|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In the bread or in the eating?
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Quite so Ley Druid. It reminds me of the response of certain atheists when we say that we are not biblical literalists. We HAVE to be biblical literalists ... because it is that in which they have invested so much time and energy in resisting. Here, I suspect, Scot, Bonzo and others have a stereotypical Orthodox / Catholic / Anglican view in mind. When we don't jump they get caught in a continuous loop .... which could be seen as trolling but is actually simply an unrelieved cognitive dissonance. It's not a problem I have and not a game I want to play really. If people can't take what we say at face value then that's their problem not ours.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I think the problem many people have, both with Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which I certainly had until I became a regular on this forum, is that because Catholics and Orthodox are so sure they are right on matters of doctrine, it follows that they will condemn anyone who disagrees with them. The words of Pope Pius IX well over a century ago give the lie to such a belief.
In my personal experience, although most Catholic priests have that slightly smug attitude that only they belong to the one, true church, ij practice they're very kind towards people who don't see it their way. The older I get the more I realise that it's the preserve od strict protestant sects to condemn the rest of humanity to hell. The Catholics and the Orthodox don't deserve such a slur.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
One caveat Paul. We don't say "we are right ... you are wrong." We say "We are doing what we were / are told." What God says to you is up to you and him. We believe that in doing what we are / were told we are being Church authentically. We think that this template is viable because of its catholicity. We invite you to try it. We don't say it's the only way but for us it's the only SURE way. That doesn't mean that we are going to get saved by following it though, (and you not) ... that's up to God. Faithfulnss is the issue ... not rectitude and judgement. We leave that to others.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
Thanks for your very ecumenical reply. As I've said before, I was brought up in a strict protestant environment. Though I've come to loathe that view, which is the last thing I must learn to forgive, perhaps something sticks. Anti Catholicism was always their main raison d'etre, in which the idea that Catholics believed only themselves were saved. That isn't so. It's extreme protestants who believe only them are saved. The rest of Christianity is quite normal.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
just to remind you where I'm coming from.
Posted by me earlier on inthis thread just to remind you where I'm coming from.
For some people meaning is found by believing the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Christ, and for those people, perhaps God makes this true (who knows), but it must be wrong for one person to tell another that what they're doing is wrong, when so much is down to personal understanding and interpretation.
And, to clarify, IMO it's wrong for someone to lay down the law over another person on this issue even within a denomination.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
IMO it's wrong for someone to lay down the law over another person on this issue even within a denomination.
How odd. We're willing to let you run things your own way in your own denomination, but you are unwilling to return the favour. Who's being closed-minded?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
If you have all finished with your DIY psychoanalysis, and you are done congratulating one another on being so misunderstood, I’ll clarify my own position for you.
I have no preconceptions of the Orthodox or Anglicans. Frankly, prior to boarding the Ship, I knew nothing of your churches. Any ideas I have, I got from you. I was raised with a whole load of preconceptions about Roman Catholics, but I figured out long ago that they were rubbish.
I have no problem with the Orthodox doing things the Orthodox way simply because it is the Orthodox way. You owe me no explanations for doing so. As I said plainly to Mousethief and Josephine, I understand and respect that approach.
The thing I have a problem with is when someone makes sweeping statements which, while based on Orthodox tradition, are applied broadly to all Christians. Statements such as you made back on the first page of this thread, Fr. Gregory.
You claimed that a certain view of the Eucharist is correct. You claimed that only very specific sorts of elements are acceptable. You claimed it was all specified by Christ. Then, when challenged to support your claims, you complained that the problem is that Protestants don’t like holy objects. Now, when questioned about your own admitted inconsistency, you are protesting that nobody understands you, and you are just doing your own Orthodox thing. You are treating Orthodoxy as a keep from which you can throw stones, and where you can hide when the debate gets sticky.
If you wish to confine your comments to Orthodox belief and practice, then do so. If you wish to debate openly, then be prepared to support your statements. You dishonor your own faith tradition by acting like a snotty little boy sticking out his tongue from behind his mommy’s skirts.
Which is it going to be?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Just to throw this into the mix:
I think that anyone holding a catholic view of the Eucharist would be willing to grant that what happens in a calvinist or zwinglian eucharist is precisely what the participants claim goes on: the participants receive through faith and remembrance the grace of Christ, though no essential change occurs in the elements. This would be a case of what we RCs call "spiritual communion."
The real sticking point is that RCs/Orthodox/ and (some) Anglicans claim that something additional happens in their eucharists: bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. I would be surprised if those holding calvinist or zwinglian views would agree that this something additional happens in RC/Orthodox/Anglican eucharists.
It seems to me that, at least from one perspective, it is the low view of the eucharist which is "intolerant" of the high view.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by mousthief
How odd. We're willing to let you run things your own way in your own denomination, but you are unwilling to return the favour. Who's being closed-minded?
Not me on this issue.
If a group of people in my church wanted to celebrate a 'high' eucharist, insisting that, for them, the elements became the body and blood of Christ. I would have no problem with that although I suspect others in my church might. I think it's OK for a church to practice communion within the church service in the way that the majority want, but I would not stand in the way of those who held a different view practicing in their own way, although I would hope to be able to find some way where we could share together.
In the church that I attend, after communion, the bread is left on the table until someone clears it away after the service. One morning a child tok some of the bread and was walking round the church eating it. I was intrigued by the response of the congregation. Someone eventually told the child to put the bread back, I suspect this person was afraid that some people would be offended. But the same thing happened in the following weeks and soon more children joined in. Now, it seems, it's a regular thing, and I also think a beautiful thing. I am reminded every time I see it that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little children and we must become like them to find it.
I do think that low church people can be just as intolerant on this issue as high church. I think that this is equally wrong.
I think, also, that it depends on how a denomination sees itself. If a denomination sees itself as one of many denominations serving the needs of a particular group of christians who want to do things in a particular way, then to maintain that tradition is not necessarily wrong. However if a denomination sees itself as the church for all people, then to hold hard and fast to only one accepted practice is intolerant.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
If a group of people in my church wanted to celebrate a 'high' eucharist, insisting that, for them, the elements became the body and blood of Christ. I would have no problem with that although I suspect others in my church might. I think it's OK for a church to practice communion within the church service in the way that the majority want, but I would not stand in the way of those who held a different view practicing in their own way, although I would hope to be able to find some way where we could share together.
The problem with this approach, from our POV, is that, for us, the Eucharist is, for the Church, rather like sex is for marriage. It both signifies and creates the unity and intimacy of the persons; it is "communion" in a sense far more than just eating and drinking together. It is becoming one.
The notion that some of us can have communion one way over here, and some others of us can have communion differently over there is -- it starts from different presumptions than we start from, it reflects a different world view than our world view. It's just not something that Orthodox would do, because of the very nature of what Communion means to us.
There are, of course, people with "open marriages," but those that practice such will have to forgive those of us who don't think an open marriage is a marriage at all in any way that makes sense to us.
(And, aside to Scot, if we start talking about marriage, we'll start talking about it from our own POV, and say things like "if you have sex with someone other than your spouse, you're violating the marriage." If you then point out to us that some folks agree to an open marriage up front, we'll backpedal some -- we don't say whether or not non-Orthodox marriages are "valid" any more than we say non-Orthodox Eucahrists are "valid" -- but it's as natural for us to answer from our POV as it is for you to answer from yours. I really, truly don't understand what your problem is with Fr. Gregory's posts. He's an Orthodox priest, for crying out loud. If *I* always answer from an Orthodox POV, why wouldn't you expect *him* to?)
Anyway, back to my point. The idea that someone can share communion with whomever they like in whatever manner they like is entirely foreign to our notion of what communion is. The fact that *you* have no problem with it just points out the fact that you don't think communion has the same significance that we think it has.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
The problem with this approach, from our POV, is that, for us, the Eucharist is, for the Church, rather like sex is for marriage. It both signifies and creates the unity and intimacy of the persons; it is "communion" in a sense far more than just eating and drinking together. It is becoming one.
How much I agree with you in my wish to take communion in unity! However, because many Christians are not othodox, and because they all have their own ways of doing things, you are never going to get all God's people celebrating eucharist/community in unity. Beleive me communion for non othodox, low church communities is much more than just eating and drinking together.
The question is, if some people have such deeply felt opinions to want to celebrate communion in a different way from the rest of the congregation, is it right to kick them out of the orthodox church because of that?
If, as most orthodox seem to be saying here, they are undecided on the validity of other forms of communion, then surely tolerating other forms of communion within the orthodox church must be preferrable to excommunication?
Doesn't the orthodox church see itself as the church, there to cater for all, rather than one of many flavours of Christianity?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I've been away from my computer for a few days and it's been interesting to read up on the discussion since.
I particularly appreciate Chesterbelloc's post about consecration and running out of wine and the various provisions for this. This has helped me clarify things.
I think that my belief that Christ is more present in the eating and drinking, in the common actions of the people, is significantly different from 'higher' more 'literal' sacramentalisms.
For me, the focus on the bread and wine and the importance given to correct consecration, reflects a different understanding of the Church. For some, the Church is mainly there in the traditions and continuity, focused in the priest and the liturgy. For me, the Church is more about the gathered congregation. I think this lies behind our different views of the eucharist. In one view, the Church offers its members the means of communing with God, in the other the Church is formed of people who together wait on God. In one view the Church is a sort of channel that God will use, in the other, it is a meeting of people of faith, a contact group for disciples. Something like that.
The story of the risen Christ appearing in the locked room keeps coming to mind. I believe I can never be sure where or how he will or won't make himself known.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The notion that some of us can have communion one way over here, and some others of us can have communion differently over there is -- it starts from different presumptions than we start from, it reflects a different world view than our world view. It's just not something that Orthodox would do, because of the very nature of what Communion means to us.
And previously posted by josephine:
In the Orthodox church, bread for the Eucharist must contain only three ingredients: flour, yeast, and salt.
How do you feel about an Orthodox celebration of communion using bread with added ingredients?
If it is acceptable, then there must be some principle which makes it so, and I am interested in hearing what that principle is. "It's all bread," doesn't really seem to engage the question unless Orthodoxy is prepared to admit pretzels and cookies.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
The question is, if some people have such deeply felt opinions to want to celebrate communion in a different way from the rest of the congregation, is it right to kick them out of the orthodox church because of that?
What if one partner in a marriage wants to have sex in a way that the other partner doesn't? That can't be solved by the one going off and doing things his/her own way. Sex in marriage is about what you do *together*. Likewise, the Eucharist is about what we do *together*. It is about who and what we are as a *community*, as a *Church*. If *I* want something different, that's irrelevant. It isn't about *me*!
quote:
If, as most orthodox seem to be saying here, they are undecided on the validity of other forms of communion, then surely tolerating other forms of communion within the orthodox church must be preferrable to excommunication?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Bonzo, I don't know why I'm having so much trouble communicating this. Let me try again.
We are NOT undecided on the validity of other forms of communion. "Validity" isn't even a concept that we consider WRT communion! It's alien to us, to what Communion is about for us.
Communion, from an Orthodox POV, is what the Church does together. If it's done by the Church, according to the canons and rubrics and such, it's Communion. If it's not, we don't know what it is, and we refuse to speculate.
quote:
Doesn't the orthodox church see itself as the church, there to cater for all, rather than one of many flavours of Christianity?
Yes. No. And Yes.
Which is to say, Yes, the Orthodox Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. But it does NOT exist to cater to ANYONE. It's not about what I want, or what you want, or the bishop wants, or anyone else wants.
Church is about healing, about reconciliation, about restoration. It's not about preferences and whims.
When my mother had her knee replaced, the physical therapist did NOT ask her what sort of exercises she would prefer. What she did was prescribe what was necessary, and take my mother through it, even though it was uncomfortable, even though it sometimes hurt. If she'd decided that it was her job to cater to my mother's preferences, it's likely that my mother would never have walked again.
And so it is with the Church. The Church is a hospital for souls. *This* is the treatment that we have been prescribed. If we don't like it, we can always go somewhere else. But we can't ask the Church to give us something that the Church doesn't believe will be efficacious. To honor that request would be unethical, immoral. Rather, the Church *must* say, "This is the only medicine that we know will heal you. Take this."
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
How do you feel about an Orthodox celebration of communion using bread with added ingredients?
If it is acceptable, then there must be some principle which makes it so, and I am interested in hearing what that principle is.
The principle is sometimes stated as, "Don't take your typicon into my monastery."
Which is to say, we really aren't big on telling other people, including other Orthodox, what to do.
So, if some past Patriarch of Antioch decided that it was okay for his faithful to add a bit of sweet spice to the bread for Communion, and that's what they've been doing ever since, the Russians and the Greeks may roll their eyes, but they aren't going to object.
Likewise, if the Greeks in the USA decide they want to have organ music during their Divine Liturgy, and the bishop says it's okay, the Antiochians and the Russians will roll their eyes, but not object.
If the Romanians want to kneel during the Great Entrance on Sundays, you'll hear a bunch of tsk-tsk-ing from the rest of us. But that's what they do.
We don't demand absolute uniformity. Within the walls of the Church, there is room for variation. But the space for variation isn't unlimited. There are boundary markers; there are canons that can't be crossed. And it's the job of the bishops to watch those lines and make sure we don't cross them.
So, the Antiochian bishops say a bit of cinnamon in the communion bread is okay. And that's okay with me. Our bishop says no, so we don't.
And there isn't a bishop who says biscuits or pretzels or chocolate chip cookies are okay. So there aren't any Orthodox who use them.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Josephine, thank you for a direct and honest answer.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine
Communion, from an Orthodox POV, is what the Church does together. If it's done by the Church, according to the canons and rubrics and such, it's Communion. If it's not, we don't know what it is, and we refuse to speculate.
Well if that's the way it is in the orthodox church I'm afraid that despite it's good intention, and to my mind, some attrctive, well thought out theology, it's a place where many christians could not find a home.
Perhaps this is a good thing. Perhaps the diversity of christian belief and practice, cannot and should not be contained or tolerated by one denomination.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
As Josephine said, in every church there is diversity and limits to diversity. So, you don't care for our limits? You don't have to. You're not Orthodox. Be happy where you are (as I am sure you are). We are happy where we are. Be happy for us. Why this fretting with what we do?
What is Scot who was having a go at me for saying "we perceive this to be the right way .... but we're not going to judge you?" We do NOT judge you. If you remain uncomfortable with the first part ("this is the right way") then what can I say? Should we lie to you? Can you not live with that .... provided that we do not judge you? Why try and make us look at things the same way you do?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Why try and make us look at things the same way you do?
I haven't realy told you my preference for communion. In fact my belief is that Jesus wanted us to remember his sacrifice every time we sit down for a meal. There's no denomination that I know of that goes along with me on that!
What I would dearly love all denominations to do, is tolerate more ideas within their ranks. Tradition, while it seems to serve many denominations well, as a balanced foundation, can be a two edged sword when it comes to understanding and communion (religious or spiritual fellowship) between denominations of differing traditions.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I haven't realy told you my preference for communion. In fact my belief is that Jesus wanted us to remember his sacrifice every time we sit down for a meal. There's no denomination that I know of that goes along with me on that!
I think that many Quakers would agree with you. They do not celebrate the Eucharist as a 'Sunday sacrament' but tend to say that every meal Christians share is, or could be, a Communion.
On that basis, the children who scoff the left overs after worship in your church are actually 'communicating' or 'receiving the sacrament.' Neat!
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
No, it was not Scot. I have no difficulty with your diversity, your limits, or your belief that you are walking in the right way.
My difficulty is with two things. The first is statements of universal truth which are supported by nothing more than a reference to Orthodox doctrine. If you cannot say why a thing might be true for me as a non-Orthodox christian, then why bother saying anything at all?
My second difficulty is with references to beliefs which are presented as absolute, but inconsistently practiced. If the Orthodox do not all believe a thing, then it is a bit shakey to defend the thing solely on the grounds that it is an Orthodox belief.
No, I do not dispute your right to your own beliefs or limits or diversity. However, if you are going to present your beliefs as being good (and I hope you believe they are), then you must be prepared to be confronted when your beliefs are inconsistent, and to defend them when they are challenged.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do NOT judge you.
Yes you do. You (plural) judge us not to be Orthodox.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do NOT judge you.
Yes you do. You (plural) judge us not to be Orthodox.
Er ... but that would be a statement of fact, not a judgement, no? I mean, you're not covert Orthodox having a cheeky pop from within, are you?
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I'd say we were Orthodox: but not in the rather-restricted colloquial sense of the word "Orthodox" meaning only those particular churches in communion with Constantinople
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do NOT judge you.
Yes you do. You (plural) judge us not to be Orthodox.
Er ... but that would be a statement of fact, not a judgement, no? I mean, you're not covert Orthodox having a cheeky pop from within, are you?
With respect, I don't think that it is necessarily a question of fact. In order to determine whether someone or something is Orthodox or not, a judgement has to be made. In some cases the distinction may be obvious, in others not. In all cases if some are to be labelled "Orthodox" and some "not Orthodox" a judgement is required.
It is perhaps more obvious if one considers "Catholic" rather than "Orthodox". Is the CofE Catholic? Well, it depends on one's definitions and judgement. Different people and groups will come to different conclusions. Just as they can on the question of whether the CofE is Orthodox.
With Orthodoxy, the CofE would, I believe,say that it is part of the same One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church as the Orthodox, which the Orthodox call Orthodoxy. The Orthodox have a different view.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I mean, you're not covert Orthodox having a cheeky pop from within, are you?
Er, no (not in the sense you mean Orthodox, anyway). But the idea is rather amusing. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I like to use capitalization to make these distinctions. Orthodox is the denomination (yes, I know you don't think of yourself as a denomination, but the rest of us do). Same for Catholic. When I am referring to the concept rather than the institution I use orthodox or catholic. People seem to understand what I mean.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I like to use capitalization to make these distinctions. Orthodox is the denomination (yes, I know you don't think of yourself as a denomination, but the rest of us do). Same for Catholic. When I am referring to the concept rather than the institution I use orthodox or catholic. People seem to understand what I mean.
It is a fairly widespread custom.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I like to use capitalization to make these distinctions. Orthodox is the denomination (yes, I know you don't think of yourself as a denomination, but the rest of us do). Same for Catholic. When I am referring to the concept rather than the institution I use orthodox or catholic. People seem to understand what I mean.
But you also have to be careful about the position of the word within the sentence. If you start a sentence with your ambiguous word we'll all assume it has a capital because it's the beginning of the sentence. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It is a fairly widespread custom.
And a very useful one. Problems still arise, however, as with my previous post where there can be different institutions, concepts etc which can be described as, for example, C/catholic.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yep. I would say that in a strict sense the Anglicans and Presbyterians are both Catholic and Orthodox. With a big C and a big O. And who knows, maybe those cuddly old Lutherans as well.
They are local churches, part of the one, Holy, Catholic and Orthodox Church, that made certain particular changes to their church order and government that some other churches did not wish to accept.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Originally posted by FCB: quote:
The real sticking point is that RCs/Orthodox/ and (some) Anglicans claim that something additional happens in their eucharists: bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. I would be surprised if those holding calvinist or zwinglian views would agree that this something additional happens in RC/Orthodox/Anglican eucharists.
It seems to me that, at least from one perspective, it is the low view of the eucharist which is "intolerant" of the high view.
Bolder yet, it seems, they would assert their view IS a Catholic or Orthodox view. That is, there is nothing more Catholic about the pope's view or more Orthodox about the patriarch's view.
I confess I have had a hard time understanding this. I think this is because the paradigm shift is very deep. Fr. Gregory keeps harping on about nominalism, and I think he is right. At the bottom of this is a conflict between idealism/nominalism and realism:
Communion is holy because I perceive Christ.
My church is Catholic because we call it that.
vs
Eucharist is holy because of God
The Patriarch of Constantinople is the head of the Orthodox church because he has been so consecrated by God.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Wrong way round. The Church - the whole Church, in time and eternity - is holy in Christ.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
We are uncovering very deep differences here and in some cases, very bitter wounds. The words "orthodox" or "Orthodox" OR "catholic" or "Catholic" are straining to contain that explosive brew which is ecclesiology and faith.
Bonzo talks about wanting acceptance of more diversity within denominations. Scot wants to call us a "denomination." as is his perogative, but that merely reflects his own ecclesiology, which, of course, we do not share. Bonzo perhaps thinks that he smells repressed dissent in Orthodoxy; perhaps not. At least, he finds it impossible to conceive that there should NOT be any repressed dissent ... anywhere in general and in Orthodoxy in particular. But this assumption is itself based on an epistemology and ecclesiology which is his own and not ours.
There is no evident solution here but there is, perhaps a hopeful invitation ... that we stop trying to define others as we define ourselves. I shall never perhaps convince Scot about my claims of nominalism. He will perhaps never convince me about the alleged defects in my apologetics ... but if we can both simply accept our differing starting points, we might then stand a chance of genuine advancement.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I agree, acceptance of anothers starting point, and attempted understanding are important. I also think it's important that we can all question our own starting points.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
What Bonzo said.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
Two questions rather unrelated to the OP, sorry.
1. Are Holy Orders a sacrament for the Eastern Orthodox?
2. If:
a: Holy Orders are a sacrament for the Eastern Othodox
and
b: the Eastern Orthodox are content to believe that their Sacraments are valid without stating whether the Sacraments of other Churches are valid
then:
why have Orthodox Churches in the past been willing to comment (positively) on the validity of Anglican Orders?
Pax out, y'all,
AngloRasc
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Anglican Rascal
We do not have the same understanding of "orders" as the Church of England although ours are certainly sacramental. The concept of "validity" is understood in a very different way. We hold that apostolic succession in terms of derivation of orders is not enough. There must be apostolic continuity in faith, orders and life. Without that continuity, validity (in a western sense) is nothing worth.
In the early decades of the 19th century, there were some Orthodox churches, (notably Constantinople) that were moving to a positive estimation of Anglican priesthood AS CONGRUENT WITH Orthodox priesthood (in other words interchangeable) on the basis of PREVAILING Anglican conditions. Moscow never accepted that so in Orthodox terms it was a non-starter.
Since then, a lot has changed in Anglicanism. We cannot have an interchangeable ministry if you have a ministry we don't accept ... women priests of course. Then there are the less easily defined variances between our churches. These have moved beyond welcome diversities, (rite, theological emphasis), and into areas that, frankly, shock us. If an Orthodox priest publicly denied and taught that a key aspect of the faith was up for grabs and probably not true he would be removed from his post. In Anglicanism that is never going to happen. An illustration ... a fellow ordinand once told his tutor at my theological college that he couldn't believe in the divinity of Christ and that he wondered whether or not he should be ordained. "No problem" was the reply ... he is now a cathedral canon. Now I know that Anglicans trumpet this tolerance as a virtue ... we regard it as a fatal weakness.
There is, therefore, no chance of recognition of Anglican orders until our respective churches come much closer together. As it is they are drifting further and further apart. These are tough and hard words but from our side of the equation they are a true reflection of our position.
Of course we shall continue to treat our fellow Christians with great civility and love and come to the consecrations of new Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury but please don't confuse that with endorsement of Anglicanism as a neo-Orthodox position. You will be disappointed if you do.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
Thanks for that, Fr Gregory,
I was also interested in the question as to why - if the EOs weren't interested in commenting on the validity of our Holy Communion - they would be interested in commenting on our orders.
Pax out,
AngloRasc
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Ah ... you misunderstand me AR ... we now have a "no comment" position on Anglican orders. That way, if they ever do come on board in the future we won't have a papal bull to rewrite! It's also a good deal more charitable and NECESSARILY agnostic about what God does elsewhere.
Please ... I am not EASTERN Orthodox. Call me western Orthodox if you must. Christianity as a whole is an eastern phenomenon but that is the only concession I will make. I am, simply, Orthodox.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Ah ... you misunderstand me AR ... we now have a "no comment" position on Anglican orders. That way, if they ever do come on board in the future we won't have a papal bull to rewrite! It's also a good deal more charitable and NECESSARILY agnostic about what God does elsewhere.
Hmmm - that's more than slightly confusing.
Does that imply that the Orthodox Churches were once gnostic about Anglican Orders and are now agnostic?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Ah ... you misunderstand me AR ... we now have a "no comment" position on Anglican orders. That way, if they ever do come on board in the future we won't have a papal bull to rewrite! It's also a good deal more charitable and NECESSARILY agnostic about what God does elsewhere.
Charity does not entail ducking important issues, especially if one believes that a large number of good Christians are working within an incorrect system.
Anyway, the Catholic Church - as recent events has shown - does not change her stance when Anglican clergy come "on board". Part of coming on board is accepting that Anglican orders aren't valid, and being reordained. What I want to know is how Orthodoxy would deal with a similar scenario - the lack of a position would seem to raise a problem when it comes to whether or not the new Orthodox should be ordained or not.
Or do you do conditional ordination?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
We don't ordain "priests" we ordain "Orthodox priests." So if you weren't an Orthodox priest before you came on board (which is of course an impossibility), you would have to become one after you came on board.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Alexis is correct. I was reordained. The agnosticism concerns the current status of the ministries ... not a conditional statement about future "validity." The current status arises from circumstances prevailing in the second half of the 20th century. The need to be reordained ... especially after recent developments will not be rescinded.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I perhaps should add that if a Roman Catholic priest becomes Orthodox he does so by simple confession and is received in his orders. Indeed the prevailing practice seems to be (usually) concelebration with an Orthodox bishop. This reflects the fact that according to both Catholic and Orthodox understandings there has been no defect, impairment or dubiety concerning the sacraments of our respective churches.
As soon as women are consecrated bishops in the Church of England this will be yey one more and perhaps final wedge in the Anglican-Orthodox reciprocity (such as it is) in ministries. Even as we speak the next Anglican-Orthodox consulatation is about to take place in Addis Abbaba (theme: the ordination of women) and one of our Deanery clergy is representing the Patriarchate of Antioch in Europe. I will update this thread when Fr. Alexander returns.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
This has been an interesting sidebar discussion on Orders which raised that dread word "validity."
As I thought about the OP, I flashed on a memory. Years ago, in my RC days I was an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at Sunday Mass in my parish. I was invited to a wedding of an Episcopalian friend of the family, who discussed with the presiding priest then invited me to be cup-bearer at the wedding eucharist. I accepted the invitation. The priest used a huge loaf of french bread for eucharist, and a good 90% of the eucharistic bread remained after the ceremony. The priest invited me to take the bread home to consume with a regular meal. I remember an instant tensing up, and I replied that my tradition would not allow me to do that. The priest said she understood, and that was the end of the conversation. (I don't know how she handled the bread, but I assume she brought it home and did what she had invited me to do.) I did a lot of thinking about my beliefs and attitudes toward eucharist.
My thought is that the answer to the OP question is "obviously both." If I believe that the bread becomes the Most Precious Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, something I do believe, then what do I mean? To belabor the obvious, the look, texture, smell, taste of the bread has not changed. So what has changed? Clearly, the MEANING of the bread has changed, as well as the meaning of the actions of eucharist. And those meanings are not "just subjective." They are shaped by our traditions. For those in the Catholic/Orthodox realm, we perceive the meaning of the bread to be really and irrevocably changed. We experience in the actions of taking-blessing-breaking-giving a representation of the saving action of Jesus Christ, made so immediately and personally for us that we can only adequately express it by calling it sacrifice. Those from a more Reformed tradition would express the meaning in language of memorial. My point is that the meaning of elements and action is shaped by our faith traditions. Our traditions differ, and we may or may not be comfortable with the language of "real presence," but we all echo the words of Paul: "this blessing cup is a communion in the blood of Christ."
I abhor the fact that any institution from any tradition would judge the validity of the eucharistic actions of any other tradition. I appreciate Fr. G's point that he is agnostic about such quesitons outside of Orthodoxy. I remember an experience while in RC seminary in San Diego CA. I was in a "folk mass" group, and we were invited to accompany at a Presbyterian Communion service. We were ordered, of course, to abstain from participation in communion. The Rector stated that "obviously, it not really Communion." I felt a nasty cold chill and immediately rejected that notion. (that was my earliest remembered intellectual challenge to the understanding of Communion that I had been raised with.) I did abstain from communion - and felt embarrassed for myself and my church.. Later as I developed a personal theology of eucharist, I came to recognize the aspect of eucharistic hospitality and its relationship to Jesus' ministry. That event was probably the first of many realizations which lead me away from seminary, and eventually (30 years later) away from the RCC.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Odd. The Anglican tradition is that all the bread and wine is consumed there and then.
These days some places do RC-style reservation. or take Communion to housebound.
I've never heard of it being taken home to a normal meal.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QB]Odd. The Anglican tradition is that all the bread and wine is consumed there and then.
QB]
Ken,
That's certainly true at my (ECUSA) parish. The Altar Guild assures that the remaining elements are consumed. We have a group that bakes altar bread for the 10:30 and 5:30 services. The 8:00 (Rite I) service uses hosts, as does the midweek eucharist. Hosts and a small cruet of consecrated wine are reserved for ministry to the sick and shut-ins.
So that wedding experience was unique. But it did serve as a good catalyst for thought.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
This may surprise you, but I agree entirely with your position on the validity of Anglican Orders and how the position can only get worse.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
