|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes, that's right.
Extending Josephine's metaphor someone who held the usual Protestant position would see the Orthodox one as being like one of a married couple who refused to sleep with their spouse because of some quarrel, and would feel sorry for them and hope the quarrel was soon patched up.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
would a couple, even a quarreling couple, refuse to nourish their poartner? Would they starve their children because of some folly? Would they refuse table fellowship with husband, wives and children because of a quarrel?
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
My dear Orthodox friends (meant completely sincerely), you know as well as I that we disagree fundamentally on this question. We have gone round it repeatedly in recent months, and we are not going to resolve it here. I did not intent to post on this thread, and only did so in an attempt to head off what looked to me like a possibly hurtful miscommunication.
You have tried to engage me in the actual debate. I am not ignoring you, only considering whether there is anything to be gained. Perhaps there is, since there are some new faces on this thread.
For now I'll just echo seasick's statement and Chapelhead's clarification. I would never knowingly intrude into a communion where I was not welcome, but I would (and do) feel sadness at the exclusion. In my own understanding of the Eucharist, the sex analogy is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, I cannot agree with the conclusion that derive from it.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
giving the non orthodox person the sacrament may not have been official policy but it was pastorally caring and a loving gesture. And surely it is that loving gesture which is closer to the gospel of love than the strict observance of rules.
But what sort of gesture was the person making who presented himself to receive communion, knowing what the Orthodox Church believes? Would he insist on shaking hands with an Orthodox Jewish woman? Serve meat to a Hindu? Spike the drink of a Free Will Baptist? If you'll forgive me, I think loving gestures are wasted on someone who has so little respect for the scruples of other people. Bullies don't understand loving gestures. They understand power, and perceive loving gestures as weakness.
But if we ignore the jerks and bullies, and just talk about those who are genuinely hurt by being excluded from the Orthodox table...
It seems to me that this matter is covered by St. Paul's admonitions about differing scruples. If you are strong in your faith, and know that there is nothing wrong with having the Eucharist open to all who come, you must bear with the weak, and not cause them to sin by flaunting your freedom in Christ. This isn't fair, of course. It presents a burden to you which we don't have to bear. But I honestly can't see any other way.
I'm not pretending it isn't difficult -- I know it is. The thing is, there's pain on this side, too. It's not the same pain, but it's very real.
--------------------
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
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
giving the non orthodox person the sacrament may not have been official policy but it was pastorally caring and a loving gesture. And surely it is that loving gesture which is closer to the gospel of love than the strict observance of rules.
For all that I prefer the Anglican approach of welcoming all communicant members of Christian churches, reading of the incident Fr Gregory mentioned pained me. It seems that the fellow who approached, knowing that including him was against Orthodox practise, was (perhaps) 'making a statement,' along the lines of 'I not only am taking this on my initiative, to show my protest against your church's views, but am going to place the priest in a position where he runs the risk of seeming either unorthodox or uncharitable.'
Considering that Orthodox congregations tend to be relatively small (this is not Westminster Cathedral, where a visiting Anglican would not be known or noticed in the crowd... unless he was a politician), I can see this as a possible source of confusion for the congregation.
Perhaps the reason that the RC view can be very confusing is that, at least in appearance, it seems to be more about jurisdiction than doctrine. (Not to mention that the manner in which it is presented, in well known churches which have signs or leaflets explaining the position, the wording can sound smug and condescending. The 'unity' is seldom defined.) I understand that non-Catholic Christians may receive Communion in RC churches with individual permission from a bishop. That can give the appearance that neither doctrine nor church affiliation is what is key, but rather authority.
I'm a very catholic Anglican, believe in the apostolic succession, and have a strong regard for the importance of solid ecclesiology. (I would not admit the Hindu to the table, without having disrespect for his beliefs. I prefer the C of E admission of Christians who are full communicant members of their sister churches.) But I do not think that anyone who is placing a priest in the position to which Father Gregory referred is showing the desire for unity with others (and love for God and neighbour) which would be part of normal disposition for Holy Communion. Whatever our positions are, we should not be using the Eucharist as a means for advertising or protesting.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I admit that the person did place Fr G in an impossible position and I although would love to receive the sacrament don't because of regard for our disciplines on this subject, feel we need to sort this subject out. It is a scandle that fellow Christians can't accept Our Lord in the sacrament from whichever church you happen to be near. What are we saying that the magic only works for RC and OC? I doubt that very much I believe in a far more genous God that we often portray
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Gunner said:
What are we saying that the magic only works for RC and OC? I doubt that very much I believe in a far more genous God that we often portray
Have you been reading this thread? It has graciously and patiently explained (IMO by josephine in particular) why this is an incorrect interpretation of the Orthodox/RC line. If we are to make any progress at all we must not mis-represent each other.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I was unwise to include your quote in my previous post, Gunner. I was not refuting what you said (indeed, I agree that it was loving and pastoral), just reflecting.
Of course, if anyone thinks of the Eucharist as magic, his or her theology is far off! Yet, here and there, I have known individual Roman Catholics who believed that the Reformation 'happened' entirely over the issue of whether Jesus was present in the Eucharist. They would have seen admission of non-RCs to the Eucharist as a sacrilege - it was not based on concepts of ecclesiology. As an aside, I believe that Rome was open to including the Orthodox, but that it was the Orthodox bishops who disapproved of their flocks at the RC table.
I suppose it is always difficult to see how very differently actions can be interpreted. What one may see as a lack of welcome, or as an implicit denial of others' Christianity (though churches which allow only their own members to communicate are not intending either meaning, as far as I know), can be an act of faith in the Church for another.
Several years ago, I recall seeing a news story (I cannot remember the details) about Bill Clinton, then the president of the US, receiving communion at an RC Eucharist. Though Anglicans would have no problem with including him (assuming he is a communicant in his own church), I can imagine a Roman Catholic, whose priest had informed him or her that a C of E spouse is barred from joining in communion, or a Christian waiting for confirmation in the RC church at Easter and barred from communion until then, seeing that a Baptist was admitted. It could cause a great deal of confusion.
I need to remind myself of these matters now and then, because I tend to think of the pastoral to such a degree that (admittedly) I see 'rules' as unkind - even if I know the reason for them in the first place. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
would a couple, even a quarreling couple, refuse to nourish their poartner? Would they starve their children because of some folly? Would they refuse table fellowship with husband, wives and children because of a quarrel?
To follow your metaphor, Gunner, what if a child told his parents, "I don't believe in a nuclear family; I believe in the family of mankind. Therefore, I see no need to bear your name, to do things your way, to follow your rules. I will do as I please." Would the parents be wrong to say, "You may do as you wish, and we wish you well. But understand that, if this is what you choose, we will no longer be able to support you"?
From our POV, non-Orthodox Christians could be seen as children of the Church who have decided they don't want to live as part of the family. They may want the freedom to show up for dinner, but there's so much more to being family than that.
quote:
What are we saying that the magic only works for RC and OC? I doubt that very much I believe in a far more genous God that we often portray
The thing is, Gunner, the magic *always* works. Just as sexual intercourse necessarily creates a mystical connection between two people (whether they wanted it to or not), sharing the Holy Mysteries also creates necessarily creates a mystical connection. I suppose that's part of the problem. If the Eucharist didn't do anything real, anything important, then we could share it freely. But, from our POV, it does. And if the connection is to be a source of joy and life and love, it must be accompanied by a full commitment to each other in the Church. Anything less than that, no matter how good it feels at the moment, will ultimately be a source of sorrow and pain.
--------------------
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I want to thank you all for clarifying the different sides on this issue for me. I had always felt exclusion from the Eucharist to be a secret handshake thing done deliberately to non-Catholics, and freighted with judgment about the Christianity of non-Catholics (I hadn't focused so much on the Orthodox line, because I've never attended Orthodox worship). I see that the exclusion stems from a fundamentally different understanding of what the eucharist is.
I do disagree, as a Protestant, regarding the underlying theology, but I now understand much better upon what the difference is based.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
From our POV, non-Orthodox Christians could be seen as children of the Church who have decided they don't want to live as part of the family. They may want the freedom to show up for dinner, but there's so much more to being family than that.
And that is where I find most pain and sorrow in this discussion. Because it isn't really a discussion - as one side doesn't really seem to see the need for change or to compromise in any way.
I find what you have written deeply disturbing and upsetting - for it in effect dismisses all non-Orthodox Christians as being second best. The only solution, if we follow this line, is for non-Orthodox Christians to own up, ask for forgiveness for being soooo rebellious and then come back to "The Family" with our tails between our legs.
As much as I admire a lot about Orthodoxy, I find this lack of humility far too much to swallow. What it comes down to is that I, as an Anglican, will happily say to anyone of another denomination "I recognise you as being a fellow follower of the true Christ, and so I will gladly break bread and share wine with you in remembrance of what Christ did for us both". What I hear you saying is "Only we Orthodox are true members of the family of Christ and until you repent, you're not welcome."
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laudate Dominum
Shipmate
# 3104
|
Posted
Smart Alex, are you faulting the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches for each believing itself to be the True Church?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every church believe itself to be the True Church? Surely it would not otherwise exist. If no one believed himself to be right and others wrong, at least in some respect, no religion would ever be founded.
--------------------
"They think us barbarians because we cling to the past. We think them barbarians because they do not cling to the past." --G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 518 | From: Lala Land | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
No, Laudate Dominum, not every Church is that arrogant. In Methodism we claim:
quote:
The Methodist Church claims and cherishes its place in the Holy Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ. It rejoices in the inheritance of the apostolic faith and loyally accepts the fundamental principles of the historic creeds and the Protestant Reformation.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I have quite a lot of experience of the "pain" of exclusion, as do many people from "mixed" marriages. I frequently attend Catholic Mass at 6pm on Saturday, with my wife, and attend C of E on Sunday mornings. On special occasions, my wife attends my church with me. I have frequently been piqued that I'm excluded from the Lord's Table in her church while she is perfectly welcome in mine.
I'm aware that in receiving in an Anglican church, my wife is flouting the rules of her own church, but she usually participates out of fellowship. It's a matter for her and her conscience, so I don't interfere. I have discussed this subject with my wife's priest, who is a personal friend, and though he would like to welcome me, he's prohibited by the rules.
I agree with those who said that the man who invited himself to Communion in Father Gregory's church was crassly insensitive and disrespectful to put a priest in such an awkward position, and I wouldn't dream of trying to sneak into Communion at Westminster Cathedral or anywhere else where I'm not welcome. But the inflexibility of this position which divides families can be very hurtful.
I once attended a Catholic wedding where the groom and his family were Catholic, but the bride and hers weren't. His family all participated in a Nuptial Mass, while the bride and her family and many of the friends were excluded. It was the most humiliating spectacle I remember.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
I once attended a Catholic wedding where the groom and his family were Catholic, but the bride and hers weren't. His family all participated in a Nuptial Mass, while the bride and her family and many of the friends were excluded. It was the most humiliating spectacle I remember.
Correct in doctrine but wrong in charity and welcome to the bride and her family.
PaulTH, that story makes me cringe as a Catholic. No doubt the groom sought the Bishop's permission to marry a non-Catholic in the first place. The groom and his family, who had plainly prevailed in the matter of a Nuptual Mass should have also obtained permission from their local Bishop for the non-Catholics, including the bride, to receive the Eucharist. Or they could have avoided the problem in the first place by having a Catholic marriage ceremony, without a full Nuptual Mass.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Smart Alex:
And that is where I find most pain and sorrow in this discussion. Because it isn't really a discussion - as one side doesn't really seem to see the need for change or to compromise in any way.
So you're only interested in talking to people when you are able to change their minds? This seems odd somehow.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scandal
Shipmate
# 4185
|
Posted
And still God weeps and wonders!
Posts: 145 | From: uk | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Oldie
Shipmate
# 1756
|
Posted
Not only does the RC Church exclude other Christians from receiving communion in its church (except in very restricted and unique circumstances for which permission must be sought each time) but it expressly forbids its own members from receiving at the Church of any other denomination. In the latter case there are absolutely no exceptions.
These rules may sound logical and harmless enough, but for many interchurch families they are painful, divisive and seem to be totally lacking Christian charity and pastoral understanding.
Posts: 91 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
One thing I wonder about sometimes is, what would it say if churches who fence their tables were to do it in a different way, to say to the faithful, 'Because this is our understanding of the sacrament, we receive only here, in a community of like belief and practice. However, since our God is a God who is holy, and who reveals Himself in the stranger, we welcome all to our table.'
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Smart Alex:
And that is where I find most pain and sorrow in this discussion. Because it isn't really a discussion - as one side doesn't really seem to see the need for change or to compromise in any way.
So you're only interested in talking to people when you are able to change their minds? This seems odd somehow.
Reader Alexis
What a load of bollocks!
That is a deliberate misrepresention of what I wrote. Your attitude appals me. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
If you can't be bothered to treat others who hold different opinions with respect, why don't you just say so.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
I once attended a Catholic wedding where the groom and his family were Catholic, but the bride and hers weren't. His family all participated in a Nuptial Mass, while the bride and her family and many of the friends were excluded. It was the most humiliating spectacle I remember.
Dreadful! And I agree with Seraphim that it would have been wiser not to have the nuptial Mass in such circumstances.
I only saw this once (and hope I never see this again), but I heard a priest announce, at a funeral, that "practising Catholics in the state of grace may come forward for communion."
I don't know if this still is popular, but can remember, some years ago, when some RC parishes would have an 'ecumenical service' for special occasions. I saw a few where this included Holy Communion. (There would be prayers or readings before or afterward which could be presented by the clergy of other congregations.) It was miserable - the other clergy invited, and their families and congregation members, had to remain in their seats and watch while the RCs received communion. I don't know why the parishes did not use evening prayer for such events.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Royal Peculiar
Shipmate
# 3159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Not to mention that the manner in which it is presented, in well known churches which have signs or leaflets explaining the position, the wording can sound smug and condescending. The 'unity' is seldom defined.
The only occasion I can ever remember it being explained was at St.Michael's Abbey, Farnborough in about 1985, where a notice explained that Catholics saw intercommunion as the goal of unity rather than a means to that end. I found this sensitive and courteous as well as admirably succint
Isn't there something about non Catholics being allowed to receive in a|catholic Church if they can't get to their own one through reasons of distance? I hought Cardinal Hume explained tht this was why Tony Blair could recieve in Tuscany but not Westminster.
--------------------
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Oscar Wilde
Posts: 405 | From: Barking, London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
To quote Canon Law on this topic for the millionth time on these boards: quote:
Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.
§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.
[N.B. The Anglican Church is not held to be in this position.]
§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.
So, if you're an Anglican, you need to be either dying or in "grave and pressing need" (holidays, I have the tiniest suspicion, don't qualify for such a description) of the Eucharist, and profess Catholic teaching with regard to the sacraments.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Smart Alex:
What a load of bollocks!
That is a deliberate misrepresention of what I wrote. Your attitude appals me.
I'm sorry, Smart Alex, but that is rather how your post came across to me as well.
What I've been trying to explain here is why we *can't* change our minds or compromise our position, why doing so would be, for us, a grave sin. I thought that mutual understanding would minimize pain. Apparently not.
So what are we to do? We don't want to hurt you, of course, so we don't go around saying, "We're in the Church and you're not, nyah nyah nyah." But if you want to know why we don't share the table with you, that's the answer. We offer the answer, or try to (or should -- I don't understand the Nuptial Mass when the bride wasn't Catholic either), with charity and humility. But we can't change our answer. Doing so wouldn't be humble, it would be deceitful. It would still hurt you, but in a different way.
For myself, I choose to be honest. If it seems to be arrogant, I'm sorry. I don't know what else I can do.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Smart Alex:
That is a deliberate misrepresention of what I wrote.
No, it isn't. It is a literal interpretation of how your post came across to me. (And please don't pretend to read my mind -- that's so annoying.)
quote:
Your attitude appals me.
You need to say more here. Which attitude? That my church is right? If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't belong to it. That one can have a conversation even if one has deeply-held beliefs that aren't on the table? Why should that appal you?
quote:
If you can't be bothered to treat others who hold different opinions with respect, why don't you just say so.
Physician, heal thyself.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laudate Dominum:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every church believe itself to be the True Church?
Not at all. Most churches believe themselves to be a local congregation of members of the True Church.
That certainly applies to almost all of the thousands of independent churches, baptists, pentecostals, whatever; and also to the nationally or regionally organised churches like the Chrich of England, the Church of Scotland, the various Lutherans and so on.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
To follow your metaphor, Gunner, what if a child told his parents, "I don't believe in a nuclear family; I believe in the family of mankind. Therefore, I see no need to bear your name, to do things your way, to follow your rules. I will do as I please." Would the parents be wrong to say, "You may do as you wish, and we wish you well. But understand that, if this is what you choose, we will no longer be able to support you"?
It is off-topic, but taking your metaphor to its extreme, yes they would be wrong. The duties of parents towards their children do not depend on the response of the children.
--------------------
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
This is a clarification point which may or may not be useful ...
Those supporting an "open table" do so because the communicant is held to be in a relationship with Christ alone ... which is held to be a sufficient basis for communion with all other believers, (irrespective in many instances of what these individuals believe concerning Christ).
Those reserving Communion within a communion do so on the basis that a person's relationship with Christ is always contextualised within a community that measures its own identity and integrity in terms of those who subscribe to its faith and way of life. "Christ" means all of this to such persons.
If this applies ... I repeat, we should be talking ecclesiology, not eucharistic theology.
--------------------
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 ken:
It is off-topic, but taking your metaphor to its extreme, yes they would be wrong. The duties of parents towards their children do not depend on the response of the children.
Which is why it was Gunner's metaphor and not mine. In my mind, it doesn't work well enough to use it -- but since he'd used it, I decided to follow along.
[tangent]
But sometimes the duties of parents *do* depend on the response of the children. A friend of mine had a son who was using drugs, stealing (from family and from others), bringing weapons into the house, threatening his siblings, skipping school. They had done everything they could possibly do for their child -- from psychiatric care and drug treatment to special schools to you name it. Nothing worked. They finally told him that, if he couldn't follow their rules, he couldn't live in their home. It seemed to me then, and it still does, that, because of his response, they couldn't have done anything else. Throwing him out hurt them as much as it hurt him -- maybe more.
Of course, their story has a happy ending. After a few years of living on his own, he's gotten off drugs, has reconciled with his parents, finished his education, and is supporting himself.
[/tangent]
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
giving the non orthodox person the sacrament may not have been official policy but it was pastorally caring and a loving gesture. And surely it is that loving gesture which is closer to the gospel of love than the strict observance of rules.
But what sort of gesture was the person making who presented himself to receive communion, knowing what the Orthodox Church believes? Would he insist on shaking hands with an Orthodox Jewish woman? Serve meat to a Hindu? Spike the drink of a Free Will Baptist? If you'll forgive me, I think loving gestures are wasted on someone who has so little respect for the scruples of other people. Bullies don't understand loving gestures. They understand power, and perceive loving gestures as weakness.
But if we ignore the jerks and bullies, and just talk about those who are genuinely hurt by being excluded from the Orthodox table...
It seems to me that this matter is covered by St. Paul's admonitions about differing scruples. If you are strong in your faith, and know that there is nothing wrong with having the Eucharist open to all who come, you must bear with the weak, and not cause them to sin by flaunting your freedom in Christ. This isn't fair, of course. It presents a burden to you which we don't have to bear. But I honestly can't see any other way.
I'm not pretending it isn't difficult -- I know it is. The thing is, there's pain on this side, too. It's not the same pain, but it's very real.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
What I mean to add was Bingo, Amen, and Hallelujah.
Kelly, ex-LCMS who still respects her LCMS family.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
To quote Canon Law on this topic for the millionth time on these boards: quote:
§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Always keen to find loopholes, I am curious about what might make it morally impossible to approach a catholic minister.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gregory said:
quote:
Those supporting an "open table" do so because the communicant is held to be in a relationship with Christ alone ... which is held to be a sufficient basis for communion with all other believers, (irrespective in many instances of what these individuals believe concerning Christ).
Those reserving Communion within a communion do so on the basis that a person's relationship with Christ is always contextualised within a community that measures its own identity and integrity in terms of those who subscribe to its faith and way of life. "Christ" means all of this to such persons.
That shows how little you know Reformed tradition. We have had open tables longer than many but the faith is firmly based within the community. A member of the community in my congregation is traditionally visited before communion and given a card that says they are a member of the community. These are received at the door, while visitors who are guests are asked to sign themselves in. In other words whereas I as member receives as belonging to this household you as a fellow Christian would receive as a guest.
That is trivial but I got asked the other week whether at the Chaplaincy I am involved in I desired that a Reformed Eucharist should take place by the Anglican Chaplain. My response was as there would be no sponsoring community that was impossible and it therefore was not up to my preferences. There needs to be, however transistory, a community meeting around the Word before Eucharist can take place.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Hatless,
Well, let's say a Catholic (the target of the canon you refer to) were in an Orthodox country where Catholic priests are being persecuted, and the Catholic in question were close to death and wanting absolution but unable to request it from a Catholic minister without identifying him as such and thereby condemning him to death at the hands of his persecutors, then it would (I think, although I'm not certain) be immoral to identify him, and lawful to request the sacrament of penance from an Orthodox minister.
A far-fetched scenario perhaps, but Canon Law is designed to cover all eventualities which arise in the Church around the world.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Jengie
I'm sorry this is not what I meant when I caused you to say this ...
quote:
faith is firmly based within the community.
We say that this faith is the faith OF the community ... not within it. I, therefore, intended no judgement on the existence of and quality of your community life in Christ! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
In other words we cannot separate faith in Christ from the faith of the community that contextualises that. If there is any fundamental discordance in faith and life between Church communities then open table communion is not possible for us.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Neither woiuld I
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I firmly believe that faith and participation in a local congregation are part and parcel of each other. This alright centres on our UNDERSTANDING of the WORD not on the Eucharist but to suggest that am reflecting on the quality of community is ludicrous. The Word in our tradition is only truly experienced if one is a church member for it comes from the continual interaction of Congregational Life (and that of the wider Church) with the Word of God. I do not experience the Word by reading the Bible on my own. I go to my church Sunday by Sunday not for any feeling or sense of community but because I believe as a REFORMED christian that is where I experience what is central to my faith.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Jengie
"not on the Eucharist" - that's where we diverge .... and that's why, I submit, you cannot accept my tradition's ecclesiological take on that. For me "being Church" is not just about believing and understanding but also about belonging. The trouble is that your understanding of the relationship between believing and belonging, is, I hazard, not the same as mine ... hence the impasse.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Oldie
Shipmate
# 1756
|
Posted
The only really important reason why I (an Anglican)could never become a Roman Catholic is because the Roman Catholic church is exactly what Jesus wasn't - exclusive!
Posts: 91 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Golden Oldie,
Care to flesh that out a bit, or is that the limit of your argument? I can't really be bothered to write a detailed response to what might turn out to be a throwaway comment.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Oldie
Shipmate
# 1756
|
Posted
For the average layman I don't think it needs "fleshing out". The RC church regards itself as having been set up by God as the only true church, and over the centuries has extended this by appointing itself as some sort of custodian with powers to deny the sacrament which I believe God gave to all baptized people. Anyway it wasn't a throwaway remark - it was a perfectly sensible one which no amount of theological gobbledegook can cover up.
A little more pastoral understanding and a little less theology would do everyone a power of good.
Posts: 91 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Golden Oldie,
Who's forcing you to remain out of communion with Rome?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The more I read these "glancing blows between the Orthodox/Catholics on the one hand and Pritestants on the other, the more I am convinced that EVERYONE is convinced they have the truth, open table and closed table alike. Note that us closed table folks are not encoraging the rest to follow their policy .... but they are encoraging us to follow theirs. This makes our claim to the fulness of truth sound rather tame by comparison. At least we don't try and drag you kicking and screaming into our way of doing things .... why can't you return the compliment? Oh, I'm sorry ... you're on Jesus' side aren't you? You're the infallible ones!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I know I may be expressing this poorly, but I would not say that those of us who agree with an 'open table' see the relationship with Christ as strictly individual at all. This is not intended as a criticism of the Orthodox or RC sister churches, but I am sure that I am one of many Anglicans who believes strongly in ecclesiology.
My image is that all of us are part of Christ's Church by our baptism, and that, within that Church (though, without identifying which here, I believe some sister churches are in error on certain areas of belief), there is Rome, Canterbury, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc., just as there were in the early days. (Yes, I know Canterbury was a late addition!)
Perhaps a thread on ecclesiology would not be a bad idea.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Sorry ... I'll repost this without the errors and typos. \I was too cross to preview. I really don't see the point of these threads. We're not getting anywhere near a common mind ... nor I suspect can we do this. Irresistible force and immoveable object.
quote:
The more I read these "glancing blows" between the Orthodox/Catholics on the one hand and Protestants on the other, the more I am convinced that EVERYONE is convinced that they have the truth, open table and closed table alike. Note that us closed table folks are not encouraging the rest to follow our policy .... but they are encouraging us to follow theirs. This makes our claim to the fulness of truth sound rather tame in comparison. At least we don't try and drag you kicking and screaming into our way of doing things .... why can't you return the compliment? Oh, I'm sorry ... you're on Jesus' side aren't you? You're the infallible ones!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr Gregory
I agree with NO on this one. I don't seek to storm your communion table or that of my wife's priest. There are serious theological differences between sacramentalists and non-sacramentalists on the meaning of the Eucharist. For those outside your own orbit, you have no way of verifying where they're coming from on a sacramental understanding. But as I am a sacramentalist, the only problem we could have is of ecclesiology.
All I would want is to convince you that my personal ecclesiology and sacramental theology doesn't differ greatly from yours, so I don't understand why you couldn't admit me to the Lord's Table in your church. I don't suggest that you should casually accept outsiders, but someone you know, whose views are compatible with your church, why not? I've been going to my wife's church for six years. Her priest knows that I differ from him by no more than a whisker. Why can't he or you accept me at the Table?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
.... because Paul ... for all your Orthodoxy we do not relate to this ORDINARILY (in other words, not in the "in extremis" cases) on a one by one basis. Open table can only exist between CHURCHES that are in communion with each other.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scandal
Shipmate
# 4185
|
Posted
And while God weeps and wonders - who listens to him, it is after all HIS table?
If he can accept every human individual just as they are, even though we are so very different to him, why Oh why cant we learn to love and accept one another and our differences?
Why do we have to insist that there is only one way and that is ours!?
Posts: 145 | From: uk | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
