|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The offence of defining the Church
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Wood writes: quote:
I 'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out that what groups one to five have in common - namely Nicene, Trinitarian doctrine - actually makes them substantively different from groups 6 and following, given that none of the others hold to the credal basis that has over the last 1700 years come to define what makes a Christian (and what doesn't).
<snip>It's how Christianity has been defined for many hundreds of years, and frankly if it's good enough for Christians throughout history, why isn't it good enough for us?
This is a very important question. I used to think of the Church as a credal body - the collection of souls who believe the Nicene Creed. A credal ecclesiology emanates from a post-Enlightenment respect for individual human intellect. Orthodox have an ecclesiology that is primarily relational over credal. The creeds are a part of this, but they do not define the Church body.
and Custard writes: quote:
Do you exclude from sharing communion those whom Christ has included in his sacrifice of which and in which communion is a participation and remembrance, and who will share with you in the great Wedding Feast of the Lamb?
While I'm not able to speak for the Orthodox, I dare say that the statement above reveals a number of presuppositions which I admit I once shared, but with which even many non-Orthodox would take issue by asking:
1) Who can say definitively who will share in the great Wedding Feast of the Lamb? You?
2) Why do you assume that an exclusive ecclesiology is the same as an exclusive soteriology? You equate the two unnecessarily.
I see the Orthodox ecclesiology as a statement of humility not arrogance. It retains an understanding of mystery.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm arguing against this (to me) strange reaction some people have to being placed outside the boundary by a group whose doctrines they don't agree with anyway,
Being placed outside the boundaries doesn't bother me. I place myself outside the boundaries of any number of denominations.
Being constantly told, in any number of snide references to the One True Church and so on, that I'm essentially a second division Christian who may get the odd thing right but certainly doesn't have the guarantee of divine protection (this last comment has been said on these boards in the last week), is what pisses me off.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Being constantly told, in any number of snide references to the One True Church and so on, that I'm essentially a second division Christian who may get the odd thing right but certainly doesn't have the guarantee of divine protection (this last comment has been said on these boards in the last week), is what pisses me off.
You've missed the point of the difference in RCC thought between us and the.... ecclesiastical gathering of which we're both members - and our own status as Christians.
But I still don't understand what gets you so upset - even if the RCC said you weren't a proper Christian at all, why would that piss you off so much? The bishops of the English Catholic Church (sorry for the dig, Trisagion, you've been getting off lightly ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) say you are, so from an Anglican point of view Rome would be simply mistaken. If the opinion of Roman bishops trumps that, wouldn't it be more reasonable to swim the Tiber?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudyy:
and Custard writes: quote:
Do you exclude from sharing communion those whom Christ has included in his sacrifice of which and in which communion is a participation and remembrance, and who will share with you in the great Wedding Feast of the Lamb?
While I'm not able to speak for the Orthodox, I dare say that the statement above reveals a number of presuppositions which I admit I once shared, but with which even many non-Orthodox would take issue by asking:
1) Who can say definitively who will share in the great Wedding Feast of the Lamb? You?
No, only Jesus can say that.
The parable of the wheat and the tares teaches that on earth we will always include some who will be excluded from that feast, and we can't help that.
But we can help whether or not we exclude those who will be included. And I see no reason to do so.
quote:
2) Why do you assume that an exclusive ecclesiology is the same as an exclusive soteriology? You equate the two unnecessarily.
I don't. I assume that an inclusive soteriology should imply an inclusive ecclesiology, because I don't think we are at liberty to exclude those whom God has included.
This seems to me to get very close to the attempts to divide Jew and Gentile in the early church. Galatians 2:11-16, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 and all.
If we have all been baptised by one Spirit into one body, if we are all united in Christ, then it is not our place to draw divisions and say that someone with whom we are united in Christ cannot share communion with us because of secondary issues or church politics.
There is a big difference between that and saying that people of another denomination are not saved and hence are not part of the Body of Christ. It seems to me that people here seem happy to recognise that we are also part of the Body of Christ, but less happy to acknowledge that in their practice.
FWIW, I have known some lovely Catholic priests who have willingly admitted any believer to communion (and even allowed ministers of other denominations to preside). But I'd better not mention their names....
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudyy:
A credal ecclesiology emanates from a post-Enlightenment respect for individual human intellect. Orthodox have an ecclesiology that is primarily relational over credal. The creeds are a part of this, but they do not define the Church body.
Sorry for the rapid-fire posts but I wanted to pick up on this.
Isn't it the basis for establishing communion between two bishops in Orthodoxy, their orthodoxy and their orthopraxis?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Greyface,
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Being constantly told, in any number of snide references to the One True Church and so on, that I'm essentially a second division Christian who may get the odd thing right but certainly doesn't have the guarantee of divine protection (this last comment has been said on these boards in the last week), is what pisses me off.
MtM, let me assure you that no-one is suggesting that you are a second division Christian. To make the statements about the CofE that have been made (by me, as much as by anybody else) is to say nothing about the state of the relationship between you and God and it is simply unarguable that the CofE (as also other denominations) is a school for the salvation of souls in which lives of exceptional holiness have and continue to be led.
If you think I said that you don't enjoy divine protection, you entirely mis-read what I posted. Your divine protection is guaranteed by God Himself, throughout Sacred Scripture. What is not guaranteed is your capacity to teach the truth indefectibly, infallibly. It is my belief and the belief of my fellow Catholics that God does guarantee that to the Catholic Church.
GreyFace, if the Anglican bishops are the "Bishops of the English Catholic Church", what about those Bishops (Latin and other Rite) who are in communion with the Pope. If you called the Ukrainian Exarch a Roman Catholic, he'd be mighty p!##=d off. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Being constantly told, in any number of snide references to the One True Church and so on, that I'm essentially a second division Christian who may get the odd thing right but certainly doesn't have the guarantee of divine protection (this last comment has been said on these boards in the last week), is what pisses me off.
You've missed the point of the difference in RCC thought between us and the.... ecclesiastical gathering of which we're both members - and our own status as Christians.
So they think one thing about the CofE, and another about us as individuals? Do I have that right?
quote:
But I still don't understand what gets you so upset - even if the RCC said you weren't a proper Christian at all, why would that piss you off so much? The bishops of the English Catholic Church (sorry for the dig, Trisagion, you've been getting off lightly ) say you are, so from an Anglican point of view Rome would be simply mistaken. If the opinion of Roman bishops trumps that, wouldn't it be more reasonable to swim the Tiber?
It pisses me off because I'd like to see all the Christian denominations break bread (or a gluten-free substitute if necessary) together. These internal divisions only weaken The Church.
As for my opinion of the Pope, he is a very holy man. There are more reasons to stay this side of the Tiber than respect for his teachings (my desire to see all Christians fully welcomed in all churches, for a start...).
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I've finally understood what you mean MtM. It would all be alright if we all saw it the way you (and the CofE) see it and until we do, it's our fault. You've certainly spelled it out quite clearly, at last.
The problem is, in conscience, the vast majority of Christians in the world, throughout time, have subscribed to an entirely different concept of Church from that which you propose and those of us still living who take that view have at least some justification in Sacred Scripture and Tradition for our opinion.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
GreyFace, if the Anglican bishops are the "Bishops of the English Catholic Church", what about those Bishops (Latin and other Rite) who are in communion with the Pope.
You mean the RCC Bishops in England? A temporary anomaly. I view them as flying bishops for English Catholics that don't accept the autonomy of the English Catholic Church ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) - and when communion is restored we'll only need one set.
Serious answer - a necessary result of the schism and I'd be very happy if I woke up tomorrow and found we didn't need overlapping jurisdictions any more.
quote:
If you called the Ukrainian Exarch a Roman Catholic, he'd be mighty p!##=d off.
I'm actually quite interested in knowing how the RCC views its presence in Orthodox jurisdictions given the relaxed restrictions on intercommunion from the Roman side.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
There is a way through the minefield of discussion here. This thread seems to have homed in on - shall we call it - "table-fellowship" as an expression of whom we include or exclude in our own ideas of the "One True". So Anglicans are all lovely and cuddly and inclusive because we will admit people from other churches to Communion*, and the RCs and Orthodox are horrid because they won't.
But actually, that isn't what it's about at all. Those who say the Anglicans have a different idea of the eucharist are quite right. For us, table-fellowship is merely one expression of a deeper and more fundamental unity in the Spirit. For RCs and Orthodox, it is what we might call the ultimate or end expression of that unity. To put it another way: if we have a tick-list of the things that express our unity, then for Anglicans table-fellowship comes about halfway down the list, but for RCs and Orthodox it comes at the very bottom of the list, after everything else.
So this does imply we believe different things about the eucharist. But it also says that to use a Church's practice on table-fellowship as a measure of who that Church thinks is "in" or "out" is quite erroneous.
*But let's remember that CofE practice allows members of other Churches to receive Communion only on an occasional basis - if they begin to make it their regular practice, then sooner or later some commitment to the CofE is required.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
Trisagion, your arrogance and your trampling over our hurt and offence at this takes my breath away.
Perhaps they changed Purgatory purposes when I wasn't looking. Otherwise, would someone who is willing to treat me, my faith tradition (CofE) and my beliefs with a little more respect please expand for me on what Custard was saying? I am genuinely confused.
Is this a terminology problem? My understanding of The Church (caps) is all those who believe the gospel as laid down in the Bible and accept Christ as Saviour.
In answer to the OP, I would therefore exclude other religions from my definition of The Church. But I don't know whether I exclude them from those I expect to see in heaven. I think God's ways are much more varied than we can fully know.
BUT, moving on then to the situation WITHIN The Church, to be denied communion is, to me, a denial of my place within that family. It says to me that I am not really, in their eyes, a member of The Church after all.
Which, by my definition of The Church, is extremely offensive and hurtful. So is this the intent, or do the RCs / Orthodox define The Church as something different then?
If so, what is the CofE to you, if it is not part of The Church?
And if not, why am I not allowed to partake with you?
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Caz..., if I may presume to answer for Trisagion -
This is the direction I was heading in with my previous post. What we're really dealing with is not a wilful exclusion, calculated to cause offence, but a "two cultures" situation, with the RCs and Orthodox on one side and the rest of us on the other.
To be offended that we can't receive Communion in a RC church is the same as being offended that a Japanese person won't shake hands with us, or that in some countries we are expected to go about modestly dressed. For Orthodox and RCs, communion means something different - at least in terms of an expression of unity - than it does for the rest of us. We (frankly) need to get over it, and get on with the ways in which we all can be the Church together.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
To be offended that we can't receive Communion in a RC church
...or an Orthodox one, of course... quote:
is the same as being offended that a Japanese person won't shake hands with us, or that in some countries we are expected to go about modestly dressed. For Orthodox and RCs, communion means something different - at least in terms of an expression of unity - than it does for the rest of us. We (frankly) need to get over it, and get on with the ways in which we all can be the Church together.
I cannot possibly express how much I agree with this sentiment.
And no, I don't think it's fair to call Trisagion arrogant. You can, if you wish, call him wrong (i know I do), but his opinion is not borne of a personal arrogance - it's a party line, and quite a venerable one at that.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I've finally understood what you mean MtM. It would all be alright if we all saw it the way you (and the CofE) see it and until we do, it's our fault. You've certainly spelled it out quite clearly, at last.
The problem is, in conscience, the vast majority of Christians in the world, throughout time, have subscribed to an entirely different concept of Church from that which you propose and those of us still living who take that view have at least some justification in Sacred Scripture and Tradition for our opinion.
Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with Trisagion and Greyface more and more on this thread. I think half the offence is caused by not thinking of ourselves as Christians in pilgrimage together as our Churches continue to find ways in which we can all become one. This implies that we must have a huge amount of humility and trust as we all come with our incompleteness to share in the mission of the Church together.
I don't think I'm expressing myself terribly well, but some of my antipathy towards Roman Catholic and Orthodox attitudes to intercommunion comes from a frustration that we haven't moved fast enough to full visible unity. Instead, I need to value the huge strides we have made in putting away suspicion and sharing in real fellowship - which might fall short of what I ideally want - but which must be what Jesus wants for his Body.
To see things this way implies that we are serious about the goal of full visible unity, which it seems to me is increasingly regarded as an optional extra rather than an absolute missionary goal. The Pope's greatest gift to the Churches worldwide has been to continue to be passionate about that goal, despite huge obstacles.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
To be offended that we can't receive Communion in a RC church is the same as being offended that a Japanese person won't shake hands with us, or that in some countries we are expected to go about modestly dressed. For Orthodox and RCs, communion means something different - at least in terms of an expression of unity - than it does for the rest of us. We (frankly) need to get over it, and get on with the ways in which we all can be the Church together.
OK... now I'm confused.
What are these differences in meaning? Is the emphasis on fellowship stronger/weaker or something? Is there more focus on it as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice?
What, in short, is the big stumbling block which I'm apparently falling arse over tit over in my attempts to express my views on this subject?
In simple language that this simple layperson can understand, please...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I agree wholeheartedly with Spawn.
I'm off to lie down
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Caz..., this quote quote:
Trisagion, your arrogance and your trampling over our hurt and offence at this takes my breath away.
is not Purgatorial in nature. It is a personal attack.
Take it to Hell if you need to, but no more such charges in Purgatory if you please.
Tortuf,
Purgatory Host
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
MtM - I can only describe the impression I have from conversations with Orthodox and RCs, but ...
In Orthodoxy and Catholicism, communion is something that one is admitted to at the end of one's journey to that expression of Christian faith (i.e. Orthodoxy or RCism). In Anglicanism and many other denominations, it is something one may be admitted to on the way to that expression of faith, or (probably more commonly) as a parallel to one's own expression of faith.
In Anglicanism and the rest, communion is one expression of fellowship among many possible expressions; in Orthodoxy and RCism it is the unique expression of total or ultimate fellowship.
Does that help?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
There are (at least) two types of unity:
Organisational Unity, which we are all agreed is not currently true of all Christians. We disagree on how important we think this is.
"Mystical" Unity in Christ. (I hate the word "mystical", but I know that is what some other people here call it.) Hopefully we agree that, in a strong sense, this is true of all Christians.
So the Orthodox, RCs, etc see sharing communion as a function of organisational unity, whereas I see it as a function of unity in Christ?
I'm still trying to understand their point of view....
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
MtM - I can only describe the impression I have from conversations with Orthodox and RCs, but ...
In Orthodoxy and Catholicism, communion is something that one is admitted to at the end of one's journey to that expression of Christian faith (i.e. Orthodoxy or RCism). In Anglicanism and many other denominations, it is something one may be admitted to on the way to that expression of faith, or (probably more commonly) as a parallel to one's own expression of faith.
In Anglicanism and the rest, communion is one expression of fellowship among many possible expressions; in Orthodoxy and RCism it is the unique expression of total or ultimate fellowship.
Does that help?
I think it does, but I'd like to offer an analogy to make sure. The analogy is a marathon race.
If the "race" is to 'that expression of Christian faith', as you put it, then to the RC (and Orthodox) Church communion is effectively the gold medal - you can only get it once you've made it to the end.
Whereas to we others it's the drinks which atheletes use to give them strength and which help them to make it to the finish.
It's not a very good analogy, I know. But is it near the mark?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I don't think it's just organisational vs mystical unity, Custard.
Imagine this. You are an ardent member of the First Church of Custardism. Now, someone is starting from the position of no previous religious belief, and is gradually, bit by bit, coming to believe, and then to practise, all that Custardism believes and practises. What do you think the last step in their journey towards full Custardism? And if you were guiding and teaching them in their journey, what would be the last think you would teach them as part of that?
If you replace "Custardism" with "Orthodoxy" or "Catholicism", then the answer - maybe with a few t's to cross and i's to dot - is "communion".
[Cross-posted with MtM, whose analogy looks fine to me! (I don't run. It's not natural. ]
[ 25. August 2004, 11:25: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Caz, I do understand how hurtful and offensive you find what I have to say, and I also understand why you might want to call that arrogant. I do not take it as a personal attack (pace Tortuf).
I think that the analogy with Japanese handshaking is quite helpful and helps me not feel offended by invitations to open communion made in the presence of Catholics by Anglicans.
Adeodatus' description of Catholic and Orthodox attitudes to communion is pretty good. I would only go further to reflect the "visible organic unity" concept that Spawn talks of. For us, receiving communion is the ultimate expression of our full, organic unity with the Church and with Christ. I don't go to communion when I attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy because the Bishop with whom I am in communion (and that's what it means to me), the Bishop of Clifton, is not in communion with the Orthodox Bishop with whom the celebrating community are in communion. Until those bonds of communion are restored then my receiving communion is, in fact, a lie, a false statement about the Church and my relationship to it (and using the most Holy thing this side of Heaven to make that false statement - one might even call that sacrilegious).
The Catholic Church teaches (and I believe it) that the Mass is the mystical re-presentation of Christ's whole saving work, in sacrifice to God and that within it, bread and wine become the glorified body and blood, humanity and divinity of Christ, physically present. When I receive communion, what I eat is, I believe, nothing less than that and through that communion I am incorporated, mystically but also physically, into the Catholic Church, in which subsists the Church of Christ. How can I share this with someone who does not believe this? How can I invite someone to share this communion with someone who believes that what they eat is still bread and wine, a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, a memorial of the Last Supper?
[ 25. August 2004, 11:43: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What we're really dealing with is not a wilful exclusion, calculated to cause offence, but a "two cultures" situation, with the RCs and Orthodox on one side and the rest of us on the other...
For Orthodox and RCs, communion means something different - at least in terms of an expression of unity - than it does for the rest of us. We (frankly) need to get over it
That's very clear, and helpful, and probably sensible.
But it leaves me wondering something. Suppose I'm a foreigner, from Ruritania. Suppose that my Ruritanian-English dictionary was compiled by a rather eccentric process a long time ago, and has left me with the firm belief that the English word for a non-Ruritanian is "f*ckwit" (or some other term that you find offensive).
If you tell me that that's actually not a polite thing to say, I tell you that you're very welcome to come to Ruritania to live, so that you won't be a f*ckwit any more, but that unless you do that, no criticism of Ruritanian ways that you may have will carry any weight with me, because you're only a f*ckwit.
And imagine that, instead of staying in Ruritania, I come to live near you, move in your circles, so that you see me every day.
Are you happy to be (cheerfully and without malice) labelled a f*ckwit in front of everyone who matters to you ? Is the fact that it means something different to me sufficient to help you "get over it" ?
Or is willingness to change to accommodate others an essential part of human relationships ?
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
I was responding to Trisagion's just-posted response to MtM which I found, and still find, flippant and degrading of the very real hurt he and those of us who agree with him feel at the receiving end of this doctrine.
I acknowledge that I allowed my hurt and anger at his post to be evident in my reply and for that I apologise.
I think the gulf is too wide for me to have any meaningful dialogue on this subject in a purgatorial style. I'll withdraw from it.
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or is willingness to change to accommodate others an essential part of human relationships ?
Or at least to change the ways in which we express ourselves and our beliefs.
Why do I get the impression that much of the hostility seen on these boards in the last few days has been down to both sides not communicating their meaning in a way which is comprehensible to the other?
I know my anger at some posts has been due to the assumption that certain words (such as "communion") mean the same thing on both sides of the Tiber...
[ 25. August 2004, 13:14: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
I think I'm beginning to understand the Orthodox and RC position on intercommunion again. I still disagree with it, but it makes sense. Of course, it doesn't make being excluded from Communion when in an RC Church (and I haven't been to Divine Liturgy so haven't experienced it there -- Vespers is the limit of my Orthodox experience) any less painful, but that's because broken bodies have pain!
I was going to go back to something Custard. said on page 1 but looking at it, I think it fits better on the 'Traditions of Man' thread than this one so I'm going to take it over there.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Russ -
I'm not sure your analogy works. It's based on a matter of fact, not a matter of belief, and on what the Ruritanian, were s/he properly informed, would immediately perceive to be a mistake.
By your analogy, then, either the RCs and Orthodox (one the one hand) or everyone else (on the other) are misinformed about what the eucharist "really" is.
I don't think that's the case at all. Or am I reading your analogy wrongly?
To those who take offence at exclusion from communion - I really don't understand why. Suppose, as I suggested, we consider a culture where a handshake is far too intimate a contact between mere acquaintances. Are we offended when a member of that culture declines to shake our hand? Do we feel that they are being deliberately rude or provocatively offensive? Or do we go away and find out more about their culture, and so come to a realisation of why they could not politely do what we wanted them to?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Suppose, as I suggested, we consider a culture where a handshake is far too intimate a contact between mere acquaintances. Are we offended when a member of that culture declines to shake our hand? Do we feel that they are being deliberately rude or provocatively offensive? Or do we go away and find out more about their culture, and so come to a realisation of why they could not politely do what we wanted them to?
Or even better, suppose they politely explain the difference in cultures to us, rather than just refusing to shake hands and leaving the understanding (or, more often, lack thereof) part purely to us?
Of course, they might think that by offering to shake hands we were being offensive, so that's very much a two-way street.
But nothing will ever be sorted out, and a relationship will never grow, as long as we don't understand why they won't shake our hand and they don't know why we can't understand how offensive shaking hands would be. We just end up getting more and more pissed off with each other.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But nothing will ever be sorted out, and a relationship will never grow, as long as we don't understand why they won't shake our hand and they don't know why we can't understand how offensive shaking hands would be. We just end up getting more and more pissed off with each other.
I think you have it. I'm certainly moving to a closer understanding of the closed table position thanks to this thread.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm certainly moving to a closer understanding of the closed table position thanks to this thread.
Likewise. Mostly because this is the first time anyone's actually explained it to me.
Note: before anyone jumps on me for not researching the matter, I assumed it was because we don't believe the same things about the actual bread & wine/body & blood. Which, since I'm from a tradition which says you can pretty much believe what you want, didn't make much sense to me.
Now I see it's really more to do with which bishop one is in communion* with, and a symbol of that communion* with the Catholic Church and her bishops down the ages, I can understand it better.
*= additional note - that's a useage of the word which I also hadn't understood. I thought "not in communion with" meant you don't share communion (bread+wine) with them. It seems I had the cause and effect the wrong way round...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
More than any other I recall reading or participating in, this thread has been the most productive. It's been very educational for me. Thanks to all who have taken the time to discuss both their thoughts and emotions. And thanks for the Japanese hand-shaking metaphor - very ecumenically effective.
Ruudy
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Of course, it doesn't make being excluded from Communion when in an RC Church...any less painful, but that's because broken bodies have pain!
This is a terribly important point and one which should be remembered throughout ecumenical dialogue. Please be assured that we feel the pain too and that it is our pain, as well.
The divisions in the Body of Christ are a scandal and against God's will. This pain is a constant reminder of that and should give us the stick (to go with the carrot of our proper intentions) to work tirelessly to heal that same Body. I hope that in some small way the dialogue on this thread over the last few days has made some, allbeit almost insignificant, contribution to that effort.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Of course, it doesn't make being excluded from Communion when in an RC Church...any less painful, but that's because broken bodies have pain!
This is a terribly important point and one which should be remembered throughout ecumenical dialogue. Please be assured that we feel the pain too and that it is our pain, as well.
The divisions in the Body of Christ are a scandal and against God's will. This pain is a constant reminder of that and should give us the stick (to go with the carrot of our proper intentions) to work tirelessly to heal that same Body. I hope that in some small way the dialogue on this thread over the last few days has made some, allbeit almost insignificant, contribution to that effort.
I think you're right.
Speaking from a host's perspective, this thread has turned over the last day from a potential cause for concern ("oh no!" I thought when I saw the OP, "not another Catholic/non-Catholic skirmish!") into something quite constructive and helpful. This is a Good Thing, and since I am still labouring under the blissful illusion that anyone here gives a flying one about what I say or think, I would like to say I'd like to see more discussions work out in as civilised a manner.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wombat
Shipmate
# 5180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by wombat:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Now, if you've excluded someone definitionally from the Church on the basis of doctrine, what right have you to whine if the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox or the fire-and-brimstone hyperprotestants do the same thing?
This assumes that one definition by doctrine is as good as another, and therefore, if you define at all by doctrine, you must accept the right of others to do so. If one presumes some definitions of the membership of the Church by doctrine have more value than others, then your central thesis collapses.
No, it doesn't assume that one definition of doctrine is as good as another, at all. The reason you must accept the right of others to define by doctrine is that, as you're doing it yourself without demonstrable certainty, you'd be a hypocrite if you got upset at others doing the same.
The question of the accuracy of the doctrine in question is separate from your emotional response to a competing truth claim. I'm thoroughly modernist in that I believe in the knowability of truth (whether or not my feeble brain is able to grasp it) - I'm not arguing for a pluralist understanding here. I'm arguing against this (to me) strange reaction some people have to being placed outside the boundary by a group whose doctrines they don't agree with anyway, when they (and I) do the same thing - that reaction being to throw around accusations of arrogance.
Who's right is up for grabs.
I think any reasonable person would agree that someone Moslem is not a Christian. I don't think that by holding to that level of definition of Christianity by doctrine, I am necessarily required to accept it as valid when some Baptist tells me Catholics are not Christian. The fact that I think it is reasonable to draw doctrinal boundaries around who is and is not Christian does not validate all forms of boundary drawing as equally valid. If words are to mean anything, we must define them; this does not and cannot mean every definition is equally valid, or all communication is impossible.
--------------------
John Walter Biles
Historian in Training
Posts: 363 | From: Maryland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wombat:
think any reasonable person would agree that someone Moslem is not a Christian. I don't think that by holding to that level of definition of Christianity by doctrine, I am necessarily required to accept it as valid when some Baptist tells me Catholics are not Christian.
But it is perfectly sensible for the Baptist to say that Catholics are not Baptist, is it not?
I would never say that a Baptist is not a Christian. I would say that the Baptist is not Orthodox. Would you accept that as valid?
--------------------
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
|
|
wombat
Shipmate
# 5180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by wombat:
think any reasonable person would agree that someone Moslem is not a Christian. I don't think that by holding to that level of definition of Christianity by doctrine, I am necessarily required to accept it as valid when some Baptist tells me Catholics are not Christian.
But it is perfectly sensible for the Baptist to say that Catholics are not Baptist, is it not?
I would never say that a Baptist is not a Christian. I would say that the Baptist is not Orthodox. Would you accept that as valid?
Yes. However, by Grayface's original postulate, giving any doctrinal definiton of a group automatically forfeits all right to be offended by someone else's definition. I could not, in fact, say a Baptist is not a Catholic without having to accept people saying I am not Christian without offense.
--------------------
John Walter Biles
Historian in Training
Posts: 363 | From: Maryland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
(Drinking a tall, cool drink first; this is one of my hot-button issues.)
My view:
The Church = The Body of Christ = All Christians
No institution is The One True Church. Those making that claim may well not mean it in an arrogant way, but IMHO it is an arrogant claim.
No Christian should ever be shut out from communion because they're from a different group. Jesus instituted communion, not any particular church--therefore, no church should shut out the members of any other church. Anything else is like kids with a clubhouse. Jesus said to do it, not shut each other out.
Those who want to cut and paste The Church back together, to allow intercommunion only through hashing out beliefs and differences, are barking up the wrong tree. It'll never work, and it's unnecessary.
It isn't the institutional divisions in Christianity that put non-Christians off--it's the crappy way we treat each other. If we can't at least attempt to treat each other decently, let alone love one another, then we don't have anything to offer anyone, and we should just shut up and go home.
As to other religions: I'm a universalist, so I believe/hope/cling to the idea that all will be healed in the end.
I'm firmly convinced that there is truth in other religions, and we can and should learn from each other.
I also probably wouldn't stop a non-Christian from taking communion--it might be their first step on the Christian path, and/or help them understand Christianity.
Maybe we should just open up communion as a Sacred Meal, freely available to all.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
BUT, moving on then to the situation WITHIN The Church, to be denied communion is, to me, a denial of my place within that family. It says to me that I am not really, in their eyes, a member of The Church after all.
Which, by my definition of The Church, is extremely offensive and hurtful.
You mustn't think that the RCC or the OC are placing you outside of YOUR definition of The Church -- they don't share your definition of The Church. It's like an Italian-American and a citizen of Italy arguing about whether the former is "Italian." By "Italian" the former means of Italian heritage and self-identifying as Italian. But the latter means a citizen of Italy. The former can get all upset because the latter is saying he's not an Italian, but only if he insists that the latter is using the word the same way that he is. Which is a huge mistake.
Similarly, if you define "The Church" as "that set of people all of which have made a commitment for Christ" or "all of which have been baptised in a Christian church" or "All of which self-identify as Christians" then you are going to have boundary issues (if i may coin a term) with people who define The Church differently. Not because the others don't think you're a person who has made a commitment for Christ, or has been baptised, or who self-identifies as Christian. But because those things aren't part of their definition of The Church.
I can't speak for the RCC but an Orthodox definition of "The Church" might run something like this: "That ecclesial body founded by Jesus Christ and his immediate Apostles, which has come down through history and culminates in what is today known as the Eastern Orthodox Church." that is to say, our idea of Church is not of an invisible body of like-minded (or like-watered) people, but rather of a visible, structured body identifiable primarily in the person of the bishops of the ancient episcopal Sees (Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem) which have remained in communion with one another.
I also want to further add that for a modern Orthodox, especially one who has been part of other ecclesial bodies (in my case this would be the American Baptists, the Evangelical Covenant Church, and ECUSA), this definition is at least 2 parts embarassing and hard to live with. My statement of this "definition" is not triumphalistic but apologetic. But it's the definition my bishop uses, and which he learned form his bishop before him, and so forth, back to the time of the apostles. "All who are in communion with the Church are the Church (and, by extension, them what ain't, ain't).
I know this is offensive and I really am sorry that it must be so, but that's the definition we have been handed down, and like the badgers in Prince Caspian, we tend to hang on.
Please do not infer from this that I don't think any given person who isn't Orthodox isn't a Christian, isn't saved, isn't going to go to heaven, or anything of the sort. First off, it's not my call, it's God's, and second, that's now how we use the term "The Church." That would be to confuse our demarcation of "The Church" with somebody else's explicit definition of "The Church".
I'll shut up now as I've probably gone on at far greater length than my welcome presupposes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I can't speak for the RCC but an Orthodox definition of "The Church" might run something like this: "That ecclesial body founded by Jesus Christ and his immediate Apostles, which has come down through history and culminates in what is today known as the Eastern Orthodox Church." that is to say, our idea of Church is not of an invisible body of like-minded (or like-watered) people, but rather of a visible, structured body identifiable primarily in the person of the bishops of the ancient episcopal Sees (Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem) which have remained in communion with one another.
So what would you call the set of all Christians?
Which do you think will be the Bride of Christ? (as in Eph 5)
I think it would be a lot clearer if you used some long Greek word (I do understand why the Orthodox have a habit of doing that) for the group you described above, preferably not the one used in e.g. Eph 5.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wombat:
However, by Grayface's original postulate, giving any doctrinal definiton of a group automatically forfeits all right to be offended by someone else's definition. I could not, in fact, say a Baptist is not a Catholic without having to accept people saying I am not Christian without offense.
Correct. However you do not forfeit your right to argue vigorously that the definition is wrong. You just lose your right to take offence without hypocrisy.
And furthermore, defining a Baptist as not-Catholic might be offensive to a Baptist saying the Nicene Creed.
[ 26. August 2004, 07:58: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
So what would you call the set of all Christians?
"Christianity"?
quote:
Which do you think will be the Bride of Christ? (as in Eph 5)
Maybe they all are (or none are )?
I presume that in the next world there won't be any divisions between us. Perhaps it's the Church in that world which is the "Bride of Christ", and we down here are just all doing our best to emulate it.
We could simply be emulating different aspects of it, depending on which denomination we are part of. Kinda like blind men fighting over what an elephant looks like...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
[waves hand in front of face]
Odd. Could have sworn I was invisible.
Still, I agree with Mousethief's analogy about Italians and Americans and stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
And furthermore, defining a Baptist as not-Catholic might be offensive to a Baptist saying the Nicene Creed.
I think you'd have quite a lot of trouble proving that one, mate. The "c" word is, as we've doubtless established many, many times, a loaded term, and you'd be hard pressed to find a Baptist, even one who knows where the Nicene Creed comes from, who would ever call himself "catholic".
Besides, I thought "catholic" presupposed the existence of the Threefold Order as well as the Creeds, right?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
[waves hand in front of face]
Odd. Could have sworn I was invisible.
I think you were just being ignored on the grounds that you're a Host.
quote:
The "c" word is, as we've doubtless established many, many times, a loaded term, and you'd be hard pressed to find a Baptist, even one who knows where the Nicene Creed comes from, who would ever call himself "catholic".
Of course it's a loaded term, but...
Do you (the generic Baptist you, I don't mean the Wood you) drop the C word from the Creed? I presume you're happy with the belief that you're in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? So wouldn't you argue strongly that the Baptist faith was catholic, small "c" ?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Has anyone seen Wood around lately?
Wood!
Wood!
No huh. OK.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
That's a very Catholic interpretation of the word, Wood!
I haven't participated on this thread, but I have been following, and have found it very interesting - and much shorter than the East/West Table Fellowship thread in Dead Horses!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Do you (the generic Baptist you, I don't mean the Wood you) drop the C word from the Creed? I presume you're happy with the belief that you're in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? So wouldn't you argue strongly that the Baptist faith was catholic, small "c" ?
Baptists? Saying the creed? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I think not. And will be most disappointed if hear otherwise. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Goldenkey quote:
My view:
The Church = The Body of Christ = All Christians
No institution is The One True Church. Those making that claim may well not mean it in an arrogant way, but IMHO it is an arrogant claim.
Which leaves you open to the charge of hypocrisy, since you're saying what nearly everybody else seems to be saying: My/our definition of the Church is the only true one.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Baptists? Saying the creed?
I think not. And will be most disappointed if hear otherwise.
We can say the creed. I think we would want to claim that we are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We are Trinitarian Christians, we accept the canon of scripture, so I think we're pretty Nicenish.
What we are less keen on is getting everybody in church on Sunday to say a particular creed. Most British Baptists are happy to join in ecumenical services and if the creed is part of it, to say it with everyone else.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Ask yourself how many of this unordered list of groups you would place within the One True Church (aside from questions of which individuals God will save - that's another issue), and answer honestly...
1. Roman Catholics
2. Orthodox
3. Anglicans
4. (Other) Protestants
5. (Other) Trinitarian Christians
6. Unitarians
7. Jehovah's Witnesses
8. Mormons
9. Muslims
10. Jews
11. Hindus
12. Buddhists
13. Gnostics
14. Baal-worshippers
15. Atheists
16. Satanists
Unordered ? Really ? Would you care to reconsider that statement? There seems a remarkable correlation between distance down the list and what some Catholics I know would consider to be theological distance from the Catholic church.
I understand the word "Church" with a capital C to mean something like "the set of all Christians". My understanding is that 1-8 claim to follow Christ and 9-16 don't, so I'd draw the boundary of the Church there.
I wouldn't use the construction "True Church", because that would mean something like "the set of all True Christians" which is passing a judgement on other people and how well they are following Christ. It implies that there is a False Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm not sure your analogy works. It's based on a matter of fact, not a matter of belief, and on what the Ruritanian, were s/he properly informed, would immediately perceive to be a mistake.
By your analogy, then, either the RCs and Orthodox (one the one hand) or everyone else (on the other) are misinformed about what the eucharist "really" is.
I don't think that's the case at all. Or am I reading your analogy wrongly?
I wasn't talking about the meaning of the eucharist, but about the meaning of the words we use, words like "One True Church".
You suggest that there is a correct meaning which is a matter of fact. But language isn't quite like that. Was it the Queen of Hearts who said "Words mean what I want them to mean" ? No individual can successfully commmunicate if they assign totally idiosyncratic meanings to every word. But there is an art to use of English, to using words precisely rather than sloppily, which requires an agreed conventional meaning.
You suggest that any well-meaning Ruritanian, on perceiving that their use of language was not in accord with general use and was causing unintended offence, would change it.
But supposing their reply was something like quote:
I know this is offensive and I really am sorry that it must be so, but that's the definition we have been handed down, and like the badgers in Prince Caspian, we tend to hang on.
?
You might find it very difficult to work out whether Ruritanians
- really believe that all foreigners are stupid, or
- stubbornly cling to a particular use of language because they care for tradition more than they care whether or not it gives offence, which offence is nonetheless genuinely unintended - a sort of negligent rudeness, or
- deceive themselves, telling themselves and others that the words are innocent when out in the wider world, but feeling the warm glow of superiority over the stupid foreigners when with other Ruritanians.
I tend to think that there are forms of words by which Catholics or Orthodox can say that they believe that their church has got things right, is what Jesus intended, etc., just as other Christians think that their own denomination is the best, without giving any more offense than Josephine's example of asserting that Catholics are not Baptist.
And there are forms of words which seem to imply a claim of objective superiority.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
