Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
King John Sigismond called a Diet (debate) in the city of Turda

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
A hearty welcome back, Kyralessa. Since the formalities are over, let's get right down to business.

---

Formalities over, indeed. I always insist to my wife that when I tease her, it's my way of showing affection (being a guy embarrassed to show too much affection in front of others); I will therefore accept your tirade, JimT, as an affectionate welcome to the community, and I hope you will realize the same affection as I gently but firmly expose the utter wrongheadedness of your Unitarianity.

Actually, I might have ended up, with slightly different influences in my life, going to something like Unitarianism, but sooner than that I discovered Orthodoxy, a tradition which, unlike the fundamentalism of my youth, held out the promise of faith that wouldn't require the crucifixion of one's brain to hold. Doubtless you are right about the in-law problems, and now that you mention it I do recall Hungarian Unitarianism as having a more respectable reputation than its American cousin. Should I take this path, I will contact you as to the entry rites. (Presumably these rites would be whatever I wanted them to be...)

Ecclesiology, you say, is another way of saying "You're too different because you're not in my church." I myself am someone who bristles at meaningless jargon (e.g. "proactive"), so I'll acknowledge your regurgitative response to the term "ecclesiology" and try to look at things differently. I will also agree that "differences in ecclesiology" is perhaps a fancy way of saying "you can't take communion because you're not in my church."

Perhaps a better approach would be to say that it seems likely that everyone who endeavors to practice Communion in any way having something to do with the New Testament will put some limits on it. Let me explain what I mean.

At the most basic level, setting aside questions of the Real Presence, proper preparation, and unity, we know that Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me." That is why we do it; I would submit that at this very basic level, if what you practice with bread and wine is not "in remembrance of Jesus," then whatever else it may be, it's not the Eucharist of Christianity. It may be a communal feast, an offering and partaking of the firstfruits of the harvest, or an occasion to sample various vintages, but it is not the (at least) memorial ritual of the New Testament.

Furthermore, the Eucharist clearly has some symbolic importance. It must, JimT, or you wouldn't be so offended at being excluded from it. What exactly that importance is to you is something only you know precisely. But clearly it's not enough for you to say "Hooray, we're all united!" Clearly at some level you accept the Eucharist as representing unity, and the failure to share the Eucharist as representing disunity.

Up the street from our apartment is a Masonic lodge. I have no idea what goes on in there, but I suspect, from what I've heard about the Masons, that there are certain secret ceremonies and rituals that take place. I strongly suspect that if I knocked on the door and asked to be included in everything that takes place, I'd be refused; first one must be initiated, perhaps invited, I don't know. But it's really not important to me; I know the Masons would exclude me, but I don't care because being a Mason or having some sort of unity with Masons doesn't seem worthwhile. Likewise Mormons would bar me from their temple, and Muslims wouldn't allow me into Mecca, but I don't make an issue of it.

Curiously, though, JimT, your exclusion from the Orthodox Eucharist irks you. Why is that? What importance does Orthodoxy hold for you? Is it because of their historical claims, or simply the fact that they and you both claim to be followers of Christ? There must be some reason that you want to be admitted to the Eucharist in Orthodox Churches. and it's hard to know how to approach this without knowing that reason.

Now if I had to guess, I'd say the reason is roughly that Communion is something that Christians do, that you are a Christian and so am I, and that therefore we should be able to share Communion. But even if we agree on a statement like "Christians can celebrate the Eucharist together," what is a Christian? History has had many different answers to that question; councils have been held, people have been excommunicated, over doctrines which boil down to differing answers to that question. Perhaps only those who baptize by immersion are Christians, or only those who hold the Lord's Supper every Sunday, or only those who believe the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church. You may believe it's only those who profess some belief in Christ, regardless of what that belief is. But that still excludes someone. It still draws a boundary between those who have this nebulous faith and those who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ in any way, shape, or form.

To everyone, his lowest common denominator is the only reasonable lowest common denominator. To the immerser, those who sprinkle are heretics and liberals, and those who insist on threefold immersion and are not content with singlefold are needlessly restrictive. To the occasional partaker of the Lord's Supper, those who hold it every Sunday are a bit more zealous than need be, and those who hold it once a year are rather lax. Perhaps to the Unitarian, those who require membership in their church for admission to the Eucharist are irritatingly closed-minded. But perhaps there really are no restrictions whatsoever for receiving in a Unitarian church, in which case, based on things I've mentioned above, I would question whether you're really celebrating the Eucharist at all.

What you're really asking, JimT, is for me to remove my faulty understanding of unity and communion and replace it with your correct understanding. You see your position as neutral ground; I see mine the same way. I base my position on the Tradition of the Church; you base yours on...well, maybe you can tell me.

In fact, I find that a lot of the issues that divide Christians (in the loose definition) are based on other issues, such as the source of authority, and that failing to face these more fundamental issues leads to a lot of .

So, JimT, ball's in your court. You know where I get my beliefs about the Eucharist; where do you get yours?



--------------------
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.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
The main fly in the ointment is her mom, to whom a conversion to Orthodoxy would mean a conversion from Hungarian to Romanian

---

Since you've moved from Europe to the USA, you could join an OCA parish, and then when your wife joined that, instead of becoming Romanian, she'd be becoming American. Would her mom accept that?

That sort of thing worked for a couple I used to know -- she was Greek Orthodox, and he was willing to become Orthodox, but he was not willing to become Greek. When they found an Antiochian parish that was mostly former Protestants with names like McGee and Elliott, he converted.
[/tangent alert]

Oh, and your last post here?

--------------------
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!

Posted                      

Josephine, thanks for stopping by this thread and welcoming Kyralessa. Very sweet of you. His post was very kind and showed he was a good sport. It was great in that sense. You of course are not aware that he is wrong in his support of closed communion but I do want to thank you for not trying out the "it's like having sex--only allowed for husband and wife" again. I know that you know how much I appreciate that.

OK, so Kyralessa let me set you straight that Unitarians don't practice communion at all. Why do I care about closed communion? Because I have Catholic and Orthodox family members and I visit them. Relgious extremism has torn my family apart for centuries beginning in 1632 in New Haven, Connecticut with Puritans, Maryland Catholics in 1785, and Mennonites in Central Pennsylvania in 1834. Those are just the blood relatives from whom I descend. Then there are the in-laws. So I scream here at the faceless Christian world to unify in the neurotic belief that it will unify my family and restore me to them. A harmless neurotic hobby that entertains dozens and has not yet driven me back to psychotherapy.

You are right that I fervently and hopelessly desire that you correct the error of your ways. I would be so happy I would probably become a normal human being. No pressure though.

I'll assume you've read the Bible as many times as I have and read as many theologians, so forget that stuff. My view boils down to this, from my gut, from my soul: if someone walks up to the communion rail, understands that this is a ceremony "remembrance of Christ" who represents moral perfection in human flesh, and they want to participate for whatever reason, you let them. They are not going to get sick, like it says in Corinthians. They are not going to drive away Jesus. They are not going to spoil it for everybody else. This is so basic it makes no sense to me to quote a verse or point to a doctrine or council to back it up. No doubt that is why this topic is dead, and relegated to Dead Horses. The reply is always, "that's not Biblical or traditional and I reserve the right to be Biblical and traditional so don't tell me I'm wrong." Well OK. But you are. No you are. No you. Dead Horse.

The best explanation I heard for my view was above, from the incredibly sagacious Lyda Rose of Sharon:

quote:

---

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.

---

That is the most beautifully eloquent explanation of my idea of communion, and how wrong it is for denominations (pardon the demotion from "one true church") to think that closed communion accomplishes anything other than needless discord.

You no doubt bridle at "private dining room" and can go on for days and thousands of words to the contrary. Be my guest. I will probably stop talking just because I think I've finally said everything I feel like saying, and heard someone else say exactly what I was thinking. Won't you join us, Brother Kyralessa?

Just joshin' ya. Thanks for the chat.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Wally, go. Eastern European religious music is the best.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
<snip> or that it's Adminstrators and Hosts are the true followers of the Apostles and the only people who can administer the website (well. maybe TonyK thinks he is, but let's just humour him.)
<snip>

---

Dyfrig, my boy, am I right in assuming that there should be a smiley or equivalent somewhere in the last eleven words above?

--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Josephine, thanks for stopping by this thread and welcoming Kyralessa. Very sweet of you. His post was very kind and showed he was a good sport. It was great in that sense. You of course are not aware that he is wrong in his support of closed communion but I do want to thank you for not trying out the "it's like having sex--only allowed for husband and wife" again. I know that you know how much I appreciate that.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Mousethief, if I ever stop by for beer and chips you can bet I will be the model gracious guest...

---

JimT, I should note here that even though Orthodox do so much fasting through the year, it is my understanding that beer is not something fasted from at any time; one more reason to leave your unitarian nebulosity and enter the One Single Only Exclusive True Church.

quote:

---

Sadly, there are a few more topics that can bring out an indefensibly pricky side in me. For the record, and in the interest of public confession, they are:

---

• the necessity of tongues for "full" Christianity;

• the superiority of fundamentalism because it is spreading in the Third World while "mainstream" Christianity is dying in the second;

I well remember how shocked I was to read James Barr's Beyond Fundamentalism and discover that I was a fundamentalist.

• people leave conservative churches because they are rebellious and want to sin or think they are smarter than everyone else;

• demons exist and possess people;

• Hell exists and is a place of eternal torture;

• Hell is required because God wants to give people the option of rejecting his perfect, wonderful, and giving love;

• and Hell is actually God loving people but them experiencing it as torture because they rejected it and can never have it.

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Mousethief, if I ever stop by for beer and chips you can bet I will be the model gracious guest...

---

JimT, I should note here that even though Orthodox do so much fasting through the year, it is my understanding that beer is not something fasted from at any time; one more reason to leave your unitarian nebulosity and enter the One Single Only Exclusive True Church.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Depart freely from love to the everlasting torture of hate, unknown and foreign to Me and to those who are with Me, but prepared by freedom for the devil, from the days I created My free, rational creatures.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Depart freely from love to the everlasting torture of hate, unknown and foreign to Me and to those who are with Me, but prepared by freedom for the devil

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I was under the impression that the prohibition of drinking "wine" on certain days applied to all alcoholic beverages and not just wine literally.

Reader Alexis

---

Being raised fundamentalist, alcohol was something I strove to keep from my lips. Now that I'm Orthodox and it's not so big a deal, I find that I just don't like the stuff.

Nonetheless, so far as I've been able to dig up, along with the exception on boneless sea creatures (i.e. lobster, shrimp, etc. are OK to eat during the Orthodox fast), there seems to be an exception for reptiles (alligator, frog legs, etc.) and also on beer, which is not considered like wine for reasons that escape me. Your fun facts for the day.

Of course, the standard Orthodox caveat applies: When in doubt (or even when not), talk to your priest.

As for me, I can't stomach food that still looks like the animal it came from, which rules out shrimp and lobster; reptile doesn't tempt me a bit; and alcohol of any sort, even beer, doesn't taste good to me. So none of these "exceptions" do me much good. Ah, but thanks be to God for the gift of peanut butter!



--------------------
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.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Whilst walking to work I realised why Ley Druid is so completely wrong in their attempt to equate a "closed-communion" policy with agreed levels of behaviour on the Ship.

The Ship is a voluntary coming together of people who choose to post here. It makes no claim that it is the only website, that it is organically linked with Jesus' own webiste or that it's Adminstrators and Hosts are the true followers of the Apostles and the only people who can administer the website (well. maybe TonyK thinks he is, but let's just humour him.)

It doesn't claim to have the fullest expression of websiteness or that it is the only place where truth can be found on the web. Nor does it require that posting on another website affects the final destination of one's soul, or attempto to exclude from posting those who do not agree with any particular doctrinal statement (it excludes on the basis of agreed, signed-up-to patterns of behaviour and legal requirement, but you do not have to believe any objective real presence in Erin's avatar in order to post).

---

Or, as Schleiermacher put it, "The general concept of the church, if there is to be such a thing, must be derived from ethics because the church at all events is a fellowship created by the voluntary actions of men, and only through these does it continue to exist." (Quoted in Church and Eucharist in the First Four Centuries, Werner Elert.)

Anybody around here hold this view?



--------------------
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.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
FCB, I have to playfully retort that the best Unitarian sermon I ever heard was from an ex-Catholic nun.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunner:
I may have many criticisms about Anglicanism but one thing they have got right, in my opinion, is their welcome to the eucharist of all professing Christians.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I admit to being dyslexic - how could anyone really make so many tupos?

As for the lying that is harsh and doubt that is a reality. I admit to asking questions and playing the devils advocate and I have apologised for hurting folk. But I will not constantly grovel and if that is what you want then I guess there is not much point me being in the room.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Funny, some of the best Unitarian sermons I've ever heard have been given in Catholic Churches by priests in good standing.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
FCB, you have to be kidding me about Unitarian priests. Unitarian tenet #1 is "no credal tests allowed." Tenet #2 is "no such thing as heresy--every individual's belief system is sacrosanct." Tenet #3 is "no Trinity, Jesus was a man to be admired, studied, and perhaps emulated but not adored as God (thus the name "Unitarian"). In what sense are the priests to which you referred "Unitarian?"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
You guys have the closed table. I have a profound theological disagreement with that.

---

This is from your "I'm sick of being an Anglican" thread, Erin. I read back through this Table Fellowship thread to see if you'd ever mentioned what your theological disagreement is, but all you stated is that you know what the Catholic and Orthodox positions on closed communion are, and that you disagree. I wanted to ask on the other thread what your disagreement is, but I figured it would stray into Dead Horse territory. So, here we are.

What's your theological disagreement with closed communion?

--------------------
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.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
Kyralessa - have you advised Erin to come here?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I truly do not believe that Jesus would have said "wait! Let me check your credentials before you come to me". It seems to me to be the very opposite of everything he said and did.

---

quote:

---

no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father -- John 6:65

---

quote:

---

Lord, to whom shall we go? -- John 6:68

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And I still think it's wrong. You're not going to convince me otherwise. So stop trying.

---

Okay.

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

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
But the church is a community and communities have boundaries.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:

quote:

---

no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father -- John 6:65

---

Some might say the end of John 6 isn't about the eucharist, but let's assume it is.
It seems from the beginning the eucharist has been a difficult and divisive teaching -- not open, ambiguous, inclusive.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
That line from John's gospel has to me always seemed to mean the exact opposite of what you take it to mean. Assuming that it's about the eucharist, to me it says that no one would approach the holy table if God weren't calling them to do so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
One of the things I love about the Anglican Church is its policy of welcome at the Lord's Table. But my Catholic and Orthodox friends all disagree. They say that intercommunion with churches who don't share their theology is akin to sex before marriage.

I can respect this and I always do in a Catholic scene where I'm not known, but I would like to ask Catholic and Orthodox Christians "What is your bottom line for intercommunion? An acceptance
of the Nicene Creed? If not, what other acceptable
formula could apeal to the diverse expectations of the church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Paul

I don't think that the Nicene Creed would be sufficient. Let's say that the Anglican Communion was to drop the filioque comprehensively and formally. Would the Orthodox and Anglicans be then ready to marry? Of course not. Anglicanism does not in practice move beyond the 4th ecumenical council and you have women priests, (2 of quite a long list). Communion between us would still be impaired. Movement from the Orthodox would involve the following at least ....

(1) An acceptance of the western rite (with an epiklesis in the Eucharist).
(2) An incorpration of western piety where not incompatible with Orthodoxy. This would include western hymns and, say, customs particular to the west, (ashing at the start of Lent for example).
(3) A reception of existing Anglican clergy by concelebration with an Orthodox bishop, (not possible at present except for Catholic clergy).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:
We all accept the creeds. The problem is everything since then, particularly the nature and extent of the authority of Tradition, Scripture and Reason. All our differences flow from this, including are attitudes toward Holy Communion. That's ok, in my book. Diversity is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekalb:
To answer the Thread title - The end of the world!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
There is no answer to the question "what do I have to believe in order to have intercommunion with you?" because it slips in a false presupposition -- that the bottom line is what you believe. It's not about belief it's about membership / community / belonging. It's about being one body, being subject to the same disciplines under the same bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden key:
Re the opening question:

(Warning: stong opinions ahead!)

Getting it through our dense little hearts and heads that we *are* the body of Christ, whatever our creeds or tat or beliefs about What Happens During Communion.

Jesus said to *do it*, not to make silly rules and shut each other out from it. We act like kids keeping other kids out of our clubhouses.

If we wait until everyone's theological ducks are in a row, the papers are signed, and everyone is happy,...hell will have frozen over, and God will have died of boredom and frustration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We are the body of Christ but we are not practising body of Christ life until we resolve our differences. Ignoring them to achieve unity on some other reduced basis is no solution.

I agree Mousethief that belonging is an essential component but not one that I would want to emphasise against other components. On belonging grounds alone St. Athanasios would not have stood against Arianism in those dioceses (most) that went over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
There is no answer to the question "what do I have to believe in order to have intercommunion with you?" because it slips in a false presupposition -- that the bottom line is what you believe. It's not about belief it's about membership / community / belonging. It's about being one body, being subject to the same disciplines under the same bishops.

---

Can I dig at this one a bit?

Surely the Orthodox Church as a whole is made up of a large number of essentially self-governing sub-churches - e.g. as well as the ancient Patriarchates you have the Church of Greece, of Russia etc etc.

Now, from time to time some group must approach Orthodoxy as defined by the Ecumenical Patriarch sufficiently to join the Orthodox Church as a whole - and at that point they do indeed belong to your community, in the sense of both belief and intercommunion.

PaulTH seems to be asking what it would take for a group to be accepted as Orthodox *before* it's accepted into that community, yet you're implying that there's no answer to that because if you're not in, you're not in and the only way you could be in would be to leave your existing church and join an existing Orthodox group - but from my faint recollections of Orthodox history this isn't the case is it? For example, an Orthodox bishop can end up being out of communion with the EP for a time, yet be accepted back into the fold later without renouncing whatever ties he had and joining one of the Patriarchates. If this happened then you would be essentially letting an entire church (re)join the global Orthodox Church simply on the basis of its belief.

Please explain if I've missed your point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Gregory:
(3) A reception of existing Anglican clergy by concelebration with an Orthodox bishop, (not possible at present except for Catholic clergy).

---

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? This wouldn't happen without the Orthodox bishop judging Anglican clergy to be sufficiently Orthodox in belief (and practice?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Grey Face

quote:

---

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? This wouldn't happen without the Orthodox bishop judging Anglican clergy to be sufficiently Orthodox in belief (and practice?)

---

You are indeed correct. I was sketching what Orthodoxy would move on IF prior agreement had been reached. I would only demur on the phrase: "Anglican clergy." It is not the clergy per se but the whole church that is the focus of this process.

quote:

---

Now, from time to time some group must approach Orthodoxy as defined by the Ecumenical Patriarch sufficiently to join the Orthodox Church as a whole

---

This is a widespread misunderstanding of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch. He is not our "Pope" and has no defining role whatsoever. My bishop is Bishop Gabriel of Great Britain and it is to him and him alone that I owe obedience as a pastor under God. The Ecumenical Patriarch has absolutely no jurisdiction over the Patriarchate of Antioch whatsoever. His role is similar to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion.

In my reply to Mousethief I think I have elucidated why being Orthodox is not simply a matter of belonging. If, for example, any Orthodox bishop was judged by the Church to be teaching heresy, knowingly and without retraction; then the canons say that I MUST leave him with my people and seek out another Orthodox and not heterodox bishop. Belonging has its limits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
In answer to the OP, if this isn't exactly the same as ekalb,

the Second Coming??

Mind you, there are some who might not believe that either if it hadn't been submitted earlier, examined, proved, re-assessed, discussed, then stamped with an imprimatur!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This is a widespread misunderstanding of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch. He is not our "Pope" and has no defining role whatsoever. My bishop is Bishop Gabriel of Great Britain and it is to him and him alone that I owe obedience as a pastor under God. The Ecumenical Patriarch has absolutely no jurisdiction over the Patriarchate of Antioch whatsoever. His role is similar to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion.

---

I can't see how this works practically, because if one is defined as being part of a Community by being in communion with one person, such as Rowan Williams or the EP, then *should he choose to exercise it* that person has the power to determine doctrine.

If ++Rowan were to go on a power trip, he could declare himself out of communion with ECUSA or the church of Nigeria (entirely hypothetically of course ) and they would be out - effectively deciding the doctrinal position of the AC by ejecting a province on the basis of the beliefs of its Archbishop. The EP can no doubt *in theory* do the same. So how is this different from the position of the Pope?

I can only conclude that there are control mechanisms in place within both the AC and Orthodoxy that would prevent the focus-of-communion person doing this but I don't know what they are. If the EP declared himself out of communion with the Patriarch of Antioch over the colour of his hair, what recourse would you have other than to say sod that, Constantinople is no longer Orthodox at all? And isn't this essentially what happened in the Great Schism from the Orthodox point of view? Obviously the disagreement was over something considerably more serious than that.

Not intending to sleight the character of any of the people mentioned here of course. I'm just attempting to get at the mechanics of inter- and intra-communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
being subject to the same disciplines under the same bishops.

---

Bishops , you can count me out.

I can see no reason that all of Christendom has to be in communion. What is important is that all parts of the church recognise that none of them hold a monopoly on the truth, and that all churches are on a journey. For me this is more important than trying to thread all those journeys together. A little bit of respect doesn't have to end in communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Unity requires the mutual recognition between ecclesial bodies that what another body does is really "Church", i.e. that the community is proclaiming and living the story about Jesus (as evidenced by its teaching and practice). Unless and until Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism accept that what Anglicans or Reformed Christians do is really "Church" then there will be no unity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
I tend to think that intercommunion at an institutional level is both a lost cause and a non-issue. It is an old battle, which has absolutely nothing to do with the way the church will develop over the next hundred years or so.

I think a clue is in the title of this thread. The idea that there is something called 'Christendom' - a kind of Christian empire with rules, structures and clearly delineated dogma - is one which is foreign to most contemporary Christians. Whilst there are plenty of ecclesiologies to choose from, for most people it is what happens at a local and parochial level that defines what 'church' is. When one throws Christians together at points of engagement - such as shared ministry with the sick, or education, or struggle for justice - the old divisions soon become meaningless. How many of us here have seen what happens when Christians share mission with one another - only to discover they cannot share the bread and the cup together?

A Christendom ecclesiology, in which the church is defined at a macro-level, is dying. Most Christians are not swayed by the pronouncements of ecclesial figures denying the truth so plainly evident. What would it take to restore intercommunion in Christendom? For people to do it.

Let's face it, intercommunion happens all over. The Marist brothers in a school where I worked where mortified to think I might be denied the sacrament at the weekly Mass. Anglicans already have an open table, and no one is open to discipline even for giving the sacrament to an unbaptised person. To make intercommunion a reality will take courageous women and men to tell the powers-that-be where to shove it.

The arguments for denying intercommunion (and I know this has been covered before) are too thin to stand up to any real test. The arguments only work in the academy - they do not work at the coalface. They do not work where the spirit draws Christians together in mutual love and mission. They do not work where love draws families together of differing denominations. They do not work wherever Christians seek to proclaim the all-embracing love of Christ. In all of these instances, denial of intercommunion brings division, hurt and profound sadness.

There is absolutely no chance that any magisterial body of any denomination or all of them will get together and just decide to have intercommunion. There is too much at stake for churches which have defined themselves by their ability to exercise control and to maintain exclusivity. Like most progressive movements in the church, it will happen by radicals at a local level, until finally the heirarchy catches up, probably after persecution and anathemas galore. Any takers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Grey Face and Jugular

From the Orthodox point of view you are both making the same mistake but in different ways and from different angles.

It isn't about what ANY individual (be he Patriarch or Ship of Fools poster) believes, thinks, says or does at all that constitutes the unity of the Church. ALL are subordinate to the WHOLE in Orthodoxy and, practically, this means that each and every one is under the same obligation and mutual relation to the truth.

You are not, then, Orthodox simply by being in communion with any one individual no matter who he or she is ... neither are you Orthodox simply by loving Jesus and following an arbitrary set of common beliefs or by belonging to the same local group. Neither is unity constituted by simple tolerance. The Orthodox (at least) know what Orthodoxy is and we live it and believe it together. Of course there are different points of view on contested issues but the range and depth of these is very much more limited than in the Protestant world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
...When one throws Christians together at points of engagement - such as shared ministry with the sick, or education, or struggle for justice - the old divisions soon become meaningless....

---

This reminds me of an old story, that on a Friday, someone donated a large pork roast for the dinner for the poor. The Roman Catholic priest sliced, and the Rabbi served the plates.

---