|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Ah, that's rather more understandable. Now to try to get to the significance of this.
Firstly the idea that Jesus’ table was open to Israel, and that Israel was the recipient of the covenant. If the argument is that the table should be open only to those who are recipients of the covenant, then we are back to trying to decide who is part of that covenant community, and then we get back to the problem of different ecclesiologies. If the covenant community is the community with the fullness of the church then the table will be open only to them. If the covenant community is wider than that – all who profess the name of Christ, perhaps – then the table will be more widely open.
However, there are some interesting points here.
Firstly, Jesus did accept that, at the least, the crumbs from his table were for those who worshipped on another mountain, who were not part of the Jewish community. The table was not here closed.
Secondly, if the table is to be open only to the covenant people, then it would seem to logically follow that those excluded from the table are those deemed to be outside the covenant. Those refused Eucharistic hospitality are those who are not part of New Israel – potentially an important consequence of a group’s ecclesiology.
Thirdly, who was deemed to be part of the covenant community? In the case of Israel it was those who had entered the community by circumcision (rather male-centered, but a bit late to do anything about it now). The question of whether circumcision and baptism are equivalents has been debated on these boards before now and this isn’t the place to go into it in detail, but most on the Ship (including, I think, the Orthodox) would say that they are equivalents. If this is the case then the covenant community is those who have entered into it by circumcision or baptism. Baptism in paedobaptist churches can be seen as bringing someone into the church; even, with for many, making someone a Christian. For this reason baptism alone is all that is required in some churches for a person to be allowed to take Communion.
Now if that is the case then it would seem that those who have been baptized should be welcomed at the table. They are part of the covenant community. They might be in ‘good standing’ or not, regular attenders or not, faithful or not – they are still part of the community.
Fourthly, what is the situation regarding partaking of the Passover meal? It is debatable, of course, whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal but whatever view is taken it seems to me reasonable that lessons can be drawn from the Passover for Communion.
Eating the Passover was restricted to the covenant community. However, in Exodus 12:44 and 48 we read that strangers could eat of the Passover if they had been circumcised. So the requirement to be part of that community and eat the Passover was initiation into the community. Those had been circumcised/baptized could eat – not further restriction than this. The community was defined by initiation, there was no question of whether a person who had entered the community was ‘in communion’ with any other part.
From these it would seem to me that the lessons from Jesus’ own table fellowship are that if we recognize someone as part of the covenant community, and entry to the community is by baptism, then they are to be welcomed at the table.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I don't know the whole history of the development of the Passover Haggadah, with the liturgy of the Seder, Chapelhead, but since the time of setting down in writing, it has contained the words, 'This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Let all who are hungry come and eat. Let all who are in need come and celebrate the Passover with us...' It's Yahatz, the breaking of the middle matzo. The leader of the service unwraps the matzo and takes it in his (or her!) hand as he (or she!) says these words. I've done it myself, and its echo in the eucharist always leaves me awestruck.
Since the time of the destruction of the Temple, it has been an honour for Jews to have a guest at the Seder, as at the Sabbath table. This is part of the radical change in the perspective of the religion, which, incidentally, is discussed extremely well by Jacob Neusner in a book recently reviewed in the Church Times (can't remember the title) and by Jon Levenson in his book 'Sinai and Zion'.
Personally, I would rather think that the eucharist resembles a seder in this important detail than that it resembles the ritual meal of initiates in the Cult of Mithras.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
That's a useful reply, thankyou Chapelhead.
There are exceptions to the Orthodox practice of a closed table. In the Antiochian Patriarchate in my diocese and with my bishop they are as follows:-
(1) Lay Roman Catholics who do not have their own church or priest accessible, (eg in Russia)
(2) Lay Oriental Orthodox who do not have their own church or priest accessible, (eg in parts of the west)
(3) Any Christian baptised in the name of the Trinity who is near death and without accessible clergy of their own Church.
These are our crumbs. However, our Lord's practice here refers to a breaking down of covenant = nation/race. The situations are not equivalent.
As to baptism as the covenantal qualifier ... this is a sound argument but there is a weakness to it. Insofar as the Orthodox (and Catholics) accept the integrity of the baptism of those other churches who baptise with running water in the name of the Trinity it is with a recognition that their is impairment in the unity of the covenant bearers. This is based on a lack on congruity in faith and life. In this new and (relatively) unprecedented situation in Church history, baptism alone cannot be a qualifier until full baptismal unity is achieved. Once again though the test is corporate for the Orthodox, not personal.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I agree with Amos. It comes as no surprise that the Eucharist initiated by Christ has its origins in Passover celebrations. In modern Jewish celebrations, the challah bread represents the burnt offering, so the sacrificial element is present there as it is in the Eucharist. While I think that some Christian ideas were distorted in the Greek world of Platonic dualism, I don't see Mithras in the Eucharist.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Just copying some posts from a very similar closed thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
The Times (UK) has printed this, explaining why Tony Blair can't have communion with his family (more on that here).
It seems as if this is the biggest obstacle to overcome - more important even than recognising each other's orders.
So why is Rome committed to shutting other churches out? How can any one person (or committee) be so absolutely persuaded of their own rightness before God that they can talk about other churches being 'defective'? Is this not arrogant in the extreme? And very sad, at that.
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
As an Anglican I certainly think it's wrong--it's the Lord's table, not mine and not even the Pope's--but it's completely consistent with Roman Catholic teaching on the nature of the Church. Where I think it's inconsistent, though, is that they consider Protestant baptisms valid but put a fence around the Eucharist.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I don't take communion when I am in a Roman Catholic church. Neither would I in any church that believed the elements are more than symbols. It is not a problem with me.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't take it when I go to mass with a friend, my denomination's open communion nonwithstanding...
Zach
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
and some more ...
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I don't take communion when I am in a Roman Catholic church. Neither would I in any church that believed the elements are more than symbols. It is not a problem with me.
I feel the same. As I don't share that belief, it could be seen as disrespectful by those who do believe that the elements are more than symbols. However, that does not make a Communion celebration by those that share my beliefs somehow 'defective'.
Sieg
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Oldie:
Those of us in an interchurch marriage (where one partner is an RC and the other is a practising Christian of another denomination) are well used to the Vatican attitude by this time. I am an Anglican and my wife is an RC and for the entire 47 years of our marriage we have never been able to share communion OFFICIALLY in a church of either of our denominations. Tony Blair and Cherie got away with it for a while and I imagine they still do when in Tuscany!
There just might a glimmer of a theological argument in favour of the ruling, but in my opinion and in the opinion of thousands like us, it is far outweighed by pastoral considerations. Sadly, these seem to count for less and less in the way the Roman Catholic Church treats its own and other Christians these days.
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
However, I and all High Church Anglicans do believe exactly the same thing about the Eucharist as the Roman catholics. I think its a great pity.
However, locally, there is plenty of intercommunion going on, and I think that will probably continue. Have I accepted the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic church ? In both France and Spain, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
I worked in a Catholic school for a while, and simply took communion without a second thought. I had no qualms about receiving, even if I don't accept trains in substandard stations as a doctrine, unlike state rail.
I could never, ever deny the body and blood of Christ to someone who reached out their hands in longing. I would certainly have raised a stink if someone had tried to deny me the sacrament at that school, although I do recognise that religious have a bit more leeway than parish priests in that they don't have to answer to the bishop.
quote:
Originally posted by golden key:
FWIW, I'll take communion wherever I happen to be. Jesus said do it, not shut each other out from it.
This may be shocking...but perhaps the Blairs could do Eucharist at home, and ask God to bless the elements. After all, God's the one who really does, anyway.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
For the latest word from Rome on this topic, here is an excerpt from the Pope's latest encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, issued yesterday:
quote:
44. Precisely because the Church's unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord's sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty, in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.
I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so 'with one heart'”.
45. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.
This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed. This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
46. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.
These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.
The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.
This is only a small part of the encyclical, which can be found on the Vatican website.
FCB
PS
I did use preview post, but I still couldn't get the URL to work.
[replaced long URL with shorterlink - it'll work now]
[ 18. April 2003, 17:14: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
FCB:
46. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.
Is this 44. notwithstanding? Is it just restating 45, ie. where grave need exists Catholic priests can minister the sacraments to non-Catholics; or is it allowing non-Catholics to receive on a case by case basis?
In this diocese there appears to be provision with the permission of the Archbishop for non-Catholics to be 'received' into the Catholic Church eg. I know of an Anglican child attending a Catholic school who has special dispensation from the Abp to receive communion in the Catholic Church.
Does 46 mean that if I present myself to the Catholic priest and affirm the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, I can receive Communion from him (having attended confession prior)? I don't take communion out of respect when I attend the Catholic church, but I think to myself how ironic it is that in all probability I believe Catholic teaching about the Eucharist more closely than some of the people going up to receive. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
Does 46 mean that if I present myself to the Catholic priest and affirm the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, I can receive Communion from him (having attended confession prior)? I don't take communion out of respect when I attend the Catholic church, but I think to myself how ironic it is that in all probability I believe Catholic teaching about the Eucharist more closely than some of the people going up to receive.
I think it means that if you did not have access to Anglican sacraments for an extended period of time (i.e. not a week's vacation in Tuscany) you could do so. As to the child attending the RC school, I guess that it is a matter of the bishop's pastoral judgement about the spiritual welfare of the child.
And as to the irony of your believing and not recieving while non-believers recieve. . . I find a well-developed sense of irony is one's best survival tool in the church. The soul is a complex and finely tuned organism upon which the church must sometimes operate with the blunt tools of rubrics and canons. But they are the tools we have and I suppose we need to pray that the patient survives the operation.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
The last time I attended a Roman Catholic church, with a catholic friend, the Priest who I had met several times before, and who knows I am not catholic invited me to take communion with them which I gladly did, I don't see a problem, he once said after a particularly vitriolic argument regarding catholic exclusivity that if he could "get away with it" he would invite me to preach as his church, and that although he did not agree fully with my argument, he knew I was sincere in my faith and had enjoyed my preaching on bible subjects when he had heard me at other churches, yes this Catholic Priest took the time to visit other churches, a real thinker in my mind.
Further more he defended giving me communion on the basis that communion was for all deciples of Christ, as he says its largely recognised that St.Paul and St.John (if I recall correctly) did not get on, but the Pope himself would be hard pushed to refuse one or the other communion.
Also the earliest memory I have of inclusiveness in communion was one at a Catholic retreat centre, administered by Monks and Nuns, where I was given communion even though I told them I was not even a christian, despite my lack of belief at that time it touched me somewhere deep that I could not identify then but I like to think it softened my heart a little to the possibility of Christ and was one of the fundamental actions that allowed me to later identify Christs prescence and invite him into my life when the opportunity presented itself so clearly to me.
After many years I have spent my spiritual life between Salvation Army and free church and am now settled in the AC, all the organisations have their foibles, but my current fellowship is very inclusive, proffering me communion on my first visit as a believer even though not an Anglican, and assuming my basic spiritual needs are met and I feel comfortable then the foibles become less relevant to me.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
As promised, off to Dead Horses we go...
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Funny smell in here.
Why's it so dark?
What's that on the...
EEEEUUGHHHH!
I never knew they got up to that sort of thing in these "churches"...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Couldn't have happened to a nicer thread.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Chastmaster - to the best of my knowledge it is staying where it is until either it dies naturally or the Hellhost(s) fed up with it!
This thread from Purg. was deemed to be a better discussion and therefore worth keeping - even if embalmed for preservation!
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
After reading this thread I couldn't help but make this addition:
Many people on the SOF believe in the real presence of community here.
Some people come along scoffing at the idea, ridiculing people in authority and by extension the community that delegated that authority to them. Such people will be asked not to partake in communal activities if they don't believe in the real presence or respect those in authority and the community that delegated it to them.
Sound familiar?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Many people on the SOF believe in the real presence of community here.
Some people come along scoffing at the idea, ridiculing people in authority and by extension the community that delegated that authority to them. Such people will be asked not to partake in communal activities if they don't believe in the real presence or respect those in authority and the community that delegated it to them.
Sound familiar?
Actually, no.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Dear Scot,
With which aspects of Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship are you familiar?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Your attempt at analogy is deeply flawed because it fundamentally misrepresents the situation on the Ship. Whether it more accurately reflects the OC and RC positions, I will leave to the OCs and RCs to decide.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin on the Merseymike, get your sorry ass in here thread:
Oh yes, and one more thing -- anyone whose counterargument boils down to some variation of "it's just a website" can (a) kiss my ass and (b) go the fuck away. Seriously, we don't want you here. If it's "just a website", then you don't belong, because the view of the people in charge (and not just me) is that it is a lot more than that. So you are out of place here and you can go find somewhere else that the administration treats as "just a website". This place IS NOT for you.
Buh bye.
Does this welcome participation of those who believe SOF is "just a website" or does this suggest that such a belief is incompatible with communal participation on the SOF? (I thought I understood Erin's meaning, but perhaps not.)
The idea that espousing beliefs contrary to the Faith is incompatible with participation in the eucharist is probably familiar enough to most RC/O.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I'll make you a deal. If any other shipmate posts here saying that they think you've made a good point, I'll take the time to explain why it's actually nonsense.
In the meantime I'm going to go do something more useful and entertaining, like alphabetizing my underwear.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
An underwear sorting poem, by Scot, as told to Reader Alexis:
A is for my pair with Alf upon them
B is for my Batman souvenir
C is for my favourite crotchless panties
D's the pair with th'drawstring in the rear
E is for the ....
No, I can't go on.
I too thought the metaphor or allegory or whatever it was that Ley Druid was drawing was more than a little strained.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
I'd offer to help while waiting for replies, but I'm worried there's too much Real Presence around your underwear drawer.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Scot, d'you think Ley Druid is trying to put a case together for Erin to be Pope?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
After reading this thread I couldn't help but make this addition:
Many people on the SOF believe in the real presence of community here.
Some people come along scoffing at the idea, ridiculing people in authority and by extension the community that delegated that authority to them. Such people will be asked not to partake in communal activities if they don't believe in the real presence or respect those in authority and the community that delegated it to them.
Sound familiar?
I would be a Catholic if the idea were that the community delegates authority to those in power. To the contrary, the Catholic Church says that the Pope gets his authority from God. He is allowed to delegate God's power to those under his authority. Individual members are required to submit to the authority above them, all of whom are appointed without their say or vote. Individual Catholics have no authority of their own to grant from below.
Ley Druid, you have confused Presbyterianism with Catholicism. Perhaps you are Presbyterian and don't know it? Or has the Pope received power from you of which he is not aware?
Beyone this, you missed a crucial point in making your flawed analogy: the Catholic Church excludes people from communion based on their membership in another organization not on their behavior while in a Catholic Church. The Ship does not have a list of disapproved organizations with which it is in "impaired communion." It has only rules for individual behavior. Erin said that if MM's entire counterargument for unacceptable individual behavior is that "it's just a website therefore anyone should be allowed to behave as badly as they want because it doesn't matter" then he is not welcome. It all goes back to his individual behavior, not beliefs or memberships. He is free to believe what he wants and to be a member of any other group he chooses. Read the whole thread and look at Erin's quote in context.
The only thing that sounded familiar in your post was your tendency to gloat after having made a poorly substantiated point. Have I told you lately how much I dislike this tendency of yours?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
SOF will not tolerate what it perceives as a threat to this community. The recent policy change and various people who have been banned are examples of this. Acting on the belief that one is free to threaten this community will lead to exclusion. Participating in SOF requires conforming to the will of the community.
Similarly, receiving communion in the Holy Roman Catholic Church requires conforming to the will of that community.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
<Finger hovers over 'HOST ACTIVATE' button but withdraws ...>
This is not a hostly reprimand - just a clarification.
Ley Druid .. the Policy Change referred to in your last post is not a reaction to any threat to the 'Community' that is the Ship of Fools, but is the result of a much-discussed decision that we are not able to give proper help to people who are suicidal. Indeed to be seen to do so might result in legal action being taken against the Ship (i.e. Simon) if things went wrong.
With regard to your more general comment regarding people who have been banned, this is only done if they break one or more of the 10Cs to which they assent when they 'join' (voluntarily) the 'Community'.
May I point out that the Ship is open to all, regardless of their faith or lack of faith - it makes no attempt to be exclusive in any way. All we ask is that those who post on our boards conform to a reasonable set of rules, designed to improve the interchange of ideas and beliefs and to encourage discussion.
Anyone who dislikes the Ship, it's rules and it's ethos is at perfect liberty to take their views elsewhere and to find a website more conducive to them and their views.
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
SOF will not tolerate what it perceives as a threat to this community. The recent policy change and various people who have been banned are examples of this. Acting on the belief that one is free to threaten this community will lead to exclusion. Participating in SOF requires conforming to the will of the community.
Similarly, receiving communion in the Holy Roman Catholic Church requires conforming to the will of that community.
You know, as someone who fully understands the Roman and Orthodox reasons behind closed communion (even though I think it's incredibly wrong), and someone who thinks that this horse has been well and truly beaten, I have to say that Ley Druid's post here does spark some interest.
All this time I thought that the stance was a proactive one -- that is, we believe these things about the sacrament, and therefore regretfully exclude those who don't. Now LD tells us it's a reactive stance, in that people with views that differ on the nature of the Eucharist are in fact a threat to Rome's survival.
Interesting. I would never have thought of it that way.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Erin, if you were 10 or 20 years older, you would have heard the Ley Druid stance much more frequently. In addition, since it didn't make it onto this thread, Ley Druid gave a cryptic analogy of organizational bodies rejecting "the other" in order to prevent death. Therefore, the Body of Christ rejects "the other" at communion. Something like that. When I said that it appeared that he viewed Protestants as "germs in the Body of Christ" he said plainly that he did not and if he did he would say so. Instead he simply reiterated, as he did here, that the Holy Roman Catholic Church reserves the right to reject "the other" in order to preserve itself. The possibility of it changing in a progressive manner is not considered. The possibility of "symbiosis" is not considered. The change that would accept "the other" as "self" spells death.
Right, LD? I don't believe that I have distorted your view for sarcastic effect, as I sometimes have. Feel free to clarify your "rejection of other" philosophy in your own words. Why is progress not a possible result? Why is symbiosis not a possible outcome?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
So you don't think I'm just trolling around, let me quote from the first words of the Holy Father's very recent encyclical on the eucharist.
quote:
The Church draws her life from the Eucharist.-- ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
So I don't think its wrong to say the Church sees this as a matter of life and death.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
...people with views that differ on the nature of the Eucharist are in fact a threat to Rome's survival.
In the same way that people with a different view on posting suicidal ideation are a threat to SOF, for example. It doesn't surprise me that SOF leadership is the judge of that threat.
There was discussion on this point in Styx as there is discussion in the RCC on the eucharist.
JimT,
Symbiosis is both possible and desireable. But going back to the beginning of this thread, a better understanding of community is a prerequisite. SOF could offer useful parallels. Furthermore, it has a leadership which is not elected by a representative democracy, something for which some people find fault in the RCC/OC.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
But going back to the beginning of this thread, a better understanding of community is a prerequisite. SOF could offer useful parallels.
Ley Druid, I read the document and I'd like to give you my reaction. Of course, I have a central problem with it but before I say that I want to emphasize that in general I have more respect for the Holy Father and the RC hierarchy than you might think. Still, I see earthly politics at work without impugning where the political factors come from. I will be charitable and assume they come from insularity rather than desire for power or protection of spheres of influence. Here is where I see deliberate blocking of intercommunion while pretending to fervently desire it:
quote:
Lip service:
In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity [original emphasis retained]. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians.
Sabotage:
Precisely because the Church's unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord's sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established.
I've done lots of business negotiations, and I can see when someone is pretending to cooperate while not cooperating at all. Five centuries of diversity in the greater Christian church (not the RCC) make it an absolute given that there will never be one profession of faith and absolutely positively never again one ecclesiastical governance. Moreover, I see no reference to Christ saying, "Before we get started I want to hear each person reaffirm my divinity, my unity with God in Heaven, and Peter as my undisputed new leader under whose supreme authority the church will be administered." Start intercommunion, and maybe one day in the future churches will merge. But make it a prerequisite and it will never happen. This is either divisiveness or incredible naiveté.
The notion of community, which you so rightly said is essential, must tolerate a pluralistic community, not a monolithic community under one central authority. It is like saying that we support the UN but we can't have International Law or International Treaties until there is one central government for the whole planet.
I am sorry to say this about people you hold in such high esteem but it is my sincere opinion. They are intentionally or unintentionally blocking ecumenism while professing that they fully support it. The whole thrust of their document extolls the power of communion to promote Christian unity. Let intercommunion begin, and let unity begin. Insist on unity first and it will never happen.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Let intercommunion begin, and let unity begin.
Unity in what sense? We're all having eucharist together? We could do that tomorrow with Druids and Hindus and anybody else who wanted to do it with us. That wouldn't make our relationship with them one of unity.
People who want unity with the RCC can easily obtain it. By becoming RC. But, you say, why should a Protestant become a Catholic? Well, why should the RCC become Protestant? Because that is what it would be doing if it changed its understanding of the Eucharist in the way you suggest. If it is somehow wrong for the RCC to insist that you become RCC to share communion with it, why isn't it wrong for a Protestant to suggest that the RCC become Protestant? I fail to see how the Protestants have the high moral ground here.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
When I said, "Let unity begin" I did not mean, "thus unity would be achieved." I meant, "Let the process of unification among Christian denominations begin with intercommunion." If you must use the phrase "moral high ground" the ground I describe is in my opinion "higher" than, "Wait for common profession of faith and ecclesiastical governance." As the second half of your post implies, that is not really a call for ecumenism, it is a requirement to join the church of your choice and never commune with other Christian churches. It is pretended ecumenism, else how do you see the Catholic position as promoting ecumenism? By eliminating all other churches?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I can't recall if we covered this in this thread or not (and it's too late at night to look). It seems worth pointing out that the protestants tend to see the "communion" as being primarily between the person and Christ. Secondarily we commune with one another by virtue of our connection with Him.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it reads to me as if the OCC and RCC see the primary communion between the members of the church, and then the church as a whole communing with Christ.
We come to Christ, who brings us together. You come together, which brings you to Christ. Or something like that.
Does that resonate with anyone?
--------------------
“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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
...people with views that differ on the nature of the Eucharist are in fact a threat to Rome's survival.
In the same way that people with a different view on posting suicidal ideation are a threat to SOF, for example. It doesn't surprise me that SOF leadership is the judge of that threat.
There was discussion on this point in Styx as there is discussion in the RCC on the eucharist.
But people with a different view from the official position regarding suicidal ideations aren't a threat to the Ship. We haven't asked anyone to leave over it, we haven't forbidden anyone with a different viewpoint from posting, and we haven't required anyone to stand up and take an oath that they believe what we believe in order to be allowed to post.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
As the second half of your post implies, that is not really a call for ecumenism, it is a requirement to join the church of your choice and never commune with other Christian churches.
I doubt very much that the RCC's ecclesiology contains the idea of multiple Christian churches. So not only are you asking them to change their understanding of the eucharist, you are asking them to change their ecclesiology.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Mousethief, how do you account for this quote from the RCC? What are they saying?
quote:
In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity [original emphasis retained]. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians.
Are they saying, to the RCC "ecumenical" means "everybody must be Catholic?" Why don't they come right out and say, "We will never join any ecumenical movement. Christian unity can only be achieved by everyone joining the Catholic church." What are they accomplishing with lip service to ecumenism?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin in The Styx:
...the Ship is in no way to be used as a substitute for counseling services -- be they legal, medical, psychological, psychiatric or spiritual. Posts which seek to elicit such responses are very strongly discouraged, and repeated posts along those lines will be deleted.
The fact that, for the good of the community, some people or their posts are excluded from SOF, suggests that there has to be limits to pluralism. Does this make SOF "a monolithic community under one central authority"?
I understand there are many differences between SOF and the RCC, and that which might appear similar to me might appear different to others, but I don't see how a priori condemnation of exclusion, a prerogative of a community, or insistence on more pluralism leads to a better understanding of SOF, the RCC, or any community.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
You're still comparing apples and mailboxes, LD. I don't care what people believe -- they are free to believe that women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, for all I care -- my only concern is their ACTIONS. Whereas you have repeatedly said that BELIEFS are a threat to the RCC.
They are two completely different kettles of fish.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
I'm back! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) And I hope no one gets upset if I steer back to the open/closed communion topic, because this is a dead horse I love to beat. I'll state my biases from the beginning: I grew up as a fundamentalist in the "Churches of Christ" group, and converted to Orthodoxy about three years ago. So I've had experience being excluded from Communion as well as being part of a group that excludes.
There are several points to make, but let's start with the simple ones. First, Communion is to be taken in a worthy manner (1 Cor. 11). Not that everyone always does, but this is the ideal. If you're not Orthodox and thus not part of the parish, it's hard to know if you've properly prepared, since who knows what religion you come from? Note that not even all Orthodox take Communion all the time; certain serious sins (adultery, murder, and such) can cause you to be barred from the Eucharist for a time, even years, as a matter of church discipline. Though I must admit that I don't know for certain whether such punishments are still prescribed; but if, God forbid, I should ever suffer one, I'll let you know.
Next, as others have stated, it's a matter of ecclesiology. Some churches believe they are the One True Church. Others believe they are A True Church, But Not The Only One. Others believe that anybody who wants to be a church is, provided they hold a certain very basic common ground.
But it's also a matter of one's doctrine of the Eucharist: some churches believe in transsubstantiation, others in consubstantiation, others in representation only, and some use the fuzzier idea "Real Presence" but definitely believe there's a change in the elements.
You can see where it gets complicated. Start with the Eucharist: If you believe it's mere representation, then from that point of view, anybody can partake (unless your ecclesiology bars it). If, however, you believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, then you're bound to remember those reports of people getting sick in Corinth by receiving the Eucharist improperly. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Furthermore, if I believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, but you believe they just represent Him but don't change, what sense does it make for us to partake together? I'd believe that your Eucharist isn't the real one, because there's no change accounted for in your services; you, meanwhile, would look on my Eucharist ritual as weird, pagan, or dead ritual. Are we supposed to pretend those differences don't exist?
As for ecclesiology, if the Eucharist is just remembrance for you, and you believe in the "invisible Church" idea, then of course open communion is your thing. But for the Orthodox, for instance, this doesn't fly.
First off, the Orthodox Church believes that it is the One True Church. This claim does not mean "We're going to heaven and you're going to hell" or "You're a bunch of pagans." It means that we Orthodox believe our Church has been blessed by the Holy Spirit to have preserved true Holy Tradition down through the ages while others have gone astray. I believe there are substantial reasons for believing this, which is why I converted, but listing those is not my purpose; just know that in Orthodoxy this belief exists. We do not consider ourselves "one lung" or "one branch"; we see the Roman Catholics as having split from us, and then the Protestants from them, and we beckon both to return. You may disagree, but I'm just explaining this because if you don't grasp it, you won't understand the Orthodox doctrine of closed communion. (And while you may be offended by it, remember that I'm a convert; I was a bit offended by it, but also intrigued.)
Secondly, the Orthodox Church is visible. We don't believe in the "invisible church" idea. Now we don't put limits on where God's grace can work or where His Spirit can wander, but we also believe that the Church is and has been, since its inception, a physical community, not an "invisible communion of all believers." Just as Israel was a visible group, so the Church. And just as there were "righteous Gentiles" referred to in Scripture who were nonetheless not Jews and not part of Israel, so, perhaps, we might view those outside the visible Church. But that doesn't mean we can assume that they're part of the Church.
Thirdly, the Orthodox Church has two main symbols of unity: the bishop and the Eucharist. Each church has one bishop (though these days, bishops are more widespread and priests represent them), and the bishops are all in communion with each other. Likewise, each parish celebrates the Eucharist with the bishop (or, these days, with the priest, but only as the bishop's delegate and by his authorization).
Now our quite visible bishops are not in communion with Roman Catholic or Anglican bishops, much less Protestant bishops (not to mention Protestant churches that don't have bishops). Therefore, failing this clear, visible unity, we can't celebrate the Eucharist with them. Certainly it would be possible for unity to be achieved, but Orthodox doctrine does not allow us to simply pretend that we all believe the same and take the Eucharist together.
As for those who make a point of Jesus' table fellowship, without speaking in more detail, I'll just say that while we Orthodox would love to break bread and dine with you, the Eucharist is a ritual, a rite, a symbol of our unity in Christ, and to us it makes little sense to celebrate the symbol without possessing the reality; to us, as Orthodox, it would make as much sense as writing an icon of a saint who never existed.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
How can you be back if this is your first post? Do you have two registrations sitting out there? If so, why? You need to contact a member admin to get this sorted.
Oh, wait a minute... are you Ryan?
[ 29. May 2003, 07:20: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
A friend of mine once defined himself as a Christian agnostic. "Agnostic" probably wasn't the best choice of word but what he was trying to express was that although he believed in Christ as the Incarnate God and that in some manner he was saved by Christ's offering, he didn't know exactly what he believed about the spiritual mechanics of it all. He justed trusted that it was so. And this man was an ordained Presbyterian minister.
There are all sorts of beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist and my opinion is that they are all hemmed in by our human limitations. It is like us as English-speaking, 3-D humans trying to describe the multi-universes by aproximation. If we know the math we can get a lot clearer description but we are still not like a hypothetical being who has the senses to perceive the physics directly. Say, like God. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
If we had to wait until we get our ideas in a God-like order before we could enjoy the benefits of the Holy Eucharist, we'd be still waiting at the church door. Christ made the Eucharist the way it is, however it really is. We can accept the gift. Or we can try to control it, because whatever our ideas, in our opinion, the Holy Spirit and the Bible and the tradition are always on OUR SIDE.
So if the RCC or the OCC want to make it their own private dining room, if some Protestants want sniff and consider Transubstantiation or Real Presence as idolatry and insist it's just symbolism, if some Anglicans want to feel superior about their comparative openness, if some Shipmates want to rail at each other about exclusivity and forcing points of view, Christ will still be present in the Eucharist in the same way he always has been, our understanding or lack of it not withstanding. That is something we don't control. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Lyda Rose ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, wait a minute... are you Ryan?
Yes, it has been a long time, hasn't it. Welcome back. Are you a real, Orthodox now Ryan? Last time we talked you were only jumping through the hoops.
Again, welcome back.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Kyralessa - well, after a welcome (back) like that from the number 2 and 3 officers, you hardly need a hostly welcome from me!
But not knowing how long you've been away, perhaps I had better draw your attention to/remind you about (delete as appropriate) the 10 Commandments, a link to which you can find on the left, and the guide lines at the top of each Board.
In your re-incarnation you come back as a lowly apprentice - so expect to be handed the (virtual) bucket and mop with which to swab the (virtual) decks. One you have made 50 posts you will attain the grade of shipmate and can leave such menial tasks behind you.
Prowl around a bit and enjoy!
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
Are you a real, Orthodox now Ryan? Last time we talked you were only jumping through the hoops.
I would hope they let him in after four years!
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
Are you a real, Orthodox now Ryan? Last time we talked you were only jumping through the hoops.
I would hope they let him in after four years!
Yep, it's me, Ryan, and I'm now a genuine Romanian Orthodox, as it was in Romania that I was received into the Church. I could tell for days the long version of the story, but the short one is that I went to Romania back in '99 to travel around for ten weeks or so, met a cute girl, ended up staying a year and teaching English there while courting her, converted to Orthodoxy ![[Cool]](cool.gif) in March 2000, and got married ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) in May 2000. And came back to the USA (with my wife, of course) shortly thereafter.
Ironically, my wife is not Orthodox; and ethnically she's Hungarian, not Romanian. Most Hungarians are Roman Catholic or Reformed; my wife was brought up Reformed, if "brought up" can connote "baptized as a baby and never been back." But she comes to Liturgy with me and is herself close to converting to Orthodoxy.
The main fly in the ointment is her mom, to whom a conversion to Orthodoxy would mean a conversion from Hungarian to Romanian; we're still talking over how to deal with that. I've learned a lot about these ethnic factors I never considered before.
Since I got back I've been trying to work as a programmer, with only modest success, and am pondering going to seminary next year since I'm better at foreign and ancient languages than programming languages.
And now you're all caught up. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Wow. Always fascinating to see an original clamber back on board. Not too many of us left. Of course, there weren't too many of us to start with.
I do owe you, though, because if it hadn't been for a fight you and I had a long, long time ago, I wouldn't be The Boss™ now. So thanks!
[ 29. May 2003, 13:36: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
A hearty welcome back, Kyralessa. Since the formalities are over, let's get right down to business.
You've done the wrong thing going to Romanian Orthodoxy. You need to stay in the Hungarian tradition, but you should join the Transylvanian Unitarian Church. I traded fundamentalism for Unitarianism. It will solve your in-law problems and your personal problems. Trust me, I'm extremely wise as you will see. [chuckle chuckle]
Your post is a complete disaster from my reading, like too many Orthodox posts here. Why? I am sick to death of ecclesiology as an excuse for every impediment to unity. It's too harsh to say, "you are too different because you're not in my church" but so intellectually PC to say, "no offense but my ecclesiology regrettably causes me to see you differently from the way you see me." Like my "handiology" prevents me from shaking your hand. I'm gonna barf the next time I hear ecclesiology as some big fat hairy deal here.
Your description of what I would think of you and you would think of me during communion is ridiculous. Look. Two people at the communion rail, one believes in capital punishment, the other not. One believes in abortion, the other not. One believes in just war, the other not. Life and death differences. No problem. But one believes that the precise mechanism by which communion draws Christians together in unity is an outmoded 2000 year old Greek picture of the physical universe as interpreted by a 12th century Monk and another that it is a mystical process whose physical basis is unknown and immaterial...Whoa! Stop the presses! Everybody check their ecclesiology! Ack! And look, the Catholics want to stick in "and may we grow in love for our Pope as well" or they're not going to swallow. Please! I can't stand it!
Seriously, this is the most depressing thing about The Ship. I see people go after fundamentalists, then I see PhD's, programmers, and intellectuals of all sorts haul out ecclesiology and stick to it to the death on closed communion. There is no freaking hope!!
So get out now, Kyralessa. Say it was temporary insanity. Become a Hungarian Unitarian. They are the originals, and they have a liturgy. Not like kooky American Unitarians.
Tell 'em Brother Jimmy sent ya.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Transylvanian Unitarian Church
Do they have something to do with the Rocky Horror Picture show?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
No, but their Bishop is Count Chocula.
Seriously, they were exceptionally cool.
quote:
In the year 1568, King John Sigismond called a Diet (debate) in the city of Turda to determine which of the established religions in the area would be declared the official religion of his realm. During that lengthy debate, Francis David held his ground against all the other established religions in the region and convinced King John Sigismund that to declare one religion as the state religion and to compel his people to follow that religion was wrong. King John proclaimed religious freedom throughout his realm, the first such declaration known in history.
Read more here.
Their liturgy includes communion, as shown here.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
