chalcedonians, viz., Armenian, Coptic, Assyrian, Ethiopian) and the Polish National Catholic Church.

The other churches of the Utrecht union of Old Catholic churches, I gather, are no longer on the list.

I am aware of Anglicans receiving eucharistic hospitality when in RC territory for extended periods-- certainly with the knowledge of the priest and the tolerance of the bishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
I think the only criterion for members of other churches receiving communion at an RC Church is that they are from a church upholding the real presence in the eucharist.

Orthodox may always receive communion at a RC church, though their own church discipline may prevent them from so doing.

---

Neither of these points is correct.

It is the faith of the individual in the eucharist that is the determinant. The position of their "home" ecclesial community is not relevant.

Orthodox may only receive at a Catholic eucharistic service if the condition relating to the unavailability of a priest of their own church is met.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Thank you Bonaventura.... Possessed by the demon of ethnocentricity, I had been looking for the Canadian RC bishops' statement and it was not where I had thought it would be. I had seen it some years ago and my vague memory thereof suggests that it is not likely too far away from the US one. Racking the remnants of my brain, I cannot for the life of me recall anything singling out Anglicans or Lutherans. Trisagion's line rings more accurately, I fear.

For my own part, I have always respected the Romans' discipline on the matter (and, much like my cycling practice of stopping at red lights and signalling turns, referred to on other threads, I seem to be alone in this) but would likely re-evaluate this if cast into effectively RC-exclusive territory for a considerable period. Even so, I would suss out the lay of the land first, as I see little point or virtue in behaving abusively to the local curé.
 

---

Posted by the_grip (# 7831) on :
 
Great discussion!

Father Gregory, what is the current state between communion between the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Church? i'm sure that's a complex situation, but i don't hear it addressed much.

i heard once about the Anglican Church coming close to communion with the Russian Orthodox Church (i think it was in the 1920s or 1950s or something) - that is, until the whole woman priest issue arose in the Anglican Church (this isn't a slam, just what i heard). Is this true?

Blessings,
the_grip

[ 09. November 2004, 21:09: Message edited by: the_grip ]
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
the_grip - the chances of the good Father Gregory re-reading this long defunct horse by chance is remote.

I suggest that you send a Private Message to alert him to your request
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Ahah Tony! .... only 43 minutes late checkin' in! TheOrthodoxPlot™ felt its ears burnin'.

Dear the_grip

The dialogue between Funny-Hats and Yes-But-No-But (UK comedy reference ... Vikki Pollard where are you when we need you?) ... continues but it is now more in the "we this, you the other" mode. See here (Anglican link) ...

Recent Anglican Orthodox Dialogue

Convergence was quite significant in the 30's and there were great hopes in the 50's but the ecumenical embers have dulled significantly over the last 28 years.
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Father Gregory - I'm impressed!!!!

I didn't realise you spent/wasted so much time scanning the defunct equinines on the off-chance that somebody might be trying to raise a question for you! After all, this thread has been quiescent for 3 months, and you last posted to it nearly a year ago. I am almost persuaded that you do have pyschic powers - or maybe you use the search facilty against your name
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear TonyK

I scan Purgatory, MW, (Hell rarely) and Deceased Equines for active threads that interest me.

I also want to get to 10,000 by the end of the month (sad git that I am) then I can offer a "write to Santa Gregory" temporary thread as a celebration perhaps ... not that I would dream of posting frivolously of course!

[ 13. November 2004, 11:33: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Hmmmm - 549 to go.

Only 17 days

You'll have to get posting, Father - thats over 30 a day

Don't let me keep you here
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Ah, I forgot what this thread was about, and thought it might be about Catholic and Orthodox intercommunion.

I read the first page and this last and it hasn't been about what I'm after, which, if it is not a Dead Horse, will spawn one... namely, what are the major issues stopping the Catholic and Orthodox Churches uniting? I mean, why not? :angle: I was just reading the EP's letters and salutations where he refers to the Catholic Church as 'Sister Church' (letter to mark 40th anniversary of meeting of Paul VI and Athenagoras; and on the 'Falling asleep in the Lord' of the Pope). Why are things not rockin'?!


If this is covered somewhere in the intervening 5 pages, tell me and I will brave them.


[Most interesting and nostalgic to cover a few of the posts of the last year or more. You know most native Orthodox don't even realise the non-Chalcedonians are not strictly Orthodox... and neither do the non-Chalcedonians themselves, I bet! Ha! I was explaining it to my mum... "No.", she said "They are Orthodox. I would go to my Coptic friend's church and she would come to mine". The laos wouldn't know a monofizz if it jumped out of a moussaka]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
what are the major issues stopping the Catholic and Orthodox Churches uniting? I mean, why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I think the three main obstacles to formal reunion are the papacy, the Bishop of Rome, and the Pope - not neccesarily in that order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arcturus:
By being so evangelical (in the true sense of the word- not by clapping and playing the drums)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arcturus:
the Papal Bull "laetentur ceoli" has not been repealed, both churches do have union, but have increasingly ignore it over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
In that case, he needs to repent, and we need to have another Ecumenical Council to sort out the differences so that the church can be reunited.

---

How would you know if it was Ecumenical? Serious question.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
I think you need an Emperor to call one. Last one of those I heard about was the one in the Central African Republic whose approach to political debate including eating his opponents. But he got done by a court ("Emperor, how do you plead to the charges of cannibalism?" "Full up.")
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
There are two persons whose surname derives from "Paleologos" in my local phone book, Dyfrig. Shall I ring them and suggest they get back into politics?

Nah... it would be a nuisance call, and that's against the law.

Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
In that case, he needs to repent, and we need to have another Ecumenical Council to sort out the differences so that the church can be reunited.

---

How would you know if it was Ecumenical? Serious question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
There are two persons whose surname derives from "Paleologos" in my local phone book, Dyfrig. Shall I ring them and suggest they get back into politics?

---

Does it have to be a Greek? If we need a reunion Emperor perhaps a Holy Roman would do.

As far as I know Dr. Otto von Habsburg
(also known as the Erzerhog Franz Josef Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xaver Felix René Ludwig Gaetano Pius Ignazius von Habsburg) is still alive and pretty easily contactable. Though he says he's not interested in the job, his sons or grandsons might be.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Ken, I thought what was wanted was an emperor of the Roman Empire, but if you want it to be the Holy Roman Empire, that's up to you. Whether such an emperor, in canon law, could call a fully ecumenical council is another question, for the answer to which you'd probably have to consult the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is so busy dodging hand grenades that usually he hasn't much time.

Good luck finding someone interested in being Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Leetle Masha is correct I think, the Ecumenical Patriarch is the one to see! And not from any magical Orthodox power (this time, ).

quote:

---

From the Patriarch's qualifications:
Doctorates: The Pontifical Oriental Institute (Gregorian University). Thesis titled “The Codification of the Holy Canons and the Canonical Constitutions in the Orthodox Church.”

---

Studied at the Gregorian now that *is* wild!
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Coot: All our Patriarchs are plenty smart, but they're not magic. All things considered, I guess they do the best they can.

Leetle M.
They probably didn't have the money to go to Harvard Divinity School, but we had one one time went to St. Andrew's (Cyril Lukaris).
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Ken, I thought what was wanted was an emperor of the Roman Empire, but if you want it to be the Holy Roman Empire, that's up to you. Whether such an emperor, in canon law, could call a fully ecumenical council is another question, for the answer to which you'd probably have to consult the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is so busy dodging hand grenades that usually he hasn't much time.

Good luck finding someone interested in being Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

Leetle M.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:


If that transpired, then the only way to legitimately call an Ecumenical Council would be if someday King Charles III converted to Orthodoxy, as some believe he wishes to do.

---

• Why, when communion is a gift from God; a means of Grace; and is an act that is commanded by God, can communion be withheld from anyone?
• Why, can a baptised-orthodox-but-non-believer receive the sacrament, but a believing-but-a-member-of-another-denomination not?
• How, can a priest live with themselves knowing that they refused God’s grace from someone?
• Doesn’t open table communion show that we are united under Christ (which we are)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
Why, when communion is a gift from God; a means of Grace; and is an act that is commanded by God, can communion be withheld from anyone?

---

quote:

---

Why, can a baptised-orthodox-but-non-believer receive the sacrament, but a believing-but-a-member-of-another-denomination not?

---

quote:

---

How, can a priest live with themselves knowing that they refused God’s grace from someone?

---

quote:

---

Doesn’t open table communion show that we are united under Christ (which we are)?

---

See, here's the crux of the matter. You believe that we're already united under Christ. We don't think we are. Having open communion would indeed proclaim that we are -- and since we don't think that's true, we can't do it.

You know, I am sure, that some people feel called by God to refrain from sexual union with their beloved until after they're married. Others feel free to engage in sexual relations because they love each other, and they feel that their love is enough, they don't feel a need to receive the sacrament of marriage first. I'm not going to argue with either of them, or tell them they're wrong. But if a particular couple included one person who wanted to receive the sacrament of marriage first, and the other who wanted to have sex now, who bends?
 

---

Posted by Sinisterial (# 5834) on :
 
Firstly, thankyou Josephine for entering this discussion with me – as you can probably tell, I am still “immature” when it comes to religion and I value the dialogue to help me understand why things are.

Now, on to your responses:

quote:

---

I know there are those who, when they say "anyone," they mean "anyone who is baptized." Others mean "anyone who is baptized and confirmed." Others mean something else. There are very few of us who don't "fence the table," and if you read much Church history, you know that has always been the case. In the early Church, catechumens and non-Christians weren't even allowed to witness Holy Communion, much less partake.

---

• This Church believes that this happens in Communion;
• This is what I think about this belief
• If those reconcile, then fair game.

quote:

---

A person who was baptized Orthodox but who no longer believes should not receive the sacrament. Baptism is not the only requirement for receiving.

---

quote:

---

They don't refuse God's grace. They couldn't do that if they wanted to. You don't think the Eucharist is the only way God bestows grace on people, do you?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

By Sinisterial [that’s me]:
Doesn’t open table communion show that we are united under Christ (which we are)?

---

See, here's the crux of the matter. You believe that we're already united under Christ. We don't think we are. Having open communion would indeed proclaim that we are -- and since we don't think that's true, we can't do it.

---

quote:

---

You know, I am sure, that some people feel called by God to refrain from sexual union with their beloved until after they're married. Others feel free to engage in sexual relations because they love each other, and they feel that their love is enough, they don't feel a need to receive the sacrament of marriage first. I'm not going to argue with either of them, or tell them they're wrong. But if a particular couple included one person who wanted to receive the sacrament of marriage first, and the other who wanted to have sex now, who bends?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
I put it to you that the only things that separate the denominations are moot points that will never be reconciled. Moot in the way that it does not alter the fact that we are saved; that we are Christians; and that we are united as Christians under Christ.

---

quote:

---

Communion is principally an interaction between God and the communicate. It really has no bearing on what the next person on the rail thinks about me or my beliefs.

---

quote:

---

For traditional Orthodoxy there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

Communion is seen not only as communication between God and man, but as communication between men also. This means that in a mysterious way the members of the church interact with each other and with the risen Lord in the sacrament of communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
From an Orthodox Church point of view, what particular act (or failure to act) means that I am unsaved?

---

quote:

---

I actually like this idea - can you please explain how this concept works further?

---

I can't. That's why I said "in a mysterious way" I could use the body/organs analogy. If one body member is sick, the whole body is sick, because there is a certain communion between all body parts. The organs interact with each other in many strange ways. But anyways, this is something I have just made up.
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :
 
Sinisterial,

Josephine and Andreas have made any further comment by me largely redundant. They've done a fantastic job of explaining. Just in case there's anything that you may glean from it, do have a look at this page, produced for prospective visitors to my parish. Near the bottom of the page is a section entitled "May I receive Communion?", which partly explains this, and then links to an article I wrote which goes into it in more depth. I actually quoted from this thread, (with the necessary permission, of course).

I don't know whether you'll find it useful. I hope so.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
I am very interested in both of those views. Can you please expand on them?

quote:

---

For traditional Orthodoxy there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church.

---

From an Orthodox Church point of view, what particular act (or failure to act) means that I am unsaved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:

quote:

---

Communion is seen not only as communication between God and man, but as communication between men also. This means that in a mysterious way the members of the church interact with each other and with the risen Lord in the sacrament of communion.

---

I actually like this idea - can you please explain how this concept works further?

---

1. A physical group all located in one room; in which case, how do you allow communion for prisoners and lock-ins to go ahead; Or
2. corporate as in the communion liturgy being:

   quote:

   ---

   together with the angels and arch-angels, and with all the company of heaven, throughout all time and eternity

   ---

   in which case, God would be "filtering" out all the people that are not "allowed" to receive communion from all the people that think they are, so why can't this be done on a local level too (ie let all who wish, come to Communion and those that are deemed acceptable by God will receive Grace, where as those that are not acceptable will have judgement placed on them?

From your arguments I can see clearly that as an Orthodox why you would not grace the table of other denominations, but it is still unclear why you would not allow others to grace your table.

It is my belief that the Orthodox church still practices infant communion (at least in the Coptic Orthodox church, of which I am familiar), but does not allow communion to an older person, who is able to discern what is going on. Why should one person, by reasons of chance, be able to experience the grace of God’s meal, but another person must, even though they fully understand, wait until rituals are performed?

I would like to mention at this point: if one found a home within the Orthodox church, I would obviously advocate that that person was baptised, chrismated, and confirmed. I am not trying to say that people should be able to continually take part in the Eucharist if they do not subscribe to the other facets of the religion. What I am saying is that the Grace of God, which surpasses all human thought and understanding should override any ritual or man-made rule.

It was mentioned earlier on this thread that there are examples where the Orthodox church will give communion to non Orthodox members. Fr Greg. tried to explain why there, but could someone do a better job of explaining (no offence FG ) Why, when Holy Communion is not necessary in order to enter Heaven, does the Orthodox even have these exemptions? Shouldn’t it be totally closed communion or totally open?
The exemptions that read

quote:

---

…do not have their own church or priest accessible…

---

quote:

---

Josephine:
And while we earnestly desire that all Christians would be visibly part of the body, and share this meal with us, we would disagree, strongly, that the issues that divide us are trivial or irrelevant.

---

Totally agree with you. The fact that all the Christian churches on Earth are not simultaneously merging (in fact, my own church could be on the brink of splitting) shows that the issues that divide are relevant and in no way trivial.
Dialogues are current amongst the Orthodox and many other denominations, which in my mind suggest that the Orthodox do believe that we share common ground. I put it to you that the common ground is quite large, and that the issues in which we are separated, though large enough to separate us on Earth, will not be separating us in heaven. And therefore the we should be able to share the heavenly meal.

In the Sprit of dialogue

Sinisterial
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
It is my belief that the Orthodox church still practices infant communion (at least in the Coptic Orthodox church, of which I am familiar), but does not allow communion to an older person, who is able to discern what is going on. Why should one person, by reasons of chance, be able to experience the grace of God’s meal, but another person must, even though they fully understand, wait until rituals are performed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
When you talk of communion being a corporate ritual, are you defining corporate as

1. A physical group all located in one room; in which case, how do you allow communion for prisoners and lock-ins to go ahead; Or
2. corporate as in the communion liturgy being:

   quote:

   ---

   together with the angels and arch-angels, and with all the company of heaven, throughout all time and eternity

   ---

   in which case, God would be "filtering" out all the people that are not "allowed" to receive communion from all the people that think they are, so why can't this be done on a local level too (ie let all who wish, come to Communion and those that are deemed acceptable by God will receive Grace, where as those that are not acceptable will have judgement placed on them?

From your arguments I can see clearly that as an Orthodox why you would not grace the table of other denominations, but it is still unclear why you would not allow others to grace your table.

---

quote:

---

It is my belief that the Orthodox church still practices infant communion (at least in the Coptic Orthodox church, of which I am familiar), but does not allow communion to an older person, who is able to discern what is going on. Why should one person, by reasons of chance, be able to experience the grace of God’s meal, but another person must, even though they fully understand, wait until rituals are performed?

---

quote:

---

Granted, but you do Commune baptised (&c) infants from the Orthodox tradition, but you would not Commune baptised infants from another tradition, even though you recognise that baptism (as in "we believe in one baptisme for the forgiveness of sins").

---

quote:

---

I would like to mention at this point: if one found a home within the Orthodox church, I would obviously advocate that that person was baptised, chrismated, and confirmed. I am not trying to say that people should be able to continually take part in the Eucharist if they do not subscribe to the other facets of the religion. What I am saying is that the Grace of God, which surpasses all human thought and understanding should override any ritual or man-made rule.

---

quote:

---

It was mentioned earlier on this thread that there are examples where the Orthodox church will give communion to non Orthodox members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
Granted, but you do Commune baptised (&c) infants from the Orthodox tradition, but you would not Commune baptised infants from another tradition, even though you recognise that baptism (as in "we believe in one baptisme for the forgiveness of sins").

---

quote:

---

Why should one person, by reasons of chance, be able to experience the grace of God’s meal, but another person must, even though they fully understand, wait until rituals are performed?

---

quote:

---

What I am saying is that the Grace of God, which surpasses all human thought and understanding should override any ritual or man-made rule.

---

quote:

---

Shouldn’t it be totally closed communion or totally open?

---

quote:

---

Dialogues are current amongst the Orthodox and many other denominations, which in my mind suggest that the Orthodox do believe that we share common ground.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Andreas, being a Greek in Greece

---

Out of curiosity, Josephine, is your church in communion with the church of Greece?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Andreas, I'm answering for J because she's going to be out for a bit. I don't know who the Church of Greece is in communion with. The OCA (ORthodox Church in America), which is what we belong to, is in communion with all the ancient patriarchates (save Rome), Japan, Helsinki, Serbia, Moscow, etc. etc.
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :
 
I think I was party to the e-mail conversation that prompted that question.

I look forward to hearing from you soon, Andreas.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I don't know who the Church of Greece is in communion with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I just wanted Sinisterial to know more about the people (including me, of course) responding to his questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
It turns out that Jospehine, Mousethief and Saint Bertolin belong to groups that are not recognised by all Orthodox Churches. From my point of view, this is highly problematic.

---

quote:

---

There is not currently unanimous agreement on which churches are autocephalous or autonomous. There is, however, an order which is followed in international Inter-Orthodox gatherings, which is included here first. There is an expanded order which is recognized by some churches, most notably the Church of Russia and its dependencies and historical daughter churches. Despite the disagreement on which churches have autocephalous or autonomous status, all these churches maintain full communion with one another.

---

• We can declare all Orthodox people in these unfortunate situations as being unOrthodox because their churches exist outside current canonical provision.
• Churches in these situations can decide that they can't be bothered with the fuss about restored full communion and canonical regularity and choose to become independent breakaway groups.
• Churches in these situations can work to try their best to find the best way forward to restore themselves to full communion with all, and to restore themselves to a manner of administration and practice which is in keeping with the current canons of the Church.

From my perspective, the first two options are unacceptable because they will achieve nothing in regard to the edification of the faithful or the salvation of souls. As I see it, the only acceptable option is the third one, and that is what is currently in the process of happening. I don't know what else we can possibly do.

As for your motives, Andreas, I agree that it would be a mistake to assume things apart rom what you have already publicly made known. I think that, in your previous posts, you have made your motives sufficiently well-known for me not to have to assume anything.

There's no need to get defensive as you seem to have done. I'm not angry in any way. I'm just upset - very deeply upset. Regardless of whether or not our conversation prompted this, I still feel used, as what I perceived as genuine concern on your part has now manifested itself as something quite different.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
[tangent]

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Also, when I go to church, when the dypticha are read

---

Are these read regularly in the Greek Church Andreas?

I must confess, while I knew of their existence, I've never heard them read. Then again, I am an Antiochian.

Ian.
 

---

Posted by Sinisterial (# 5834) on :
 
Thanks again for all the comments, I feel that I am beginning to understand why this difference cannot be reconciled.

However, please indulge me for a while longer, and allow me to return to the topic at hand.

quote:

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin:
All we know from Scripture and Tradition is his assurance of grace within that context, and it is within that context that we exist and act.

---

quote:

---

For us to then take the channels of grace that God offers within the Church, and to give them to those without the Church, would at best be futile (because it's within the Church that the Sacraments are instituted of Christ),

---

quote:

---

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them….

---

quote:

---

at worst, gravely irresponsible (with regard to your reference to St Paul's caution against eating and drinking judgment)

---

quote:

---

For all who eat and drink without discerning the body [of Christ – ie the Church] eat and drink judgement on themselves.

---

quote:

---

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

---

quote:

---

Sacraments are the means of grace within the New Covenant, the Church. That includes Baptism, and so, as Mousethief has said, we would not recognise an immersion in water using the Trinitarian forumla outside of Orthodoxy as the Sacrament of Baptism in which a person is incorporated into Christ.

---

All of what I have mentioned above rests on the assumption that the Orthodox and all other Christians have “Christianity” in common. You are telling me that this is not so? I do not understand. We both proclaim Christ as the Son of God, we both recognise the Holy Scriptures as truth as a whole and in all its parts, we both subscribe to the same beliefs (± 3 words ), yet You say that, outside Orthodoxy, no-one follows the Church that began at Pentecost. This sounds similar to an argument that you like milk with your tea, and I like tea with my milk; yet we are not both white tea drinkers!

I see many problems with this. Firstly out of two billion “Christians” alive today, only 350 million are Orthodox. Eighty-two and a half percent are members of a (from your point of view) Christian cult and you have not bothered to tell us?? And what about Jesus’ great commission? I have not seen any orthodox missionaries around. The Orthodox church does not run any programmes such as Jesus. All about Life. are you ignoring the command of Christ? Or are you relying on the Holy Spirit to spread the gospel? Well, the Holy Spirit is even more confused than me, given that the non-orthodox church is growing faster than the Orthodox. Please explain.

quote:

---

We are not the ones who have decided to draw a line in the sand and say "You're in and you're out". No. Rather, Christ has instituted his Church by bringing about the New Covenant.

---

quote:

---

The Sacraments exist within her as God's means of bestowing his grace. Do we believe that God is capable of bestowing grace by other means to whomsoever he pleases, even outside the Church? Yes, of course we do! Do we believe that it's our place to decide who and where that should be? No, of course we don't. We only know what has been revealed in Scripture and Tradition, and we stick to that. We leave the rest to God.

---

quote:

---

In this day and age people barrack for multiple sports teams; they financially support both political parties; and they hold duel citizenships. So why must we only choose one church home. Why cannot I be a member of both an Assemblies of God Church and a Russian Orthodox Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's like with suicide or civil marriage. When someone commits a suicide or performs a marriage in the city hall, the Orthodox say that that man/woman is no longer part of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
Until you joined the Ship, you didn't even know my jurisdiction existed, let alone what its status was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
Forgive me, I come from an evangelical background with a foundation based on sola scriptura, and therefore I reject any argument based on tradition. I accept that this is a difference between my church and many other churches. Does the Orthodox position require acceptance of the historical traditions, or can this argument be solely biblical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
And what about Jesus’ great commission? I have not seen any orthodox missionaries around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
In this day and age people barrack for multiple sports teams; they financially support both political parties; and they hold duel citizenships. So why must we only choose one church home. Why cannot I be a member of both an Assemblies of God Church and a Russian Orthodox Church?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Sinisterial:
Forgive me, I come from an evangelical background with a foundation based on sola scriptura, and therefore I reject any argument based on tradition. I accept that this is a difference between my church and many other churches. Does the Orthodox position require acceptance of the historical traditions, or can this argument be solely biblical?

---

quote:

---

Does this not mean that by excluding people from the Church (again, see note below) you are bringing judgement on yourself?

---

quote:

---

quote:For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Say I come to a Church and hear that verse, the ONLY thing I want to do is proclaim the death (and resurrection) of Christ. If you exclude me, you are not allowing me to proclaim what should be proclaimed, and therefore you would be bringing judgement on yourself.

---

quote:

---

All of what I have mentioned above rests on the assumption that the Orthodox and
all other Christians have “Christianity” in common. You are telling me that this is not so? I do not understand. We both proclaim Christ as the Son of God, we both recognise the Holy Scriptures as truth as a whole and in all its parts, we both subscribe to the same beliefs (± 3 words [Smile] ), yet You say that, outside Orthodoxy, no-one follows the Church that began at Pentecost.

---

quote:

---

Eighty-two and a half percent are members of a (from your point of view) Christian cult and you have not bothered to tell us??

---

quote:

---

Do you really think that God cares a fig whether a person is a member of this Church or
that?

---

quote:

---

Salvation does not depend on us!

---

quote:

---

Please explain the difference between jurisdiction and denomination, and how you can reconcile that to your not believing in “branch theology”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus
A key Orthodox approach, as far as I understand it, would be "come and see" -- come to a Divine Liturgy; to Vespers; to Matins -- come and see how we worship. Come and see how we live the Christian life.

---

quote:

---

That said, more can always be done, and I would say, at least in my corner of the world, we're a bit behind the ball.

---

Amen and amen – from my side too It is great to see people like you Ian, in Australia, with a passion for the Orthodox Church. Thanks for responding to this.

quote:

---

This is purely my point of view, but I'd say finding a church is rather different to barracking for a sports team.
8<
It would be impossible for me to be part of both churches as they had different views on certain issues: I had to choose.
8<
But I only have one home, and I make sure I am there regularly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief
It [this argument] cannot be solely biblical, because it's an argument about ecclesiology, and the NT was not written as an ecclesiological textbook. The Traditions about how to "do church" are therefore mostly (indeed almost entirely) extra-biblical.

---

quote:

---

Because if somebody came into an Orthodox church and happened to hear that verse, and insisted on being served the Eucharist on that basis, I would say they were being very presumptuous and very rude. Basically what they are saying is, "you have been doing this for 2000 years but my hearing this one scripture verse means that I know better than you do what it's all about."

---

1. was a visiting Orthodox member;
2. A visitor, not belonging to the Orthodox faith, but the priest did not know; and
3. A visitor, not belonging to the Orthodox faith, and the priest was aware of this fact

quote:

---

We say that we are the Church that began at Pentecost, and anybody who is not in the Orthodox Church is not in that Church. It's a matter of being the same body, passed down through the ages.
8<
We have this Church that Jesus and the Apostles gave us, and this faith to proclaim. We have been told that this Church is the Ark of Faith and the salvation of the lost, and so we proclaim it as such. If you choose not to join it, we cannot say for sure you will be damned, nor that you will be saved. (Indeed we don't claim to say for our members if they will be damned or saved -- only that this is the Ark.)

---

quote:

---

The Lutheran World Federation confesses the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and is resolved to serve Christian unity throughout the world.

---

quote:

---

Also, the question about outreach and mission is really a very complicated one. For one thing, most of the Orthodox churches in the English-speaking world were started by people coming here from non-English speaking countries, who were not always viewed with great love and charity by their new neighbours. So a lay-low policy seemed the most prudent thing. Further, both the Russian and Greek churches are coming out of long periods of being under great repression (the Greeks, it is true, came out much earlier than the Russians, but then again it was much longer for them -- almost 500 years). In both the Soviet and Ottoman Empires, the penalty for proselytizing could be as serious as death. So there is a bit of built-in wariness that needs to be overcome. And it is, but slowly.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you really think that God cares a fig whether a person is a member of this Church or
that?

---

Yes.

---

• Do you think that God cares a fig whether a person is a member of this Orthodox Church or that Orthodox church?
• Do you think that God cares a fig whether a person is a member of this Orthodox Church or that non-Orthodox church?
• Why?

quote:

---

But you appear to be equating "salvation" with "what church you're in" which is not what we're saying.

---

quote:

---

Jurisdiction means who your bishop is. All the bishops of the various jurisdictions are in communion with one another (or will be soon; see the ROCOR thread in Purg), and all have the same theology and worship. So it's not a question of denominations. The situation as it exists now in UK and USA is most bizarre, but is the result of the Russian Revolution and its political and spiritual fallout. People of goodwill are working to reconcile the problems even now (again, see ROCOR thread), and eventually it will get ironed out. But it has nothing to do with denominationalism.

---

quote:

---

Many Christians view denominationalism as a regrettable fact

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
Is this really true?

---

Yes. I know this not only in theory, but because I see it on national TV network also when this happens, and this does happen in many cases! ETA: Not only that. Marriages between a Roman Catholic and an Orthodox are void when performed in the Roman Church; they are only valid if performed in teh Orthodox Church. So, we have people getting married in the Roman Church and then getting married in the Orthodox Church! Although the Roman Church recognises Orthodox marriages (and therefore they cannot marry in the Roman Church after getting married in the Orthodox Church), the Orthodox Church does not accept marriaged performed in the Roman Church.

Saint Bertolin, all the arguments you propose for the uncanonical Orthodox Churches are the arguments Sinisterial proposes for the different denominations. You are accepting the uncanonical Orthodox as part of the Church but you are not accepting different denominations as part of the Church. This is antiphatical!

Ian, I don't have them read that often, but, living in a country where Orthodoxy is the official religion I do hear them, because the events in the Church are covered by the national TV network

[ 15. May 2006, 09:25: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Hi Sinisterial,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
The church that I go to (IMO), rates low on the ‘weirdness’ scale. ... I would still say that people that walked in off the street would be weirded out. If fact, I am presently advocating that we have before church fellowship, as well as after church fellowship just so that we can tell people “you may not understand Church, but I will explain any questions that you have” ... Somehow I think that real people engaging in fellowship would be way more effective than a service that needs to be explained.

---

quote:

---

Is church-sluttism acceptable?

---

My spiritual father has given me permission to occasionally visit other parishes [as I live 1.5 hrs away from our parish and cannot come every week]: but I cannot commune, nor be involved in another church: which makes sense to me. Occasional dalliances may be alright, within reason, but I do not believe your suggestion would be acceptable from an Orthodox point of view.

As someone who still has struggles with the Byzantine Rite(*), having been exposed to the Western Rites when I began to take this thing called Christianity seriously, I believe I can see your point of view about liking aspects of both, but I also could see that being a member of two churches wouldn't work from my point of view of belonging to a Church, nor that of Orthodoxy I believe.

And thanks for the kind comment. Thank you for your considerate questioning also. [And interesting magazine: I read it during lunch.]


(*)though I will say I do love it: it has opened up to me a whole new dimension to liturgical and prayer life.


[edit: thanks Andreas -- I can't even envisage what it must be like to live somewhere where society and Orthodox religion are so entwined!]

[ 15. May 2006, 09:52: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinisterial:
[on a tangent whilst I can remember it] Out of curiosity, if I was at an Orthodox Church, and went up for communion what would happen if I

1. was a visiting Orthodox member;
2. A visitor, not belonging to the Orthodox faith, but the priest did not know; and
3. A visitor, not belonging to the Orthodox faith, and the priest was aware of this fact

[/tangent]

---

quote:

---

Allow me to rephrase:

• Do you think that God cares a fig whether a person is a member of this Orthodox Church or that Orthodox church?
• Do you think that God cares a fig whether a person is a member of this Orthodox Church or that non-Orthodox church?
• Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
[edit: thanks Andreas -- I can't even envisage what it must be like to live somewhere where society and Orthodox religion are so entwined!]

---

The problem(?) is that I know too much for my own good
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :
 
Sinisterial,

I think others are doing a far better job than I could, so I'll bow out here, save for to say this: I think that much of the difficulty here is that, as I have said, you are equating what we see as faithfulness to God's will as revealed by the Spirit to man-made rules. It seems to me that the reason we're not getting very far in this discussion is because we have very different views about God's revelation of the Faith.

As you say, you reject Tradition as authoritative. For us, it is THE means whereby God has revealed himself to his Church. That alone, if nothing else, shows that your claim that our beliefs are the same is not accurate.

Therefore, things based on Tradition are, in your view, things that should be changed when perceived "inclusiveness" would be, from a human perspective, a better way. For us, Tradition is divinely-revealed matters of Faith. We cannot just do away with it because some people may be upset by it, any more than you could edit out the parts of the Bible that may upset some people. Do you see what I mean?

Until both sides are willing to try to see how the other side sees this (without necessarily agreeing), then any discussion is futile.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Saint Bertolin, all the arguments you propose for the uncanonical Orthodox Churches are the arguments Sinisterial proposes for the different denominations. You are accepting the uncanonical Orthodox as part of the Church but you are not accepting different denominations as part of the Church. This is antiphatical!

---

Andreas, I'm emotionally and spiritually weary. I don't know what else to say. I'll just say this and then leave the thread entirely. There is a marked difference between what Sinisterial is saying and what I am saying.

There is a difference between Orthodox Churches with Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Sacraments which, due to an accident of secular political history are not currently in keeping with the all administrative canons of the Church, (which were never intended to cover such a situation and where economy has had to come into play), but are trying to regularise the situation, and churches that reject much of Orthodox Faith, reject Orthodox understanding of the Sacraments, reject Holy Tradition, and yet want to display an outward expression of Communion with Orthodoxy while having no intention of remedying the fact that such Communion doesn't actually exist.

The two situations are very clearly not the same. Both need to be approached in a spirit of humility and both need to be dealt with prayerfully, openly, and honestly. We must bear in mind that our prime purpose is the salvation of souls. The canons are there to aid that process, not to stand in the way of it. We must remember that while, at the same time, not sacrificing the Truth revealed by the Holy Spirit.

I'm glad you're in a church whose canonicity isn't called into question, Andreas. I'm glad you are in a country where Orthodoxy is so much a way of life that things like the situation where people like Mousethief, Josephine, Ian Climacus and I live seems strange. That's how things should be. There's no sarcasm or malice intended here. I really am glad. In one sense, I'm somewhat jealous.

However, our situation is a real one. We have not abandoned Orthodox Faith. As do Orthodox Christians in Greece and Russia, we are striving to live the same Faith as the Saints before us. We are suffereing from the consequences of atheist persecutors of the Church, during which economy was extended. In addition to which, we are in a missionary situation here, so we do not have the canonical stability that being in a traditionally Orthodox country presents. We are trying to sort it out, but the divisions are administrative, not doctrinal. Leetle Masha, on the Purg thread about the All-Diaspora Council, linked to an article by Archbishop MARK, my own bishop. It's well worth reading.

Prayers for us from our brethren in more fortunate situations would be very much appreciated.

For my own benefit, I'm just going to leave this thread be now. I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in discussions like this and took a couple of weeks off the Ship to take stock, and yet here I am again, doing the same thing.

[ 15. May 2006, 13:39: Message edited by: Saint Bertolin ]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think it's wonderful that ROCOR and the MP are reconciling. There is a lovely little monastery on an island not far from here run by two monks who are under ROCOR. They are lovely Christians and it's a beautiful little spot. And once ROCOR and the MP have re-tied the knot, I can go there and receive communion! And they can come to Holy Rez and receive communion! Is that not a reason to rejoice? A horrible wound in God's church is being healed. It is time to rejoice and pray, not to quibble and point fingers and be ugly about decisions made long before any of us were born.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Yes, Mousethief, I heartily agree! It seems to me that if we first mend the "schismatakia" (small, really small schisms), the "schismata" will come along eventually...

I read somewhere that some protestant denominations have over 200 different varieties. So this one "schismatakion" does not look quite so formidable in comparison.

Just thinking of all the nice new places we can go for retreats makes me want to go out and get me some new "retreat clothes"!

Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
If Tony will forgive me: what are Orthodox retreat clothes? Do they involve seersucker, stretch terry, or lycra like some vacation clothes but tailored for modesty in prostration?

Just my funny; I'm trying to make Saint Bertolin smile.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
I read somewhere that some protestant denominations have over 200 different varieties.

---

I'm not sure that's a valid comparison though, because those varieties are in most cases not out of communion with each other - and if they are, they would generally regard it as a structural issue or even an irrelevance.

If they viewed the situation as a wound in the Body of Christ - as you or I possibly think of MP/ROCA or Anglican/Catholic or East/West - it would be a different matter.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Well, Greyface, I was thinking in terms of Baptists in the U.S. South, but I take your point. What was stuck in my mind were some distinctions that may, truth be told, no longer exist, i.e., Primitive Baptists (who practice the washing of each other's feet); "Hardshell" Baptists (who practice closed communion); Freewill Baptists (who thus differentiate themselves from more Calvinistic Baptists; and "Missionary" Baptists, who focus on evangelism.

I mentioned the divisions within protestantism because I have an unquenchable hope that when the great day comes when we have just Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, without any liturgical or ethnic designations added, we'll be closer to having just one universal Church. Wouldn't that be great?

Sorry to be a failure there in communicating in words!

Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Oops! Lyda*Rose, God bless you! I am sure you did make St. Bertolin smile! You certainly made me smile!

As you probably guessed, going out to buy "retreat" clothes would actually just give me a good excuse to indulge my shopaholicism; but what I would really love to have, and cannot find anywhere, is the kind of dress they used to call a 'shirtwaist' dress. It buttons down the front to the waist, has a collar just like a shirt, a gathered skirt and usually a pretty braided belt.

/tangent off

Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Sorry to be a failure there in communicating in words!

---

No need to apologise. I just felt it was important to make the distinction that the 20000+ (or whatever) Protestant denominations aren't actually evidence of there being that many schisms but rather to my mind, of a depressing factionalism. A subtly different problem.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
I see what you're saying Greyface.... It is subtly different, but depressing all the same.

Oh well. What can we do but pray for one another?

Best wishes,

Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Retreat clothes are clothes that are only camouflaged on the back.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 


Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :
 
I've been away from the Ship for a while, and have spent a day or two trawling through threads to see what's buzzing.

This one caught my eye, because I've been reacquainting my self with Orthodoxy recently.

If I may return to the original theme of the thread:

I recently attended the baptism and chrismation of a friend who had swum the Bosphorus from the CofE.

At no time did I feel 'excluded' during the Divine Lirurgy.

I joined in with the singing, I was even found a seat when my arthritic knee could stand no more!
I had no problem omitting the filioque in the Creed (like a lot of Anglicans I suspect!)
I can even respond now to the Litany in church Slavonic!

And at Communion I did not feel left out. I had no expectation of receiving, so I didn't feel miffed! I do 'understand' why I cannot, so I left my arrogance at the door.

I was, however, struck by the sense of awe at that sublime moment. The intimacy, as well as the reverence and respect with which Communion was given and received caused me to take stock of my own celebration of the Eucharist.

Far from feeling 'excluded' I felt thoroughly 'included' when invited by the Priest to venerate the cross and share in the antidoron.

Whilst not 'in communion' I certainly felt that I was in fellowship.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
What a nice post, Saint Chad! If you're ever in Seattle, by all means look us up and I'll buy you a cup of your poison of choice!
 

---

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :
 
Thank you Mousethief. It's 22 years since I visited Washington State.

If I ever get the chance to return it'll be a Bombay Sapphire & tonic, or a Tanqueray martini!
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well I can do the Tanqueray martini with supplies on hand. The Bombay Sapphire might require a run to the liquor store.
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I'm an Anglican by tradition. I my village there is no Orthodox presence. However, if there were, then I would most certainly attend occasionally for the Divine Liturgy.

What if, when communion is being administered, I just went up to the front to receive. What would happen? What if the priest, perhaps a bit taken back, took me aside and said, 'sorry, but you can't receive'? What if I said, 'But I believe in Christ and want to partake of his body and blood'?

What would the rest of the congregation think? How would I feel? How would any friends or family I had brought with me feel? How awkward and naive...

---

quote:

---

Whatever the 'theology' the experience would be simply un-inviting.

With this in mind it is just impossible to hear 'We want everyone to partake in the sacraments' and not laugh (sorry St. Bertolin ).

---

quote:

---

The elephant in the room of this whole subject is the massive 'as long as' which goes with this experience. 'As long as' I refuse to take the sacraments in any other church, 'As long as' I've sat the 'catechal course' and have been 'chrismated' (and if this isn't another 'initiation' ritual extra to pure baptism then I don't know what is)... then I can partake of the sacraments.

---

quote:

---

This is invitation with conditions, and the conditions aren't simply confidence in Christ. Jesus reprimanded the disciples from preventing little children from coming to him - I think denial of Christ to any approaching even if with 'unorthodox' childlike faith carries a larger anathema than any human council can pronounce.

I'm probably about 99.9% Orthodox and it's precisely THIS which stops me going any further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
We don't accept the "branch theory"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Tommyrot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brown Scapular:
A question for the Orthodox amongst you:

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?

---

Hi Brown Scapular. Welcome aboard.

It isn't simply a matter of the understasnding of the Sacrament itself, but of ecclesiology.

We had a not dissimilar discussion recently on the Stella Maris board, where it came to light that there is a variety of thought on the status of Catholicism, from no different from any other non-Orthodox church to Orthodox in theology but simply out of communion. What can be said is that under normal circumstances, a Catholic Christian would not receive in an Orthodox Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church stipulates that, in situations where Catholics are permitted by their own discipline to receive in Orthodox churches, it may only be done where there is hierarchical agreement, i.e. there must be epicopal permission for this on both sides.

As I said above, it isn't to do with the understanding of the Sacrament alone. If that were the case, there would be no problem with you receiving in my parish. However, we do not communicate Catholics in my jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions will do so in exceptional circumstances, such as if you were on your deathbed and couldn't access a Catholic priest. Father Gregory is a priest in an Orthodox jurisdiction that does, in certain circumstances, communicate Catholics with the bishop's permission. He will know the exact procedures better than I do and may be along at some point to explain.
 

---

Posted by Brown Scapular (# 11687) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :
 

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. I don't know whether Word Association is still going but if so, you can probably do it by the end of today.

quote:

---

BTW I presume that all Orthodox can communicate in each others churches, ie. Greeks in Russian/Romanian/Bulgarian et al 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 ]

[ 29. July 2006, 11:15: Message edited by: Saint Bertolin ]
 

---

Posted by Brown Scapular (# 11687) on :
 
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!?
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
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

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
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertolin (# 5638) on :
 

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

---

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').

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---

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'.

---

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).
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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!

 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Historical continuity.

---

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: 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.

---

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!

---

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

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

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Export safe copy of a cert = the granting by a bishop of Letters Dimissory for transferring a priest to another diocese....

M
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Oh, dear, ken. I'm afraid you're White n Nerdy.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
I don't know that I understand all of what you've said.

---

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...

---

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).

---

quote:

---

Communion in the Orthodox Church is not closed, and it never can be, because the love of Christ is not closed to anybody.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0