|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sinisterial:
[on a tangent whilst I can remember it] Out of curiosity, if I was at an Orthodox Church, and went up for communion what would happen if I- was a visiting Orthodox member;
- A visitor, not belonging to the Orthodox faith, but the priest did not know; and
- A visitor, not belonging to the Orthodox faith, and the priest was aware of this fact
[/tangent]
If the visitor does not belong to the Orthodox Church, then the priest is forbidden from giving him communion. However, some priests might disobey the Church order and give that person communion nevertheless. But if this is made know publicly, then their synods will depose them for giving communion to a non-Orthodox.
[I have read a private(?) conversation between a few theologians and a high priest who had discussed things with the Pope, saying that he [the Orthodox high-priest] gives communion to the non-Orthodox and that in Vatican the same thing is done, so we are already in inter-communion.]
quote:
Allow me to rephrase:
- Do you think that God cares a fig whether a person is a member of this Orthodox Church or that Orthodox church?
- Do you think that God cares a fig whether a person is a member of this Orthodox Church or that non-Orthodox church?
- Why?
It's not about God. It's about you. What do you want? If you want to become a Saint, then, imho the safest and most well-tested way to do so is by following the Orthodox religion.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
[edit: thanks Andreas -- I can't even envisage what it must be like to live somewhere where society and Orthodox religion are so entwined!]
The problem(?) is that I know too much for my own good ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Sinisterial,
I think others are doing a far better job than I could, so I'll bow out here, save for to say this: I think that much of the difficulty here is that, as I have said, you are equating what we see as faithfulness to God's will as revealed by the Spirit to man-made rules. It seems to me that the reason we're not getting very far in this discussion is because we have very different views about God's revelation of the Faith.
As you say, you reject Tradition as authoritative. For us, it is THE means whereby God has revealed himself to his Church. That alone, if nothing else, shows that your claim that our beliefs are the same is not accurate.
Therefore, things based on Tradition are, in your view, things that should be changed when perceived "inclusiveness" would be, from a human perspective, a better way. For us, Tradition is divinely-revealed matters of Faith. We cannot just do away with it because some people may be upset by it, any more than you could edit out the parts of the Bible that may upset some people. Do you see what I mean?
Until both sides are willing to try to see how the other side sees this (without necessarily agreeing), then any discussion is futile.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Saint Bertolin, all the arguments you propose for the uncanonical Orthodox Churches are the arguments Sinisterial proposes for the different denominations. You are accepting the uncanonical Orthodox as part of the Church but you are not accepting different denominations as part of the Church. This is antiphatical!
Andreas, I'm emotionally and spiritually weary. I don't know what else to say. I'll just say this and then leave the thread entirely. There is a marked difference between what Sinisterial is saying and what I am saying.
There is a difference between Orthodox Churches with Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Sacraments which, due to an accident of secular political history are not currently in keeping with the all administrative canons of the Church, (which were never intended to cover such a situation and where economy has had to come into play), but are trying to regularise the situation, and churches that reject much of Orthodox Faith, reject Orthodox understanding of the Sacraments, reject Holy Tradition, and yet want to display an outward expression of Communion with Orthodoxy while having no intention of remedying the fact that such Communion doesn't actually exist.
The two situations are very clearly not the same. Both need to be approached in a spirit of humility and both need to be dealt with prayerfully, openly, and honestly. We must bear in mind that our prime purpose is the salvation of souls. The canons are there to aid that process, not to stand in the way of it. We must remember that while, at the same time, not sacrificing the Truth revealed by the Holy Spirit.
I'm glad you're in a church whose canonicity isn't called into question, Andreas. I'm glad you are in a country where Orthodoxy is so much a way of life that things like the situation where people like Mousethief, Josephine, Ian Climacus and I live seems strange. That's how things should be. There's no sarcasm or malice intended here. I really am glad. In one sense, I'm somewhat jealous.
However, our situation is a real one. We have not abandoned Orthodox Faith. As do Orthodox Christians in Greece and Russia, we are striving to live the same Faith as the Saints before us. We are suffereing from the consequences of atheist persecutors of the Church, during which economy was extended. In addition to which, we are in a missionary situation here, so we do not have the canonical stability that being in a traditionally Orthodox country presents. We are trying to sort it out, but the divisions are administrative, not doctrinal. Leetle Masha, on the Purg thread about the All-Diaspora Council, linked to an article by Archbishop MARK, my own bishop. It's well worth reading.
Prayers for us from our brethren in more fortunate situations would be very much appreciated.
For my own benefit, I'm just going to leave this thread be now. I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in discussions like this and took a couple of weeks off the Ship to take stock, and yet here I am again, doing the same thing.
[ 15. May 2006, 13:39: Message edited by: Saint Bertolin ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think it's wonderful that ROCOR and the MP are reconciling. There is a lovely little monastery on an island not far from here run by two monks who are under ROCOR. They are lovely Christians and it's a beautiful little spot. And once ROCOR and the MP have re-tied the knot, I can go there and receive communion! And they can come to Holy Rez and receive communion! Is that not a reason to rejoice? A horrible wound in God's church is being healed. It is time to rejoice and pray, not to quibble and point fingers and be ugly about decisions made long before any of us were born.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Yes, Mousethief, I heartily agree! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) It seems to me that if we first mend the "schismatakia" (small, really small schisms), the "schismata" will come along eventually...
I read somewhere that some protestant denominations have over 200 different varieties. So this one "schismatakion" does not look quite so formidable in comparison. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Just thinking of all the nice new places we can go for retreats makes me want to go out and get me some new "retreat clothes"! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
If Tony will forgive me: what are Orthodox retreat clothes? Do they involve seersucker, stretch terry, or lycra like some vacation clothes but tailored for modesty in prostration? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Just my funny; I'm trying to make Saint Bertolin smile.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
I read somewhere that some protestant denominations have over 200 different varieties.
I'm not sure that's a valid comparison though, because those varieties are in most cases not out of communion with each other - and if they are, they would generally regard it as a structural issue or even an irrelevance.
If they viewed the situation as a wound in the Body of Christ - as you or I possibly think of MP/ROCA or Anglican/Catholic or East/West - it would be a different matter.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Well, Greyface, I was thinking in terms of Baptists in the U.S. South, but I take your point. What was stuck in my mind were some distinctions that may, truth be told, no longer exist, i.e., Primitive Baptists (who practice the washing of each other's feet); "Hardshell" Baptists (who practice closed communion); Freewill Baptists (who thus differentiate themselves from more Calvinistic Baptists; and "Missionary" Baptists, who focus on evangelism.
I mentioned the divisions within protestantism because I have an unquenchable hope that when the great day comes when we have just Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, without any liturgical or ethnic designations added, we'll be closer to having just one universal Church. Wouldn't that be great?
Sorry to be a failure there in communicating in words! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Oops! Lyda*Rose, God bless you! I am sure you did make St. Bertolin smile! You certainly made me smile!
As you probably guessed, going out to buy "retreat" clothes would actually just give me a good excuse to indulge my shopaholicism; but what I would really love to have, and cannot find anywhere, is the kind of dress they used to call a 'shirtwaist' dress. It buttons down the front to the waist, has a collar just like a shirt, a gathered skirt and usually a pretty braided belt.
/tangent off
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Sorry to be a failure there in communicating in words!
No need to apologise. I just felt it was important to make the distinction that the 20000+ (or whatever) Protestant denominations aren't actually evidence of there being that many schisms but rather to my mind, of a depressing factionalism. A subtly different problem.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
I see what you're saying Greyface.... It is subtly different, but depressing all the same.
Oh well. What can we do but pray for one another?
Best wishes,
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Retreat clothes are clothes that are only camouflaged on the back.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
I've been away from the Ship for a while, and have spent a day or two trawling through threads to see what's buzzing.
This one caught my eye, because I've been reacquainting my self with Orthodoxy recently.
If I may return to the original theme of the thread:
I recently attended the baptism and chrismation of a friend who had swum the Bosphorus from the CofE.
At no time did I feel 'excluded' during the Divine Lirurgy.
I joined in with the singing, I was even found a seat when my arthritic knee could stand no more!
I had no problem omitting the filioque in the Creed (like a lot of Anglicans I suspect!)
I can even respond now to the Litany in church Slavonic!
And at Communion I did not feel left out. I had no expectation of receiving, so I didn't feel miffed! I do 'understand' why I cannot, so I left my arrogance at the door.
I was, however, struck by the sense of awe at that sublime moment. The intimacy, as well as the reverence and respect with which Communion was given and received caused me to take stock of my own celebration of the Eucharist.
Far from feeling 'excluded' I felt thoroughly 'included' when invited by the Priest to venerate the cross and share in the antidoron.
Whilst not 'in communion' I certainly felt that I was in fellowship.
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What a nice post, Saint Chad! If you're ever in Seattle, by all means look us up and I'll buy you a cup of your poison of choice!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
Thank you Mousethief. It's 22 years since I visited Washington State.
If I ever get the chance to return it'll be a Bombay Sapphire & tonic, or a Tanqueray martini!
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well I can do the Tanqueray martini with supplies on hand. The Bombay Sapphire might require a run to the liquor store.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I'm an Anglican by tradition. I my village there is no Orthodox presence. However, if there were, then I would most certainly attend occasionally for the Divine Liturgy.
What if, when communion is being administered, I just went up to the front to receive. What would happen? What if the priest, perhaps a bit taken back, took me aside and said, 'sorry, but you can't receive'? What if I said, 'But I believe in Christ and want to partake of his body and blood'?
What would the rest of the congregation think? How would I feel? How would any friends or family I had brought with me feel? How awkward and naive...
Why would you put yourself and the priest in that position? You know what the situation is and if as you say you are 99.9% Orthodox, then you understand Orthodox ecclesiology, understanding of the Sacraments in light of that, and your position as non-Orthodox, so why, as somebody who is 99.9% Orthodox, would you a) show complete disregard for Orthodoxy, b) use the Blessed Sacrament as a means of making a political point? c) embarrass yourself, the priest and the congregation?
Father Gregory drew an example here.
quote:
Whatever the 'theology' the experience would be simply un-inviting.
With this in mind it is just impossible to hear 'We want everyone to partake in the sacraments' and not laugh (sorry St. Bertolin ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ).
Don't apologise. If that's how you feel when you read it, then so be it. All I can say is that it is genuinely meant. I'm sorry you find that laughable but, as has been explained here before, the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the Church. All are welcome to become part of the Church and receive, but if they choose not to do that, the Church can hardly be accused of being exclusive.
quote:
The elephant in the room of this whole subject is the massive 'as long as' which goes with this experience. 'As long as' I refuse to take the sacraments in any other church, 'As long as' I've sat the 'catechal course' and have been 'chrismated' (and if this isn't another 'initiation' ritual extra to pure baptism then I don't know what is)... then I can partake of the sacraments.
So, as long as you come to the Church then?
quote:
This is invitation with conditions, and the conditions aren't simply confidence in Christ. Jesus reprimanded the disciples from preventing little children from coming to him - I think denial of Christ to any approaching even if with 'unorthodox' childlike faith carries a larger anathema than any human council can pronounce.
I'm probably about 99.9% Orthodox and it's precisely THIS which stops me going any further.
Like it or lump it (and it sounds, from what you've said, as though you've decided to lump it), Orthodox understanding is that Orthodoxy is the Church and that this is the context of the Sacraments as means of grace as instituted by Christ within the Church. God can give his grace wheresoever and howsoever he pleases outside the Church but all we can know is what we have in the Church - the New Covenant, and we practise that. We don't accept the "branch theory" for we consider it to be heresy and so not compatible with the teachings of Christ, and so we do not consider the non-Orthodox to be in the Church. We would like for all to come to us but we don't force anyone. That's how we understand things. It may not sit well with modern ideas that "ecumenism" is the ideal and anybody who doesn't support that is bigoted, but the Church has always gone through extended periods of being unpopular. That's just how it is.
As for the condition of confidence in Christ, well that's precisely what it is. Faith in Christ, who promised his Church the Spirit of Truth and whose Church is his mystical Body. Therefore, an attitude of "Sod the teachings of the Church, sod its practice for nearly two millenia, sod its Faith and its beliefs which are founded on Christ. I want to receive and I should be able to" makes no sense from our understanding.
I'm sorry if this comes across as a little tetchy but, meaning no disrespect to you personally, Richard, I'm fed up of the same conversations happening here and IRL over and over again, with the same objections as though we're the ones who have to justify ourselves. The burden of proof lies with the innovators, and so far, I have seen no justification for the practice of "open communion" that hasn't involved a denial of a) the nature of the Church, b) the nature of the Sacrament or c) both of the above.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
We don't accept the "branch theory"
Interesting. I went along to an Antiochian service with a Shipmate of that persuasion, recently. Some of the liturgy was sort-of in English. most of it in Arabic. Incidentally, the Antiochian Orthodox Church has been an obvious, enormous spiritual resource to my mate, unmistakeably of God, and the folk there exceeded the wildest expectations of any Mystery Worshipper in their welcome and hospitality, so this is to query St B's assertion, not to knock faithful Christians. But it's the Lebanese branch in Brisbane.
Then we have a variety of Serbian branches, and a couple of Russian branches and Greek branches. Nary a word of English for the Greeks, of course, and none which anyone can understand from the Serbs or Russians. Other Australian cities have Ukrainian and Romanian branches. Unlike USA, there's no Australian branch and no early likelihood of having one because the different branches wouldn't be able to get a decision from their branch managers and General Manager on another continent.
Now God's ways are not man's, but I can't see any scriptural warrant for having to talk to Him and listen to Him in Arabic, Greek or Old Church Slavonic before I can do what Christ has commanded me, "Eat, all of you", "Drink, all of you".
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
FD, what's your point? That some immigrant churches pray in their native languages? Stop the presses!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
My point is that these are branch churches. Lebanese branches, Romanian branches, whatever, but there is no Australian branch. St B's post saying that the eastern churches don't have branches, to which mine was a reply, is disingenuous.
And the whole shebang of Eastern churches, of every flavour, comprise a super-branch, too, but a branch of Christ's Church nonetheless. By all means let them think of the Lord's Table as their own table, so that they can invite or bar whomsoever they please, but they do it as the action of a sect, a branch. By definition, if I'm not a member of the Church catholic (note the small c), then no-one can be, because the Eastern branch or Roman branch is diminished by my absence and cannot as a consequence be catholic.
I see why this is a dead horse. Neither of us will change our minds, and I don't particularly want to change minds because the Eastern church has been such a blessing under God to so many of you, But your continual parrotting that the moon is made of green cheese when it comes to the Lord's Table gets on my nerves.
Whatever. The Lord be with you. Back to the Circus where we recognise nonsense when we see it.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You don't seem to know what "branch theory" means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Foaming Draught, what Mousethief said.
Your posts have had very little to do with the Branch Theory or developments of it, and, for the most part, the jurisdictions that you have referred to as "branches" are not branches in the specific understanding of the Branch Theory.
While some basic idea of different "branches of one Church" was floating around after the reformation, I think that the Branch Theory as a codified ecclesiological understanding was a 19th-century Anglo-Catholic invention. The traditional understanding of the Church is that it is united in the Faith. There are, of course, different jurisdictions, under different bishops, some Russian, some Greek, some Ukrainian, &c., and the list goes on. These are simply different jurisdictions within the Church, holding the same Faith and united Sacramentally to each other. I can understand how it may seem reasonable to refer to them as branches, but within the specific understanding of that word in the context of the Branch Theory, that would be inaccurate.
The traditional understanding attested to by Scripture, the Fathers, and the practice of the Church in reconciling to the Church those bishops and priests who had succumbed to Nestorian, Arian, and other heresies, is that a departure from the Faith constitutes a separation from the Church. Obviously, after the reformation, there are many churches which could no longer apply this view of the Church without it having certain consequences for themselves which they were not happy with and so a new understanding of what the Church is needed to be adopted, where differences in core beliefs could all be accepted as ok.
The Anglo-Catholic Branch Theory taught that the Church exists in three distinct "branches": Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. The criteria were a retention of the threefold Apostolic ministry, adherence to the Creeds and the Sacraments, and some others that I can't remember off the top of my head. The main problems with this, of course, are that neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy ever accepted it and the vast majority of Anglicans had never even heard of it.
Many non-Orthodox Christians today believe in some development of the Branch Theory, perhaps broadening the criteria to encompass more churches without the markers of the original Branch Theory, and accepting more than three branches, but the core principle is still there, and it is this core principle that we Orthodox do not accept. We do not believe that a rejection of the Church's beliefs, which are the Christian Faith, is consonant with being in the Church.
This is why we have the arguments about Communion that are strewn on all pages of this thread. Non-Orthodox folk don't understand why these arrogant people in the Orthodox "branch" of the Church want to be so "exclusive" and not share the Sacrament with them, for we are just as much a part of the Church as they are and they have no right to exclude us. Orthodox folk can't understand why these people who have chosen to affiliate themselves with bodies outside the Church want to partake of the Sacraments of the Church but refuse to become a part of it, especially when they would be more than welcome to do so. As people have been saying since page 1 of this thread, the difference is ecclesiological more than anything else.
The difficulty from our point of view is that we haven't changed anything. We have just continued in the Faith and practice of the Church with regard to the Sacraments, and now we are being asked to justify our practice to those who have changed the beliefs and practice to things that we consider to be out of accordance with the Christian Faith. This is why I said above that the burden of proof doesn't lie with us but with the innovators.
I linked to this earlier on the thread. This page was written for people who may consider visiting a particular parish. Near the bottom of the page is a section on Communion which links to another page explaining in more detail. I don't know whether this will be of any help.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
Tommyrot. You put up the shutters in the Eleventh Century, and who can blame you? You wanted to show that a marauding bunch of mafiosi, to this day unreformed and impenitent, couldn't meet St Paul's requirement that men should examine themselves before partaking of the Lord's Supper. And for almost a millenium more, you've developed elaborate theories to reinforce your paranoid exclusivity. Good onya, I'm very glad that some birds have found such a happy home in your particular branches of St Augustine's Tree.
But I'm a Chalcedonian, I was baptised in the name of the Trinity, I live each moment by God's grace alone demonstrated in Jesus' death and resurrection, and I view your Table habits with the same amused love with which I view the Exclusive Brethren or Strict and Particular Baptists.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
FD, somewhat of an overreaction, don't you think? I'm not sure that "Tommyrot" is a helpful description of a theology that is centuries old.
For myself, as an Anglican I see myself in the mainstream of Christian thought (as I expect every member of every denomination does) and it pains me that I cannot receive communion in Orthodox or RC churches. However, since I want to show them respect, I do not receive even when I could go up to the front as a complete stranger and take the Host unchallenged. As result of many discussions on the Ship I now have a better understanding of why that "ban" is in place (tip of the hat to Josephine in particular), and my sense of personal hurt has been much diminished.
I still long for the day when we can all receive together, but recognise it may not happen in my lifetime. In which case I'm pinning my hopes on the Marriage Feast of the Lamb in Heaven.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Tommyrot.
Fair enough.
You don't need to accept anything I say, and you can reject it as tommyrot if you wish. I was simply explaining what we believe in light of what you said.
After eight pages of very helpful discussion where some deep-seated feelings of anger, pain and joy at enlightenment have come out. I'm grateful for a greater understanding of those feelings, but ss for the issue of "open communion", I'm yet to see any justification for it, even after eight pages.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brown Scapular
Shipmate
# 11687
|
Posted
A question for the Orthodox amongst you:
As a Catholic (RC) I have read that we are allowed to receive communion in Orthodox churches if no RC is available and also if in articulo mortis (this is according to the RC catechism)
What does the Orthodox church feel about this? If i was in the middle of Siberia for a year would i be refused communion in church or on my deathbed? I was under the impression that Orthodox and RC understandings of the Blessed sacrament were similar if not identical!
Any thoughts?
--------------------
Crux Sacra sit mihi Lux
Ne Draco sit mihi dux
Posts: 288 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brown Scapular:
A question for the Orthodox amongst you:
As a Catholic (RC) I have read that we are allowed to receive communion in Orthodox churches if no RC is available and also if in articulo mortis (this is according to the RC catechism)
What does the Orthodox church feel about this? If i was in the middle of Siberia for a year would i be refused communion in church or on my deathbed? I was under the impression that Orthodox and RC understandings of the Blessed sacrament were similar if not identical!
Any thoughts?
Hi Brown Scapular. Welcome aboard.
It isn't simply a matter of the understasnding of the Sacrament itself, but of ecclesiology.
We had a not dissimilar discussion recently on the Stella Maris board, where it came to light that there is a variety of thought on the status of Catholicism, from no different from any other non-Orthodox church to Orthodox in theology but simply out of communion. What can be said is that under normal circumstances, a Catholic Christian would not receive in an Orthodox Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church stipulates that, in situations where Catholics are permitted by their own discipline to receive in Orthodox churches, it may only be done where there is hierarchical agreement, i.e. there must be epicopal permission for this on both sides.
As I said above, it isn't to do with the understanding of the Sacrament alone. If that were the case, there would be no problem with you receiving in my parish. However, we do not communicate Catholics in my jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions will do so in exceptional circumstances, such as if you were on your deathbed and couldn't access a Catholic priest. Father Gregory is a priest in an Orthodox jurisdiction that does, in certain circumstances, communicate Catholics with the bishop's permission. He will know the exact procedures better than I do and may be along at some point to explain.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brown Scapular
Shipmate
# 11687
|
Posted
Thank you for your reply and welcome.
I will wait with baited breath to hear what Father Gregory has to say on the subject. Sadly i still have to rack up some more posts before I get to climb aboard Stella Maris.
BTW I presume that all Orthodox can communicate in each others churches, ie. Greeks in Russian/Romanian/Bulgarian et al churches. Also would/could you communicate in a Uniate or Maronite Church?
--------------------
Crux Sacra sit mihi Lux
Ne Draco sit mihi dux
Posts: 288 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brown Scapular:
Thank you for your reply and welcome.
I will wait with baited breath to hear what Father Gregory has to say on the subject. Sadly i still have to rack up some more posts before I get to climb aboard Stella Maris.
Ahhh. I hadn't realised that one had to achieve Shipmate status. That's easily done. Just play some of the games in the Circus. I don't know whether Word Association is still going but if so, you can probably do it by the end of today.
quote:
BTW I presume that all Orthodox can communicate in each others churches, ie. Greeks in Russian/Romanian/Bulgarian et al churches.
Oh yes, certainly! We're all Orthodox. The different Orthodox jurisdictions are perhaps the equivalent of the Catholic Bishops' Conferences. That's all. The Russian and Antiochian jurisdictions are no more divided than the Catholic Bishops' Conferences of the USA and England & Wales. They aren't directly equivalent but it's the nearest comparison I can think of. There are some structural and administrative difficulties between some of the jurisdictions but this is not a division of faith or Orthodoxy and does not prevent laity receiving the Sacraments in each other's churches.
quote:
Also would/could you communicate in a Uniate or Maronite Church?
No. These are Catholic churches, just like those of the Latin Rite. The rite they use is insignificant. In the same way, a Western Rite Orthodox parish is no more Catholic than a Byzantine Rite Orthodox parish is. They are both Orthodox, regardless of the rite they use.
[misplaced apostrophe ]
[ 29. July 2006, 11:15: Message edited by: Saint Bertolin ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brown Scapular
Shipmate
# 11687
|
Posted
Could you also enlighten me about the brouhaha in the Russian orthodox church at the moment. As far as i know the Russian Orthodox Church in exile won't speak to or recognise the Orthodox Church in Russia as thay think of them as communist aparatchiks. A friend of mine had a terrible time with her wedding to a Russian, deciding between the Orthodox church with the lovely blue onion domes you can see from Hammersmith flyover or the one in Knightsbridge who apparently are spitting vitriol at each other! Please to explain!?
--------------------
Crux Sacra sit mihi Lux
Ne Draco sit mihi dux
Posts: 288 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brown Scapular:
Could you also enlighten me about the brouhaha in the Russian orthodox church at the moment. As far as i know the Russian Orthodox Church in exile won't speak to or recognise the Orthodox Church in Russia as thay think of them as communist aparatchiks. A friend of mine had a terrible time with her wedding to a Russian, deciding between the Orthodox church with the lovely blue onion domes you can see from Hammersmith flyover or the one in Knightsbridge who apparently are spitting vitriol at each other! Please to explain!?
I'll try to summarize very briefly here, mainly because we had two very detailed threads about just this in Purgatory not long before you joined the Ship. The Russian Orthodox Church in Exile changed its name many years ago to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, aka, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
Any tales of that sort of vitriol should be seriously outdated, as both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad jurisdictions have founded a joint monastery, have begun to ordain each other's clergy, and have both agreed that they have an ultimate goal of restoring full Eucharistic Communion. You can read more about this on the website set up to report on the All-Diaspora Council of the Church Abroad from May this year.
I'm sorry your friend has had difficulty with her wedding. Many of the older Russians still remember the difficulties of the last century and there is still some upset. It may simply be the case that the make-up of the parishes in question is largely older Russians who have experienced the difficulties first-hand. I'm also not completely comfortable with the implication that the unpleasantness is purely on the side of the Church Abroad, although I understand that, as an outsider looking in, you're only aware of what you have been told. There was ill-feeling and unpleasantness on both sides and there was wrongdoing on both sides. Fortunately, those days are largely behind us.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with matters of Faith, and while there are administrative issues to be ironed out, and some property disputes, the faithful of both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad may freely receive the Sacraments in each other's churches.
If you'd like to know more, while the thread has been deleted, it seems that at least part of it was cached by Google.
I hope this helps.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Hi Saint Bertolin,
Thanks for replying to me. Sorry that I haven't got round to responding until now but life is busier than my ability to keep all these topics in the air!
Firstly, I am most humbly sorry if the strong tone of my post offended you. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone, so please forgive any trespass
Just to clarify...of course I WOULDN'T embarrass myself, an orthodox priest or any congregation by presumming to receive communion in an Orthodox church. You are all my brothers and sisters in Christ and I have no intention of inducing anyone to 'stumble' because of my actions! My 'case study' was purely rhetorical to show how the 'embarrassment' as you so clearly describe it would confirm that there IS a barrier to approaching the table (albeit a 'social' one in this case). My point was to show that the Orthodox church is NOT the inclusive church which you claim it to be (not, that is, according to any meaningful and contemporary use of the word 'inclusive').
To try and get to the heart of the matter I would suggest this concerns the subject of 'justification' - namely how we know that 'we' or anyone else is 'within the kingdom'.
Obviously this is a venture fraught with difficulty precisely because it is God alone who has such absolute knowledge (and who is the only one able to judge the secrets of all human hearts), however he did not intend us to be absolutely ignorant in this matter.
What, then, is the criterion for valid 'justification' (a 'judgement' which, by the way, must presently remain 'ahead of the time' until the real judgement day)? Well it appears that the Apostolic approach was to accept a confession of 'faith' in Christ. To acknowledge his incarnation, his death and resurrection for the 'remission of sins', his Lordship over all and his return to judge everyone. As Paul says, to be able to make such a declaration is a gift of the Spirit and all who thus 'call on the name of the Lord, will be saved...'.
However, even this has an inherent 'tension', since Jesus himself told us that 'not all who say Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom' and we have the parable of the 'wheat and the tares'!
How are we, thus, to discern?
Well, I would suggest that it is NOT our place to discern (the meaning of the wheat and the tares - both will grow up side by side until the 'judge' decides between them), and the only criterion we have to go on is a profession of 'faith in Christ' (according to the apostolic model described above).
Since the desire to 'participate in Christ' at the communion table is a simple outworking of this 'justifying faith' to deny someone the elements is to pronounce their faith 'invalid' and is thus doing something which no human (or collection of humans) has the authority to do.
I agree with the Orthodox that 'faith in Christ', producing a desire to participate in Christ, flows into communion within the Church. However the stumbling block is that the Orthodox see their community of faith as THE (only) articulation of 'church'. Thus to refuse to join the Orthodox community of faith is to refuse to be part of 'the church' and thus to refuse to be part 'of christ'. Following this logic, how - then - can anyone partake of the eucharist who has refused to be part 'of christ'? This, I believe, is the Orthodox argument for a 'closed table'.
This, of course, is a purely exclusive claim (that our 'community of faith' is the only 'true' church). We find such understandings within many strict baptist churches/exclusive brethren etc.. and it's interesting to see that they (being true to the same eucharistic logic) also practice 'closed communion'.
This claim goes too far for me and is simply ignorant of the life and work of the Spirit which is at work in many other Christian communities. I am inclined to agree that the Orthodox church has preserved a most authentic and apostolic tradition of the faith, but this doesn't mean that it is the 'only' church but, instead (perhaps) the 'best' one!
Best wishes,
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
One further thought....
Within Orthodox thought, does the definition of 'Church' proceed from the Eucharistic event or does being 'in the Church' preceed communion?
I'm thinking here that one definition of 'Church' would be of the congregation of many individual humans, each professing 'faith' in Christ, around a table and then the collective participation in the sacramental elements. Thus 'Church' arises from the dynamic process of:
Personal faith > Collective gathering > Communal sharing in the body of Christ
According to this view one is only part of the 'Church' in that they have partaken in the eucharist. So there can be no notion of 'joining the church' prior to taking communion.
The 'Orthodox' church would, thus, be the communing gathering of all those whose 'profession of faith' is 'Orthodox' (i.e. in keeping with the Apostolic canon of faith).
So.....if I approach 'a' communion table professing the orthodox and apostolic faith in Christ (so, perhaps, the Apostles creed) then, in joining with other such individuals making the same valid confession, I am becoming the Orthodox church.
Thus the 'Church' is constantly renewed and re-enacted in and through the eucharist and the apostolic confession of faith.
The rest is just roles, admin, buildings, structure which is necessary to facilitate the eucharistic communion but which isn't the 'ground' of ecclesial identity.
Any thoughts?
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Church is a body, the Body of Christ. Eucharist didn't bring Christ's body into existence. Eucharist is a function of that body, not its defining characteristic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Hi Saint Bertolin,
Thanks for replying to me. Sorry that I haven't got round to responding until now but life is busier than my ability to keep all these topics in the air!
Firstly, I am most humbly sorry if the strong tone of my post offended you. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone, so please forgive any trespass
Richard, you have nothing to apologise for. It was I who became agitated on the other thread and transferred that here. I'm sorry for having over-reacted.
quote:
My 'case study' was purely rhetorical to show how the 'embarrassment' as you so clearly describe it would confirm that there IS a barrier to approaching the table (albeit a 'social' one in this case). My point was to show that the Orthodox church is NOT the inclusive church which you claim it to be (not, that is, according to any meaningful and contemporary use of the word 'inclusive').
I think we can both agree that there is a barrier. The difference between us is that I don't see this barrier as being imposed on non-Orthodox by the Orthodox Church but rather a self-imposed barrier by those who do not come to Orthodoxy, to which they would be warmly welcomed. Therefore, I don't see this as diminishing the inclusiveness of Orthodoxy. Of course, you touched on this later in your post and I'll respond to that below.
quote:
To try and get to the heart of the matter I would suggest this concerns the subject of 'justification' - namely how we know that 'we' or anyone else is 'within the kingdom'.
Obviously this is a venture fraught with difficulty precisely because it is God alone who has such absolute knowledge (and who is the only one able to judge the secrets of all human hearts), however he did not intend us to be absolutely ignorant in this matter.
I'm agreeing with you completely thus far.
quote:
What, then, is the criterion for valid 'justification' (a 'judgement' which, by the way, must presently remain 'ahead of the time' until the real judgement day)? Well it appears that the Apostolic approach was to accept a confession of 'faith' in Christ. To acknowledge his incarnation, his death and resurrection for the 'remission of sins', his Lordship over all and his return to judge everyone. As Paul says, to be able to make such a declaration is a gift of the Spirit and all who thus 'call on the name of the Lord, will be saved...'.
However, even this has an inherent 'tension', since Jesus himself told us that 'not all who say Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom' and we have the parable of the 'wheat and the tares'!
How are we, thus, to discern?
Well, I would suggest that it is NOT our place to discern (the meaning of the wheat and the tares - both will grow up side by side until the 'judge' decides between them), and the only criterion we have to go on is a profession of 'faith in Christ' (according to the apostolic model described above).
Since the desire to 'participate in Christ' at the communion table is a simple outworking of this 'justifying faith' to deny someone the elements is to pronounce their faith 'invalid' and is thus doing something which no human (or collection of humans) has the authority to do.
And the last line, I think, highlights where we differ. The Orthodox understanding is not that the Church is merely a collection of humans. It is certainly that, but it is also the Mystical Body of Christ, the ark of salvation through which God reveals to us his Truth and bestows to us his grace which has Christ's promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fulfilled at Pentecost, to lead it into all Truth. Therefore, from our perspective, the teaching, life, worship, and practice of the Church is not simply the corporately approved statement of a collection of humans, however holy or unholy they may be, but is Holy Tradition - the revealed Truth of God, which leads into this:
quote:
I agree with the Orthodox that 'faith in Christ', producing a desire to participate in Christ, flows into communion within the Church. However the stumbling block is that the Orthodox see their community of faith as THE (only) articulation of 'church'. Thus to refuse to join the Orthodox community of faith is to refuse to be part of 'the church' and thus to refuse to be part 'of christ'. Following this logic, how - then - can anyone partake of the eucharist who has refused to be part 'of christ'? This, I believe, is the Orthodox argument for a 'closed table'.
This, of course, is a purely exclusive claim (that our 'community of faith' is the only 'true' church).
That's true, but we have to look at the reasons why that is, and it is what I said above. We don't take the approach of looking at the current situation of many bodies who claim the name Christian, and deciding that ours is the right one, because we consider that to be a flawed approach. Rather, we look at where we've come from.
Because of our understanding of what the Church is, a denial of the teachings of the Church cannot be consonant with being part of the Church, for it is to imply that Christ has failed to keep his promise of the Spirit of Truth and that the Holy Spirit has been leading the Church into error. For us, this is not compatible with faith in Christ. That's whay I said in an earlier post that we consider the branch theory and developments of it to be heresy. So when we hold to the belief that Orthodoxy is the Church, it isn't that we're being arrogant and triumphalistic. On the contrary, many of us, (and, as it happens, most of us Orthodox on the Ship), are converts to Orthodoxy who have shed any arrogance and pride that we may have had when we came to the painful realisation that the traditons that nourished us up to that point - for many of us, all our lives - for all of their riches and value, and for all the joy and love we found there, were not part of the Church, for they had, at some point in their history, separated themselves from it and had never been reconciled to the Church. Surely enough, that wasn't our personal doing as it happened centuries before we were born, but it didn't change the fact that it had happened.
quote:
This claim goes too far for me and is simply ignorant of the life and work of the Spirit which is at work in many other Christian communities.
This is only true if you believe that God is incapable of operating outside the Church. Some Orthodox will tell you that, outside of the Church, there is definitely no grace, there is definitely no salvation. Many others will tell you that within the Church, we are assured of God's promise of grace, for He has established his Church in the New Covenant but that outside the Church, we acknowledge that God can do as He pleases (it's his creation, after all), and that while we cannot say with any certainty that outside the Church there is grace and salvation (for we only know what God has promised to us within the New Covenant - the Church), we also cannot say with any certainty that there is not. This is one of those areas where there is variance within Orthodoxy but neither is a denial of any revealed Truth.
As for me, I fall within the latter category. It's just that the Church does not have the authority to depart from what God has established, and to extend what God has given as a means of grace within his Church to those who remain outside it. As I have said elsewhere on the Ship many a time in the past, I have faith and hope in the mercy of God and so I pray that God would extend that mercy to those who do not come to his Church and give his grace to them, but who am I - who is anybody - to decide to state that He does?
Regarding your second post, I think Mousethief summed it up with a lot less waffle than I could have. The Eucharist is the summit of our life in Christ but is not the defining characteristic of it.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Hi Guys!
Thanks for responding.
I went back and read some +John Zizioulas (who I find v.v. profound) and got some clarification on the eucharist/church thinking.
He basically states (and I agree) that it is the Spirit who constitutes the 'body of Christ'. And this is a 'body' in every nuance of the term - the physical body of Jesus, the community of the saints and the eucharistic elements. All of these represent 'transformed' creation (through the epiclesis of the Spirit).
Thus the 'original', ontological impulse which constructs the 'church' is the Spirit himself. From this initial impulse (historically first 'revealed' through Jesus of Nazareth), all else flows. The 'people' who make up 'church' become the 'body of Christ' through the agency of the Spirit (who produces the 'faith' which we proclaim) and the eucharist becomes the 'body' through the Spirit's transformation of the physical offerings of the people.
So I agree that the eucharistic event proceeds from the 'church' which proceeds from Christ and all only occur through the agency of the Spirit.
I think my point was that the 'church' is ALSO redefined in the eucharistic event (through the transformation that the Spirit effects in us through it) and this was where I think I was coming from. The old 'chicken and the egg' argument where clearly the church takes some of it's 'being' from the communion which is 'proclaims'.
Good to clarify that one!
On the issue of the 'entry point' into the New Covenant community. I think the difference between us is currently how each of us understands the phrase 'faith in Christ'. I'm making this out to be a 'confession' (i.e. a belief and verbal statement) and, I think, you'd like to 'solidify' this 'confession' somewhat and include in it the notion of obedience to the church's traditions.
I don't know where to go with this exactly. I agree that if one 'confesses Christ' then one will 'work out' this confession within the 'community of faith' and I agree that the Orthodox church presents (to me) the most uncorrupted traditions of the Apostles. However I think I would still insist that it is 'awareness' of confidence in Christ which marks the first obvious entry 'into Christ' and would like to make a subtle distinction between this initial 'confidence' and the subsequent outworking of it.
I think I'm trying to say that, as much as other Christian groupings might have deviated from some of the early traditions, they still represent a 'home' for those who experience 'confidence in Christ' and thus they should still have access to the communion table (since they show that Christ has clearly joined himself to them).
To say that one has to be joined to Orthodoxy prior to access to the commuion table is setting a 'test of excellence' on one's faith and, as good as this might be for theosis/transformation, I still think that one has to begin 'somewhere' and this is - perhaps - where many of the other 'churches' are currently at.
It's a fine line between Orthodoxy presenting itself as the 'better way' and insisting that it is the 'only way'.
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
It's a fine line between Orthodoxy presenting itself as the 'better way' and insisting that it is the 'only way'.
As an Orthodox, I wouldn't say either. I would say it's the Way that was founded by Jesus and his disciples, the one that He said would prevail against the gates of Hades. We have the warranty for this one; we can't vouch for any other. I wouldn't say they can't save, but rather they're not the ways that have the Apostolic Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Richard
Should we base eucharistic communion on a saving faith such as "Jesus is Lord" or should we go on to insist that it is the full confession and mutual recognition that is required. This is a parallel question to that which seeks to account for the relationship between, say, "faith" (confidence in Christ) and THE Faith (of which "X" Church claims to be the fullest expression).
Mousethief is right to put down the marker that in (say) Orthodoxy we know what we have got, so to speak, without commenting on others beyond "they don't go the whole way with respect to our confession."
Moving on though to the issues raised in my first paragraph, one would have to say that:- "Jesus is Lord" is not enough for eucharistic communion, (1 Cor 12:3). When St. Paul used this confession and St. John the one about Christ having come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3) they were identifying two elements necessary to contend against those who taught against, respectively, the divinity of Christ and the Incarnation. There is no sense here though that such confessions THEMSELVES formed an adequate basis for eucharistic communion. Indeed, move this forward to the 4th century, and an Arian could have said "Jesus is Lord" ... but by the Holy Spirit? I think not because what an Arian would have meant by that and what an Orthodox would have meant by that would have been (and is) very different.
All I am doing here is establishing the principle that simple confessional formulae (even if they express a saving confidence in Christ) cannot by themselves serve to substantiate eucharistic communion. I would not go so far as to that mere belonging to the Church is de facto evidence of Orthodoxy and eucharistic communion. It is in a quantum sense only. There is a superposition of states until one asks the question and records the answer. The question of course is:- "What does your bishop teach?"
Now, it goes without saying that if a bishop taught EXACTLY the same as us in all respects and ordered the church for which he was responsible accordingly then his reception into communion (and therefore eucharistic communion with us) is only a hair's breadth away but what is less clear is the necessity of receiving someone (and his communities) into communion if there are material matters of dissent in faith and life. That seems to us quite inconsistent and unjustifiable.
[ 30. July 2006, 16:36: 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
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Mousethief & Father Gregory,
Thankyou! I know we're in 'Dead Horses' but this topic is 'fresh' for me at my current stage of faith, so I appreciate your adding to my thinking!
Father Gregory, I agree with your statement about the 'creeds' i.e that they expressed an historic defense against erroneous ideas. In this regard they were constantly evolving and being added to - I wonder whether you, thus, think we need an 'updated' orthodox creed which states categorically which beliefs about God, Christ and the Spirit are right in 'todays' culture?
In reserving eucharistic communion for those ecclesial communities which 'subscribe' to this yet un-codified creed I see how one may avoid erroneous ideas being part of ones 'ecclesial network'. Thus the preservation of Orthodox thinking is maintained through a rejection (or expulsion) of any wrong thinking from the system.
This is partly how many protestant sects operate where groups constantly splinter anathematising each other and declaring their own position to be the 'orthodox one'! I guess the extent of schism (which is the proper term for any expulsion within ecclesial systems) depends on the extent of ones 'creed'. For example - 'Jesus is Lord' would group a large number of people together, but if one introduces 'who being of one substance with the father' would start to divide the previous group etc...
I agree with Saint Bertolin and yourself that if the Christian faith is to have any 'meaning' then it rests on 'meaningful' statements about God, Christ, the church etc... and thus (in keeping with my above point) some will be divided by these statements.
I guess my concern is that there are a large number of humans who happily subscribe to the historic creeds and who would probably agree with the Orthodox church on it's most important assertions (say, those within the Catholic/Anglican churches) but who couldn't commune with their fellow 'confessees' within your Church. This seems to make a mockery of the notion of the creeds themselves (whose original intention was to allow one to know who was 'orthodox' or not) and - to me - appears to place a barrier between brothers and sisters of the same 'orthodox' confession.
I do not know my bishops mind and he doesn't determine my 'confession' so insisting on such Episcopal fidelity to orthodoxy again places a barrier between me and my co-orthodox brothers and sisters (also the Anglican church doesn't structure its Diocese in such accountable terms!)
Kind regards,
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Richard
The Creeds mustn't be allowed to carry much here. They were, of course, originally, mini-summaries of basic instruction for baptismal candidates. (THe western Apostles' Creed fits this primitive category). Later they were added to and used to exclude error .... but NOT encompass truth.
It is the all encompassing holistic truth that contexualises Christian unity in faith and life and creeds alone cannot deliver that. So, although the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church both recite the Nicene Creed in the Eucharist (and that's important) this cannot sustain eucharistic communion because there are a whole host of other important things that divide us. The trouble is that many Anglicans think that these are trifles, (veneration of icons, no-filioque, fasting, devotion toward the Theotokos, apostolic continuity in ministry) ... whereas for the Orthodox they are a vital part of Church life.
[ 30. July 2006, 21:08: 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
|
|
Brown Scapular
Shipmate
# 11687
|
Posted
quote:
As a Catholic (RC) I have read that we are allowed to receive communion in Orthodox churches if no RC is available and also if in articulo mortis (this is according to the RC catechism)
What does the Orthodox church feel about this? If i was in the middle of Siberia for a year would i be refused communion in church or on my deathbed? I was under the impression that Orthodox and RC understandings of the Blessed sacrament were similar if not identical!
Any thoughts?
Father Gregory i would be most interested to hear your thoughts on this! As far as i can see the differences between the RC and Orthodox Church are the Filioque clause and beliefs about purgatory, (oh and a certain reticence about 3D representations of holy figures).
--------------------
Crux Sacra sit mihi Lux
Ne Draco sit mihi dux
Posts: 288 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think the Orthodox, at Communion, are as welcoming as their ecclesiology allows them to be, and more welcoming than they are giving themselves credit for.
One factor that has not been taken into consideration is the practice of distributing the antidoron after Communion - bread that has been blessed but not consecrated. Since this gets distributed to catechumens and visitors, it is a friendly gesture of goodwill. (Indeed, given that many Protestants would not distinguish between blessed and consecrated bread, you could even argue that Protestants are in communion with Orthodox - by a Protestant definition of "communion".)
[ 30. July 2006, 22:06: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Brown Scapular
The rules that apply in the Patriarchate of Antioch vis-a-vis Rome are the same. We share Communion with Roman Catholics where:-
(1) ... a Catholic priest / Church is not available or accessible.
(2) The Catholic spouse of an Orthodox person.
However, we are considered to be theologically liberal in this regard by some jurisdictions with a stricter ecclesiastical polity.
I find this to be one of the more unsatisfactory aspects of contemporary Orthodox practice ... our internal inconsistency when it comes to initiation and inter-church relations.
I know, I know, we need a primacy!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Father Gregory,
Thanks for that.
I agree that confessions can take us into 'confessionalism' which is the cul de sac which afflicts much of protestantism - as we endlessly revise and reword more and more convoluted understanding of what 'faith in Christ' actually means.
I like the idea of 'living faith' which doesn't restrict 'orthodoxy' to some textual statement (like the Westminster Confession) but articulates it through liturgy, actions, song, life etc...
Also, on second thoughts re: ones 'episcopal system', I disagree with my former position! Of course it matters what 'sort' of structure one is in. Sure, one may be able to sustain Orthodoxy within even the most heterodox system, but it's hardly the 'ideal' enviroment in which to do so, and if one then falls into erroneous thinking one shouldn't be suprised.
A example of this position is apparent with the Church of England. If one's bishop hardly believes in the Resurrection then what does this mean for the life of the community over which he/she presides? These beliefs aren't 'optional extras' and are core to our whole identity. I think alot of Christians within the Church of England are simply confused about the core foundation of the faith - and this is, in part, due to erroneous shepherds. A poor leader can and will poision any system, so you're right to suggest that it matters what ones Bishop teaches. With Anglican Bishops coming and going and being appointed by Government etc.. it's almost impossible to have any confidence that if one has a 'good' Bishop that this situation will last for any period of time.
How are Bishops chosen within the Orthodox church and is there much movement between Dioceses?
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The canons provide for election to the episcopate but that is complemented by a collective process of discernment in a provinicial synod. The balance between local voice and central steering depends very much on the established practice of each autocephalous Orthodox Church. Antioch tends to be quoite "democratic" whereas, on the whole, Russia doesn't and is more centralised.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
And once chosen, does a Bishop have to stay in their Episcopal See?
I seem to remember one of the Cappadocian Fathers getting caught out by this and not being able to become the Patriarch of Constantinople because of this 'rule'.
If this is the case then I suppose it could be a little restrictive (and stops you putting 'proven' men into influential Sees) but allows for the community to be able to work with (or suffer!) one bishop for a longer period of time.
Richard
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The rules that apply in the Patriarchate of Antioch vis-a-vis Rome are the same. We share Communion with Roman Catholics where:-
(1) ... a Catholic priest / Church is not available or accessible.
(2) The Catholic spouse of an Orthodox person.
St Bertolin has argued above that those outside the visible boundaries of Orthodoxy are outside the Church, and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean the Orthodox bit of the wider Church. Doesn't your position concede that he's wrong?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Greyface
There is a legitimate diversity of approach in Orthodoxy between those who veer toward Cyprianic rigour and those who take a softer line, (still hard though by non-Orthodox standards).
Dear Richard
Orthodox bishops don't get free transfers. Occasionally there exceptions but the general rule is "stay put."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
It's a fine line between Orthodoxy presenting itself as the 'better way' and insisting that it is the 'only way'.
As an Orthodox, I wouldn't say either. I would say it's the Way that was founded by Jesus and his disciples, the one that He said would prevail against the gates of Hades. We have the warranty for this one; we can't vouch for any other. I wouldn't say they can't save, but rather they're not the ways that have the Apostolic Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
I can't quite grasp how the Orthodox Church is the "Way that was founded by Jesus and his disciples," to the exclusion of all others.
On what is this claim based?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
