|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In the bread or in the eating?
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Orthodox do not receive Communion willy nilly even in their own Church.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that orthodox christians can't take communion in other orthodox churches?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
No, not at all. I mean that Orthodox Christians in any Orthodox Church (their own or elsewhere) don't receive Communion willy nilly. Due preparation and penitence are vital. An Orthodox Christian will abstain voluntarily until these things are sorted out in his or her life. This creates a different mental approach than in those churches where receiving Communion is the only acceptable or conventional mode of engaging in the Eucharist.
--------------------
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
So if we were all penitent, and prepared, and we invited you to our communion then, would you commune with us?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Perhaps Scot should have said that he would be very much interested in hearing a reasoned argument as to why his communion is not one in which orthodox christians would partake.
But that's easy. Because it's not under the auspices of an Orthodox bishop. Sorry, Father Gregory, but I must disagree about the RCC thing. I can't think of any Orthodox jurisdiction in North America that would intercommune with the RCC.
quote:
For me the problem is that the orthodox church sees itself as the church, rather than one amongst equals.
I can see how that might be a problem for you. Historically, however, it's hard for me to see it your way.
quote:
For this reason it accepts the practices of its own tradition, even down to accepting variations introduced by factions of its own tradition, but refuses to accept the practices of traditions of other denominations which are equally, if not more deeply founded in scripture.
Yep. Scripture isn't the bugbear for us that it is for you Protestants. Ecclesiology, on the other hand, has quite a different meaning and stature for us.
quote:
There is an air of superiority in this attitude which I feel detracts from orthodoxy.
I'm sorry you feel that way. For my own part it doesn't seem like superiority at all, just an acknowledgement of a historical fact. As one of our wits has said, 'Orthodoxy is the right faith given to the wrong people.' I don't feel superior to anybody; far from it. That's just not the issue at all.
quote:
This refusal to express an opinion, when quite obviously an opinion is being expressed within the orthodox church, for me, seems like a tactical manouvre. At best it is to avoid offence to other denominations, at worst it is because they know their stance is indefensible.
Actually it's neither of those things; it's because we dare not judge what God does or does not do. We can't say, "your eucharist isn't salvific" because that's nor our call, it's God's. If He wants to take something that he told us NOT to do, and make it work when others do it, that's his call. Why do you insist that we should box up God?
quote:
The funny thing is that, for a church which believes itself to be the church, which wants all it's congregation to share in one communion, it refuses to allow anyone with a different view to operate within its ranks, in short it actively excludes a large proportion of the christian church on this issue.
You're equivocating on the word "church." When you say we believe ourselves to be the church, then to be consistent you must admit that that large group of people we exclude aren't (according to our ecclesiology) the church, because they're not us, and we're the church. Thus you are attacking us for essentially not having the same ecclesiology you do, which I suppose is fair enough, but you must then show that ours is wrong and yours is right before that attack holds any water.
quote:
All for something it says it has no comment on! All for something it says it doesn't know about or is not sure about!
You're not paying attention. We don't say we have no commment. We don't say we're not sure. What we say is that God is God, and we cannot and must not insist that He stay in the same box he put us in.
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Please be careful not to misquote or misrepresent me. The statement above infers that I think your Communion is defective .... which is something I would never do ... I make no judgement on what God may or may not do.
Actually I chose my words carefully with the intent of making it clear that I am open to considering the possiblity of a shortcoming in my own position. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was trying to misrepresent you.
--------------------
“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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
You and I do not have the same understanding of the Eucharist ... in fact it is radically different and in unity terms we are further away. Why should eucharistic hospitality exist in these circumstances?
Because the hospitality is not ours to give, but Christ's.
We participate in the heavenly banquet. We are the beggars, the halt, the blind, and the lame, dragged off the streets to the wedding feast of the Bride and the Lamb. It is his body and blood in which we share, and his high-priestly sacrifice that accomplished it.
Christ does not invite those who understand but those who hunger and thirst.
--------------------
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
Dear Mousethief
We do not "inter-commune" with the Roman Catholic Church. Our bishop directs that on a one by one basis, if a Roman Catholic Christian in our diocese does not have his own church reasonably near he may receive Communion at our altars and vice versa. In Europe this is effectively none operative as there are invariably both Catholic and Orthodox churches within reasonable reach of everyone. It's the principle that counts. Nothing in the above should be taken to infer that we have full communion with each other when we do not. In America years ago many Orthodox were allowed to commune at Episcopalian altars BEFORE the Episcopalian church moved away from us on many matters.
Dear Bonzo
quote:
So if we were all penitent, and prepared, and we invited you to our communion then, would you commune with us?
No, I thought I had made that clear. There has to be congruity of understanding in the Eucharist itself. This we have with Rome. We do not have such a common understanding with your tradition .... which leads me on to the next point .... why the same understanding must exist for inter communion ...
Dear Ken
quote:
Because the hospitality is not ours to give, but Christ's.
We participate in the heavenly banquet. We are the beggars, the halt, the blind, and the lame, dragged off the streets to the wedding feast of the Bride and the Lamb. It is his body and blood in which we share, and his high-priestly sacrifice that accomplished it.
Christ does not invite those who understand but those who hunger and thirst.
Christ committed his authority to the apostles and their successors to bind and to loose. The criteria whereby the Church exercises that authority concern faithfulness to Christ's practice and teaching. Although we make no judgement as to what God does or doesn't do in Eucharists that come with an understanding radically at variance with what we believe we have faithfully received it would be a violation of that charge to receive in those places. Our modifications of this stance oonly apply to Churches that share the same understanding and which, therefore, evidently fall within the same circle of authority. If you wish to interpret that as a judgement on churches I cannot help that ... but that is not our eucharistic understanding or intention. If we always adapted our behaviours in life because we didn't want even to offend someone needlessly, nothing would ever be achieved and we would lose our own integrity. We must try and understand each others positions without trying to change them directly .... even if that leads to unequal pain.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
So if we were all penitent, and prepared, and we invited you to our communion then, would you commune with us?
May I come? I'd be honored. Odd, isn't it, to see protestant disunity in action?
quote:
Ken wrote:
Because the hospitality is not ours to give, but Christ's.
We participate in the heavenly banquet. We are the beggars, the halt, the blind, and the lame, dragged off the streets to the wedding feast of the Bride and the Lamb. It is his body and blood in which we share, and his high-priestly sacrifice that accomplished it.
Christ does not invite those who understand but those who hunger and thirst.
ken, you are going to make me go all gushy. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Fr. Gregory wrote:
Our modifications of this stance oonly apply to Churches that share the same understanding and which, therefore, evidently fall within the same circle of authority. If you wish to interpret that as a judgement on churches I cannot help that ... but that is not our eucharistic understanding or intention.
As I predicted yesterday, we have arrived an an impenetrable appeal to Orthodox tradition. AFAICS, there is nowhere to go from here.
--------------------
“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:
quote:
Originally posted by me
So if we were all penitent, and prepared, and we invited you to our communion then, would you commune with us?
Reply by Gregory
No, I thought I had made that clear. There has to be congruity of understanding in the Eucharist itself. This we have with Rome. We do not have such a common understanding with your tradition .... which leads me on to the next point .... why the same understanding must exist for inter communion ...
So the impenetrable Orthodox tradition prevents us from ever sharing bread and wine together as Christ asked us to. It seems to me that you place loyalty to tradition ahead of loyalty to Christ.
Gregory, weren't you once an Anglican, or have I got that wrong? Are you saying that your communions with Anglicans counted for nothing? Are you saying that you could no longer share communion with people you once called brothers and sisters?
Maybe some day we'll meet up and drink a pint or two of Robinsons bitter and a packet of Walkers crisps in the Blossoms. Maybe we'll talk about Jesus and how he was crucified for our sins. For me the beer might be the blood of Jesus and the crisps might be His body. For you, probably just beer and crisps. Who knows. But if we share food and drink together and remember Jesus, wouldn't that be good, whatever name you call it?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
Here we go again ... same missing of minds ... sounds of zoom zoom as we hurtle past each other in different directions. Let's try again ...
quote:
So the impenetrable Orthodox tradition prevents us from ever sharing bread and wine together as Christ asked us to. It seems to me that you place loyalty to tradition ahead of loyalty to Christ.
"Impenetrable" ... that would be the case if it was incapable of being understood. This is not the case. Not up for negotiation? On essentials, no. What are essentials and what are not? Open for neogtiation. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Tradition (uppercase T) for the Orthodox is NOT conventional practice but the whole of Scripture - as the normative core- patristics, councils, creeds, saints, art etc. In that sense Tradition is the mind of Christ. Your contrast does not work for us.
quote:
Gregory, weren't you once an Anglican, or have I got that wrong? Are you saying that your communions with Anglicans counted for nothing? Are you saying that you could no longer share communion with people you once called brothers and sisters?
I was indeed. I keep on saying that we do not judge the effiocacy of the sacraments of others. Nothing more needs to be said.
quote:
Maybe some day we'll meet up and drink a pint or two of Robinsons bitter and a packet of Walkers crisps in the Blossoms. Maybe we'll talk about Jesus and how he was crucified for our sins. For me the beer might be the blood of Jesus and the crisps might be His body. For you, probably just beer and crisps. Who knows. But if we share food and drink together and remember Jesus, wouldn't that be good, whatever name you call it?
What an excellent idea. I live in Cale Green. It would still be just a drink and a bar meal though ... good in itself but nothing else.
--------------------
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
One question left unanswered Gregory:
quote:
Are you saying that you could no longer share communion with people you once called brothers and sisters?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes.
Why? Because I am no longer in communion with the Church of England. There is no judgement on the efficacy of Anglican sacraments involved.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do not have such a common understanding with your tradition .... which leads me on to the next point .... why the same understanding must exist for inter communion ...
Although understanding is not required for Communion. Even a baby with no understanding may partake of the banquet.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We do not have such a common understanding with your tradition .... which leads me on to the next point .... why the same understanding must exist for inter communion I keep on saying that we do not judge the effiocacy of the sacraments of others.
I thought it was fairly clear from earlier discussion that the Orthodox do judge the efficacy of the sacrament of others' Orders.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Not the efficacy Chapelhead ... the status vis a vis the standard or norm. What God does through beer and chips (fries) is up to him.
Concerning understanding .... I don't mean the understanding of the individual or indeed we would not be giving Communion to babies, a practice to which you have correctly alluded. "Understanding" for us means the teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church .... as, for example, elsewhere .... in the understanding (teaching and practice) of the Church of England etc. Words, words .... so essential yet so capable of misunderstanding!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Not the efficacy Chapelhead ... the status vis a vis the standard or norm.
This sounds to me like a 'subtle' distinction.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
It appears to me that some of y'all don't quite understand what the Eucharist means within Orthodoxy.
For us, it's not:
Eucharist:Church::Meal:Family and Friends
It's much more like:
Eucharist:Church::Sex:Marriage
I think most folks understand and respect the idea of not having sex until you've been joined to each other in the Sacrament of Marriage, even if they don't hold it themselves.
Likewise, I expect expect married people who partake of sex outside of marriage to understand and respect the preference of those who prefer to refrain from doing so.
In the same manner, it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to expect you to understand and respect our feelings about the Eucharist.
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
I understand the stance your church takes on Eucharistic sharing and I respect it. I must say that the sharing attitude the C of E takes on this is one of it's more endearing points IMO. So while I understand your unwillingness to share with protestants who may not share youe Eucharistic theology, why are you unable to share with Catholics on a regular basis, given that there is little difference between your understanding of the Eucharist? It is my understanding that the RC Church shares with the Orthodox, but not vice versa. Why?
As an Anglican with a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, I have always felt somewhat affronted by the unwillingness of my wife's RC priest to offer me Communion. He says that he would, of his own choice, but that the rules don't permit it. It's a conundrum I share with the Prime Minister, who, a few years back used to take Communion regularly in his wife's church, but when he became more high profile was obliged to stop because of complaints. In the case of a mixed family, chuerch rules can cause a lot of personal pain. When my wife visits my church she always takes Communion, though it is against the rules of her church. She says she does it for fellowship. I don't interfere because that is between her, her church and God.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Gregory,
I find this all very sad, and I feel certain it's not what Christ intended.
Josephine,
Though the technique/philosophy/understanding of the Eucharist may well be of supreme importance to orthodox christians as important as sex is to marriage. Don't you think that communion between the whole church is what Christ wanted? Incidentally, I don't believe it's less important to me than it is to you.
For me a number of my pre-conceptions have been confirmed by this thread.
Firstly, that hierarchy within the church is a problem because it can steer the church away from unity and rebukes those who dare to be different, however well thought out their opinions. I now believe more strongly than ever in the priesthood of all believers.
Secondly, that a strong belief in 'tradition' within a denomination is untrustworthy. Tradition leads to entrenchment. It's rather like people saying that Shakespere is the greatest playwright ever, even if another, better, playwright comes along, opinion will never recognise her because everybody knows that Shakespere is the best!
Thirdly, that a denomination should never believe itself to be the church.
Conversing here with orthodox christians, it's obvious that the orthodox church has much to recommend it. But I get an underlying current of 'the orthodox do this' or 'the orthodox do that' and it feels like I'm not talking to a person with opinions of their own, who is evaluating what I'm saying and is prepared to modify their position. How can they modify their position if their denomination tells them they cannot? There has been much use of ' ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ' by orthodox christians here, but don't you see how much of a brickwall this is for the rest of us?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Faith.
It's not incompatible with reason, but it isn't subordinate to her either.
It's not a product of our understanding, it's a gift from God.
At best, those who do not share the faith (at least with respect to RC/O eucharistic theology) would like to see what reason justifies this faith. But it is the faith that justifies the reasoning.
At worst, they have found solace in their faithless reasoning: To choose one belief is to deny that holding the opposite belief brings the believer closer to God. God is omnipotent, God can cause any belief to bring the believer closer to God, therefore there is no reason to choose any belief.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
To choose one belief is to deny that holding the opposite belief brings the believer closer to God. God is omnipotent, God can cause any belief to bring the believer closer to God, therefore there is no reason to choose any belief.
My point entirely, I have chosen no dogmatic belief w.r.t the Eucharist.
However orthodox christians do choose one particular view of the Eucharist above others, and are forbidden from taking part in others.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
However orthodox christians do choose one particular view of the Eucharist above others, and are forbidden from taking part in others.
And we wonder why you can't let us be that way instead of wanting to change us to be like you.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Bonzo
I agree with you. It CAN'T be what Christ intended. The divergent thologies of the churches have rent assunder the COMMUNION which is a sharing by all of the Body and Blood of our Lord, with ALL believers.
There are irreconcileable theological differencs between the churches over the Eucharist. Then there are the long standing political differences between the churches about authority and hierarchy.
This is all a disgraceful affront to Christ. His only command in this respect was, "DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo: quote:
To choose one belief is to deny that holding the opposite belief brings the believer closer to God. God is omnipotent, God can cause any belief to bring the believer closer to God, therefore there is no reason to choose any belief.
My point entirely, I have chosen no dogmatic belief w.r.t the Eucharist.
Have you chosen "dogmatic" belief in anything? If you do, I would like to ask how your faith evades the inescapable logic you advance against eucharistic theology?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Though the technique/philosophy/understanding of the Eucharist may well be of supreme importance to orthodox christians as important as sex is to marriage. Don't you think that communion between the whole church is what Christ wanted?
Yes, of course. The question is, of course, who, or what, is the Church? For us, the Church means the Orthodox Church. The Anglican Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Baptist Church, isn't the Church, or part of the Church, or a denomination within the Church. None of those things are possible for us.
quote:
Incidentally, I don't believe it's less important to me than it is to you.
Nor do I. But I do think it means something different to you. Not something less important, but something different.
quote:
Conversing here with orthodox christians, it's obvious that the orthodox church has much to recommend it. But I get an underlying current of 'the orthodox do this' or 'the orthodox do that' and it feels like I'm not talking to a person with opinions of their own, who is evaluating what I'm saying and is prepared to modify their position.
I'm *not* prepared to modify my position on anything on which the Church has ruled. That's part of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian; I accept the Church's teachings. It's not offered on a cafeteria plan -- you take the whole thing, or none at all.
But there are many things on which the Church has NOT ruled, areas where there is wide diversity among Orthodox Christians. Like, exactly what happens after you die? Bring that up in a group of Orthodox, and you'll get *lots* of opinions! Or whether taxes should be more or less, or how schools ought to go about teaching reading, or whether Christians should vote.
But wrt the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Sacraments, the Theotokos, you won't get a wide range of opinion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
quote:
Firstly, that hierarchy within the church is a problem because it can steer the church away from unity and rebukes those who dare to be different, however well thought out their opinions. I now believe more strongly than ever in the priesthood of all believers.
Secondly, that a strong belief in 'tradition' within a denomination is untrustworthy. Tradition leads to entrenchment. It's rather like people saying that Shakespere is the greatest playwright ever, even if another, better, playwright comes along, opinion will never recognise her because everybody knows that Shakespere is the best!
Thirdly, that a denomination should never believe itself to be the church.
I am afraid none of this reflects our position at all although it certainly represents your response to certain understandings that we do not share. Allow me to explain ...
This has absolutely nothing to do with hierarchy. Orthodox Christians do not intercommune because a hierarch, priest, whatever tells them not to, but because so to do ... short of organic unity ... would compromise OUR understanding of the Church ... clergy and lay people together. NONE of our congregation would commune in, say, an Anglican Church NOT because I have told them not to but because they affirm a position where they freely choose not to. You would have to speak to some Orthodox people to confirm that ... but it is true.
Tradition is not historical subservience to the forms of the past as best ... because they are "past" ... as I said ... it is all though things I mentioned before which together stretch from the past to the present and from thence unto the future all under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ... Scripture as the normative core, patristics, councils, creeds, saints, art etc. The latest addition to the Tradition stream from the see of Antioch has been the newly glorified Saint Rafael (Haweeny) of Brooklyn ... an Antiochian bishop who did much to unite and provide a common vision for Orthodox mission in America. No one says ... "Oh ... St. Rafael was better than St. Seraphim of Sarov or not as significant as St. Symeon the New Theologian." Each has his or her won place. We love them all.
True ... a denomination should not consider itself to be the true Church. A denomination is a fragment named (nomine - Latin) after its founder of founding principles. No one before the 19th century used the word denomination or had an ecclesiological position represented by that term. I know many here can't accept this but the word "denomination" cannot be used of any Church who by its continuous historical lineage in faith and life originates from Pentecost. Denominations seek to continuous with the early Church spiritually but they are not continuous with the early church organically. That matters to us as a criterion of truth-fulness. The only way to remedy that retrospectively is to seek and work for organic union. Until this impasse between the Protestant Churches on the one hand and the Catholic / Orthodox Churches on the other hand is resolved there will be no definitive progress from our point of view on the ecumenical front.
--------------------
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
Gregory
We will have to agree to differ. I could say a number of things in answer to this but I'm afraid I'd come up against that old brick wall again.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This has absolutely nothing to do with hierarchy. Orthodox Christians do not intercommune because a hierarch, priest, whatever tells them not to, but because so to do ... short of organic unity ... would compromise OUR understanding of the Church ... clergy and lay people together.
Father Gregory is absolutely right on this point, Bonzo. There is church law that forbids sex outside of marriage, and there is church law that forbids intercommunion. But I don't refrain from sex outside marriage because my priest or bishop said I should, nor do I refrain from intercommunion because my priest or bishop said I should.
I don't *want* to take communion anywhere else.
Please, Bonzo, think about what I've said. From my POV, you're like the Don Juan who thinks that any woman who turns him down must be frigid. Let me assure you, that's *not* the problem.
--------------------
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
I have said it before, and I say it again now: I believe that the Orthodox church is in grave error on this issue. However, I respect the right of individual Orthodox to choose to be bound by their own church's teachings and traditions.
Please do not worry about me; I am not hurt or angered by your choice to refuse communion with me and my church. I am saddened, but any injury is yours alone.
--------------------
“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
What Scot said. However I also think that Christ himself must be saddened by this.
I long for the day when Christians can have the lattitude to share communion together, but it's evident that it's a way off. Should we not pray for the obstacles to be removed?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I too am sad. I have tried to bring an open and questioning mind to this discussion, and as regards eucharistic theology the discussion is far from finished, but time and again 'The Orthodox...' whatever - belief, practice, position, understanding, tradition - is invoked and a door slams shut.
There is a grave injury to us all here.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
quote:
Should we not pray for the obstacles to be removed?
Indeed we should ... moreover we should WORK to remove those obstacles. For example ... your church Bonzo will not baptise babies. Mine must. Your church emphasises the believer's faith for baptism to mean anything. My church emphasises God's grace and mystical joining. If we are not even agreed on the core of baptism (which makes us members of the Body of Christ) how can we fully share that other sacrament, the Holy Eucharist where the Body receives the Body?
There are many many other examples .... suffice it to say that for the Orthodox obstacles of incompatible beliefs and practices must be removed first or else unity is a sham. The Eucharist can only be shared by Christians who are thus united in the Lord ... not onoy by virtue of our common relationship with Christ but also by virtue of what we do in our churches to express and celebrate that unity.
If this is a brick wall then I suggest we need to meet on another groundf where our irreconcilable positions can be looked at in a fresh way. Communion is the last piece to fall into place for us ... not the first.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
[QB][...The question is, of course, who, or what, is the Church? For us, the Church means the Orthodox Church. The Anglican Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Baptist Church, isn't the Church, or part of the Church, or a denomination within the Church. None of those things are possible for us.
QB]
If I understand this correctly, then it really makes me sad. Because there is no room to even discuss intercommunion, no room for mutual recognition as members of Christ one with another.
Oh well. As Fr. Gregory suggested, it's on to another topic, I guess.
(sigh)
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo, Scot, Hatless and Lou,
I posted this earlier and got no reply:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo: quote:
Originally posted by me:
To choose one belief is to deny that holding the opposite belief brings the believer closer to God. God is omnipotent, God can cause any belief to bring the believer closer to God, therefore there is no reason to choose any belief.
My point entirely, I have chosen no dogmatic belief w.r.t the Eucharist.
Have you chosen "dogmatic" belief in anything? If you do, I would like to ask how your faith evades the inescapable logic you advance against eucharistic theology?
If you could explain to us how your beliefs aren't inconsistent with the above, then maybe RC/O would be better able explain their beliefs to you.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Dear Ley Druid,
I'm not sure I understand your post properly.
Dogmatic is a dirty word for me. My beliefs, such as they are, are my attempt to make sense of things. They are provisional, have changed and will change.
My private reflection on this thread and various people's attempts to understand each other and explain ourselves, is that it is good to sit light to dogma*. The Orthodox retreat into 'it's a mystery,' is one of the aspects of Orthodoxy I like. I don't know quite how Christ is present in the Eucharist, and I don't really care, and I think it is unhelpful to speculate too much about it. 'When does the bread become Christ's body?' for instance, is a question we should not answer. It will only lead us into foolishness.
In my church we do the 'Do this,' and don't have a settled view of exactly what we are doing or how it works. I expect some people think it's all about the bread changing, and some think it's just a memorial. Most of the time most of us don't think about it at all, we just do it, and that seems good. I think this is healthy. We should not have dogmatic beliefs, we really don't need them. A fluid consensus based on custom works pretty well.
I suspect dogma. I think it is there to keep others out, or to bolster the power of an abusive structure, or to safeguard the positions of the clergy.
(Incidentally, I hope you're not going to suggest that my desire to avoid dogma is itself a dogmatic belief. Cos it ain't.)
* perhaps we should set light to dogma.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Dear Ley Druid,
I really have nothing to add to hatless's answer. All beliefs are provisional for me too. I express them in levels of certainty which never reach 100%. The thing I'm doggedly determined not to do is to sign up to any dogmatic belief.
Bonzo
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fuzzy old Gamaliel would like to share some personal experience here which may, or may not, be helpful. I'm intrigued by Josephine's comparison between eucharistic fidelity and sexual fidelity within marriage. I like that. I can see how this works.
Now then. Am I eucharistically promiscuous?
I took communion at the Baptist chapel around the corner from my mam's in South Wales on Christmas Eve and then at the parish Eucharist at the Anglican church across the fields on Christmas day. Last summer, visiting my local parish church here in Leeds the vicar was delighted that I'd felt free to approach the communion rail. I occasionally take communion on a Wednesday lunchtime in a parish church near where I work - despite worshipping in a Baptist church on Sundays.
This would only be reprehensible if my ecclesiology was such that I felt myself to be committing spiritual adultery. I'm still broadly evangelical and belong to a church that practices believer's baptism. Yet I have no problem having communion with non-evangelicals and paedobaptists.
Some people would probably find this shocking. Or more likely feel that I've set myself up as my own Pope and do what I like.
Now then ... and I'm coming to my main point ... I used to have a problem with RCs and Orthodox not allowing intercommunion until I visited Fr Gregory's church. I was more of a hard-line evangelical then(1998)so my acceptance of my not being allowed to communicate was partly down to Protestant unease with what was the 'Highest' church service I'd ever been in. I was half expecting something to jump out and 'get' me.
Despite all that, something sort of made sense. I didn't feel excluded or affronted. Not to receive meant respecting the integrity of what was going on. And besides, those principled but often cuddly Orthodox do put aside the 'antidoron' for non-Orthodox Christians to eat. And very hospitable this is too. Why don't RC's do that?
I can understand why Bonzo and hatless and the others get vexed at the Orthodox, but tolerant and fluffy soul that I am, I can also understand why the Orthodox take the stance they do. And I respect it. Where it does worry me is when non-Orthodox Christians get a hard time in Orthodox countries. As I've said before, I know of genuine instances of Greek women beaten up and hospitalised by their husbands for converting to evangelical Protestantism. My brother-in-law tells me that some Orthodox Bishop in the Balkans somewhere recently said that evangelicals out to be shot.
Now there are a few I can think of who ought to go before a firing squad ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Now,I'd equally accept that many Orthodox are genuinely ecumenical and eirenic. Often more so than some Protestants.
So ... that may or may not have helped. I'm not upset that I'm not allowed to communicate in an RC or Orthodox Church. At one time I'd have said to the Catholics 'I don't believe in transubstantiation anyway so nah-nah-nah-na-nah you Papists.' I'm not sure what I'd have said to the Orthodox. 'Like your hat,' probably.
I would be upset if I were only allowed to communicate in a Baptist church and couldn't do so in an Anglican or Methodist setting though.
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
You still didn't explain why Catholics willingly share Communion with Orthodox, but not vice versa except in extremis. If you share Eucharistic theology with Rome, why not inter-communion?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Paul
For us it cannot only or simply be a question of us have the same or similar eucharistic theology as Rome. Communion and membership / faith / order / life are a whole package for us. We tend to be a bit more measured because we have a clearer focus on the remaining problems between us and Rome. Rome can afford to be more inclusive because it is numerically and financially stronger in the west and it suits its longer term objective of "getting everyone in" (especially according to this Pope ... being an eastern European ... the Orthodox) to be "open for business" as far as we are concerned. That makes perfect sense for Rome ... less sense for us.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Now then. Am I eucharistically promiscuous?
<snip> This would only be reprehensible if my ecclesiology was such that I felt myself to be committing spiritual adultery.
Exactly, Gamaliel! That's what I've been trying to get across, and failing so miserably at.
I know that many of my friends have sex with people they're not married to, and I don't have a problem with that. But I *would* have a problem if they insisted that I join them in casual sex. We've made different choices, and I expect us all to respect each other.
Respect does NOT include insisting that I have sex with someone other than my husband, to avoid hurting someone's feelings, or to prevent some sort of unspecified injury caused by my refusal. You can't expect me to commit adultery to protect your feelings. And the fact that it would not be adultery for *you* doesn't change the fact that it would be for *me*.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Moving on...
quote:
Where it does worry me is when non-Orthodox Christians get a hard time in Orthodox countries. As I've said before, I know of genuine instances of Greek women beaten up and hospitalised by their husbands for converting to evangelical Protestantism. My brother-in-law tells me that some Orthodox Bishop in the Balkans somewhere recently said that evangelicals out to be shot.
The husbands ought to be excommunicated (besides being arrested), and (forgive me) the bishop ought to be deposed. In the Orthodox Church, the requirement for a husband to love his wife is a serious one -- the meaning of that love is revealed to us every year during Holy Week, when the Icon of the Bridegroom is brought out for our veneration. There's no room in that love for abuse.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Josephine
I am with you 100% on the analogy and its conclusions. Our approach reflects that in Ephesians 5 where the analogue between marital union and the union of Christ and His Church is explicit.
The hurdle we are falling down on here though with our Protestant friends is not the Eucharist but the doctrine of the Church. The west has, generally, followed the Augustinian rather than Cyrianic model both as to salvation and identity. So, the validity (western term) of sacraments is down to form and intent. The Orthodox do not look at the Eucharist in isolation from other issues, (neither does Catholicism but the emphasis is different I think). I do think though that there is common ground between certain emphases in Orthodoxy and the 2nd Vatican Council concerning ecclesiology, [this is referred to in "The Orthodox Church" by Bp. Kallistos (Timothy) Ware]. Many Orthodox, whilst saying that the fulness of the Church is to be found in Orthodoxy, would not deny but rather celebrate orthodoxy wherever it may be found. This is the basis of the old adage .... we know where the Church is but not where it isn't. This is the basis for qualifying the otherwise total and absolute ban on opening our altars (in a VERY restricted and limited sense) to other Christians ... primarily Roman Christians (but not clergy) when they do not have their own church near. I would be interested to know for example whether or not more liberally minded Orthodox clergy in Russia give Communion to Russian Catholics if their own nearest community is hundreds of miles away, (which will be the case in some parts of Russia).
--------------------
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
typo ... "Cyprianic" not "Cyrianic."
Some here may wonder why different rules apply to clergy.
This is one aspect of Orthodoxy that I find puzzling .... even incoherent ... particualrly as private masses are uncanonical for the Orthodox. Maybe it's because we say: "well, he - a Catholic priest - can say mass by himself by his own Church's rules." BTW ... can he still do that? It doesn't really explain the differentiation though since even if I was on my death bed I couldn't receive the last rites from a Catholic priest if no Orthodox priest was available.
Can we just take the expressions of shock, disgust, outrage etc. etc. from our Protestant friends on this one as "red" please? Please don't get angry on my behalf. I am a man under authority and I don't jump up and down down every time I come across something I find difficult to understand (but not difficult to accept).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Good morning Father Gregory!
I've heard of Russian Catholics living in the more remote parts being permitted to receive the sacraments from Orthodox clergy (I think there was an article about it in The Tablet some time back, in fact.)
Oh, and I think the expression is "take it as read", not "red"!
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Hello JL! Yep ... sorry for the typo. On the other question ... are private masses still canonical in Catholicism and do any priests still say them?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Father Gregory,
Yep, they are, and they do. As the current Code of Canon Law puts it, "remembering always that in the mystery of the eucharistic Sacrifice the work of redemption is continually being carried out, priests are to celebrate frequently. Indeed, daily celebration is earnestly recommended, because, even if it should not be possible to have the faithful present, it is an action of Christ and of the Church in which priests fulfill their principal role." (904)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
[QB]Dear Bonzo, Scot, Hatless and Lou,
I posted this earlier and got no reply: ...
Have you chosen "dogmatic" belief in anything? If you do, I would like to ask how your faith evades the inescapable logic you advance against eucharistic theology?
...QB]
Ley Druid,
My thinking has moved away from dogmatic belief as that once meant in my life. Your question implies that there is an absolute objective eucharistic theology. I don't think this is true. I have, and all the posters in this thread have, a eucharist theology. Clearly these theologies differ. But there is one constant, as I tried to state in one of my previous threads. No matter how we understand the questions posed in the OP, all of us can and do affirm the words of Paul in I Cor, and the words of Jesus in Jn 6. As has been clearly shown here, the rub is our various ecclesiologies.
The Rev. Doctor Kenan B Osborne, OFM, writes in his preface to CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS IN A POSTMODERN WORLD: A THEOLOGY FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM (Paulist Press 1999): "That the challenges of postmodern thought clearly make one radically rethink sacramental theology will be seen in the remaining pages, and this radical rethinking in itself might be interpreted negatively as a denial of "true" Christian sacramental theology. My basic hope, however, is to indicate that postmodern ways of thinking and onto-thinking truly have something powerful to say in the ways in which we Christians in the third millennium not only theologize about sacraments, but ALSO LIVE SACRAMENTS" (emphasis mine) (pg.2-3)
Even the pope, in his encyclical FIDES ET RATIO makes the point that "the Church has no philosphy of her own nor does she canonize any particular philosophy in preference to others." (no. 49)
The history of dogmatics in the RCC world has been a canonization of Scholasticism, and a mistrust of theological thinking that is "outside the box." Edward Schillebeeckx is one of many theologians who have been criticized heavily by the Vatican for proposing new language for the discussion of sacraments. Is there another way to speak of the bread and the action within the catholic tradition? Certainly. I believe that it was Schillebeeckx who proposed the term "Transsignification" or "transfinalization" as a more appropriate term than transsubstaniation. And I would agree.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I am with you 100% on the analogy and its conclusions. Our approach reflects that in Ephesians 5 where the analogue between marital union and the union of Christ and His Church is explicit.
The hurdle we are falling down on here though with our Protestant friends is not the Eucharist but the doctrine of the Church.
Okay, this makes sense then.
After I joined the Church, I found it necessary to gain a full understanding of the Church's teaching about marriage. I was married at the time, and it was, well, a difficult marriage. I had to figure out what to do about the situation I was in, and to know what to do, I had to understand what the Church taught about marriage.
I read everything that's been written on the subject from an Orthodox POV (or at least, everything that's made it into the English language), and I was amazed to discover how intertwined our teachings regarding marriage, ecclesiology, and Eucharistic theology are. You can't understand one of them without understanding the others.
It was a very fruitful study, one which allowed me to end my first marriage with the support (not the blessing, for he couldn't give that, but the support) of my priest, and which, with the help of God and the prayers of the saints, has allowed me to have a second marriage that is a truly Christian marriage -- which is, of course, the Sacrament of Love.
So, that's a long way around saying that you're right, to understand the Eucharist, you have to understand the Church, and to understand the Church, you have to understand marriage.
But I *did* try to explain that (but apparently not very well). Hatless, Bonzo, Scot, Lou -- were y'all not responding to the analogy I used because it just seemed like a rhetorical device, and not really a point that needed to be responded to? Or was it just completely opaque? Or something else? I'm really curious, because I feel like I completely failed to get across what I was trying to say, and I don't know why.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Josephine
quote:
I'm really curious, because I feel like I completely failed to get across what I was trying to say, and I don't know why.
Don't worry. I feel like that much of the time here.
--------------------
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
Josephine,
I understand your analogy regarding fidelity. My problem is the ecclesiology. I see the Church in broader terms. I am reminded of St. Paul in the beginning of I Corinthians when he scolds them for their incipient sectarianism. (I belong to Apollos; I belong to Paul; etc.) and he reminds them and us that we all belong to Christ.
When I approach the table of the Lord it is real sacrament for me, and embodying of my faith in Christ and my belief that we are, all of us, One Body in this One Lord. When we pray the prayer after communion we give thanks that we are "very members incorporate in the Mystical Body of Your Son." This is very real for me. The fidelity/marriage analogy does work for me, but I my ecclesiology is broader, and I have no problem coming to the Lord's Table with any group that gathers in faith to celebrate these Sacred Mysteries.
I expressed a feeling of sadness in a post above. That sadness comes from the recognition of the walls that divide us. My MO seems to be to tell a story from the past. So, here goes...
Some years ago, while I was an active Roman Catholic, an Episcopalian friend tried to convince me to attend an interfaith Cursillo weekend. I was ready to sign up, but I asked what would happen on Sunday morning. He told me that in the past, they used to celebrate eucharist all together. (I knew this, and I had known the RC priest who concelebrated with the ECUSA priest at the weekends.) But the RC bishop of San Francisco had disciplined the RC priest, and the shared eucharists had ended. Now, the RC's gathered in one room, and the Episcopalians gathered in another and they simultaneiously celebrated separate eucharists. The image made me unbearably sad, and I could not bring myself to participate. Yet we do the same thing Sunday after Sunday, don't we?
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Josephine, I'm sorry for seeming to ignore you. That wasn't my intention.
Communion is, for me, not like the private and sacred intimacies of sex. It does not constitute the Church and is not the property of the Church and does not belong only to the faithful. It is an open sacrament. I would say that it is really Christ who invites people to eat at his table, and that he is the true president. It is not for us to limit who may sit down, but to repeat the offer of fellowship that included, at the Last Supper, even Judas and those who were about to break the covenant of discipleship.
Allowing all and sundry to sup does not seem at all like sexual promiscuity to me. Communion is a moment of gift and grace. It is not sullied or cheapened by having the wrong sort of people share it, indeed it is for sinners, for those who are not sure they are worthy, who are not sure they belong or believe or are acceptable. It is undeservable generosity, a powerful and dynamic thing. At the table, no one has the right to sit by virtue of anything they are or have done. We all are invited and offered something from the hand of Christ. In this place where we can bring nothing of our own, we receive our true worth.
The Church is formed of people who have put their faith in Christ. It is not a pact between believers, controlled by believers, organised and codified by believers. We first enter the company of Christ - our Christian fellowship is secondary to this.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In typical Gamaliel fashion (for I did not choose my moniker without some care) I'd say that I agree both with Hatless and with Josephine here. I feel that Protestants need to appreciate why the Orthodox feel the need to protect their 'sacred mysteries' and guard them so jealously. It's because they are precious to them, that's why. Which is why Josephine's analogy of monogamous sex within marriage makes sense to me as a way of describing it.
Sure, I'm an advocate of open communion but I don't feel that I'm spiritually promiscuous. For me there's an objectivity about the Eucharist, Lord's Supper, call it what you will that operates irrespective of good, bad, indifferent, worthy or unworthy we feel. That applies however we do it. I've been to ecumenical services where we've separated with the Catholics at the interval to share communion in different rooms. This does sadden me. Yet I understand and accept the reasons for it. It doesn't stop me from enjoying fellowship with them on other levels. I might have female friends other than my wife, but it would be very, very wrong of me to have sex with them. Any other female relationships I might have must remain strictly platonic.
I do think that if I ever became Orthodox I would find it desperately, desperately sad that I was unable to share communion with my Protestant brothers and sisters. But I daresay I'd have to accept that as part of the package and have done with it. It might mean that I was able to share communion with Catholics though! Which wouldn't compensate ... not that I've got anything against them but it's just that I'm not a Catholic, I'm a Protestant ...
It feels funny writing this. As I've gone on I'm finding I'm becoming more sober, reflective and less flippant. These are weighty things. In practice though,I think all of us would agree that we often find more in common with individuals in other traditions than we do with some in our own tradition. I'm certainly not on the same wavelength, same planet even, as many evangelicals. They'd probably say the same about me.
Back to the plot though. I often feel just as about the Orthodox on these boards as they do with us - and probably with as much justification. That said, I do feel that some posters are all to quick to pounce on our Orthodox friends going 'Nah-nah-na-nah-nah it's those hoity-toity Orthodox on their high horse again.'
Listen up friends.
We've just ... got ... to ... keep ... talking ...
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
