Posted                       

quote:

---

I was taught that we are the one true Church, and that while there are Christians outside the visible organization of the Church, there is no Church outside the XXXXX Church.

Some will say there aren't any Christians outside the Church -- if you're not XXXXX, you're not Christian.

Others will say that those outside the Church are related to the Church in the same manner as those who are temporarily excommunicate -- they're Christians, they're members of the Church, but are simply out of Communion.

Others would say that those outside the XXXXX Church are related to the Church in a manner analogous to unbaptized children of Christians. They already belong to the Church, although the relationship hasn't yet been fulfilled.

Some will say it's none of our business; it's between them and God.

But I've never heard any discussion of how any other Church relates to the XXXXX Church, since I've never heard any other XXXXX Christian say there *is* another Church outside ours.

---

Posted                       

• We love and honour one of our senior retired clergy, one Lloyd Geering, the only Presbyterian in NZ to have been tried and acquitted of heresy in the last century
• We have a lesbian minister, and our parish has been staunchly pro-gay since about 1984
• We have a study trust which examines the interface between religion and society
• We are committed to interfaith dialogue (don't laugh - somebody tried to bring a heresy charge on this very issue at GA last year)
• We don't believe that God's revelation is entirely contained by the Bible
• etc., etc., etc., all of which I find quite normal.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Funny, Mousethief, but I didn't know who the author of the original post was until you just mentioned it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Fair enough. But is it your job to say how it struck, or should have struck, me?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The day I take a “swipe” at Orthodoxy, there won’t be any mistaking it. I promise.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by aig:
we are the only ones who know the truth (that there is no single repository for truth).

---

Nope. Sorry to disappoint, that is not an Anglican thing.

But getting back to the OP, I have come across groups where they do seriously think that they are the ONLY ONES! When I was growing up, that was what seemed to be coming from the local RC church, but hey, we (CofS) didn't actually believe that they were Christians anyway, they worshipped Mary! (well, that was what was said at the time)

There were some Baptist who also seemed to have the same attitude, and they didn't want to associate with people who claimed to be Christians, cos they were so 'tainted' by the world.

In a Pentecostal church I went to for a few years it was being filled with the Spirit that was the thing. Any Christian who did not have at least one of the gifts was little better than a heathen.

That was 15-25 years ago. What is so wonderful is that they are all now talking and sharing in worship. They work together with Christian aid and Cafod. They hold joint Lenten study groups. They have joint carol services. When one of the churches is having a 'do' all the others are invited.

The churches are all still seperate. They give differing importance to parts of their worship and life. But they have realised that the differences add interest, and they are not a barrier to to being the Body of Christ.

bb

Posted                          

quote:

---

ALL (XXX) subscribe to the view that the (XXX) Church has the fullness of faith and life but they differ widely on Christianity outside (XXX).

There is a problem with the word "church." The word is being forced to contain too many meanings .... local church, canonical church, a denomination, a collection of denominations, invisible association of the elect, visible manifestation of a heavenly reality, .... all these and more are covered by the word "church." Some people like to make a rough distinction between church / churches / and Church ... but by no means consistently or coherently.

This is my take on the matter having from the beginning examined the dioversity of opinion WITHIN (XXX) ....

(1) The fullness of Christianity subsists in (XXXy/ism) ... (referring to the matrix of belief and life eather than the named Church itself). I say (XXXy/ism) rather than in the (XXX Church) because, although the latter is more correct and we certainly don't subscribe to the "invisible church" doctrine ... at times there have been situations when certain (XXX) churches, (undeniably XXX - adjective), became judged by others as uncanonical ... ceasing to be seen by these as belonging to the Church.....

(2) There are many churches, Christians and other groups that practice (XXXy/ism) more or less completely but which are not part of the (XXX) Church by anyone's estimation having never had any organic union with us nor ever having sought it. These churches could be thought of as having their own "circles" overlapping with our own. The overlaps refer to commonality of belief and practice notwithstanding the lack of unity at the organic level. Ecumenism means for us applying ourselves more earnestly to the search for organic unity with these who, already, share much in common and calling for more dialogue with those who share less in common.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

the church is an identifiable body which has descended from the first century church

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Is it true that you personally believe orthodoxy (and presumably RC) to be 'special' because the governing body of these churches can trace their lineage back to the early church?

If that is true, why is it true?

---

Hmmm. I don't know about "special."

But the point is that we believe the Orthodox church is, historically speaking, the same church that Christ and the Apostles founded. Not because we woke up in the 19th century and looked around and said, "which is the right church?" but because we believed that in 101 AD and then in 102 AD we believed it too, and in 104 we kept believing it, and then in 105 it was still true, and so forth down to the present. There is no break along the way, there is no point which you can point to and say "before this, this continuing entity was the Church, but after this it wasn't because blah blah blah."

As Josephine said, the RC's are a special case. Either they are in schism from us, or we are in schism from them. Depends which side you ask, of course.

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posted                          

quote:

---

What basis is there for the claim that organic continuity is the defining feature of the Church? For that matter, what basis is there for the claim that organizational unity is desirable? From diversity comes strength and creativity.

---

quote:

---

It seems odd to me that any group would claim a parochial status as the sole entity of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Such a claim appears to be self-serving in the near term and self-destructive in the long term. In either case, such a claim is as unwise as it is unfounded.

---

Posted                      

• I am a Christian
• Others who have a different theology then mine are Christian
• Except those who's theology is so far away from my understanding of Christianity as to preclude them from me labelling them as Christian

Posted                   

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Whether the Catholics intend it or not, such rejection of full communion with other denominations seems to imply that they think other Christians are not truly Christian.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief

But the point is that we believe the Orthodox church is, historically speaking, the same church that Christ and the Apostles founded.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
So I didn't initially interpret the OP as having anything to do with Orthodox ecclesiology. And given the redaction, it doesn't strike me that it does now....

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
CorgiGreta,
...I'm not aware of the other episode, but if someone from a Christian community not approved by the Catholic Church received, then that too was unlawful under Canon Law, as well as a sign of gross disrespect to both the Eucharist and Catholics.....

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I agree, Greta. I have received in a Roman Catholic church as well, and as I believe in the Real Presence I have no concerns about doing so. The priest where Tony Blair attended Mass didn't seem to worry so much about it either until the press found out!

---

quote:

---

JL is very much a traditionalist, very conservative, Opus Dei Roman Catholic.

---

quote:

---

I know plenty of Roman Catholics round here - we had two priests at benediction on Sunday in our Anglican church - and I don't honestly recognise much of what he says in their approach, which is far more inclusive and sceptical of the current conservative hierarchy

---

I've already addressed your silly approach to Catholicism on the "Forward in Faith" thread, and I have better things to do than repeat myself here.

Rossweisse,

When you read the word "Catholic" in my posts, assume that I mean what an Anglican would mean by "Roman Catholic" unless I specifically say beforehand that I'm using "Catholic" in some other sense. How's that for a compromise?



(Rest assured that your desire not to revisit that particular dispute is wholly shared by me.)

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
'Silly ' approach - ah, you mean the one which doesn't tally with yours. What insight!

---

No, I mean one which is, to be frank, ignorant. Some anti-Catholics at least educate themselves about what they're going to hate (admittedly, any proper education will generally lead to conversion, but I digress) prior to ranting.

One example of your confusion will suffice: the claims that I'm a "traditionalist" and that I'm a member of Opus Dei are obviously contradictory to anyone who knows anything about the way Opus Dei works in the contemporary Catholic Church, and the nature of the Traditionalist movement.

That said, since this isn't Hell, and I do try to love people even when they drive me nuts: may God bless you, and bring you ever closer to the splendour of His Truth.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Belief in the Real Presence manifests itself as much in how we approach it as in what we think happens during consecration. I don't want to go any further with this, because I'm in danger of turning an interesting thread Hellish.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

quote:

---

Belief in the Real Presence manifests itself as much in how we approach it as in what we think happens during consecration. I don't want to go any further with this, because I'm in danger of turning an interesting thread Hellish.

---

If someone believes as Roman Catholics do, approaches the sacraments in the same way they do, why do you say "I will pray for your souls" with the clear implication that we will be damned?

---

quote:

---

With all due respect, I think the number of Roman Catholics who are happy to give communion to Christians who have catholic belief far outnumbers the number of those who think that both those priests who give and those who receive are damned for it.

---