|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Roman and Eastern Table Fellowship
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Historical continuity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Historical continuity.
That's very strange. So, Orthodoxy could in fact be horribly in error, but since it claims to have a "direct line" to Christ, it has the Seal of Approval?
And why doesn't this apply to the Catholic Church, BTW?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well we believe Christ promised his Church would not go astray.
Of course the Catholics think they're the One True Church and we split away from them; we think we are and they split away from us. I can give you my arguments for our side; they can give you their arguments for theirs. Ultimately we'll know when our Lord returns.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Well, it's easy to demonstrate that the Church has, in fact, gone astray. And not just once or occasionally. To me, this is symptomatic of what's wrong with Christianity in general: the refusal to face reality and to admit wrongdoing. As individuals, we are called to repent and return to the Lord; if we don't, we are lost in the sickness of sin. Yet the Church doesn't ever apply this simple formula to itself. That's a problem
But as you say, that's another discussion. Probably not suited for this particular thread anyway. Thanks for answering.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
St Bertelin said:
I'd just like to politely point out that the term "closed communion" is generally understood as a mildly pejorative term by those who disapprove of the tradition to which it it refers and doesn't sit very well with those to who adopt that tradition as their own.
I wasn't aware that term was understood in that way. Is there an alternative term that you would consider more appropriate to describe churches of that tradition?
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
St. B: ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Then what on earth are we to call it? I'll be honest, I've never heard "closed communion" referred to as anything else (sometimes the D is dropped) or called pejorative. The Lutheran Church - Canada's apologia for the practice includes the phrase in its title.
Dear seasick and Liturgy Queen,
Thanks for responding.
For my part, open communion and closed communion are terms that I don't use, precisely because I don't consider that to which the latter refers to be in any way closed. For me, (and others I know), it has connotations of the sort of sentiment that underlies some people's posts in Purgatory from time to time: "How can churches shut people out like that? This isn't loving and inclusive..."
In discussion about who may receive in various churches, I simply refer to "the Catholic practice" if that church is under discussion, or "the Orthodox practice", "the Anglican practice", &c. That way, it's just a statement of fact with no attached value judgement.
I'm aware, though, that I'm speaking from a particular perspective. Despite having no desire to receive in any church but my own, I find myself in a position where the discipline of most churches in which I have, in the past, wanted to receive, would mean that I could if I so wished. I expect that this is in contrast to the position of many others.
I suppose it boils down to the fact that a person's ecclesiology will determine whether or not he views it as closed. For many who see all denominations as parts of the Church, then I suppose Orthodox practice does appear to be closed and exclusive. However, from the perspective of Orthodox Christians, communion is open to all members of the Church and all are welcome to become a part of the Church if they wish, and so for many of us, the term "closed communion" is inaccurate and does appear to be a value judgement used by those who disagree with our self-understanding.
Sometimes, in discussions on the Ship where the term is used frequently (such as this one), it's sometimes just easier to go along and use the term as it becomes established as a term of reference for a particular concept, so I concede that it can be a useful shorthand in some situations, but still one that I really dislike.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Union is not created by papal decree. Union is a matter of whether their bishops are prayed for at a certain part of the heirarchical liturgy by our bishops. They are not. Hence, no union.
Besides it's the ability of the pope to make unilateral calls like that that we're quibbling over in the first place!
Umm - so cross-church or cross-denomination Communion authorisation could be said to work in a similar manner to X400 cross-certification? Bear with me while I run through this.
I'm a Lotus Notes administrator professionally. Notes/Domino authenticates users and servers by checking for certificates in common. You typically set up a certificate for an organisation, then your organisational units, and then your users and servers. Only the organisation's certifiers will naturally talk to each other.
To allow comms between different Notes organisations down Notes comms ports - Cross-Certificates are generated. Anything UNDER that cross-certifier is then able to talk to its cross-cert partner.
Having a bishop from one "organisation" or "OU" praying another bishop from another practice - and vice versa, sets up a cross-certificate, thereby authenticating members of that doctrinal area or fellowship for means of Communion; would I be on the right lines?
To declare in X400/Notes form - a member is seen as, say, Father Gregory/UK/RussianOrthodox, and without a cross-cert existing, he couldn't authenticate with CommunionTable/UK/EasternOrthodox, or CommunionTable/Wycliffe/Baptist/Christ, or Sacrament/UK/RomanCatholic.
To extend my analogy - us "Open Tablers" have a
view that our common certifier is Jesus Christ, so there is no beef (or shouldn't be) with, say, Alex Cockell/Wycliffe/Baptist/ChurchCatholic/Christ authenticating with CommunionTable/<anything>/Christ.
Am I somewhat on the right lines?
Alex
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't know that I understand all of what you've said. One thing your model leaves out is that it's possible for one bishop to issue a cross-whatsit, and then be called on the rug by his fellow bishops, and withdraw it or be made to withdraw it.
--------------------
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
I think, MouseThief, that around about 1054 there was a Fatal Error in the OS.
M
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
One thing your model leaves out is that it's possible for one bishop to issue a cross-whatsit, and then be called on the rug by his fellow bishops, and withdraw it or be made to withdraw it.
- openssl -revoke RomanBish.pem
- openssl ca -gencrl -config /etc/MyChurch.cnf -out crl/OrthoPlot-ca.crl
- openssl ca -gencrl -config /etc/MyChurch.cnf -crldays 7 -crlexts crl_ext -out crl/OrthoPlot-ca.crl
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ken, but aren't we supposed to use English in our posts on the Ship?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
One thing your model leaves out is that it's possible for one bishop to issue a cross-whatsit, and then be called on the rug by his fellow bishops, and withdraw it or be made to withdraw it.
- openssl -revoke RomanBish.pem
- openssl ca -gencrl -config /etc/MyChurch.cnf -out crl/OrthoPlot-ca.crl
- openssl ca -gencrl -config /etc/MyChurch.cnf -crldays 7 -crlexts crl_ext -out crl/OrthoPlot-ca.crl
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Ken, OK - so I'm not fully au fait with Unix commands for cross-certificates, but was that to export a safe copy of a cert?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Export safe copy of a cert = the granting by a bishop of Letters Dimissory for transferring a priest to another diocese....
M
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Actually I think those commands are me acting as a Certifying Authority called OrthoPlot, and revoking a certificate called RomanBish - i.e. saying I no longer trust it (or rather am no longer willing for others to rely on my trust in it). Henve potentially causing schism if the mechanism for replicating the setup to another certifier breaks down.
This is geekier than a geeky thing with squeaky geeky knobs on.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Oh, dear, ken. I'm afraid you're White n Nerdy.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I don't know that I understand all of what you've said.
I think the English version was that whether we're One Church or not should depend on whether our common ground is Christ, as opposed to any particular bishop.
A position I fully agree with...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
psalliotica
Apprentice
# 12825
|
Posted
Or in the words of the Buitoni ad, "Don't talk. Eat."
Posts: 9 | From: Another side of the tracks | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
On a closed thread in Ecclesiantics, tallmaninthecnr asked:
quote:
Why wont Catholics and Orthodox break the bread and drink the wine with me? If Jesus is willing to dwell within me, surely I am good enough to partake of the blessed Sacrament with...
In the words good enough, I perceived a degree of upset and wanted to say, tallmaninthecnr, that far from being merely "good enough", you are positively invited and welcomed to become one with us in Communion, in the hope that our love for you can in some paltry way reflect Christ's love for you. If there is anything that any Orthodox person has done or said to make you feel otherwise, I am truly sorry. However, the choice of whether or not you enter into communion with us must be your own. Nobody else can make that decision. We can only assure you that the door is open.
As we say on my parish's website:
quote:
Communion in the Orthodox Church is not closed, and it never can be, because the love of Christ is not closed to anybody. At our parish, we hope that our visitors and friends, who are always welcome, understand that we do not seek to exclude anybody - indeed, we invite all people to explore the Orthodox Faith in greater depth and to be fully united with us in Christ, and thereby to share in Communion with us. We welcome every human being, loved by God without exception or distinction, to make that decision. If, because of attachment to their own beliefs, people choose not to become one with us, we respect their choice and we continue to love them as before. However, Communion is not just a piece of bread. That piece of bread, which becomes the risen and glorified Body of Christ in Communion, is one and the same with the communion of faith, love, and life in the mystical Body of Christ, the Church. We cannot separate the two because the two are inseparable: without the one, the other is meaningless at best, and spiritually harmful at worst. That is why we must always continue to fervently pray for an end to these divisions and to welcome all to join us in that desire, but to practise what some call "open communion" would simply be to pretend that the divisions do not exist, and would be a spiritually dangerous misuse of the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord to express communion where there is no communion - not discerning the body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Communion in the Orthodox Church is not closed, and it never can be, because the love of Christ is not closed to anybody.
Closed communion is closed communion, no matter how many sentimental words you use to cover it up. If you believe Jesus Christ approves of turning back souls that reach out in faith for the Body of Christ, then affirm it with all the vigor you have. If you don't have the moxy to do that, then don't believe it.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Communion in the Orthodox Church is not closed, and it never can be, because the love of Christ is not closed to anybody.
Closed communion is closed communion, no matter how many sentimental words you use to cover it up. If you believe Jesus Christ approves of turning back souls that reach out in faith for the Body of Christ, then affirm it with all the vigor you have. If you don't have the moxy to do that, then don't believe it.
Zach, I really didn't come here to have the same arguments that we've had time and time again on these boards. I think by now we all who have talked about it before know where we stand and why, and I hope we can accept that what others say is what they actually mean, and not a cover-up for anything just because they disagree with us. I'm not being dishonest and I'm not being cowardly. This isn't about vigour, or moxy, or any sense of wanting to prove myself right before others, or anything like that. I've done that in the past and all it does is cause frustration all round.
I merely wanted to respond to a shipmate whose wording seemed to indicate hurt, and I wanted to make good. As the original thread had been closed, I did it here. With hindsight, perhaps a PM might have been wiser.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am only agreeing with you, Mike. Practically word for word. However, that passage you posted is given in the assumption that closed communion is something that needs to be clarified into charity. These threads pop up time and time again, and time and time again the Cathodox say "I'm sorry, but..." I am saying that the Cathodox ought to stop apologizing for what they believe, and I equally think we Protestants and Anglicans ought to stop expecting them to. Certainly the Cathodox here haven't had those expectations of the Protestants.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am only agreeing with you, Mike. Practically word for word. However, that passage you posted is given in the assumption that closed communion is something that needs to be clarified into charity. These threads pop up time and time again, and time and time again the Cathodox say "I'm sorry, but..." I am saying that the Cathodox ought to stop apologizing for what they believe, and I equally think we Protestants and Anglicans ought to stop expecting them to. Certainly the Cathodox here haven't had those expectations of the Protestants.
Thank you for this, Zach. That does help, actually.
I agree with you. Sometimes I see Orthodox and other apologetics that are apologetic in the other sense as well, so much so that the content of what is being said is weakened by it. It almost feels as though they don't really believe it so it doesn't come across as very convincing. I don't think that serves anybody.
On the other hand, I do think that it's important that, whatever the situation - religious or whatever - what we say should be tailored to the audience, and if it is likely to cause offence, then I think it's important to set it in such a way that people don't switch off before they actually understand what is being said. They may understand it and disagree, of course, and that's fine, but I've seen vitriol on the internet from Orthodox people that would certainly have seen me closing the website if I were encountering it for the first time, and, as far as getting the message across is concerned, I think that's equally unhelpful as people apologising for what they believe.
I suppose some people are just better at striking the balance than others.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
There is another extreme in "apologetic apologetics." Saying you are sorry when you really aren't. That passage insists that "closed communion" is an inaccurate term because the Orthodox are really so open and accepting.... open to everyone that believes and behaves exactly as they do. Honestly, it just ends up sounding terribly insincere.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
I just want to say that I have just read through half this thread & it is is one of the saddest things that I have read in a long time: The amount of hurt that we cause each other. (I found it through the thread quoted above). The hurt in that thread resonated with me. It needs to be remembered how much these devisions at communion spill over into other aspects of life. I remember starting a new school & being asked by two of my new classmates whether I was catholic or protestant before a single person asked me my name! I made a catholic friend at University & went to church with her, took communion (neither of us had much theology) & when talking to the priest afterwards, was seriouslt reprimanded and asked not to return. It took me over 15 years to re-enter a catholic church, where much to my surprise was told I could have communion - but I never managed to take it - so despite a welcome I wasn't able to eat & drink & remember/celebrate Christ with them, despite developing an ongoing relationship with the community. I agree with Scandal on p1 - you can hear the sound of Christ weeping here
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tallmaninthecnr
Shipmate
# 15429
|
Posted
a different take to the one above though I share some of the sentiments. I found this thread because I asked the question in an OP which was closed and sent me here (rightly so as it turns out).
I have not read every post but a lot from both sides and what I took from it is that while I don't fully understand all the reasons as to why I cannot partake with some denominations, to feel aggrieved about that would be all about me and how it affects me, when in reality it does not have any real impact on me at all. There are plenty of churches I can attend to participate in the Eucharist, so I am denied nothing.
I have no doubt that apart from this issue I would be welcomed in most of these congregations with love and affection as a brother in Christ.
Would it be nice to 'share', of course it would. Should it become a matter of division, it is no longer for me at least.
Posts: 197 | From: Auckland, NZ | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
It's not the same thing, of course, but I do get some comfort from the individual blessing I receive at a Catholic church Eucharist and the sharing of the Antidoron at an Orthodox church. I see them as a gently reaching across the barriers that are there for whatever theological reasons. The theological and agape meet as best they can.
--------------------
"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
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
It's not the same thing, of course, but I do get some comfort from the individual blessing I receive at a Catholic church Eucharist and the sharing of the Antidoron at an Orthodox church. I see them as a gently reaching across the barriers that are there for whatever theological reasons. The theological and agape meet as best they can.
In a somewhat similar way, I have been to a Catholic Benediction and felt that it was ecumenical, because all present - Catholic and Protestant - shared in the same blessing. I really appreciated that.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
This thread is a bit old, but just wanted to post my two cents worth of toughts.
quote:
Originally posted by Sola Scriptura/Gunner:
The use of ecclesiology to defend a closed table seems offensive. I suspect that the excuse of ecclesiology is just there to hide their overt or covert desire to exculde by the powerful of the weak and vulnerable. If we are to be more Christ-like it means being far more generous than we tend to be at the moment. By virtue of our baptism we are Christians and memebers of the church.
Is it just me or is this post self-contradictory? The first and last sentence contradict each other. First Sola Scriptura/Gunner claims that to use ecclesiology "seems offensive." Then he goes on to use his own ecclesiology as a proof of that.
If ecclesiology didn't matter one would give communion to anyone - Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, satanists... Ecclesiology is the real issue, as Sola Scriptura ironically admists.
Let's tak a look at the Eucharist. Besides being our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eucharist has always been considered a sign of unity; it isn't a means to unity – it is the sign of the unity already established. The question, then, is an ecclesiological one. Do you have unity? Some people might say: "Yes, we believe in Christ." But is that enough? According to Catholics and Orthodox – and in fact quite a large number of traditional protestants (reformed, lutheran, etc.) – this unity isn't merely about 'believing in Jesus.' Or, rather, it is – but 'believing in Jesus' is defined as also having doctrinal unity. Protestants and RCs doesn't have that unity. Therefore they cannot share in the Eucharist – which is a sign of a unity, not just an instrument and a means to get united.
This insistence on doctrinal unity seems to me to be quite biblical. Of the first Christians we learn that they "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." (Acts 2,42) We can of course debate wether the Orthodox or the RCs do indeed "devote themselves to the apostles' teaching." But that is another issue. The point is that if you aren't united you shouldn't share the Eucharist. That wouldn't be a sign of unity, but merely a game of pretend.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
