homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I originally wrote:
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?

Fr Gregory, I think I understand the way that Orthodoxy as a whole defines what's Orthodox but I'm genuinely interested in getting an answer to this question - I apologise for the frivolous nature of my hypothetical dispute but not for asking.

Is the technical definition, in terms of community within the Orthodox Church, not that your bishop must be in communion with the EP? If so can the EP remove himself unilaterally from communion with a bishop or does it require a council of Patriarchs or something similar?

I appreciate that Orthodox teaching varies less than within Anglicanism and that the nature of Orthodoxy means that it's less subject to rapid change.

I think it would be useful for you to be explicit on how this works, not just for the Dead Horse thread but also in order to answer PaulTH's question in the closed thread as it seems to me to have a direct bearing on the question of authority within Orthodoxy, and thus on who would decide if a church was sufficiently orthodox to be, well, Orthodox.

Or maybe I've missed your point again.

[ 19. November 2003, 23:07: Message edited by: Grey Face ]

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
If someone is part of the body of Christ, what basis do you have for refusing to share in that body with him/her?

This is the 6th page of this thread. Have you read any of the first 5?

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grey Face:
Is the technical definition, in terms of community within the Orthodox Church, not that your bishop must be in communion with the EP?

No.

In practical terms, nearly all churches that are generally recognized by Orthodox as Orthodox are in communion with the EP, but it's not a requirement. ROCOR, for example, is regarded by most Orthodox as Orthodox, but they're not in communion with the EP. I can't take communion in a ROCOR church, because our bishop isn't in communion with their bishop, but ROCOR and the OCA are both in communion with the church of Serbia, so someone from ROCOR could take communion in a Serbian church, and so could I.

I know it's not entirely logical, but that's how it works.

quote:
If so can the EP remove himself unilaterally from communion with a bishop or does it require a council of Patriarchs or something similar?
Yes, the EP can renounce communion with anyone he chooses. Remember, the original EP was the patriarch of Rome. He (through his envoy) broke communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

quote:
I think it would be useful for you to be explicit on how this works, not just for the Dead Horse thread but also in order to answer PaulTH's question in the closed thread as it seems to me to have a direct bearing on the question of authority within Orthodoxy, and thus on who would decide if a church was sufficiently orthodox to be, well, Orthodox.
Authority within Orthodoxy isn't as neat and tidy as it is in, say, Roman Catholicism. In fact, it's really messy. We expect that the laity will be obedient to the bishop, but we also believe that the ultimate guardian of the faith is not the bishop, but the laity. So, for example, when the bishops came back from the Council of Florence, the laity rejected the council.

As for a group who wants to become Orthodox -- I was a member for a long time of a parish that was one of the "EOC" that was brought into the Antiochian Archdiocese by His Grace Metropolitan Philip. When the folks in the EOC decided to become Orthodox, they knew that entailed becoming Orthodox in faith and practice, and also in being received into the Church by someone who was already there. They approached the EP, who wouldn't have them. But the EP can't tell another bishop what to do -- he hasn't got that kind of authority. And another bishop -- specifically Metropolitan Philip -- was, by the grace of God, pleased to receive them into the Church.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
If someone is part of the body of Christ, what basis do you have for refusing to share in that body with him/her?

This is the 6th page of this thread. Have you read any of the first 5?
I was quite deliberately putting the question simply and straightforwardly because I think the position is that simple and strarightforward. In the NT we see individuals being advised not to break bread until they resolve individual issues of sin. What we do not see is individuals being excluded from breaking bread becuase of issues of doctrine, This seems to be because breaking bread is a baseline aspect of our mutual status in the body of Christ, not a matter dependant upon organisational unity or doctrinal agreement on secondary issues.

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Jeff

Doctrinal indifferentism when it comes to worship and fellowship isn't how I read the New Testament.

Dear Grey Face

Josephine has said what I would have said. As an example of the EP issue .... remember that Nestorius was Archbishop of Constantinople and everyone HAD to be out of communion with him to be Orthodox.

As to the messiness of Orthodox ecclesiastical polity ... yes; it's there ... but I am rather glad that it's there because it means that reconciliation in truth with separated brethren becomes less complicated; (separated brethren including Rome that is). The trouble is that those churches that want everything nice and tidy are unlikely to be happy with us. Orthodoxy is like a family home ... there is love but there are also occasional rows and untidy rooms.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks josephine, I think I'm getting closer to an understanding of how this works.

So, is it the case that you individual Orthodox typically make a judgement as to whether another church is Orthodox or not, based on the -doxy and -praxis, as a separate issue from whether or not you can take communion in that church?

i.e. Orthodox = close enough to what we believe Orthodoxy to be, in terms of what what we believe and what we do
Intercommunion allowed = down to whether our bishops allow it (not the EP)

I think I'm confused because I can't point to a church and say "this is Orthodox" or "this isn't". A brief web search reveals many Orthodox churches in the UK, yet it's nearly impossible to tell what their status is without asking who their bishop is in communion with. Is it possible for a church to be Orthodox without its bishop being in communion with another Orthodox bishop at all? Your post would imply not. Would the same be true if a breakaway group of bishops ended up being out of communion even indirectly with the EP - i.e. no chain of bishops in communion leading to the EP? If you can have a situation like this, what's Ecumenical about it?

I accept that the reason you don't have an open table is that you need boundaries because you believe that it's wrong to share communion with someone who's not in the Church (capital C) whereas this isn't an issue an Anglicanism because "in the church" = "baptised", not "baptised in an Anglican church", but I can't quite get my head round this distinction between being Orthodox and being in communion, although I can see how the communion politics (if you'll forgive the term) operate to ensure uniformity across Orthodoxy in those matters considered to be important enough to make or break communion.

Are the other sacraments in the same situation? Would you accept someone Baptised, Crismated, Married etc in ROCOR in the same way as you would if he was from the Church of Serbia, or is being out of communion viewed as a temporary aberration within Orthodoxy as a whole?

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
As to the messiness of Orthodox ecclesiastical polity ... yes; it's there ... but I am rather glad that it's there because it means that reconciliation in truth with separated brethren becomes less complicated; (separated brethren including Rome that is). The trouble is that those churches that want everything nice and tidy are unlikely to be happy with us. Orthodoxy is like a family home ... there is love but there are also occasional rows and untidy rooms.

Thanks for clearing up the question of what would happen if...

But the trouble with this situation you have, it seems to me, is that an outsider can't see who's Orthodox and who isn't. If you had Constantinople out of communion with everybody else, how can an outsider choose which is the Orthodox Church and which is heterodox? It's been said that the laity as a whole makes this decision, but that implies one member, one vote, and on that basis the outsider would have to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the guardian of orthodoxy, not the Eastern Orthodox.

If you don't vote by numbers then you're back to the (Western?) Protestant situation of simply trying to decide for yourself (with guidance, obviously) which doctrines are true and which aren't, rather than accepting the teaching of the Church, yet Orthodoxy doesn't seem to present itself that way.

This is almost completely off topic now. I don't apologise for that because Alan moved the thread before the horse was completely dead [Biased] [Razz]

[ 20. November 2003, 08:23: Message edited by: Grey Face ]

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Grey Face

There are different uses of the word "Orthodox" and they need distinguishing AND relating one to the other.

(1) "orthodox" lower case is taken by us to designate those churches, groups or persons who make no claim to belong to the Orthodox Church however defined (see later) but whose believing and living is recognised by us as having considerable overlap with that of our own. So; Bishop Launcelot Andrewes was "orthodox" on that score ... but Zwingli not. The use of "orthodox" lower case should not of course be taken to infer anything about salvation. That is God's perogative.

(2) "Orthodox" uppercase covers those churches, groups and persons who are in communion with at least one other Orthodox church ... itself being in communion with at least one OTHER church and so on, (definition of canonical Orthodox). So, ROCA / ROCOR, being in communion with the Serbs is caninical Orthodox but being in an anomalous situation now with regard to Moscow its progenitor, it does not have ALL the rights and privileges that attach to being in communion with Orthodoxy as a whole. This is a disciplinary matter touching on the episcopal college and, apart from some Greeks who ought to know better frankly, this does not affect the people who may receive Communion in and between the churches quite freely. (ROCA in America is a good deal less inclined to relate to Moscow I think that ROCA in continental Europe. We are dealing in relations between flesh and blood humans after all).

(3) Those who call themselves "Orthodox" but who are not in communion with ANY other Orthodox church are regarded by us as more or less "orthodox" lower case but are not canonical and we do not share eucharistic hospitality with them. These groups are often bizarre and extremely litigious (especially in the US, surprise, surpise). That is why I am not naming them here!!! However, there is this link ...

Religious Groups That Use "Orthodox" in their names

(In scanning this list you need to pass over the author's personal gloss in the sub section about "targeting gays" ... the list is useful for the character of its canonical assessments on the grounds I have explained ALONE).

(4) Finally, there is "Orthodox" as in Oriental Orthodox ... meaning the Copts, Armenians, Syrian Orthodox, Ethopian Orthodox, Eritreian Orthodox etc. We are not in communion with any of these churches but we do not use the lower case "o." Relations between us are now very close and we MAY be on the verge of a reconciliation, ("verge" in Orthodox terms of course doesn't mean next week! [Biased] ). Many Orthodox are happy to receive these as Orthodox bar a whisker. Others not perhaps ... but notwithstanding my respect for the holy fathers ... I don't live on Mount Athos.

Primarily the relations between Orthodox and non-Orthodox churches (however defined) is a matter for bishops and synods. The crucial question, therefore, is "who is your bishop?" ... and has been since at least St. Irenaeus who asked the same question in similar circumstances.

As to the EP ... well, yes; he has first place of honour in Orthodoxy (if and until Rome comes back on board) but he has no jurisdiction or defining place in Orthodoxy.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
(2) "Orthodox" uppercase covers those churches, groups and persons who are in communion with at least one other Orthodox church ... itself being in communion with at least one OTHER church and so on, (definition of canonical Orthodox).

As to the EP ... well, yes; he has first place of honour in Orthodoxy (if and until Rome comes back on board) but he has no jurisdiction or defining place in Orthodoxy.

In your first paragraph, you missed out the final piece of the jigsaw that I'm trying to pin down - I can see that to be an Orthodox bishop you have to be in communion with an Orthodox bishop who's in communion with... etc, but where does this stop? With the EP? You've already said this isn't the case citing Nestorius but then you can have the situation where, hypothetically, Antioch, Alexandria, and Greece might become separated from the rest of Orthodoxy on some issue, yet have to my mind an equal claim to be the genuine article.

The argument seems to be based simply on the idea that there's a generally agreed body of Orthodox churches that believe themselves to be the real thing, and you're not in communion with anybody else because they're not (by this I mean not Orthodox, not not Christian). But I still don't see how this can be justified other than by pure numbers - there could be any number of (from your point of view) quasi-Orthodox bishops around who are in communion with each other but not with any of those you recognise to be Orthodox.

The site you link to states "every canonical local or worldwide Orthodox Church is in full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch"

which was my basic understanding of how you could tell the difference between an Orthodox and a quasi-Orthodox bishop - the existence or not of a chain of communion eventually including the EP. If this is not the case, and it's not the first time I've seen the definition, then surely your definition is meaningless because you have no reference point of canonical Orthodoxy.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Grey Face

The site (as Josephine has said) is not correct in saying that communion with the EP (AS AN INDIVIDUAL BISHOP) is of the sine qua non of being Orthodox ... ie., the position of Nestorius etc. Even Orthodox web masters make mistakes. [Big Grin]

"Where does it stop?" is a linear ... dare I say "western" way of looking at it; top-down as it were. Orthodox conceptions of authority are more circular than linear.

Provided that a Church has the signs of Orthodoxy and is in communion with at least one other major centre, we do not canonically disenfranchise them.

Furthermore, it is not about numbers; rather congruence in faith and life. Because there is such a firm commitment to Orthodox faith and life amongst the faithful (aided by the fact that we know what is in Orthodoxy and what is not ... what is established and what is legitimately provisional), this is an easier discernment that might be the case elsewhere.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Basically, Grey Face, it boils down to this. Orhtodoxy believes not that is part of the Church, but that it is the Church in its fullest manifestation. It, collectively, cannot countenance "communion" with any ecclesial body which do not demonstrate those things that Orthodoxy believes are essential signs of the Church. This is not unlike groups like the Partiuclar Brethren or Partic Baptists - the difference being that Orthodoxy is bigger and has a longer history and, obviously, have very different ideas about what manifestations to look for.

The Anglican Church, on the other hand, recognises that Church is manifest in different places - see the list at the back of Canon Law as to the Churches with whom the CofE is in friendly relations with - and doesn't claim that everybody has to do it a particular way in order to claim the name "Church" (of course, when it comes to talk of formal structrual union, these issues do come into consideration; but only a fringe of the CofE really believes that Methodists and URC aren't really Church).

Now, if you believe that Orthodoxy has it right, then not only will you not see any point in "shared communion" until those "visible signs" of the Church are present, you will also believe that such talk is meaningless - ultimately, Orthodoxy is the Church and therefore anything that is not Orthodox is not Church. Some people hold this view. Having read far more about Orthodoxy than almost anything else in the last 10 years, I can understand why this is. It is not a position I can embrace, which is why (amongst other reasons) I am not Orthodox.

As I said on the thread in Purgatory that was closed, full table fellowship can only happen if Roman and Orthodox Christians accept that what goes on in Anglican and Reformed Churches are really "Church". That, frankly, is an impossibility, because Orthodoxy won't accept anything other than its own definition of Orthodoxy, and Rome won't accept anything other than reintegration under the Bishop of Rome, neither of which (it seems to this Reformed Anglican with Orthodox leanings) are either desirable or necessary to salvation.

--------------------
"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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Provided that a Church has the signs of Orthodoxy and is in communion with at least one other major centre, we do not canonically disenfranchise them.

Furthermore, it is not about numbers; rather congruence in faith and life. Because there is such a firm commitment to Orthodox faith and life amongst the faithful (aided by the fact that we know what is in Orthodoxy and what is not ... what is established and what is legitimately provisional), this is an easier discernment that might be the case elsewhere.

(Italics mine)

I understand the system now I think, but I have a further couple of things to ask about and then I'll shut up:

From your first paragraph, if Orthodoxy split down the middle over some issue (unlikely given its nature perhaps but you might have thought that of the Catholic Church pre-Schism), individuals would be forced to decide whether their bishop was heretical or not. You've said this yourself. The only way they could do this would be by assessing the competing doctrines themselves, since you would have two apparently Orthodox groupings in opposition and the usual approach of following the teaching of the Church would be impossible. Do you agree that this is that case? I accept that such decisions may not come up very often (in comparison to Anglicanism for example). Your point about the ease of discernment is noted.

From your second paragraph, you say that you know what's Orthodox and what isn't... but I see this being qualitatively identical to the process that goes on in other denominations (if you'll forgive the term) particularly given that bishops actively disagree on what's Orthodox. If they did not, then every Orthodox bishop would be in full direct communion with every other and that is plainly not the case.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Dyfrig

Although you are correct in what you say you unintentionally mislead on account of what you don't say. I have been at great pains continually here to emphasise that the limits of the Orthodox Church are not known to us. We discriminate on the basis of what IS identifiable and dependable without judging what is God-blessed elsewhere. It seems to me that people jump too quickly from "fullness" to "only one." It is not a jump we make at all.

Dear Grey Face

The best example of such a split is the attempted hijack of the Church by Arianism. The Orthodox moved congregation by congregation, diocese to diocese to Orthodox bishops. The sense of it being individual opinion and selection is an imported understanding to the situation.

Finally being in full communion is an active thing, not a passive thing. It isn't established as soon as there is congruity. Such convergence has to be completed by reconciliation in one mystical body and manifest by bishops and people receiving Communion together, (clergy with orders concelebrating with concelebrating bishops).

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It seems to me that people jump too quickly from "fullness" to "only one." It is not a jump we make at all.

I cannot see how such a jump can be avoided (and Schmiemann implicitly makes it in his essays on ecumenism). If Orthodox has "fullness" then not-Orthodoxy is, be definition, "not-fullness". Whilst it is gratifying to hear individual Orthodox say that they will not say where the Spirit is not, it really does come across as polite double-think.

If you know what the Church ought to look like and you can determine where the Spirit is, you are implicitly indicating that where those criteria are not met, neither the Church nor the Spirit is present. All statements, however positively stated, exclude - saying that 2+2=4 in base 10 at the same time implies that 2+2 does not equal 3 or 5 in base 10.

And I am doing precisely the same thing, of course - I am holding up criteria for where the Church may be and evidence for the Spirit's activities; worship of God in Trinity, faithfulness to the proclamation about our Lord handed from the Apostles (both in formal worship and in daily living), the sacraments of baptism
and the eucharist and prayer. I happen to believe that these things are present, and therefore evidence of "Church", in many different places. By believing and saying this, I am by definition excluding unitarians, probably the Society of Friends, the Salvation Army (though they're lack of "non-sacramentalism" is due to their own particular self-understanding) and syncrestism. Likewise, I reject the specific beliefs of churches who deny that the Church exist beyond their own limits.

--------------------
"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
Scarlet

Mellon Collie
# 1738

 - Posted      Profile for Scarlet         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I cannot see how such a jump can be avoided (and Schmiemann implicitly makes it in his essays on ecumenism). If Orthodox has "fullness" then not-Orthodoxy is, be definition, "not-fullness". Whilst it is gratifying to hear individual Orthodox say that they will not say where the Spirit is not, it really does come across as polite double-think.

If you know what the Church ought to look like and you can determine where the Spirit is, you are implicitly indicating that where those criteria are not met, neither the Church nor the Spirit is present. All statements, however positively stated, exclude - saying that 2+2=4 in base 10 at the same time implies that 2+2 does not equal 3 or 5 in base 10.

But we are not judging whether whatever "part" any other church has is sufficient for salvation. We acknowledge that other churches have some Orthodox beliefs; the various denominations grew away from the fullness of the faith at some point, but have not entirely rejected the faith. That's as far as we take it.

Let's say, for example, that we split the Holy Scriptures apart. Your church gets the Psalms, the Letters, one of the Gospels; another church gets the remainder of the Gospels, Proverbs, some of the OT...you couldn't really speculate on whether you have enough for salvation; or whether you have the particular books necessary for salvation. All you could say is that the entire Bible of Holy Scripture would be the fullness, the complete version.

--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer

Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grey Face:
From your second paragraph, you say that you know what's Orthodox and what isn't... but I see this being qualitatively identical to the process that goes on in other denominations (if you'll forgive the term) particularly given that bishops actively disagree on what's Orthodox. If they did not, then every Orthodox bishop would be in full direct communion with every other and that is plainly not the case.

But, at the moment anyway, at least in the case of some of the Orthodox bishops who are not in communion with (some) other Orthodox bishops, the issue isn't doctrine but discipline. Most everyone agrees that ROCOR is doctrinally Orthodox. St. John the Wonderworker of San Francisco and Shanghai was a ROCOR priest, and he would never have been glorified as a saint were there any disagreement over his status as a member of the Orthodox church.

I know from the outside, Orthodoxy can be hard to figure out -- I was on the outside once, myself, and I wanted everything to have neat, tidy rules I could follow. But we just don't work that way. There is no place where anyone can say, "The buck stops here." There is no Pope, in the Western understanding of Pope. There is no single point of authority. That's because we really do believe in the priesthood of all believers, in the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. It is His work, and our faith and trust in Him, that ensures that we know where we belong.

Is it possible that an individual Orthodox might ever be put in the position of having to decide whether his priest, his bishop, is a heretic, and to seek to join with another bishop? Sure. That's happened before. But even there, it's not something someone would do on their own, with their own Bible and their own copy of the Rudder or the Philokalia.

If you were concerned about your priest, you'd go to your bishop; if you were concerned about your bishop, you'd go to another bishop. In Orthodoxy, things get worked out in relationships, together, by the grace of God and with the help of the Holy Spirit.

It's not clear, straightforward, or logical, but for the most part, Grey Face, it works. At least it does for us.

And, dyfrig, I know the "we don't know where the Spirit isn't" might seem to be polite double-talk, and in fact, for some Orthodox, that might be exactly what it is. But for most of us, anyway, it's the simple truth. We know that the Church is an Ark designed by God to bring us safely through the storm. We don't know whether any other boats will get you through or not. We simply don't know.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
the various denominations grew away from the fullness of the faith at some point, but have not entirely rejected the faith.

As I said, polite double-think. Why is it important to have "fullness" if it does not affect salvation? Why are some views rejected if they do not affect salvation? Why was it so terrible that whole world woke up to find itself Arian one morning if it had no effect on salvation? If you don't believe that there is soteriological import in holding the Orthodox faith in its fullness, then Orthodoxy has no grounds upon which to deny other denominations' equality with it. If it doesn't matter to our eternal salvation what we believe, then you have no impetous to want the world to find the fullness of Orthodoxy.

Now, I happen to believe that Orthodoxy is wrong in its claim to be the place of fullness [Razz] , but that's not your problem. The problem is that if Orthodox is really and truly "right praise" and "right belief", then anything that is not Orthodoxy is "not-right-praise" or "not-right-enough-praise", which means that it is defective. Why should such a defect worry anyone if it has nothing to do with our salvation?

--------------------
"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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Note to self: Never say publicly that you're finished asking questions [Hot and Hormonal]

Josephine,

When your Metropolitan brought the EOC into Antioch, did he risk disciplinary action for it, or is there a fair bit of leeway on these things? Obviously there's the possibility from what you've said that the EP's objection to EOC was for administrative reasons rather than doctrinal.

To use a ridiculous (at least by JimT's calculations [Biased] ) example, if one bishop tried to bring the Unitarians into Orthodoxy without a change in their beliefs, I'd imagine just about every other bishop would sever communion with him, as the only way to prevent the action.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scarlet

Mellon Collie
# 1738

 - Posted      Profile for Scarlet         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
As I said, polite double-think. Why is it important to have "fullness" if it does not affect salvation? Why are some views rejected if they do not affect salvation? Why was it so terrible that whole world woke up to find itself Arian one morning if it had no effect on salvation? If you don't believe that there is soteriological import in holding the Orthodox faith in its fullness, then Orthodoxy has no grounds upon which to deny other denominations' equality with it. If it doesn't matter to our eternal salvation what we believe, then you have no impetous to want the world to find the fullness of Orthodoxy.

But I haven't said that it doesn't affect salvation. I haven't said that it doesn't matter. Orthodoxy is the Church that has everything necessary for salvation. We don't know for sure about the others and it's not for us to know; only God knows. I just want to be in the Church which affords me everything necessary for salvation. Why take chances?

--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer

Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I hear what you're saying, bessie, really I do, but I'm trying to get you to see that by saying one thing, you're also saying (by implication and exclusion) other things as well. Consider:

Orthodoxy is the Church that has everything necessary for salvation.

By this you are also saying that;

(a) you know what is necessary for salvation and
(b) that you can judge when an organisation has those things

We don't know for sure about the others and it's not for us to know[/QUOTE]

But this falls apart - by saying that "Orthodoxy is the Church that has everything necessary for salvation" you equally assert that you know that non-Orthodoxy is not this. That's unavoidable. You do know for sure that non-Orthodoxy is not Orthodox. That's why it's called heresy.

only God knows

But that's not strictly true - if you are capable of knowing what is Orthodox, then you (pl. generic, btw) must also be capable of telling when something is not Orthodox. It's not just God who knows this - otherwise, how could you ever come to a judgement on what is necessary to salvation and where to find it.

I just want to be in the Church which affords me everything necessary for salvation.

But in order to determine this (sorry to bang on about this) you have shown yourself capable of determining where that necessary salvation is not - by embracing Orthodoxy you reject, say, Episcopalianism, Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism or whatever. You have made a judgement call that what you had before was not sufficient, did not have "fullness", was not enough to be Church.

Orthodoxy, by defining itself as where it is definite that the Spirit is, is making a judgement - even if it refuses to say so explicitly - that there are places where the Spirit is not, because quite clearly according to Orthodox standards, something like the British United Reformed Church doesn't look much like Orthodoxy either in structure or liturgy. It is an implicit and necessary corollary of saying "this is fullness" that something else is not fullness.

--------------------
"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
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grey Face:
When your Metropolitan brought the EOC into Antioch, did he risk disciplinary action for it, or is there a fair bit of leeway on these things? Obviously there's the possibility from what you've said that the EP's objection to EOC was for administrative reasons rather than doctrinal.

There were raised eyebrows worldwide when His Grace brought the EOC into the Church, but there was no risk of disciplinary action. AFAIK, the EP has never said why he wouldn't receive the EOC, but I suspect it was that he didn't believe they were sincere. My guess is that he thought they were just faddish Americans jumping on the next fad. So he refused to bring them in.

[qutoe]To use a ridiculous (at least by JimT's calculations [Biased] ) example, if one bishop tried to bring the Unitarians into Orthodoxy without a change in their beliefs, I'd imagine just about every other bishop would sever communion with him, as the only way to prevent the action. [/QUOTE]

The other bishops couldn't prevent the action. If he wanted to baptise and chrismate a bunch of Unitarians, he could do so.

But, yes, I suppose if a bishop were to do that, he would end up as the minister of a Unitarian congregation, and not a bishop of the Orthodox Church. No one in the Church would recognize him as an Orthodox bishop any longer.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It didn't really make much sense in Peter Gilquist's book as to why EP refused. My cynical suggests that (like Josephine suggested) there was distrust of this new group, and maybe there were subtle, jurisdictional arguments going on which EP didn't want to make worse. Moscow certainly wouldn't have touched them with a barge-pole - part of me wonders whether Antioch took them so as to gain a stronger foothold in the States.

--------------------
"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
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Dyfrig

Remember the Lutherans who went to Constantinople at the Reformation ... remember the Non-Jurors who were oh-so-close but couldn't venerate icons? Constantinople has seen it all before and has a long (if rather weary) memory. Believe me; Constantinople is very hot on its contested but claimed perogatives in the west. I suspect they thought that NOBODY would have the EOC. We had similar attitudes on a smaller scale with the Greeks in the UK .... complicated by a desire not to upset the CofE, (Cyprus factor). Antioch was bold. It makes progress by being bold. We thank God for Antioch because without that boldness only a handful would have become Orthodox in 1995 in the UK and not hundreds.

As to your other argument ...

I'm sorry but this "you haven't got it" argument is a complete non sequitur from our point of view. The choice is between "yes" and "don't know" ... not "yes" and "no." Remember that our salvation doctrine allows for the fact that God may save non-Christians. Do people find grace in Hinduism. We don't know. We will not say that they don't. Why should we have any opinion on that other than to hope that God saves all?

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If Orthodoxy truly is a "yes"/"don't know" position (which I don't altogether accept, but we'll run with it for now), the difference between Orthodoxy and, say, Anglicanism is thus a difference in what to do with that situation.

Orthodoxy will only allow participation in the eucharist instituted by our Lord to the definite "yes" camp - it will not allow the "don't knows" in. Conversely, Anglicanism nowadays starts from a position of allowing the "don't knows" (from its perspective) to participate, and let God sort out the rest. IO think it is here we find the symbolic and practical expression of what keeps certain churches apart.

--------------------
"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
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Dyfrig

I agree.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Jeff

Doctrinal indifferentism when it comes to worship and fellowship isn't how I read the New Testament.


I agree but I wasn't suggesting that New Testament churches were indifferent on worship or fellowship. Clearly they were extremely important issues. However they do not appear to have been a basis for deciding whether to break bread with a fellow believer. Here exclusion seems to have been on the basis of unrepented sin, and as an exception not a rule. This makes sense in the context of the Jewish history of breaking bread which was as part of eating a meal together as an expression of community.

A separate issue which does confuse me about this overall debate is that it does seem to be centred around Orthodoxy relationships with Catholic and Anglican churches. How do churches so as the one I belong to fit in which are not part of any denomination? Doctrinally the church (and many other similar ones) place a great emphasis on core biblical teaching and are in that sense extremely orthodox (though whether doctrinally they'd be regarded as Orthodox I do not know!). We not in any sense a result of a schism from Orthodoxy (I have never been a member of a Orthodox, Catholic or Anglican church so how can I be regarded as being in schism from something I never belonged to?). Yet it appears that we would not fit the Orthodox criteria for fellowship outlined above.

I understand what some of the Orthodox posters have said about the importance of relationship and I know that my church would have a smilar emphasis but ultimately the Orthodox definition of acceptability being based on whether a church is in relationship with an Orthodox bishop-even if it is one with whom there may be problems in other areas-does seem to me to be basing relationship on a 'tick-box' approach rather than genuinely on relationship or on accepting someone becuase Christ has accepted them.

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Jeff

I am pleased that you should consider yourself Orthodox. In order to contribute to the wider unity of the Christian family perhaps you should contact a godly Orthodox pastor as soon as possible ... not with an intention to convert but with a mind to understand how far we have moved together and what yet needs to be done.

quote:
However they do not appear to have been a basis for deciding whether to break bread with a fellow believer.
"Fellow believer" begs a lot of questions. Those who deny that Christ has come in the flesh, (and there are many "believers" who do that nowadays), would not be included in the Eucharistic fellowship no matter how much they loved Jesus, (Muslims love Mohammed but do not of course worship him).

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Jeff

I am pleased that you should consider yourself Orthodox. In order to contribute to the wider unity of the Christian family perhaps you should contact a godly Orthodox pastor as soon as possible ... not with an intention to convert but with a mind to understand how far we have moved together and what yet needs to be done.

quote:
However they do not appear to have been a basis for deciding whether to break bread with a fellow believer.
"Fellow believer" begs a lot of questions. Those who deny that Christ has come in the flesh, (and there are many "believers" who do that nowadays), would not be included in the Eucharistic fellowship no matter how much they loved Jesus, (Muslims love Mohammed but do not of course worship him).
With respect, I think that is evading the question. I was very much using 'fellow-beliver' in the sense of one who does believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and who worships Him as Lord. What is your reasoning for excluding them from the Eucharist?

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Jeff

I was establishing the principle that belief DOES matter when it comes to eucharistic fellowship. Having established that we need to look further at what is shared and what is not; what is agreed and what is not; what is primary and what is secondary. In many ecumenical encounters we haven't even begun to do that ... just the usual:- "well, it does really matter what you believe in that detail." From an Orthodox point of view ... it does.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim*   Email Duo Seraphim*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Copied from the closed "anglicans receiving in Catholic Churches?" thread in Purgatory:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl, Liberal Backslider:
quote:

Canon 844 §3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

Question is - which churches does the Apostolic See so judge? If not the Anglicans, who?

Just asking for information.



--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte

Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621

 - Posted      Profile for ORGANMEISTER         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Recently Bishop Mark Hanson (ELCA) led a Lutheran delegation to Rome and met with JPII. As part of their discussions, Hanson asked that the RCC officially permit Lutherans to receive the Sacrament in RC churches and lift the ban against RC's receiving the Sacrament in Lutheran churches. All this to happen in 2017 (?)....I think. I further understand the the Vatican almost immediately issued a statement reminding its parishoners against receiving Communion in any other church. Does anyone know if anything has occurred regarding this matter?????
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Duo- I believe that the RCs mean the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches (aka the non-Chalcedonians, viz., Armenian, Coptic, Assyrian, Ethiopian) and the Polish National Catholic Church.

The other churches of the Utrecht union of Old Catholic churches, I gather, are no longer on the list.

I am aware of Anglicans receiving eucharistic hospitality when in RC territory for extended periods-- certainly with the knowledge of the priest and the tolerance of the bishop.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I am aware of Anglicans receiving eucharistic hospitality when in RC territory for extended periods-- certainly with the knowledge of the priest and the tolerance of the bishop.

Recently, I attended the funeral of a family member at a local Catholic parish. I was praying throughout the service that I would not be bitter about not being able to take communion---and then the priest got up and very pointedly said that, in the interest of unity, all baptized Christians who wished to partake were welcome to do so. It so shocked me that I leaned over to my husband and said "Did he just say what I THINK he just said?!"

Call his act/gesture what you will, but I truly felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in it. And I told him so afterwards.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To follow up on my post of a few days ago, my informant provided me with a few details. He was resident in a small village in northern Spain quite distant from the nearest Anglican opportunity (likely about 6-8 hours by train) and, being a devout type, had attended mass at the parish church. After a few weeks, the parish priest noticed this stranger and they became acquainted.

My friend, as Christmas approached, asked the priest if it would be problem if he took the Sacrament. Disturbed at the notion of having to take a decision, the priest conferred with the bishop who responded by smiling, and offering him a drink. In the local manner, this was assumed to be the bishop's consent or, at any rate, his connivance.

Another friend of mine, cast by his service to Our Glorious Queen into a fairly remote village in Québec, was specifically invited by the parish priest to think of himself as a parishioner, with the words that the Pope really wouldn't mind and, in any case, was too busy to worry about details.

Our Governor General, an Anglican, has presented herself at RC altar rails several times, receiving the Sacrament, eliciting press comment. If memory serves me well, the RC Archbishop of Ottawa wrote to her, describing RC discipline in such matters, by implication hoping that she would not do this again. I believe that she has, however. Her press office has responded to queries by saying that this was a private matter....

The Orthodox escape all such problems by having two-hour church services, which dignitaries avoid for scheduling reasons. A poet acquaintance, long resident in a Greek village, attends the local church sporadically, sometimes lighting candles. She tells me that the priest now no longer frowns and even occasionally smiles, but that it gets her warm greetings from the little old ladies in the village, who are always suggesting that she marry their grandson in Sydney.... A former JW, she has no interest in communicating, but is simply drawn to the Liturgy from time to time.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura*   Email Bonaventura*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Duo- I believe that the RCs mean the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches (aka the non-Chalcedonians, viz., Armenian, Coptic, Assyrian, Ethiopian) and the Polish National Catholic Church.

The other churches of the Utrecht union of Old Catholic churches, I gather, are no longer on the list.

I am aware of Anglicans receiving eucharistic hospitality when in RC territory for extended periods-- certainly with the knowledge of the priest and the tolerance of the bishop.

Dear Augustine

I think the only criterion for members of other churches receiving communion at an RC Church is that they are from a church upholding the real presence in the eucharist. Thus lutherans and anglicans(?) may canonically receive communion 'in extremis' at a RC church, whereas Zwinglians may not... and would probably not be interested in it.

Orthodox may always receive communion at a RC church, though their own church discipline may prevent them from so doing.

--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz

Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bonaventura-- my handy canon law contact is away chasing innocent golf balls but I was given to understand that a certain degree of discretion is given to individual national conferences of bishops. I had not heard that Anglicans or Lutherans were officially identified in this regard, although practice is very much as you say-things at (least with respect to Anglicans) seems fairly uniform, so there must be some lower-level instruction around. But I will consult HCLC on his return, as he loves annoying and troublesome information, such as this must be to more rigid RCs.

In this light, it is interesting to read that two of the eastern Catholic churches have set up formal intercommunion arrangements with their Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox counterparts (Melkites with Antiochian Orthodox and Chaldeans with Assyrian Church of the East). There are some folk muttering that this can be done with continuing Anglican groups in the US, but I think that rather unlikely at this stage.

It's an interesting and potentially very important area, and worth following up.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura*   Email Bonaventura*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Augustine

see Canon 844 § 4

and

the cathecism of the Catholic Church 1401

for Roman - eastern table fellowship see
the cathecism 1399

--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz

Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura*   Email Bonaventura*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for the double post!

Here is the appropriate link:

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.htm

-from the U.S. college of bishops

--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz

Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
I think the only criterion for members of other churches receiving communion at an RC Church is that they are from a church upholding the real presence in the eucharist.

Orthodox may always receive communion at a RC church, though their own church discipline may prevent them from so doing.

Neither of these points is correct.

It is the faith of the individual in the eucharist that is the determinant. The position of their "home" ecclesial community is not relevant.

Orthodox may only receive at a Catholic eucharistic service if the condition relating to the unavailability of a priest of their own church is met.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you Bonaventura.... Possessed by the demon of ethnocentricity, I had been looking for the Canadian RC bishops' statement and it was not where I had thought it would be. I had seen it some years ago and my vague memory thereof suggests that it is not likely too far away from the US one. Racking the remnants of my brain, I cannot for the life of me recall anything singling out Anglicans or Lutherans. Trisagion's line rings more accurately, I fear.

For my own part, I have always respected the Romans' discipline on the matter (and, much like my cycling practice of stopping at red lights and signalling turns, referred to on other threads, I seem to be alone in this) but would likely re-evaluate this if cast into effectively RC-exclusive territory for a considerable period. Even so, I would suss out the lay of the land first, as I see little point or virtue in behaving abusively to the local curé.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831

 - Posted      Profile for the_grip   Email the_grip   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Great discussion!

Father Gregory, what is the current state between communion between the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Church? i'm sure that's a complex situation, but i don't hear it addressed much.

i heard once about the Anglican Church coming close to communion with the Russian Orthodox Church (i think it was in the 1920s or 1950s or something) - that is, until the whole woman priest issue arose in the Anglican Church (this isn't a slam, just what i heard). Is this true?

Blessings,
the_grip

[ 09. November 2004, 21:09: Message edited by: the_grip ]

Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
the_grip - the chances of the good Father Gregory re-reading this long defunct horse by chance is remote.

I suggest that you send a Private Message to alert him to your request

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

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ahah Tony! .... only 43 minutes late checkin' in! [Big Grin] TheOrthodoxPlot™ felt its ears burnin'.

Dear the_grip

The dialogue between Funny-Hats and Yes-But-No-But (UK comedy reference ... Vikki Pollard where are you when we need you?) ... continues but it is now more in the "we this, you the other" mode. See here (Anglican link) ...

Recent Anglican Orthodox Dialogue

Convergence was quite significant in the 30's and there were great hopes in the 50's but the ecumenical embers have dulled significantly over the last 28 years.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Father Gregory - I'm impressed!!!!

I didn't realise you spent/wasted so much time scanning the defunct equinines on the off-chance that somebody might be trying to raise a question for you! After all, this thread has been quiescent for 3 months, and you last posted to it nearly a year ago. I am almost persuaded that you do have pyschic powers - or maybe you use the search facilty against your name [Big Grin]

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

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear TonyK

I scan Purgatory, MW, (Hell rarely) and Deceased Equines for active threads that interest me.

I also want to get to 10,000 by the end of the month (sad git that I am) then I can offer a "write to Santa Gregory" temporary thread as a celebration perhaps ... not that I would dream of posting frivolously of course!

[ 13. November 2004, 11:33: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmmm - 549 to go.

Only 17 days

You'll have to get posting, Father - thats over 30 a day

Don't let me keep you here [Big Grin]

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

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, I forgot what this thread was about, and thought it might be about Catholic and Orthodox intercommunion.

I read the first page and this last and it hasn't been about what I'm after, which, if it is not a Dead Horse, will spawn one... namely, what are the major issues stopping the Catholic and Orthodox Churches uniting? I mean, why not? :angle: I was just reading the EP's letters and salutations where he refers to the Catholic Church as 'Sister Church' (letter to mark 40th anniversary of meeting of Paul VI and Athenagoras; and on the 'Falling asleep in the Lord' [Votive] of the Pope). Why are things not rockin'?!


If this is covered somewhere in the intervening 5 pages, tell me and I will brave them.


[Most interesting and nostalgic to cover a few of the posts of the last year or more. You know most native Orthodox don't even realise the non-Chalcedonians are not strictly Orthodox... and neither do the non-Chalcedonians themselves, I bet! Ha! I was explaining it to my mum... "No.", she said "They are Orthodox. I would go to my Coptic friend's church and she would come to mine". The laos wouldn't know a monofizz if it jumped out of a moussaka]

Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
what are the major issues stopping the Catholic and Orthodox Churches uniting? I mean, why not?

As I'm in neither church I'll but in with my ill-informed Proddy opinions and Fr. Gregory can correct me.

I think the three main obstacles to formal reunion are the papacy, the Bishop of Rome, and the Pope - not neccesarily in that order.

Since the Council of Constance the Roman Catholics have been increasingly committed to the idea that the Pope is the normal day-to-day boss of the whole church, and that what he says goes. Including defining new doctrines. And the eastern churches can't live with that, any more than the Protestants can.

Or so it seems to me.

I'm pretty sure that in the incredibly unlikely event of the Pope withdrawing his claim to "exercise unhindered" "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church", and that "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." then the little matters of doctrine could soon be sorted out.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arcturus
Apprentice
# 9274

 - Posted      Profile for Arcturus         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
the Papal Bull "laetentur ceoli" has not been repealed, both churches do have union, but have increasingly ignore it over time.
One of the main issues has been the "Filioque" clause in the Creed, whether the Holy Spriit proceeds from the Father directly or the Father and the Son.
Aglicans/R Catholics believe it does, the Orthodox in general do not

--------------------
Arcturus

Posts: 27 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think the three main obstacles to formal reunion are the papacy, the Bishop of Rome, and the Pope - not neccesarily in that order.

Ken is right here. It's a matter of the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

If the Pope has unilateral authority over the Church, then it doesn't matter what we say about the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, married priests, or anything else -- he's the pope, and we need to repent and be reunited to the Church.

If the Pope does not have unilateral authority over the Church, it likewise doesn't matter what we say about the filioque et al. In that case, he needs to repent, and we need to have another Ecumenical Council to sort out the differences so that the church can be reunited.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools