Can noncatholic Christians take communion in a Catholic Church?
Bodhi yogi
to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
and we recieve communion every week where I attend church presently. Do
all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
blessed sacrament?
khel...@nando.net
keith
---
[It is certainly not unheard of. But you may want to know that it's
generally not permitted. The rules for communion of non-Catholics
are pretty tight (except for Orthodox). They require you to have
substantially the same understanding of eucharistic theology as
Catholics, to have access to your own church be impractical, and
as I read it, you seem to need permission of a bishop. Some pastors
have been known not to abide by the rules, but I think it's generally
not a good idea to take advantage of such a situation. --clh]
Catherine Hampton
: I have been desiring to attend a Catholic Church recently and would like
: to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
: and we recieve communion every week where I attend church presently. Do
: all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
: are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
: blessed sacrament?
Last I checked, Roman Catholic priests are forbidden to give the Eucharist
to non-Roman Catholics. Whether some ignore this and do so anyway or
not, I couldn't say, but the RC priests I've known (several) take the
Eucharist seriously even when they are in substantial disagreement with
their church on many other issues. I would certainly talk with the
priest at the church you were thinking of attending before presenting
yourself to receive communion.
--
Catherine Hampton
==================================================
ar...@best.com hr...@gw.traveller.com
--------------------------------------------------
Human Rights Web: http://www.traveller.com/~hrweb/
Home Page: http://www.best.com/~ariel/
==================================================
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--The Constitution of the United States of America
First Amendment
Brett J. Kopetsky
>I have been desiring to attend a Catholic Church recently and would like
>to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
>and we recieve communion every week where I attend church presently. Do
>all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
>are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
>blessed sacrament?
>
To the best of my knowledge (I am Roman Catholic), non-Catholics are
prohibited from receiving the Eucharist. If I remember correctly from an
insert into the songbooks of my home church, non-Catholics are invited to
join with us in prayer and worship, but are prohibited from receiving
communion because this would imply "a unity" among the denominations "which
does not exist, and one for which we must all pray." However, in many
churches, those not taking communion are asked to still come forward and
receive a blessing from the priest.
Peace and prayers,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Kopetsky \ _ . - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ._
Harrison Hall rm. B821 `-. _.- ~` ~T~ \ / /~\ \ / \~~/ `~-_
West Lafayette, IN 47906 USA`><~` | >< (---) Y > `>
(317) 49-53282 .-` `~ -._ _|_ / \ \_/ | /__ _.-~`
All opinions are my own. /` `~ ~ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - ~`
kope...@cs.purdue.edu http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/kopetsbj
Christian Page ---- http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/kopetsbj/christan.htm
Mark S. Anthony
>I have been desiring to attend a Catholic Church recently and would like
>to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
>and we recieve communion every week where I attend church presently. Do
>all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
>are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
>blessed sacrament?
Non-Catholics can receive communion under some circumstances. You
will have to check with the priest. The restrictions that I can
remember are:
You must be at peace with your God
It must be a special occasion (i.e., wedding)
You must believe that there is a special presence of the Lord in the
church.
I think that there may be one or two others.
Mark
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
writes:
> Do all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
> are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
> blessed sacrament?
I certainly understand where you are coming from, for I also feel more like a
spectator than a participant when I worship with people with whom I cannot
share communion. But I will share two reasons why I do not receive at an RC
church. Randal or some other well-informed Roman Catholic can comment on
whether they fit the facts. He (or they) can also tell you whether my
understanding is correct, but from what I have read, it is occasionally
_allowed_ but rarely authorized.
Thus, I do not receive because I believe that do so would be discourteous.
Although I might be willing to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, he is
unwilling to be in communion with me. If I were a guest at a house where
dinner was being served, regardless of how I felt about being excluded from the
meal, I would regard it as rude to eat without being invited.
I do not receive for a second reason. Some care is needed that our language,
both verbal and symbolic, not be misunderstood. While _I_, by receiving
communion from a RC priest, might intend only to communicate that I regarded
both him and me as servants of the same Lord Jesus Christ, another
interpretation of receiving might be that I acknowledged the authority and
universal jurisdiction claimed by the Bishop of Rome together with all the
doctrine he has pronounced necessary to salvation. I am unwilling to act in
such a way as to possibly convey that message.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
>
Bodhi yogi
that no noncatholics may recieve communion in a Catholic church which
brough up the following question.
What is the Orthodox position on communion. Can people from non Orthodox
traditions recieve the sacrament in an Orthodox church?
Marty Helgesen
>
>I have been desiring to attend a Catholic Church recently and would like
>to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
>all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
>are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
>blessed sacrament?
receive Communion.
Here is an official statement that the National Conference of Catho-
lic Bishops requires be printed in all missalettes. (For those
unfamiliar with the term, a missalette is a pamphlet containing some
of the prayers and scripture readings of the Masses for a month, a
liturgical season, or similar period of time, printed on newsprint.
Many Catholic parishes place them in the pews of their churches.)
"GUIDELINES FOR RECEIVING COMMUNION
"FOR CATHOLICS
"Catholics fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist
when they receive Holy Communion in fulfillment of Christ's command
to eat His Body and drink His Blood. In order to be properly dis-
posed to receive Communion, communicants should not be conscious of
having committed grave sin, have fasted for an hour, and seek to live
in charity and love with their neighbors. Persons conscious of
having committed grave sin must first be reconciled with God and the
Church through the sacrament of Penance. A frequent reception of the
sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.
"FOR OTHER CHRISTIANS
"We welcome to this celebration of the Eucharist those Chris-
tians who are not fully united with us. It is a consequence of the
sad divisions in Christianity that we cannot extend to them a general
invitation to receive Communion. Catholics believe that the Eucha-
rist is an action of the celebrating community signifying a oneness
in faith, life, and worship of the community. Reception of the
Eucharist by Christians not fully united with us would imply a one-
ness which does not exist, and for which we must all pray.
"FOR THOSE NOT RECEIVING COMMUNION
"Those not receiving communion are encouraged to express in
their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and
with one another.
"FOR NON-CHRISTIANS
"We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our
faith in Jesus. While we cannot extend to them an invitation to
receive communion, we do invite them to be united with us in prayer."
Those are the general rules. Special provisions can be made for
Eastern Orthodox and Polish National Catholic Christians, whose
beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist are the same as those of
the Catholic Church, if their own churches approve and if they do not
have access to their own priests. Also, a bishop may give special
permission to an individual non-Catholic Christian to receive Commun-
ion in a special circumstance, such as being the non-Catholic party
in a mixed marriage that takes place at a nuptial Mass, but only if
the non-Catholic's belief about the nature of the Eucharist is the
same as the Catholic belief.
This means that any non-Catholic, at least any non-Catholic who is
aware of this policy, who goes forward to receive Communion is tell-
ing a lie. By his actions he is publicly asserting before God and
the congregation that he is a Catholic who meets the requirements set
forth in the first paragraph of the Bishops' statement.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Live Lent in the Fast Lane
Stacy Stroud
>I have been desiring to attend a Catholic Church recently and would like
>to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
>and we recieve communion every week where I attend church presently. Do
>all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
>are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
>blessed sacrament?
>
Well, you might be able to find an individual pastor who will allow it.
But generally, the Church's stance is that those who would share in the
Eucharist must be "in full communion" with the Catholic Church--i.e., united
in beliefs.
Just how different are your beliefs from the teachings of the RCC?
In particular, what do you believe about the Eucharist itself? Do you view the
consecrated bread and wine as being Christ Himself ("body, blood, soul, and
divinity")?
If you do NOT, then you should definitely not be receiving communion in a
Catholic church--both out of respect for the Church's beliefs, and out of respect
for your OWN, differing, beliefs. Taking communion involves proclaiming unity
with those around you. If you cannot sincerely do that, then do not take communion.
Those are my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
Stacy Stroud
sms...@pop.uky.edu
Jack Roberts
: I have been desiring to attend a Catholic Church recently and would like
: to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
: and we recieve communion every week where I attend church presently. Do
: all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
: are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
: blessed sacrament?
Talk to a few priests beforehand. They have been known to make
exceptions. Usually you can find a priest who is willing to share the
eucharist with you if he knows you are sincere. They won't generally
allow *any* baptised Christian to recieve communion because there are
religions that claim to be Christian and that practice baptism but that
Catholics find heretical. You'll find the same problems amongst
Protestants, too.
Also, if you just go up and take communion along with everybody else, the
priest won't know that you're not Catholic. And only God will know if
you are Christian or not!
Jack
Bodhi yogi
Church?
From: gt7...@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Mandock)
To: bodh...@aol.com
In article <4gu57l$7...@geneva.rutgers.edu> you write:
>I have been desiring to attend a Catholic Church recently and would like
>to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
>and we recieve communion every week where I attend church presently. Do
>all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
>are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
>blessed sacrament?
I have a file archived somewhere wherein I quoted the pertinent canon
laws regarding your question, but I can't seem to locate it right now.
The short answer is yes, you may be able to receive the Catholic
Eucharist,
but certain conditions need to be satisfied in order for this to happen.
Can. 844 - n. 1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments
to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the
latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers
with due regard for nn. 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, n. 2.
n. 2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage
suggests,
and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it
is
lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible
to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance,
Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in
whose
churches these sacraments are valid.
n. 3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of
penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental
churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if
they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed.
This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of
the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches
as far as these sacraments are concerned.
n. 4. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in
the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops,
Catholic
ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians
who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot
approach a minster of their own community and on their own ask for it,
provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are
properly
disposed.
Best regards,
Randal L. N. Mandock
gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Randal gave me permission to post his kind response to his question. It
was so helpful. Thanks randal.
Catherine Hampton
: What is the Orthodox position on communion. Can people from non Orthodox
: traditions recieve the sacrament in an Orthodox church?
This I can answer with somewhat more authority -- according to Orthodox
canon law, no non-Orthodox can receive communion in an Orthodox church.
I have heard of a few instances when a priest bent this rule for someone
from one of the "monophysite" churches (Coptic, etc.), and have heard
rumors about it being bent for Roman Catholics under certain circumstances,
but this is extremely rare. None of the priests in any of the jurisdictions
I have had contact with (Russian/Patriarchal, OCA, ROCOR, Greek, Serbian,
Antiochan) would give communion to someone who was not an Orthodox
Christian in good standing with their bishop.
The Orthodox look upon sharing the Eucharist as a proclamation that we
share the same faith. While none of us likes the divisions in Christianity
at present :(, we feel that proclaiming a unity of faith where there is
none destroys the meaning of the Faith. Woe unto them who cry "Peace,
peace" when there is no peace, and all that.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
Norman Joseph/CTC
<bodh...@aol.com> wrote:
> What is the Orthodox position on communion. Can people from non
> Orthodox traditions recieve the sacrament in an Orthodox church?
Communion of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is only given to those
who have been baptised and chrismated into the Orthodox Faith and live
according to the life of the Church to their best ability, and who have
also properly prepared themselves beforehand with prayer and fasting,
having confessed their sins before God in the presence of an Orthodox
Priest or Father Confessor. One Orthodox writer describes participation
in the Eucharist in this way:
"To participate in Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church is to
identify oneself fully with all the members of the Orthodox faith,
living and dead; and to identify oneself fully with every aspect
of the Orthodox Church: its history, councils canons, dogmas,
disciplines. It is to 'take on oneself' the direct and concrete
responsibility for everyone and everything connected in and with the
Orthodox tradition and to profess responsibility for the everyday
life of the Orthodox Church. It is to say before God and men that
one is willing to be judged, in time and eternity, for what the
Orthodox Church is and for what the Orthodox Church stands for in
the midst of the earth."
- Fr. Thomas Hopko, _The Orthodox Faith: vol. i.: Doctrine_
In Christ,
--
~ ~
Norman Joseph, Systems Administrator jos...@ctc.com IC|XC
Concurrent Technologies Corporation 814/269.2633 --+--
NI|KA
Kurt Sander
> What is the Orthodox position on communion. Can people from non Orthodox
> traditions recieve the sacrament in an Orthodox church?
The Holy Mystery of Communion in all Eastern Orthodox Churches is offered
only to those who are baptised and chrismated into Orthodoxy.
In Christ,
Kurt Sander
Mark S. Anthony
>bodh...@aol.com (Bodhi yogi) wrote:
>>I have been desiring to attend a Catholic Church recently and would like
>>to take communion if possible. I am comfortable with liturgical services
>>and we recieve communion every week where I attend church presently. Do
>>all Catholic Churches prohibit noncatholics from recieving communion or
>>are there some that will allow any baptised Christian to recieve the
>>blessed sacrament?
>Non-Catholics can receive communion under some circumstances. You
>will have to check with the priest. The restrictions that I can
>remember are:
>You must be at peace with your God
>It must be a special occasion (i.e., wedding)
>You must believe that there is a special presence of the Lord in the
>church.
>I think that there may be one or two others.
>Mark
Oops!! I almost forgot!!! You have to have been baptized!
In reviewing the responses, it seems that most people feel that the
answer is "no." I am not a catholic; my wife is. On the occasion of
my son's first communion, the priest told a group of us "parents of
children receiving their first communion" that non-catholics CAN
receive communion under the conditions stated in my previous post.
The priest added that most priests don't like this to be generally
known, but that it is official from the Bishops who are in charge of
such things.
This naturally caused a lot of pressure on me to take communion on
this "special occasion", but I decided not to, as I could not honestly
say that I believed that there was a "special presence of the Lord" in
the church. To me, it's just a building.
The priest may have been wrong, or the other responders to this post
may be unaware that communion for non-catholics is possible under some
circumstances. Again, check with the priest involved, because
ultimately, it's his call.
Mark
Robert Walden
>In particular, what do you believe about the Eucharist itself? Do you view the
>consecrated bread and wine as being Christ Himself ("body, blood, soul, and
>divinity")?
>
>If you do NOT, then you should definitely not be receiving communion in a
>Catholic church--both out of respect for the Church's beliefs, and out of respect
>for your OWN, differing, beliefs. Taking communion involves proclaiming unity
>with those around you. If you cannot sincerely do that, then do not take
communion.
>
Good reply. But it is not only "out of respect" for the Catholic
belief that you should refrain. It is for the sake of your own SOUL
that you should refrain. For if you receive the Eucharist while not
acknowledging it as the BODY and BLOOD of Christ, you are in deep
weeds spiritually:
Paul writing in 1 Cor 10:15-16 "I speak to sensible people; judge for
yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we
give thanks a participation in the BLOOD of Christ? And is not the
bread that we break a participation in the BODY of Christ?"
Paul writing in 1 Cor 11:23-30 "For I RECEIVED FROM THE LORD what I
also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed,
took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This
is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the
same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new
covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance
of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the
bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
guilty of SINNING AGAINST THE BODY AND BLOOD of the Lord.(27) A man
ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the
cup.(28) For ANYONE who eats and drinks WITHOUT RECOGNIZING THE BODY
of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.(29) That is why many
among you are WEAK AND SICK, and a number of you have fallen asleep
(30)."
Would this warning make sense if Paul were merely referring to a
symbol of Christ? He was not. He saw Communion as the BODY and BLOOD
of Jesus Christ... a doctrine that has been taught in the Church from
the Apostles onward.
Taste and see the goodness of the Lord. This is why I came home.
Bob Walden
Roman Catholic
(former Baptist)
Michael M. Morbey
> ...
> ...
> The Orthodox look upon sharing the Eucharist as a proclamation that we
> share the same faith. While none of us likes the divisions in Christianity
> at present :(, we feel that proclaiming a unity of faith where there is
> none destroys the meaning of the Faith. Woe unto them who cry "Peace,
> peace" when there is no peace, and all that.
> ...
>
Yet this Orthodox unity is hardly a true unity since so many of
those who are truly in Christ are excluded. The Orthodox focus would
commonly appear to be more on membership in a particular group than
on Christ Who is the Unity of our faith. There is a kind of spiritual
ethnocentrism here (the Church itself become an ethnic nationalist
community). I have even noticed an Orthodox tendency to hold faith
in Christ more as a personal (and group) prejudice than as a personal
relationship to Christ free by Grace through faith and the Holy Spirit,
a relationship which is not "individualistic" since it unites and binds
each Christian person into the Communion of the Saints (which comprises
many more people than the ethnic Orthodox). You will even come across
Orthodox Christians who are not in communion with each other (at least
at the "official" level) because of their jurisdictional disputes and
whatever other petty grievances. "Closed communion" as a witness to
unity may be well-intended by the Orthodox Church, but as an Orthodox
Christian I have discovered that it tends to cut me off not only from
Chriatians of other backgrounds but even from the fulness of Orthodoxy.
Michael Morbey
Adam DeVille
>
> What is the Orthodox position on communion. Can people from non Orthodox
> traditions recieve the sacrament in an Orthodox church?
>
Others have more fully answered this question: allow me to add a bit
more to the discussion by recommending several informative essays
I've recently read on Orthodoxy and the eucharist.
Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, metropolitan of Malankara Orthodox
Syrian Church for Delhi (India) has written "Eucharistic Hospitality:
Not A Question of Hospitality. A Comment" in _The Ecumenical Review_
volume 44 #1 (Jan. 1992), pp. 46-47.
The Rev. Dr. Gennadios Limouris, former staff member of the Faith
and Order section of the World Council of Churches, has written "The
Eucharist as the Sacrament of Sharing: An Orthodox Point of View" in
_The Ecumenical Review_ volume 38 #4 (October 1986).
The Rev. Robert Stephanopoulos, dean of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocesan
Cathedral of Holy Trinity in New York, has written "Eucharistic
Hospitality: Implications for the Ecumenical Movement" and it is
also published in _The Ecumenical Review_ volume 44 #1 (Jan. 1992).
Other essays of interest are published in _Orthodox Visions of
Ecumenism: Statements, Messages and Reports on the Ecumenical
Movement 1902-1992_ (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994).
Hope this is of some interest.......
Adam J. DeVille
--
"The redeeming power of reflection cannot be supplanted by
the extension of technically exploitable knowledge."
--J. Habermas
Virulent99
denominations? I f one joins either the Catholic or Orthodox faith must
one be rebaptized?
Terral L. Croft
Please allow me to ask why you would want to take communion in a
Catholic Church? The Apostle Paul says, "For there must also be
factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have
become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, IT IS NOT
TO EAT THE LORD'S SUPPER." 1Cor. 11:19+20.
Paul goes on to say, "For I received from the Lord that which I also
delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was
betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and
said, 'this is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of
Me. In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This
cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink*,
in remembrance of Me." 1Cor. 11:23-25.
Your bible probably has an [it] added after the word "drink*" in that
last verse. That word was added by the translators. Paul is telling
us to think of Christ everytime we eat or drink. So you are
celebrating the Lord's supper everytime you eat or drink, by saying
grace. Christianity is not a religion. It is a Spiritual
relationship between you and God the Father, through His Son, by the
power of the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Father are inside of you,
the moment you put full faith in the "Blood" sacrifice of Christ.
Paul says, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth,
the gospel of our salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in
Him with the Holy Spirit of promise." Eph. 1:13. Paul also said,
"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself
through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely,
that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting
their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of
reconciliation." 2Cor. 5:18+19.
We are saved by grace through faith. Paul says, "The righteous man
shall live by faith." Gal. 3:11. The ritual performed by the
Catholics is something that is clearly seen. The fact that some are
qualified to take it and some are not, should tell you that it is a
man made thing. Again Paul says, "For you are ALL sons of God through
faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized INTO Christ
have clothed yourself with Chirst. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:26-28.
If God does not hold anything against us. Why should these men forbid
us? Are we unworthy to partake of their bread and wine, because of
God or because of men? The answer is that these men have set
themselves up as God to decide who can and cannot eat and drink in the
presence of the assembly. That is exactly what Paul was trying to
avoid in the early churches. If you want to partake of that fruit,
more power to you and God bless you. The Scriptures and the Apostle
Paul seem to take another view.
God bless,
Terral L. Croft
eli...@infousa.com
Lewis M. Witz
writes:
>
>What is the Orthodox position on communion. Can people from non
Orthodox
>traditions recieve the sacrament in an Orthodox church?
>
member of the Eastern Catholic rite (Byzantine Ruthenian), I was still
not welcome to partake of the Precious Body and Blood at an Orthodox
church. My simple explanation of this is that the belief in the
holiness of the Eucharist (transsubstantiation) is so...firm, that
crismation into the faith is the utmost profession of concurrence with
this belief. (This is my opinion...not from the books :)
CKlaiber
are in the minority), there is often an outspoken or silent agreement
between the churches not to ask questions about church membership, if
anyone desires to take communion /the Lord's supper in any Church. I know
that in a town on the swebian alb (south of Stuttgart) there was a
declaration like this in the local newspaper: "We can't allow that
officially, but we won't reject anybody." , signed by the local church
authorities of the catholic, lutheran and methodist church. So ask the
local priest. If he has problems , let it be - but perhaps he'll say:
Don't ask so much, come!
Fr. John or Cheryl Morris
> What is the Orthodox position on communion. Can people from non Orthodox
No. Non Orthodox may not receive Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church.
According to Orthodox doctrine Communion is a sacrament of unity, not a means
to achieve unity. Thus before we can share Communion with non Orthodox, we
must share a common Faith. The sad reality is that Christians are divided and
do not share a common Faith. We cannot achieve unity by pretending that we
are one when we are not united. We must be honest enough to discuss our
differences in an effort to overcome them and be truly one in the Lord. Then,
when we are one, we will be able to share Holy Communion.
Fr. John +
John Fox
other churches) are most welcome (and indeed often encouraged,
certainly in my own parish) to recieve the "Antidoron", the bread of
fellowship. This is the same loaf in appearance to that used in the
Eucharist, but which has only been blessed, not consecrated. Only
Orthodox Christians can at present receive the sacrament of Eucharist.
One day we hope that we may be re-united with all Christians, and
share in the Eucharist as we were meant to, but there are a great many
obstacles to be overcome before we see that day.
ere...@li.net
[snip] is it supposed to bring about
: a spiritual benefit or is it ceremonial?
<<Very much the first. The bread from which the Eucharist is
taken is blessed. Each Sunday I "put in" a prosphora
(antidoron is a Greek term, prosphora Russian, for the same
thing) with a list of the people I'm praying for. During the
week, during my morning prayers, I eat a piece of the
prosphora as I am praying for these people, and this is
considered an act of prayer.>>
Then it is the prayer that gives the benefit? Is the bread
united through some mystery with your prayer? (This is what I
*think* you are saying) ;-)
<<There are a lot of physical things which we Orthodox believe
carry a blessing and spiritual benefit with them. (This does
not mean they are magical, by the way.) Holy water, holy oil,
incense, and certain special things like the koliva (I think
that's how to spell it) we serve when commemorating the
dead.>>
We believe that water united with God's Word is a baptism. We
believe bread and wine united to God's Word is communion. The
concept isn't all that different. To emphasise the "spiritual"
over and against the "physical" smacks of Gnosticism to me
(that's another thread though), so there is no real difference
here. :-) If you really talk to confessional Lutherans, you
won't find too much "judgement" on matters of _adiophora_. We
even have a crucifix in our church, which scandalizes many
Evangelical Christians.:-(
: (I believe in the real presence, so don't worry about
debating that) ;-)
<<In my experience that's something Roman Catholics would
argue about more than we would. While we also most definitely
believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we
don't have any doctrine of "transubstantiation"
and prefer to leave the issue of how this happens a mystery.
After all, it =is= a mystery. :)>>
Sounds pretty good to me! :-) I meant to say that most
protestants will argue that communion is a ceremony etc, and
that I won't "slam" you on this point since our respective
doctrines are similar indeed. ;-)
<<[Your response is interesting, because it seems that your
concept of the eucharist is probably consistent with both
Lutheran and Reformed views. Thus it's not so clear that it
would make sense to deny intercommunion simply on the basis of
different ideas of what communion means. --clh]>>
The Lutheran and Reformed views are actually exclusive. We
believe that Christ's *true* body and *true* blood are
distributed during communion, no matter what the individual
actually believes. The Reformed [most anyway] believe that the
believer is spiritually transported to heaven, and there
partakes of the body and blood in a spiritual way. Lutherans
believe that since Christ is God and Man at one and the same
time, ever one, where His divine nature is, there also is His
human nature. Therefore the Reformed view is not acceptable
for us. Clear as mud now? ;-)
Blessings
---
[I believe your summary of the Reformed view is wrong. The Reformed
position is often referred to as "spiritual presence". Even that may
be slightly misleading, because Calvin at least (and I think he's
really the one who formulated this position) thought that we had real
communion with Christ's body. "Spiritual presence" could suggest that
Christ is present in spirit only. Calvin seems clearly to envision
Christ as coming to be present with us through the sacrament, not by
having us someone go up into heaven. Indeed he quotes John 6:48 and
51, which refers to "the bread of life come down from heaven" in such
a way that I think it's pretty clear that Christ is made present in
us, not that we ascend to be present with him.
Clearly the Reformed position is not consistent with the Catholic one,
because current Catholic doctrine requires you to accept a specific
theory of how Christ is present: transsubstantiation. That theory is
inconsistent with the Reformed one. However if you regard Christ's
presence as a mystery, and do not insist on a specific theory of how
he is present, then I don't see an inconsistency with the Reformed
position.
--clh]
CKlaiber
The question is very old, causing great trouble about 200A.D.! Are
baptisms performed by "heretics" valid? The catholic church stated that
they are valid and hold this line. Even a baptism performed by an
unbeliever is valid, if he has the intention to do what the church does.
There was also a decision in teh 19th century, that no special (roman
catholic) views are required to make baptism valid. (The question was
raised in the pacific area, where people from a methodist church which
denied rebirth in baptism, converted to roman catholicism.) Only the
baptism has to be in the name of the tri-une God.
I have been reported - but not beeing a catholic myselfs, I don't know for
sure, that sometimes catholics insist, that the water had to be poured,
not just sprinkled on the head of the person baptized. If that isn't
clear, I heard that sometimes rebaptisms take place.
Catherine Hampton
: "oneness Pentacostalists" ?????
: I am an active christian in a pentacostal church and the trinity is
: always referenced in baby dedications, baptism, etc. What is this
: reference to Pentacostals preaching "oneness"???
: Preaching that there is one God in three persons is now "oneness" ???
: I am an ex-catholic who is very active in his faith and this reference
: kinda throws me .... either you know something that I don't or
: vise-a-versa!!! <g>
Hesychast does know something you don't. ;> There are Pentecostals who deny
the Trinity -- I believe the United Pentecostal Church is one of them, but
this may be incorrect. These Pentecostals baptize in the name of Jesus,
instead of in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I know -- I had
one as a roommate my freshman year in college.
I know of other groups who do acknowledge the Trinity, but who baptize in
the name of Jesus as well. Not sure why they do this.
This does not imply, of course, that all or most Pentecostals are non-
Trinitarian.
Under the mercy,
FELICIA GRIFFIN
Waters) wrote:
> "Closed communion" as a witness to
> > unity may be well-intended by the Orthodox Church, but as an Orthodox
> > Christian I have discovered that it tends to cut me off not only from
> > Chriatians of other backgrounds but even from the fulness of Orthodoxy.
> >
> > Michael Morbey
>
>
> As an Orthodox Christian you are called to follow the law of the Church,
> to do less is to place yourself above the authority of the Church and its
> fathers. Obedience, when forced through the filter of rationalism and
> human pride, is nothing more than self-righteous folly. Anyone can be
> obedient to only those things which are congruent with our feeble minds.
>
> Kurt Lawrence Sander
i think you should recognize that it is Christ who heads the church, and
that the Church is the body of Christ, and the body of Christ constitutes
all true believers - people who are real Christians make up the body of
Christ. so what then is the "law of the Church". the Chruch has no name,
no definite meeting place, no origin except in Christ. the Church is not
the Romam Catholic Church, or the churches of Baptists, Episcpolians,
etc..., the Church is a living organism made up of people all throughout
time and the world who put their faith in Jesus.
with love,
fe
Fr. John or Cheryl Morris
> How does
> one know if one has prepared enough?
> Fr. John W. Morris responds:
One follows the traditions of the Church and the advice of one's spiritual
father. If one feels that one is unworthy, that is one sign that they are
humble enough to be worthy.
Fr. John +
Tom Albrecht
> Cheryl Morris responds:
>
> I do not know the RC reasoning, but for the Orthodox, the reasoning is thus:
> Baptism is the only sacrament which may be done by a lay person, i.e. in an
> emergency situation such as if I were in the hospital and had just had a baby
> and an Orthodox priest was not around, I, a lay person, could if my baby were
> dying, baptize my baby, by saying "The servant of God, name of the baby, is
> baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." ...
Why is it necessary to baptize a dying infant? And where does the Bible
teach that a "lay person" may baptize anyone?
--
Tom Albrecht Applied Presuppositionalism
top...@chesco.com http://www.chesco.com/~topcat/ap.html
Fr. John or Cheryl Morris
>
>
> i think you should recognize that it is Christ who heads the church, and
> that the Church is the body of Christ, and the body of Christ constitutes
> all true believers - people who are real Christians make up the body of
> Christ. so what then is the "law of the Church". the Chruch has no name,
> no definite meeting place, no origin except in Christ. the Church is not
> the Romam Catholic Church, or the churches of Baptists, Episcpolians,
> etc..., the Church is a living organism made up of people all throughout
> time and the world who put their faith in Jesus.
> Fr. John W. Morris responds:
Your statement illustrates my point that Christians are not united. Your view
of the Church is a Protestant view that is not the same view held by the
Orthodox Church. Thus we have different views on what it means to be Church.
Pretending that we are united when in fact we are not, will not resolve the
division of Christians. Only honest discussions with each other will bring
about Christian unity. Our point is that the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament of
unity. If a unity does not exist, then we cannot share in a Sacrament of
unity. This is not arrogant or judgemental. It is merely an honest acceptance
of the painful reality of Christian division.
Instead of criticizing us because we only share Communion with Orthodoxy, you
and others should try to understand our point of view just as we should try
to understand your point of view.
Fr. John +
Fr. John or Cheryl Morris
> Fr. John W. Morris responds:
I assume that you are a Roman Catholic since your answer contains several
points that differ from the Orthodox point of view.
Specifically, we do not understand original sin as the transmission of guilt,
but as the inheritance of the consequences of the sin of Adam, which is
mortality. We are only guilty of our own sins, not the sin of Adam.
The Orthodox Church also rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception. We believe that Mary was born in ancestrial sin. Some
Orthodox even believe that Mary committed minor sins. All Orthodox believe
that the Holy Spirit cleansed Mary of all sin. We also believe that Mary died
just as every other person died. However, we also believe that Mary has been
taken to heaven by her son. Thus we do not dogmatize the Assumption of Mary.
The only dogma the Church holds concerning Mary is that she is the Theotokos,
or birthgiver of God because Jesus Christ was God from the moment of His
conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Nor do we believe that ordination gives an indelible character. According to
Orthodox theology a priest who goes into schism or is deposed ceases to be a
priest until he is restored to the priesthood by a canonical bishop. The
priesthood is only valid when exercised within the Church.
Another difference is that we consider the priest the minister of the
Sacrament of Holy Matrimony not the couple. There are no vows in the Orthodox
marriage service.
Fr. John +
>
>
> gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
>
Frank Kurucz
: Can someone explain to me why the Catholic and Orthodox churches accept
: baptism that comes from other theological/denomination traditions when
: they maintain that other sacraments (such as the Eucharist) that take
: place within other traditions are invalid?
It is my understanding that the two churches do recognize each others
sacraments as valid. For Catholics, at least, Orthodox sacraments are
illicit, but not invalid.
Frank
Gene C. Miller
(Randal Lee Mandock) wrote:
> In article <4hoqae$k...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
> Gene C. Miller <sassoc...@worldbank.org> wrote:
> >(Randal Lee Mandock) wrote:
> >> As I said above, nobody can definitively explain a mystery.
> >
> >It might appear somewhat less mysterious if it were explored in terms of
> >the idea of substance that it presumes: to wit, the notion that
> >"substance" "exists" in two strata, "essence" and "appearance." In the
> >milieu in which the doctrine of transubstantiation was developed, this
> >division was a commonplace. In the more modern milieu, we simply don't
> >talk about "substance" in that way--and the mystery increases
> >accordingly....Gene
>
> Gene, I'm glad that someone is thinking out there. But you've raised
> some interesting ancillary questions. What do you mean by "'substance'"
> and what do you mean by "'exists'" when you apply these qualified (by
> quotation marks) terms to "'appearance'?" I understand how an _accident_
> can exist in both its absolute and modal senses, but I need you to explain
> to me how an "appearance" "exists." Do you mean to imply that "appearance"
> is the equivalent of accident in terms of its existence as it inheres in
> the Eucharist? If so, then there is no need to put the quotation marks
> around the word "exists."
I'm not sure that I can answer these as completely as I would like, as I
am not nearly so well-grounded in either Aristotle or Catholic theology as
I would like.
First off, the quotes are simply signposts that the words "substance" and
"exists" are heavily laden with metaphysics. My view is that those
metaphysics have changed over time. I don't think that either "substance"
or "exists" meant the same even to Descartes as the terms did to
Aristotle--much less what these terms might mean for us moderns in the era
of quantum physics, where the metaphysical qualities of the term "exist"
are prominent. (Do electrons "exist" when we're not looking at them?
Common-sense realism insists that they do; the evidence from quantum
physics, however, runs quite counter to common sense as I understand it.)
My point is thus not in seeking to reassert the traditional explanations
of Catholic theology on this point, but rather noting that the meanings of
the descriptions have themselves become problematic, along with so much of
the rest of Aristotle's physics.
To the extent that descriptions of transubstantiation purport to be "what
'actually' happens to the Host", they are a blend of metaphysics and
physics. If the physics is incomprehensible (or wrong), then the
metaphysics is mute (or irrelevant). Another example of this is the First
Cause argument, the foundation of which is the presupposition that
"everything has a cause"; whereas, the notion of universal causality has
had to be sacrificed in the quantum world. It appears that there are
"natural" events that are nevertheless uncaused. As a consequence, the
notion that "everything" has a cause appears to be simply wrong, and
attempts to infer universals from it will fail.
As a consequence these changes, the explanation of transubstantiation
becomes a trivial historical curiosity--the theological expression of the
central doctrine of alchemy, perhaps--rather than the symbol of
transcendence that it was intended to be. I can't agree that the solution
to the problem of the deterioration in comprehensibility of this symbol is
to attempt to revive the credibility of alchemy. But, notwithstanding your
apologia on this point, you may not intend to do this....Gene
ere...@li.net
<<One follows the traditions of the Church and the advice of
one's spiritual father. If one feels that one is unworthy,
that is one sign that they are humble enough to be worthy.>>
In my church, we encourage those who are sorry of heart to
receive communion. The main thing is a repentant attitude and
belief in the Sacraments effectiveness. Is this similar to
your "preparation" or is there more?
peace,
Ed
ere...@li.net
<<The problem, then, is trying to find an explanation of the
Real Presence that will make as much sense to modern folk as
the idea of transubstantiation made in the days when Greek
philosophy was the ultimate expression of human reason.>>
Why *must* it make sense? Why can't we take God's word for it?
It is His body and blood because He says it is. The points you
just made concerning the out dated philosophical statements
are just my point. We don't *need* an explaination, if we make
one it will be subject to revision ala Aristotle's Accisents
and Substances.The whole doctrine of transsubstantiation is
unnecessary, at least from where I stand. (A conservative
Lutheran point of view)
Blessings,
Ed
Gene C. Miller
(Randal Lee Mandock) wrote in response to me:
> >(Do electrons "exist" when we're not looking at them?
> >Common-sense realism insists that they do; the evidence from quantum
> >physics, however, runs quite counter to common sense as I understand it.)
>
> sweep when I turn on my receiver calibrator, but the physics I use tells
> me that electrons are "really" involved in making the magic happen. A
> tweak here and a tweak there, and presto, the prototype is ready to be
> transferred to the plug board. All of this depends on the real existence
> of electrons whether I am looking at them or not.
False dichotomy. The troubles that quantum physics inflict on common-sense
realism do not necessarily imply that we can only defer to "magic." What
they do imply at least is that common-sense realism is not a universally
reliable guide to normative statements about the world.
[...]
> <discussion of a proposed invalidation of causality deleted>
It is not that causality has been invalidated, but that the notion of
causality being universally applicable has come under question.
> >As a consequence these changes, the explanation of transubstantiation
> >becomes a trivial historical curiosity--the theological expression of the
> >central doctrine of alchemy, perhaps--rather than the symbol of
> >transcendence that it was intended to be.
>
> I guess this is the point that I remain confused about. If you refuse
> to accept the Catholic concept of change of substance/constancy of accident
> in transubstantiation, fine by me. However, I see no reason to equate a
> divine action to magic.
The false dichotomy recurs.
> By definition, a divine act is a transcendent act,
> even if it is capable of immanence at the same time. Transubstantiation
> is viewed by Catholic theology as the divine and transcendent act of God
> that results in a metaphysical movement in the bread and wine of consecration
> but preserves the physical character throughout the transformation. There
> is no magic involved. Just a miracle. I doubt that Aristotle knew much
> about this when he wrote his treatises.
The church's problem is that it bought into Aristotelian metaphysics and
physics by virtue of its use of those very categories to explain the
miracle. The notions of "metaphysical movement" vs. "physical
non-movement" are precisely attempts to explain that miracle, and that
language is inconceivable without Aristotle.
If there is a legitimate distinction between an event and the explanation
of an event, then there can be a legitimate distinction between the event
of transubstantiation and the Aristotelian explanation for how it occurs.
I am offering only that the explanation for transubstantiation has become
unintelligible because the categories underlying it have become
unintelligible, just as Aristotle's Four Causes have similarly become
unintelligible--except of course as a historical exercise.
The notion of what constitutes an "event" as I've used the word in the
above paragraph is, of course, not closed to exploration....Gene
Randal Lee Mandock
Stacy Stroud <sms...@service1.uky.edu> wrote:
>But I think what he's saying (and correctly) is that the whole
>substance-accident division is rather outdated.
This is your opinion, and I respect it. But it is not Catholic. If
you read through any of the magisterial documents on the subject,
including the 1992 Catechism, you will find that transubstantiation
is at the heart of what the Church believes about the Eucharist. Always
has been, always will be. Just like an all male (vir) priesthood. It
is a doctrine that is not subject to change.
>Except in the doctrine of transubstantiation itself, the idea that
>things have "substance" underlying their sensible properties is not
>employed in modern philosophy or in everyday life.
As someone else rightly pointed out about this line of argumentation:
that the average Joe on the street is unfamiliar with Thomistic
theology is all the more reason to consider the Eucharist a mystery.
>The problem, then, is trying to find an explanation of the Real
>Presence that will make as much sense to modern folk as the idea of
>transubstantiation made in the days when Greek philosophy was the
>ultimate expression of human reason.
I take a different approach. I begin with the Church, an entity
somewhat akin to Aaron as spokesman for Moses. The difference in
the two roles, as is known to biblicists, is well illustrated in Ex 4
and Eph 3:10. The Church speaks with the voice of an authority higher
than Moses. If the Church of JPII teaches and disciplines that Thomism
is a sound basis for the Catholic theology that is taught in the Catholic
seminaries today, then who am I to question her wisdom? I conform myself
to learn Thomistic theology, but I do not limit myself to this theology
alone. I just work to put my knowledge of it in accord with the magisterial
understanding of its role in handing on the Catholic faith. I thus end
up exactly where I began - with the Church's teaching.
>I am a Catholic who has run into this problem in philosophy classes.
>Since Aristotle, few philosophers have held that one can distinguish
>between the "substance" of a thing and its "accidents." Later
>philosophers have generally held that a thing's sensible properties
>ARE its reality, at least as far as human beings are concerned.
Who says that these sensible properties are _not_ its reality? Not I.
If they can be measured, predicted, described, manufactured, modified,
or perceived in any way by the sense faculties, then they surely are
real. The question devolves to whether the accident is a true
representation of the essence of a thing. According to transubstantiation
the accident represents the essence of the bread and wine prior to
consecration, but afterwards represents sacramentally the measurable
quality of the numerical reality which had the substances of bread and
wine as their subject of inhesion before transubstantiation (see Parente's
dictionary of dogmatic theology). The metaphysical and the physical
existence of the substances before and after transubstantiation is real,
but transformed.
>'Course, one could argue that to God, the substance/accidents division
>is valid, but that means that anyone who is to believe in the Catholic
>understanding of the Real Presence MUST buy into the
>substance/accidents idea. And many people (including the person
>you're replying to, and also including me to a certain extent) have
>great difficulty doing that.
Well, nobody ever said that picking up one's cross and following Christ
would be a piece of cake. The greater the gift the greater the
responsibility. If it's any consolation, I don't find it easy to reason
about the mysteries of the faith either.
Jim Steigelmann
>
>
>Why is it necessary to baptize a dying infant? And where does the Bible
>teach that a "lay person" may baptize anyone?
Where in the Bible does it allow for an institutionalized priesthood?
A question: Is the great commission - witnessing to the nations -
reserved for the 11 disciples and the formal priesthood, or is it
for all Christians? If it is for all Christians, then isn't the
command to baptise (which is given in the same sentence) *also*
given to all Christians?
--
---------------
Jim Steigelmann
----------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the
opinions of my employer, my boss, the state of Illinois,
the government of the United States of America, or of the
world in general...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Johnson
Thank you.
In Christ,
Ben Johnson
bjoh...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
Randal Lee Mandock
>of an event, then there can be a legitimate distinction between the event
>of transubstantiation and the Aristotelian explanation for how it occurs.
Ok. I have an open mind. Fire away. Let's hear your idea on the
event of transubstantiation. Explain to me in more intelligible terms
than scholastic what transubstantiation means.
>The notion of what constitutes an "event" as I've used the word in the
>above paragraph is, of course, not closed to exploration....Gene
Go for it. For until you can offer me a better description of the
event I'll stick to the Thomistic one.
Catherine Hampton
: <<One follows the traditions of the Church and the advice of
That's part of what preparation is supposed to accomplish. The point
of preparation is so that we can take the Eucharist "in a worthy
manner" -- in awareness of our need for it, and of what it cost our
Lord to give us this gift. I find having a specific rite of preparation
and specific prayers valuable because I'm not always having to reinvent
the wheel, but this doesn't stop me, or my spiritual father, from
focusing on those areas in my life which most need attention. Pity
there are so many of them. <sigh>
Under the mercy,
--
Catherine Hampton
==================================================
ar...@best.com hr...@gw.traveller.com
--------------------------------------------------
Human Rights Web: http://www.traveller.com/~hrweb/
Home Page: http://www.best.com/~ariel/
==================================================
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--The Constitution of the United States of America
First Amendment
Gainesville Roman Catholic Bible Study Group
: There are no differences in doctrine or dogma from one Orthodox church to
: another regardless of their different ethnic backgrounds. In fact you really
which is why I often meet Gk and Rus. Orthodox who differ on their
understanding of what their Chruches teach on homosexuality, abortion,
eccumenism, medical life support, etc, etc, etc. Your broken Church is
not in any way unified except via traditions and history. Even now, as
we speak, the Russian Church is undergoing revolt from one of its sects.
Haven't you read about it? It's all over the news.
Regarding the Catechism of the Orthodox Church, even my Catechism from
the Greek Seminary in Brookline, MA is NOT accepted by the Antiochean and
Russian Church in Exile Churches in America. no common catehcism amongst
the Orthodox.
: have it the opposite way around. You will not find a catechism published by
: any Orthodox jurisdiction which varies from another Orthodox catechism in
As I'm sure you are well aware, St. Vlad's in Yonkers and Holy Cross in
Brookline, MA are not anything close to being one. In fact, when I
visited both of them while I was an Antiochean Orthodox, St. Vlad's
despised Holy Cross. They had no kinds words for their "sister" seminary
in the USA. Holy Cross Seminary thought they were the only
true Orthodox seminary in the USA. So much for unity among Orthodox.
I left the Orthodox Church realizing that it was no better than the RC
Church, which is far purer than any other Church I've seen or experienced.
: Holy Tradition, but you might find various (small "t") traditions which
: differ from one jurisdiction to another. As to being constantly at war with
: one another, where are these wars?
see above.
: It might interest you to know (and I am sure the Roman Catholic catechism
: states this) that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of
: Orthodox sacraments. It is also a matter of point of view as to who
: excommunicated whom?
of course. But history speaks plainly that Photius was totally in error
and operating under politics and not the prententions of the Filioque or
Apostolic Authority. The Schism had less to do with the Papacy and more
to do with rebelliousness of Photius, and his many rebellious
predecessors. But even today, the Orthodox still have rebellions among
their own Patriarchates, with the recent Patriarch of Constantinople
being EXCLUDED from a list of Patriarchates by the Russian Patriarch.
You see, the Orthodox Church has only one thing in common: history.
>From their, the similaries end, and the opinions vary.
No common catechism? Of course, not, b/c they haven't held a single
Eccumenical Council to TEACH! How can you expect the OC to be
catechizing when it can't even be meeting under the same roof to agree on
what the Holy Spirit is teaching? eg. St. Vlad's vs. Holy Cross.
Gainesville Roman Catholic Bible Study Group
: As I recall, Luther and Calvin rejected clerical celibacy. In fact, I am
: pretty sure that Luther married an ex-nun.
it was not a sacramental marriage, however. He did it to make a
statement, not to live under the Grace of the Sacrament.
Luther was never a contemplative type person, but rather a knee-jerk
type fellow. Sad to say.
: I have no idea what either Calvin or Luther thought about birth control
: or abortion, but to my knowledge, Lutheran and Calvinist churches do not
: prohibit artificial birth control.
About the only thing Lutheran Churches have in common are the name of
their denomination. the Missouri Synod is actually more Roman Catholic
than it is Lutheran, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America,
another synod, is hardly like the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church.
Missouri does teach something pretty similar to the RC Church on birth
control and abortion. The ELCA does not.
: Frankly, I don't believe you have done a very good job of supporting your
: claim here.
which is why I didn't answer his but did yours ! :)
Gainesville Roman Catholic Bible Study Group
: Why is it necessary to baptize a dying infant? And where does the Bible
for the same reason whole households were baptized in Acts during the
severe persecution of Christians. Infants were part of families back
then too, just like today. ! :) Though China would say otherwise, as do
NARAL, NOW, PP, etc,
Tom Albrecht
> Because every believer has the authority
> to baptize (see Matt 28:19) ...
Being a Sola Scriptura Kinda Guy (SSKG), allow me to ask: Since the immediate
context of Matthew 28:19 tells us that that Jesus was speaking to the
apostles ("the eleven"; v. 16), how do you extrapolate that the authority to
baptize has passed to every believer based on that passage? Doesn't the
context of Matthew 28 suggest that the authority to baptize rests solely with
Church leaders?
> but the church
> generally restricts the authority to administer
> the other sacraments to the bishop or his
> representative, the local pastor.
Seems like an arbitrary distinction. Scripture, please?
> There is also the practical reason that the
> church did not want the salvation of any
> believer to depend upon the person administering
> the sacrament. That would be even more intolerable
> than depending upon your own works instead of Christ's!
Salvation is not dependent on the person receiving water baptism. Water
baptism is simply a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, especially of
identification of the believer with the death and burial of Christ and the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:12; Matt. 3:11).
Tom Albrecht
> : Why is it necessary to baptize a dying infant? And where does the Bible
>
> for the same reason whole households were baptized in Acts during the
> severe persecution of Christians. ...
Non sequitur. Please explain how dying infants and household baptisms of
Acts are directly related. None of the household baptisms in Acts were done
because of immediate persecution. I fail to see your point.
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
>
> : Why is it necessary to baptize a dying infant? And where does the Bible
>
> for the same reason whole households were baptized in Acts during the
> then too, just like today. ! :) Though China would say otherwise, as do
> NARAL, NOW, PP, etc,
Cheryl Morris responds:
The Bible also says that as many as have been baptized into Christ have
put on Christ and Christ says "suffer ye not the children to come unto
me."
Randal Lee Mandock
Fr. John or Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> wrote:
>We simply believe the words of the Holy Scriptures and leave it at that with
>no effort to understand the mystery of Holy Communion.
Do you believe I sin by trying to understand exactly what it is I am eating
at Mass?
Randal
gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> Sometimes you sound positively Lutheran!;-) Well said. I
> believe the whole doctrine of transsubstantiation is unnessary
> and was introduced as an apologetic against some people who
> had re-discovered Aristotle. It in fact uses Aristotalian
> categories to explain God's work in the Eucharist.
Fr. John W. Morris responds:
That is why the Orthodox reject the doctrine of transubstantion, because it
is an attempe to explain the Eucharist using Aristotalian categories. We
believe that the Eucharist is a mystery that cannot be explained using any
categories. The Eucharist is something that we experience, not something we
can or should try to explain.
Fr. John +
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> > but the church
> > generally restricts the authority to administer
> > the other sacraments to the bishop or his
> > representative, the local pastor.
>
> Seems like an arbitrary distinction. Scripture, please?
Fr. John W. Morris responds:
It does not need a Scriptural basis. It is the clear teaching of Holy
Tradition that only a bishop or his representative, the local pastor can
administer the Sacraments. Sola Scriptura is a relatively modern Protestant
belief. The ancient Church did not believe in sola scriptura. It believed in
Holy Tradition, part of which is the Holy Scriptures.
Water
> baptism is simply a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, especially of
> identification of the believer with the death and burial of Christ and the
> outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:12; Matt. 3:11).
>
Fr. John responds;
Baptism is not a mere symbol. It is a real means of grace. We are saved by
grace. We receive saving grace through the Sacramental Life of the Church.
Fr. John +
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> Could you expound on what happens in an Orthodox wedding ceremony?
There are no vows in an Orthodox wedding ceremony. The emphasis is on the
blessing of the couple and their marriage, not a legal contract.
The service takes place outside of the Altar before the Iconostasis. The
Gospel, cup, crowns and rings are placed on a table.
First the priest gives a lit candle to the man and the woman. This is
followed by the exchange of rings, the betrothal. Then the priest places
crowns on the heads of the bride and groom to symbolize two things: First
that through the Sacrament the couple is restored to the innocence of Adam
and Eve and thus are King and Queen of creation. Secondly, to symbolize the
crown of martyrdom, because each must give of himself or herself for the
other. Then the couple drinks from a common cup to symbolize their shared
life. This is blessed wine. It is not Holy Communion. Then the couple walks
three times around the table to symbolize their eternal commitment. This is a
very short commentary. There are chants and incense during the service.
Fr. John +
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> can you possibly be so global for your Church? The very problem with the
> Orthodox Church is that it has never met to discuss incredibly important
> issues, hence you have no one voice (though many) on the Blessed Mother.
> Orthodox constantly have the habit of denouncing the Roman Catholic
> Church (just like their predecessor Photius) just for the sake of
> denouncing. Yet can't possible say what the OC church teaches wrt the
> Immacualte Conception b/c you've had not Eccumenical Council since the
> Early Church. And those councils are the ONLY councils that can teach
> infallibly, except of course the way St. Peter did as promised to him by
> our Lord.
Fr. John W. Morris responds:
First it is St. Photius. It is very difficult for a non Orthodox to
understand, but there is agreement among Orthodox on every major doctrinal
issue without an external authority. I would argue that the Holy Spirit
guides the Church to such an agreement on the Faith.
The Church is infallible, not a Council. A Council only becomes an infallible
expression of the Faith when it is received and accepted by the whole Church.
>
>
>
>
> It is the only dogma b/c it was the LAST dogma your Church COULD
> teach while they were in unity with us, The RC Church.
> Since then the Orthodox Church CANT teach dogmatically b/c it has not
> infallible authority to do so. Why?
>
That is not true. The Church has held councils since Rome split from us. The
Holy Synods and theologians still discuss theological issues.
> It can't hold Eccumenical Councils
> you broke away from the Succession of Peter.
We did not break from the Succession of Peter. His Beatitude Patriarch
Ignatius IV of Antioch is also a successor of St. Peter. Even the Roman
Church recognizes this.
We did not break from Rome. Rome broke from us when Rome attempted to exceed
its authority and the other four Patriarchs refused to accept the exaggerated
claims of the Bishop of Rome. In the ancient Church there were five
Patriarchs. Only one broke from the others, Rome. The other four are Ort
Fr. John W. Morris +
> The very problem with the
> Orthodox Church is that it has never met to discuss incredibly important
> issues, hence you have no one voice (though many) on the Blessed Mother.
> Orthodox constantly have the habit of denouncing the Roman Catholic
> Church (just like their predecessor Photius) just for the sake of
> denouncing. Yet can't possible say what the OC church teaches wrt the
> Immacualte Conception b/c you've had not Eccumenical Council since the
> Early Church. And those councils are the ONLY councils that can teach
> infallibly, except of course the way St. Peter did as promised to him by
> our Lord.
Fr. John W. Morris responds:
The Orthodox Church has held many councils since ancient times. Holy Synods
of Patriarchates meet yearly. Theologians constantly deal with theological
issues. The Patriarchs issue letters to the Faithful. I know that it is very
difficult for a non Orthodox to understand, but there is agreement among
Orthodox on all major issues of the Faith without an external human authority
such as the Pope. I would argue that this because the Holy Spirit guides the
Church to preserve the truth.
>
> : Some Orthodox even believe that Mary committed minor sins. All Orthodox
> ^^^^
>
> you've just proved my above point. "some". you have no one-ness in
> voice b/c you lack the unity of the Body of Christ... due to Photius'
> spirit which still reigns in the Patiarchates today.
>
> : The only dogma the Church holds concerning Mary is that she is the Theotokos,
> : or birthgiver of God because Jesus Christ was God from the moment of His
>
> It is the only dogma b/c it was the LAST dogma your Church COULD
> teach while they were in unity with us, The RC Church.
> Since then the Orthodox Church CANT teach dogmatically b/c it has not
> infallible authority to do so. Why?
Fr. John responds:
The Orthodox Church does not define dogma unless it is necessary to do so to
respond to a heresy. We believe that God and the things of God are a mystery
and should not be defined too much. When you define too much and eliminate
the element of mystery you create a man made image of God and put God in a
box.
>
> It can't hold Eccumenical Councils
> you broke away from the Succession of Peter.
> The Orthodox Church did not break away from anyone. The Bishop of Rome began
to exceed his authority and the other patriarchs rejected his excessive
claims. As a result the Bishop of Rome broke away from the Orthodox
Church. Since four of the five ancient patriarchates are Orthodox, I would
say that it is four against one. The majority are with the Orthodox.
Even then, the Orthodox Church is not out of communion with a successor of
Peter. His Beatitude Ignatius IV, the Patriarch of Antioch is the 166
successor to both St. Peter and St. Paul. Even the Roman Catholic Church
recognizes the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch as a successor to St. Peter.
Finally, I should mention that we consider Photius a Saint of the Church
because he defended the true Faith.
Fr. John +
William Castillo
: Fr John,
: <<Our problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine of
: transubstantion is that it is an effort to explain and
: understand the change. We simply believe the words of the Holy
: Scriptures and leave it at that with no effort to understand
: the mystery of Holy Communion.>>
: Sometimes you sound positively Lutheran!;-) Well said. I
Ouch! I think you just really insulted him, IMHO. You've just proven
that he is a schismatic, which is what Roman Catholics believer. Thanks
for your help, though. :)
I never thought I'd see the day when an Orthodox would decry man's
attempts to understand a work of God. While the East has often decried
the West for being too "intellectual", I can't help but see the irony of
it all considering Smyendorf (sp?), Harakas, Kalistos Ware and other
Orthodox writings on theology, which aren't just a matter of :"God said
it I believe, that settles it".
Morris, you're copping out. Your history (which is our history) is
founded on the Church getting together (even you believe in the 7
Ecumenical Councils) and explaining the works of God.
How about being consistent?
: believe the whole doctrine of transsubstantiation is unnessary
was the doctrine on Mary necessary? On Christ being fully Human and
fully Divine, on the Resurrection, on, on, on....
You both are copping out which indicates you're caving in to ignorance
and not to giving a testimony of that which you believe. Seems I read
the latter somewhere....
--
Wm. J. Del Castillo
delr...@grove.ufl.edu
Edward Reiss
<<:[I] believe the whole doctrine of transubstantiation is
unnecessary >>
<<was the doctrine on Mary necessary?>>
The doctrine of the Virgin birth, yes, of course. Scripture
plainly says so.
<<On Christ being fully Human and
fully Divine,>>
Absolutely! If Christ isn't God, He can't redeem us, if He
isn't man, He can't share our sorrows.
<< on the Resurrection, on, on, on....>>
Of course! Please explain to me why the doctrine of
transubstantiation is necessary though. I have offered
explanations for your questions. ;-)
<<You both are copping out which indicates you're caving in to
ignorance and not to giving a testimony of that which you
believe. Seems I read the latter somewhere....>>
No, not copping out. For the same reason I don't try to
explain how exactly God became man, I don't try to explain how
the bread is His body. Can you explain how christ can be 100%
God and 100% man? (I suspect the answer is no) Neither can I
explain how the bread is His body. See no cop out at all.
in Christ
Ed
Randal Lee Mandock
Fr. John W. Morris + <jrj...@cannet.com> wrote:
>First it is St. Photius. It is very difficult for a non Orthodox to
<text deleted>
>expression of the Faith when it is received and accepted by the whole Church.
>Ignatius IV of Antioch is also a successor of St. Peter. Even the Roman
>Church recognizes this.
Fr. John, although among the two of us you are the professional historian,
I still must remind you that I can read history books. The one I have on
hand here says that although Popes Nicholas I and Adrian II supported
emperor Michael I's son, Ignatius, as Patriarch of Constantinople, I see
no evidence that Ignatius was ever the bishop of Rome. If he was never the
bishop of Rome, how can you claim that he is a successor of St. Peter?
Perhaps you mean that he succeeded St. Peter in the generic sense in which
all bishops are successors of the Apostles. With this I have no
disagreement. On the other hand, we Catholics have a tendency to consider
the Successor of St. Peter as a special case wherein _the_ successor of St.
Peter is a man who is called _the_ Pope. In which sense, if any of these,
do you make your statement?
>We did not break from Rome. Rome broke from us when Rome attempted to exceed
>its authority and the other four Patriarchs refused to accept the exaggerated
>claims of the Bishop of Rome. In the ancient Church there were five
>Patriarchs. Only one broke from the others, Rome. The other four are Ort
Here is the source of a very profound disagreement between the Catholic
and Orthodox doctrines on inspiration in the Church. You say above that
it is the sensus fidei (supernatural sense of faith; cf. CCC 92) on the
part of whole people of God _alone_ which determines the infallibility of
a given conciliar definition. The Catholic Church agrees with you in the
sense that:
The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from
the holy one...cannot err in matters of belief. [Lumen Gentium 12]
Where we do differ is found to be in our respective understandings of the
role of the magisterium w.r.t. non-conciliar teaching. It seems that you
consider the apostolic Tradition a static body of truths, not subject to
development in the sense that Cardinal Newman had in mind. If this is so,
then our disagreement here concerns the difference between the Catholic
concept of a _living_ Tradition of the Apostles and the Orthodox idea of a
static Tradition. Am I characterizing this problem correctly? The Catholic
idea permits the truths of faith to be defined dogmatically as the need
arises, just as long as it is understood that dogmas represent _no new public
revelation_ - they are intended to be clarifications of truths handed on by
God to the Apostles that find the need in history to be formally defined to
meet a given crisis that threatens unhealthy division in the Mystical Body
of Christ. How do the Orthodox view infallible doctrines differently than
this?
Julian Vail
writes:
> : Why is it necessary to baptize a dying infant? And where
> does the Bible
>
> <<for the same reason whole households were baptized in Acts
> during the severe persecution of Christians. Infants were
> part of families back then too, just like today. ! :)
Though
> China would say otherwise, as do NARAL, NOW, PP, etc,>>
>
redemption
> from the power of sin and death. To say infants are not in
> need of redemption is to say either the Gospel is unworthy of
> infants or infants are unworthy of the Gospel.
>
> Blessings,
>
> Ed
>
Infant baptizing or baby-spinking is NOT baptism into Christ.
First, babys are free from personal sin and are pure, not
requiring baptizm. It is only as young adults that when we
reach the age of reason that we, in order to receive Christ and
be born a new creature in Christ must be baptized. Baby
sprinkling only by parental consent baptizes the infant into
that particular RELIGION and not Christ. Jesus, Himself was
not baptized until He was 30. Babys are not capable of making
a concscience decision to walk with Christ. Baptism not only
is a purification, a death and resurection, but it is also a
contract! The Bible and God's Law are big on contracts.
Baptizm is a contractual agreement to walk with Christ and
bring the good news of the Gospel to the lost sheep of Isreal.
>From the day of baptism the sins of your past are washed away
and you are born a new creature in Christ. You were previously
naked and are now clothed in Christ. You have receive the
atonement of the Lord and are now presentable to God. For God
cannot look upon sin, and you are now purfied and can go to the
Father, through His Son, Jesus, our High Priest and mediator,
the Christ.
Randal Lee Mandock
>successor to both St. Peter and St. Paul. Even the Roman Catholic Church
>recognizes the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch as a successor to St. Peter.
In my other response to your reply in this thread I was thinking of the
conflict between Photius and Ignatius of Constantinople, and responded
wrongly by thinking that you were referring to the Patriarch of Constantinople
as a successor to St. Peter. It seems here (and in that post) you are
claiming that every Patriarch of Antioch is not a successor _of_ St. Peter
but a successor _to_ St. Peter, presumably because you believe that St. Peter
established the particular Church at Antioch. Perhaps you can explain the
history of his founding of that Church, especially since some Catholic sources
(e.g., NAB) claim that St. Paul was the first Apostle to convert the Gentiles
there. It seems that according to the account in Galatians the Christian
community was already well-established by the time that St. Peter arrived
on the scene. Would you cite a Catholic source for your statement that
the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch as a
successor _to_ St. Peter?
Michael M. Morbey
and blood appear during what was supposed to be the "making of the
change by the Holy Spirit", then the service must be stopped because
something has gone wrong.
The following is not an explanation but an elaboration: The Roman
Catholic change (transubstantiation) takes place objectively, up there
at the altar, localized in the chalice, as if in a "test tube." The
change understood by Orthodox Christians is much more global, including
not only the bread and the wine but also the communicants, since the
Holy Spirit descends on them as well at the time of the invocation.
This I have gleaned from Orthodox readings and discussion. Would
Roman Catholics agree?
Michael Morbey
Edward Reiss
<<Infant baptizing or baby-spinking is NOT baptism into
Christ. First, babys are free from personal sin and are
pure, not requiring baptizm.>>
St Paul disagrees with you.All have sinned......To put it
bluntly, sin kills, infants die.
<< It is only as young adults that when we reach the age of
reason that we, in order to receive Christ and be born a new
creature in Christ must be baptized.>>
Where in the Bible is the doctrine of "Age of Reason?" This
also implies that we need our intellects to cooperate with God
to accomplish salvation, in other words a works righteousness
gospel. This also points us *inward* and doesn't cause our
focus to be on what God has done (outward) but on what we must
do, in this case reach the age of reason so we can "receive".
I think it is wiser to keep our focus on the cross, and leave
our punt intellects out of the picture.
<< Baby sprinkling only by parental consent baptizes the
infant into that particular RELIGION and not Christ.>>
Eph 6:26 says we are sanctified through the washing of water
by the word. How do you explain this verse in light of your
theology?
<<Jesus, Himself was not baptized until He was 30.>>
John's baptism is not Christian baptism. John himself said
this. (Matt 3:11, , Luke 3:16)Therefore this example doesn't
prove that we should be baptized as adults. If it did we would
have to be baptized at approximately the age of thirty. This
also would seem to imply that Jesus didn't reach the age of
reason until this age, otherwise why the delay?
<< Baptism not only is a purification, a death and
resurection, but it is also a contract! The Bible and God's
Law are big on contracts. Baptizm is a contractual agreement
to walk with Christ and bring the good news of the Gospel to
the lost sheep of Isreal.>>
It is also a washing of regeneration, as per Titus 3:5. It is
God's grace towards us, not a contract, which again implies a
works righteousness. Is this what you mean to say?
<<For God cannot look upon sin, and you are now purfied and
can go to the Father, through His Son, Jesus, our High Priest
and mediator, the Christ.>>
First you will have to show babies are without sin. Can you?
Ed Reiss
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> Do you believe I sin by trying to understand exactly what it is I am eating
> at Mass?
No, of course not. However, I do believe that the human mind can never
understand the mysteries of God including the mystery of the Eucharist. You
can understand what you are receiving at the Eucharist. You are partaking of
the Body and Blood of Christ, but you cannot understand how the bread and
wine become the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ. All we can say is that
through the action of the Holy Spirit the bread and wine are transformed into
the Body and Blood of Christ. How the change takes place, however, is a
mystery that our human minds cannot understand.
Fr. Jon +
Norman Joseph/CTC
<delr...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
> Morris, you're copping out. Your history (which is our history) is
> founded on the Church getting together (even you believe in the 7
> Ecumenical Councils) and explaining the works of God.
Castillo, The work of the Ecumenical Councils was -not- to "explain the
works of God," but rather to declare what Apostolic teaching was in
order to refute particular heresies. The Councils were held only after
the rise of said heresies.
> : believe the whole doctrine of transsubstantiation is unnessary
>
> was the doctrine on Mary necessary? On Christ being fully Human and
> fully Divine, on the Resurrection, on, on, on....
I've seen excerpts from Roman Catholic works on the doctrine of
transsubstantiation where the precise moment of "change" is pinned down,
right to the very syllable that the priest is pronouncing. -That- is
unneccessary, and an attempt to remove the mystery from the "Mysterion".
In Christ,
--
~ ~
Norman Joseph, Systems Administrator jos...@ctc.com IC|XC
Concurrent Technologies Corporation 814/269.2633 --+--
NI|KA
Norman Joseph/CTC
<an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> I have heard that it is Orthodox teaching that, if literal flesh
> and blood appear during what was supposed to be the "making of the
> change by the Holy Spirit", then the service must be stopped because
> something has gone wrong.
I don't know that "something has gone wrong" is quite the right way to
put this. From reading of similar accounts in the lives of saints it is
apparent that what is happening is that God is removing the veil that
separates the material world from the spiritual world, and that the
participant is being allowed to see the spiritual reality in the chalice
instead of the material reality. In these accounts, the participant is
instructed not to consume the gifts, but to pray to God to return to
them their material appearances, after which they may be consumed.
This is all from a vague recollection of readings I have done in the
past, some of which may have been on the Orthodox e-mail list.
Randal Lee Mandock
Norman Joseph/CTC <jos...@News.CTCnet.Net> wrote:
>I've seen excerpts from Roman Catholic works on the doctrine of
>transsubstantiation where the precise moment of "change" is pinned down,
>right to the very syllable that the priest is pronouncing. -That- is
>unneccessary, and an attempt to remove the mystery from the "Mysterion".
You might be exaggerating a little bit here, Norman, about something
you may have read posted by me a couple of months ago. I said that
the transformation is believed to take place sometime during recitation
of the words of institution. I don't remember citing any magisterial
sources that mention any particular syllables in these words. Did you
really mean to write that?
Randal
gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
Randal Lee Mandock
>Catholic change (transubstantiation) takes place objectively, up there
>at the altar, localized in the chalice, as if in a "test tube." The
>change understood by Orthodox Christians is much more global, including
>not only the bread and the wine but also the communicants, since the
>Holy Spirit descends on them as well at the time of the invocation.
>This I have gleaned from Orthodox readings and discussion. Would
>Roman Catholics agree?
I suppose that one element of the Catholic response would be that Christ
is present presumably by means of the Holy Spirit wherever "two or three
are gathered" in His name. I will re-excerpt some magisterial instruction
that I posted here on the topic of Real Presence last month.
CCC 1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who
is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present
in many ways to his Church: in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where
two or three are gathered in my name," in the poor, the sick and the
imprisoned, in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice
of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But, "he is present...
most _especially in the Eucharistic species_."
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is
unique... "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended
to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real'
too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say,
it is a _substantial_ presence by which Christ, God and man, makes
himself wholly and entirely present."
Randal Lee Mandock
>understand the mysteries of God including the mystery of the Eucharist. You
>can understand what you are receiving at the Eucharist. You are partaking of
>the Body and Blood of Christ, but you cannot understand how the bread and
>wine become the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ. All we can say is that
>through the action of the Holy Spirit the bread and wine are transformed into
>the Body and Blood of Christ. How the change takes place, however, is a
>mystery that our human minds cannot understand.
Call me slow about this, but I still cannot understand how transubstantiation
explains the transformation. As I have said, transubstantiation states that
what existed before the transformation differs in essence (include as many
ramifications that may spring from this word as you care to) from what exists
afterwards. The doctrine says nothing about how the Holy Spirit initiates,
carries out, or completes the change. It says only that Christ Himself in
His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is truly present in the sacred elements
and that the external appearance of bread and wine is able to deceive the
senses. Does your theology contradict this sentence?
Randal
gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> Morris, you're copping out. Your history (which is our history) is
> founded on the Church getting together (even you believe in the 7
> Ecumenical Councils) and explaining the works of God.
In the Ecumencial Councils, the Church merely restated what it had always
believed in response to heresy. We do not try to understand all the mysteries
of God. The Eucharist is a mystery. The virgin birth and resurrection of
Christ are mysteries that we cannot fully understand. We do consider Western
theology too rationalistic. The human mind is too limited to
understand the mysteries of God. Sometimes we have to be still and let God be
God. The Eucharist is a perfect example of this. I have no doubt that if I
took the consecrated bread and wine to a chemist and he or she did a chemical
anaysis that he or she would find that it is bread and wine. Yet, Christ told
us that it is His Body and Blood. How something can look and taste like bread
and wine and still be the Body and Blood of Christ is something that I cannot
undrestand. I accept it on faith in the words of Christ.
Fr. John +
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> >
> Infant baptizing or baby-spinking is NOT baptism into Christ.
>Fr. John W. Morris responds:
Your problem is that you do not understand the Sacrament of Baptism. Baptism
is not something that we do. It is something that God does for us. In
Baptism, God gives us His saving grace. Babies need God's saving grace as
much as adults. The Church has always baptized infants. Only after the
Protestant Reformation did some begin to challenge the ancient practice of
the Church. They challenged it because they denied the Sacramental value of
baptism and turned it into a symbolic act, thereby denying the grace that God
gives in Baptism. Just for the record, we immerse babies in the Orthodox
Church.
Fr. John +
Tom Albrecht
> > Seems like an arbitrary distinction. Scripture, please?
>
>
Finally, an honest traditionalist. None of this stuff about the Bible and
tradition on the same plane. Here we have confirmed that tradition for some
is superior to the Bible, since, if we can invent doctrine without reference
to the Bible, the Bible becomes secondary, and tradition primary.
Over and over we read in the Scripture, "for it was written," used to
establish that the work of Christ and His apostles was in accordance with the
*WRITTEN* revelation of God. No appeal was ever made to oral tradition to
establish or confirm some teaching among the disciples.
Jesus and His apostles were the originators of sola Scriptura, not the
protestants. After centuries of neglect, we just reminded the people of God
what a good things it is. :-)
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> I have heard that it is Orthodox teaching that, if literal flesh
> and blood appear during what was supposed to be the "making of the
> change by the Holy Spirit", then the service must be stopped because
> something has gone wrong.
Fr. John W. Morris responds:
I have heard, but never read, that if the bread and wine take on the
attributes of real flesh and blood that it is a sign of demonic activity. I
am not sure that this is official dogma of the Orthodox Church, however. It
may be what we call the opinion of theologians.
You are correct, we believe that the descent of the Holy Spirit during the
Eucharist changes both the faithful and the bread and wine. The priest
prays, "send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here spread
forth and make this bread the Precious body of thy Christ, and that which is
in this Cup, The Precious Blood of Thy Christ, Changing Them by thy Holy
Spirit."
Fr. John +
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
>
> understanding of what their Chruches teach on homosexuality, abortion,
> eccumenism, medical life support, etc, etc, etc. Fr.. John responds:
Just because some Orthodox do not know their faith does not mean that the
Church has not taken a clear position on important issues. There are
differences over matters that are not clearly defined as dogmatic. We call
this the opinion of theologians. The Church has spoken clearly on
homosexuality and abortion. There is some debate on the value of ecumenism.
The Church has not spoken on medical life support.
>
> Regarding the Catechism of the Orthodox Church, even my Catechism from
> the Greek Seminary in Brookline, MA is NOT accepted by the Antiochean and
> Russian Church in Exile Churches in America. no common catehcism amongst
> the Orthodox.
>I am an Antiochian Orthodox priest who graduated from Holy Cross. Obviously
my Metropolitan accepted the teachings of Holy Cross or he would not have
sent me there. We do not have a common catechism, because the faith is much
too complex to limit to a few words in a catechism. It is not in the
nature of Orthodoxy to try to define too much. Thus we do not have a
creed except the Nicene Creed. We have no confession of faith like
the Augsburg Confession, because we feel that such documents try to
define too much. Orthodoxy is mystical not rationalistic. However, we do have
a common Faith.
>Holy Cross Seminary thought they were the only
> true Orthodox seminary in the USA. So much for unity among Orthodox.
I went to Holy Cross Seminary and know that this is not true. Some of the
texts that we used at Holy Cross were written by professors at St. Vladimir's
Seminary. The current president of Holy Cross, Fr. Calivis, taught at St.
Vladimir's when he was a priest in New York.
> I left the Orthodox Church realizing that it was no better than the RC
> Church, which is far purer than any other Church I've seen or experienced. It is also a matter of point of view as to who
> : excommunicated whom?
It is historical fact that reprensentatives of the Pope excommunicated the
Orthodox.
>
> of course. But history speaks plainly that Photius was totally in error
> and operating under politics and not the prententions of the Filioque or
> Apostolic Authority.
St. Photius was correct to object to the innovations of Rome, especially the
filioque. The Bishop of Rome tried to make himself the head of the Church and
to claim universal jurisdiction. St. Photius and the other Patriarchs refused
to accept this abuse of his position as first among equals.
Fr. John +
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> The one I have on
> hand here says that although Popes Nicholas I and Adrian II supported
> emperor Michael I's son, Ignatius, as Patriarch of Constantinople, I see
> no evidence that Ignatius was ever the bishop of Rome. If he was never the
I was not referring to that Ignatius. I was referring to the present
Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV. He is a successor to St. Peter, because
St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. St. Peter was in Antioch before he
went to Rome.
>
It seems that you
> consider the apostolic Tradition a static body of truths, not subject to
> development in the sense that Cardinal Newman had in mind. If this is so,
> then our disagreement here concerns the difference between the Catholic
> concept of a _living_ Tradition of the Apostles and the Orthodox idea of a
> static Tradition. Am I characterizing this problem correctly?
Fr. John responds:
The truth of Holy Tradition does not change. Our expressions of Holy
Tradition to meet modern circumstances but the substance of Holy Tradition
does not change.
Fr. John +
Norman Joseph/CTC
<gt7...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> I don't remember citing any magisterial sources that mention any
> particular syllables in these words. Did you really mean to write
> that?
Unfortunately, yes. I have the distinct memory of reading (somewhere,
not necessarily here, possibly on the Indiana ORTHODOX e-mail list) that
some Catholic exposition on transubstantiation defines the exact moment
of change of the bread into the Body of Christ as occurring between the
priest's pronunciation of the two syllables in the latin word for "body"
as he says "this is my body." It was becasue it sounded so odd that it
stuck in my head, knowing that Orthodoxy does not attempt to define such
a time in their Liturgy. I regret now that I did not keep track of the
exact reference, so you only have my word to go on. If I did see it on
the ORTHODOX e-mail list, it might be possible to do an archive search.
James Jones
(From Julian)
><< Baptism not only is a purification, a death and
>resurection, but it is also a contract! The Bible and God's
>Law are big on contracts. Baptizm is a contractual agreement
>to walk with Christ and bring the good news of the Gospel to
>the lost sheep of Isreal.>>
(From Ed)
>It is also a washing of regeneration, as per Titus 3:5. It is
>God's grace towards us, not a contract, which again implies a
>works righteousness. Is this what you mean to say?
First, I want to agree with what Ed has said, but I would also like to
focus on Julian's comments about a contract.
Infant baptism is also a contract, a contract with the parents, the
Godparents, and the entire Christian community (the Church). It is no
less a contract than the baptism of an adult believer.
In fact, I think that if you take the idea of a contract to its
conclusion, it helps to point to the "high" view of the Church taken by
catholic Anglicans, by catholic Lutherans, by Roman Catholics, and by
the Orthodox. The Church is the Body of Christ and the Christian
community. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the also the
Bride of Christ and is in a contractual with Him. Part of that
contractual relationship is to safeguard the revelation of truth and to
transmit it to the world, to instruct and nurture the members of the
Body. That contractual relationship is part of what the Church renews
at every baptism.
May the peace of the Lord be always with you,
Jim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
---
[A similar covenanant concept is of course also held by many Protestants.
--clh]
TwoBADpigs
in the states and how it was influenced by some staff members from Campus
Crusade for Christ. I seem to also remember that there were some people
who were involved with the beginning of the church who were formerly
involved in the New Age Movement in some fashion. I understand that they
rejected their new age connections and beliefs when they became orthodox,
but I find it a little intriguing. Does anyone have any info on who these
particular individuals were and what their journey was like?
***********************************************
This little piggy went wee! wee! wee!
###############################################
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> Call me slow about this, but I still cannot understand how transubstantiation
> explains the transformation. As I have said, transubstantiation states that
> what existed before the transformation differs in essence (include as many
> ramifications that may spring from this word as you care to) from what exists
> afterwards. The doctrine says nothing about how the Holy Spirit initiates,
> carries out, or completes the change. It says only that Christ Himself in
> His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is truly present in the sacred elements
> and that the external appearance of bread and wine is able to deceive the
> senses. Does your theology contradict this sentence?
> Fr. John W. Morris responds:
No. However, the classic explanation of transubstantion using terms like
accidents and essence was an attempt at an explanation using what were
scientific terms in the Middle Ages. That is my problem with
transubstantation.
Fr. John +
Norman Joseph/CTC
<top...@chesco.com> wrote:
> Here we have confirmed that tradition for some is superior to the
> Bible, since, if we can invent doctrine without reference to the
> Bible, the Bible becomes secondary, and tradition primary.
You are the only one I see placing Scripture and Tradition in opposition
to each other, as though that were the only way they could exist. Maybe
in your world, sad to say, but in Orthodoxy Scripture and Tradition do
not contradict each other. They couldn't.
> No appeal was ever made to oral tradition to establish or confirm
> some teaching among the disciples.
Try and tell St. Paul that, who wrote:
Therefore, bretheren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you
were taught, whether by word or epistle. (II Thes 2:15)
> Jesus and His apostles were the originators of sola Scriptura, not the
> protestants.
Give me a break. What scripture did Jesus leave behind? If He didn't
do all of His teaching orally, why does St. John record Him as saying,
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance
all things that I said to you. (John 14:26)
If the Apostles wrote -everything- down, why would they need the Holy
Spirit to remind them? And what was St. John possibly thinking about
when he wrote,
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they
were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could
not contain the books that would be written. Amen. (John 21:25)
Was he just using hyperbole to make a point? No. Christ taught orally
and by example for the three plus years He was with us. His Apostles
did their teaching orally, and by example, for they lived with their new
converts for months and years, day in and day out. The only time they
wrote letters was when they could not be there in person to correct (and
which of the letters was written to a community that was not already
Christian?). It's the only way to learn how to be Christian; you
can't learn that simply by reading a book or a few letters.
If you are going to try and make an argument for sola scriptura, Tom,
you should at least attempt to answer for the verses in Scripture which
argue against it (or at least find the verses which argue convincingly
for it while still being consistent with verses like the above).
Terral L. Croft
Even though our the current censor of this system has begun excluding any
replies to the baptism topic, I wish to comment on your statements.
>> It is only as young adults that when we reach the age of reason that we, in order to receive Christ and be reborn, a creature in=
Christ must be baptized. <<
Water baptism is a Levitical ritual done according to Mosaic Law. Ex.
30:18-21. Paul says that we are sealed in Christ the moment we hear the
gospel and believe it. Eph. 1:13+14, 2:8+9,13.
>> Jesus, Himself was not baptized until He was 30. <<
Jesus was a Jew who had to be baptized according to the Law. All
righteousness could not be fulfilled unless He was baptized. Matt. 3:15.
We are Gentiles living under grace, and come to God through faith. Rom.
1:5, 3:21-26, 5:1+2, etc..
>> Baptism not only is a purification, a death an resurrection, but it is also a contract. <<
Again, water baptism is a work of the Law. Ex. 30:18-21. Paul never
says to be water baptized in any of his letters. The baptism of 1Cor.
12:12-14 is a spiritual one, that places you INTO the body of Christ.
Paul specifically says that there is only one baptism. Eph. 4:5. That
one is spiritual, like every other thing that Paul describes in Eph.
4:1-6.
>> The bible and God's Law are big on contracts. <<
Absolutely . . . Paul specifically says that salvation is by grace
through faith in Christ's blood sacrifice. Rom. 4:5, Eph. 2:8+9,13.
Repentance and water baptism is part of the message that was preached to
Israel only. "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.? Matt. 3:2,
4:17, 10:5-7, 15:24, etc.. Are you a Jew seeking the Messianic Kingdom?
or a Gentile seeking to become one with Christ? Rom. 1:5.
>> From the day of baptism the sins of your past are washed away and you are born a new creature in Christ. <<
Please show us where Paul says this in any of his letters. You seem to
have taken part of Acts 2:38 and have grafted it into Paul's letters.
Paul says that water baptism may void the cross of Christ. 1Cor. 1:17.
Kind regards,
Terral
William M Klimon
> >I am an Antiochian Orthodox priest who graduated from Holy Cross. Obviously
> my Metropolitan accepted the teachings of Holy Cross or he would not have
> sent me there. We do not have a common catechism, because the faith is much
> too complex to limit to a few words in a catechism. It is not in the
> nature of Orthodoxy to try to define too much. Thus we do not have a
> creed except the Nicene Creed. We have no confession of faith like
> the Augsburg Confession, because we feel that such documents try to
> define too much. Orthodoxy is mystical not rationalistic. However, we do have
> a common Faith.
What about the *Confessions* of Peter Moghila (1640), Dositheus of
Jerusalem (1672), and Metrophanes Kritopoulos (c.1630), and the
catechism of Nicolaos Bulgaris of Corfu (1681), to name just a few?
> > I left the Orthodox Church realizing that it was no better than the RC
> > Church, which is far purer than any other Church I've seen or experienced. It is also a matter of point of view as to who
> > : excommunicated whom?
>
> It is historical fact that reprensentatives of the Pope excommunicated the
> Orthodox.
Actually the historical facts are that: the papal legate Cardinal
Humbert of Silva Candida excommunicated Patriarch Michael Cerularius, and
that Patriarch Michael reciprocated and excommunicated Cardinal
Humbert. The pope (Leo IX) had not authorized his legate to do any such
thing, and in fact had died before the excommunication. His death should
have terminated the mission of the legates, and thus the excommunication
should have been void.
> St. Photius was correct to object to the innovations of Rome, especially the
> filioque. The Bishop of Rome tried to make himself the head of the Church and
> to claim universal jurisdiction. St. Photius and the other Patriarchs refused
> to accept this abuse of his position as first among equals.
That is not clear at all given the condemnation of Photios at
Constantinople IV (869-70).
Pax.
WMK.
______________________________________________________________________________
William M. Klimon ("11") wkl...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu
University of Maryland School of Law
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
Edward Reiss
<<Infant baptism is also a contract, a contract with the
parents, the Godparents, and the entire Christian community
(the Church). It is no less a contract than the baptism of an
adult believer.>>
I think we are in agreement here. It depends on what one means
by the word "contract". I believe Julian was stating that
Baptism is *soley* a contract,an external act; thus my comment
that baptism is not a contract. When we join Christ's Body,
the Church, we are certainly under obligation to obey His
commands, but that obedience isn't what saves us, since we
can't obey without His grace, which grace is offered in
baptism. 'nuff said.
Ed
John G Suhayda
>
> >Holy Cross Seminary thought they were the only
> > true Orthodox seminary in the USA. So much for unity among Orthodox.
This is not true -- I graduated from Holy Cross, and during my time there we
visited St Vladimir's and St Tikhon's Seminaries regularly.
Deacon John G. Suhayda suh...@cig.mot.com
haye...@alpha.unisa.ac.za
>I would add that infants are people too, in need of redemption
>from the power of sin and death. To say infants are not in
>need of redemption is to say either the Gospel is unworthy of
>infants or infants are unworthy of the Gospel.
Quite right....
But when I hear some people talk, I get the impression that the Israelites
should have left their infants on the West Bank of the Red Sea when Pharoah
was after them, because "they were too young to understand it".
Randal Lee Mandock
Fr. John W. Morris + <jrj...@cannet.com> wrote:
>Randal Lee Mandock wrote:
>>It says only that Christ Himself in His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity,
>>is truly present in the sacred elements and that the external appearance
>>of bread and wine is able to deceive the senses.
>> Does your theology contradict this sentence?
>
>accidents and essence was an attempt at an explanation using what were
>scientific terms in the Middle Ages. That is my problem with
>transubstantation.
For me it seems to be a semantic problem, but I sense that for you
it is more than this.
You suggest that the philosophical attempt to apply Aristotle's concepts
of essence, substance, nature, and accident led some Western Church Doctors
to put a scientific explanation to the meta-ousiosis of the Greek patristic
writers. I would agree that the scholastics did struggle to harmonize
theology with philosophy when this proved opportune to the spread of faith,
but I have a bit of difficulty calling this attempt scientific. The
scholastics did speak on various occasions either accurately or wrongly
about scientific matters, reflecting the state of science of their day.
But I am not convinced that transubstantiation posed more a scientific
problem for them than a philosophic one. Do you disagree with this?
Also, does Orthodoxy accept the "forms" of Plato, in reference, e.g.,
to the matter and form of a sacrament?
Randal
gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
Tom Albrecht
>
> Randal Lee Mandock wrote:
>
> I was not referring to that Ignatius. ...
Watching this disagreement between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics over the
matter of tradition is like watching two men trying to leave on an important
journey, arguing over whether the car's interior is tan or beige, but failing
to realize that their gas tank is empty.
John G Suhayda
>
> That is not clear at all given the condemnation of Photios at
> Constantinople IV (869-70).
St Photios was reinstated by the Synod of 879-880 in Constantinople, which
included representatives of Pope John VIII. The condemnation of 869-870 was
withdrawn.
--
Steve Hayes
>
> In article <4illfd$3...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
> no evidence that Ignatius was ever the bishop of Rome. If he was never the
> bishop of Rome, how can you claim that he is a successor of St. Peter?
> Perhaps you mean that he succeeded St. Peter in the generic sense in which
> all bishops are successors of the Apostles. With this I have no
> disagreement. On the other hand, we Catholics have a tendency to consider
> the Successor of St. Peter as a special case wherein _the_ successor of St.
> Peter is a man who is called _the_ Pope. In which sense, if any of these,
> do you make your statement?
Perhaps I can make two observations:
1) St Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome, therefore
the Patriarch of Antioch is also a successor of St Peter.
2) For me, _the_ Pope is His Beatitude Parthenios III, Pope and Patriarch
of Alexandria and all Africa. And the bishops of Alexandria began to be
called "pope" long before the bishops of Rome started using that title.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hayes Email: haye...@risc1.unisa.ac.za
University of South Africa steve...@diakonos.iafrica.com
Pretoria, RSA PLEASE USE THESE FOR REPLIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The views expressed above are not necessarily those of the University
Mark Nutter
(TwoBADpigs) wrote:
>I have heard much about the beginnings of the evangelical orthodox church
>in the states and how it was influenced by some staff members from Campus
>Crusade for Christ. I seem to also remember that there were some people
>who were involved with the beginning of the church who were formerly
>involved in the New Age Movement in some fashion. I understand that they
>rejected their new age connections and beliefs when they became orthodox,
>but I find it a little intriguing. Does anyone have any info on who these
>particular individuals were and what their journey was like?
I just finished reading the books "Becoming Orthodox" (by Fr. Peter
Gilquist) and found it quite fascinating, but there is no reference in
there to anyone being involved in any way with the New Age movement. All
of them were solid, Bible-believing Christians. There's another book
called "Coming Home" that describes the individual journeys of a number of
Protestant clergymen to Orthodoxy. Both books are published by Conciliar
Press.
===========================================================================
Mark Nutter manu...@grove.iup.edu
College Technology Systems Manager http://www.iup.edu/~manutter/
ACS/College of Fine Arts http://mozart.cc.iup.edu/chri
G-4 Stright Hall, IUP
Indiana, Pennsylvania, 15705
Imitation is the sincerest form of piracy
===========================================================================
Randal Lee Mandock
Tom Albrecht <top...@chesco.com> wrote:
>Fr. John W. Morris + wrote:
>> Randal Lee Mandock wrote:
>> > The one I have on
>> > hand here says that although Popes Nicholas I and Adrian II supported ...
>>
>> I was not referring to that Ignatius. ...
>
>Watching this disagreement between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics over the
>matter of tradition is like watching two men trying to leave on an important
>journey, arguing over whether the car's interior is tan or beige, but failing
>to realize that their gas tank is empty.
You apparently missed the point of the "disagreement." Fr. John in his
original post addressed both Photius and the Patriarch Ignatius (IV, as
I recall), current head of the Church at Antioch. In my haste, I
misunderstood what he was getting at and addressed the conflict between
Ignatius of Constantinople and Photius centuries ago. Fr. John responded
very charitably in his clarifying statement which you quote in part above.
The "argument" was defused on the same day that it began because I caught
my blunder while responding to a related post and announced in that response
my mistake. I have seen far greater agreement among the Catholics and the
Orthodox Christians in this forum, once the theological meaning of words
was clarified, than disagreement. I have managed to count fewer than a
dozen disputes between our understandings of the apostolic Tradition, but
this disagreement over fine points of theology is insignificant when
referred to the disagreement between traditions which recognize apostolic
succession and those which do not.
Edward Reiss
<<But when I hear some people talk, I get the impression that
the Israelites should have left their infants on the West
Bank of the Red Sea when Pharoah was after them, because
"they were too young to understand it".>>
It is because those who don't baptize infants concentrate on
*their* faith, achieved by accepting through Jesus the
"Persuader", rather than seeing God's initiative in salvation.
Thus if I am saved through Jesus persuading me, of course
infants are spiritually speaking "non-entities"; and infant
baptism makes no sense. This is why it is said "baptism is a
work", because it is seen as an act by *me* to publicly
proclaim *my* acceptance of Jesus. I however believe it is
God's means to bring me into His family, the Church. It is the
first step, not a proclamation.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Ed
James Jones
>jrj...@cannet.com wrote:
>>How something can look and taste like bread and wine and still be the
Body
>>and Blood of Christ is something that I cannot undrestand. I accept
it on
>>faith in the words of Christ.
>
Yes. They are one of the great tools of literature. Fortunately, our
faith is much greater than literature.
May the peace of the Lord be always with you,
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> I have heard much about the beginnings of the evangelical orthodox church
> in the states and how it was influenced by some staff members from Campus
> Crusade for Christ.
Fr. John W. Morris responds:
I worked with the Evangelical Orthodox Church during their transition into
canonical Orthodoxy. They were Protestants, many with ties to the Campus
Crusade for Christ. They began to search for the New Testament Church through
a study of Church History. As a result they came into Eastern Orthodoxy. They
are now part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North
America which is the North American branch of the ancient Church of Antioch.
>From your reference to "the states" a gather that you are English. A similar
group, inspired by their example, has also recently become a part of the
Antiochian Orthodox Church in England.
Read Fr. Peter Gillquist's book Becoming Orthodox. It tells the whole story.
Fr. John +
Fr. John W. Morris +
>
> 2) For me, _the_ Pope is His Beatitude Parthenios III, Pope and Patriarch
> of Alexandria and all Africa. And the bishops of Alexandria began to be
> called "pope" long before the bishops of Rome started using that title.
His Beatitude is a Pope. The word Pope comes from the word for Father. In
some Orthodox countries such as Bulgaria, and I believe Serbia, a priest is
called a Pope and his wife Popadia, which means Popess.
Fr. John +
Norman Joseph/CTC
> Have you ever heard of something called "metaphor"?
Have you ever read St. John's Gospel, chapter 6?
[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can
this man give us his flesh to eat? [53] Then Jesus said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and
I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh,
and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the
living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that
eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Please point out to us the metaphor in this passage, if you will.
Catherine Hampton
: I have heard much about the beginnings of the evangelical orthodox church
: in the states and how it was influenced by some staff members from Campus
: Crusade for Christ. I seem to also remember that there were some people
: who were involved with the beginning of the church who were formerly
: involved in the New Age Movement in some fashion. I understand that they
: rejected their new age connections and beliefs when they became orthodox,
: but I find it a little intriguing. Does anyone have any info on who these
: particular individuals were and what their journey was like?
There was a group of new-age people, a rather esoteric cult as I understand,
in San Francisco who became Orthodox in the 1980s, but they are a totally
different group than the Campus Crusade for Christ folks who came in
through the Evangelical Orthodox Church. The CCC/EOC group are now part
of the Antiochan archdioscese.
The former "Holy Order of Man", as the new age group was named, was brought
into the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), largely through
the influence of Fr. Seraphim Rose and a colleague of his, a Fr. Herman.
Fr. Herman was later defrocked by ROCOR, I think for rebellion, and is now
under an Egyptian bishop, but many of the former HOM members are still
active in various Orthodox parishes around the San Francisco Bay area.
One of my closest friends was a member of the "Holy Order of Mans" and
came into the Orthodox Church that way, as did a half dozen or so people at
my parish.
Under the mercy,
--
Catherine Hampton
==================================================
ar...@best.com hr...@gw.traveller.com
--------------------------------------------------
Human Rights Web: http://www.traveller.com/~hrweb/
Home Page: http://www.best.com/~ariel/
==================================================
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--The Constitution of the United States of America
First Amendment
Tom Albrecht
>
For all you literalists ala "hoc est corpus meum", was Jesus apeaking
literally or figuratively when He said to "call no man your father upon the
earth?" (Matt. 23:9)
Chris Csernica
Nutter) wrote:
> In article <4j81pv$b...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, twoba...@aol.com
> (TwoBADpigs) wrote:
>
> >I have heard much about the beginnings of the evangelical orthodox church
> >in the states and how it was influenced by some staff members from Campus
> >Crusade for Christ. I seem to also remember that there were some people
> >who were involved with the beginning of the church who were formerly
> >involved in the New Age Movement in some fashion. I understand that they
> >rejected their new age connections and beliefs when they became orthodox,
> >but I find it a little intriguing. Does anyone have any info on who these
> >particular individuals were and what their journey was like?
>
> I just finished reading the books "Becoming Orthodox" (by Fr. Peter
> Gilquist) and found it quite fascinating, but there is no reference in
> there to anyone being involved in any way with the New Age movement. All
> of them were solid, Bible-believing Christians. There's another book
> called "Coming Home" that describes the individual journeys of a number of
> Protestant clergymen to Orthodoxy. Both books are published by Conciliar
> Press.
Here in the SF Bay Area there is, or was, a new age group called the
"Order of Mans." Many of them became Orthodox in the mid-eighties. I
don't know much about them beyond the name.
For a good overview of the Orthodox position on the "new age" movement in
general, see _Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future_ by Father Seraphim
Rose, published by St. Herman's Brotherhood Press. Its terminology is a
bit dated, as it was written before the term "new age" gained currency,
but the essential facts Fr. Seraphim presents are still true. Fr.
Seraphim had an intimate familiarity with many of the underpinnings of the
"new age," as he had experimented with several Far Eastern religions in
his youth before coming to Orthodoxy.
In Christ,
--Chris Csernica
Opinions are my own, not my employer's
haye...@alpha.unisa.ac.za
>>I have heard much about the beginnings of the evangelical orthodox church
>>in the states and how it was influenced by some staff members from Campus
>>Crusade for Christ. I seem to also remember that there were some people
>>who were involved with the beginning of the church who were formerly
>>involved in the New Age Movement in some fashion. I understand that they
>>rejected their new age connections and beliefs when they became orthodox,
>>but I find it a little intriguing. Does anyone have any info on who these
>>particular individuals were and what their journey was like?
>I just finished reading the books "Becoming Orthodox" (by Fr. Peter
>Gilquist) and found it quite fascinating, but there is no reference in
>there to anyone being involved in any way with the New Age movement. All
>of them were solid, Bible-believing Christians. There's another book
>called "Coming Home" that describes the individual journeys of a number of
>Protestant clergymen to Orthodoxy. Both books are published by Conciliar
>Press.
There was a group called the Order of Mans (or something similar) that I
believe became linked to St Herman's Monastery in Platina, California. I
believe it had some New Age beliefs.
Michael M. Morbey
>
> ...
>
> For a good overview of the Orthodox position on the "new age" movement in
> general, see _Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future_ by Father Seraphim
> Rose, published by St. Herman's Brotherhood Press...
>
>
It is also of interest to read biographic/hagiographic accounts of
Fr. Seraphim's manifestations to people before and after his mysterious
death at a relatively young age. You could almost say that Fr. Seraphim
was an "Orthodox shaman", although "staretz" would be the more customary
word used by Orthodox Christians of Russian background. In his even
younger days Fr. Seraphim was indeed very close to the incipient "New
Age Movement" (which is actually a just a recent version of the ancient
*philosophia perennis"). His story is an excellent example of a point
made by one of my Orthodox friends some years ago: "Occultism is the
back door to Orthodoxy."
It is not very difficult to discover other examples of Orthodoxy's
ability to operate in an "occult" milieu, touching gnostic, hermetic,
neo-platonic, and shamanic hearts with the Gospel. One of the problems
evident in recent literature is that "hermetic" thinkers may tend to
reinterpret Orthodoxy into their own systems. Another difficulty is
that Orthodoxy sometimes seems to have formed an uneasy truce with
"occultism". Witness the Sophiology which Russian Orthodoxy properly
rejects, yet has been promulgated by various Russian Orthodox thinkers,
perhaps particularly in Paris, where emigre Orthodoxy seems to have
first taken hold in an environment replete with occult connections.
And then there are the firewalkers of Greek Macedonia, compelled by
their Saints Constantine and Helen to reject the admonitions of the
Greek Orthodox Church that their practices are not Christian.
Michael Morbey
--
Excerpt from Michael J. Oleksa, _Orthodoxy in Alaska: The
Spiritual History of the Kodiak Aleut People_, St. Vladimir's
Theological Quarterly 25(1):3-19(1981):
"It is possible to enumerate a list of parallel attitudes
and beliefs which made the transition from Shamanism to
Orthodoxy a smooth and remarkably rapid one...St. Innocent
Veniaminov's attitude toward the reputed Shaman Smirennikov
is another indication of the respectful attitude toward
pre-Christian beliefs which the Orthodox missionaries
displayed in their efforts to evangelize Alaska...
Throughout Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula, local oral
tradition asserts that when the monks first visited Sugpiaq
communities, they were welcomed by the villagers, who related
that they had been instructed to do so by their shamans"
For the story of St. Innocent and the "shaman"
see Paul D. Garrett, _St. Innocent Apostle to America_,
Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1979, Part
Two, Chapter 5: The Shaman.
The best of the Kodiak missionaries tended to the spiritual
needs of the Aleut people, even while encouraging them to
preserve their spiritual traditions and their own language
in the new context. They tended also to their technological
needs, and able candidates were sent into Russia for advanced
training. When Alaska was taken over by the U.S.A., the Aleut
people, including the Orthodox Aleut people,suffered the same
"residential school" kind of fate that the other First Nations
of North America (and elsewhere) suffered at the hands of
government and certain Western Church missionary agencies. It
is a terrible story, as it has been elsewhere. Only in recent
years have the Aleut people been recovering from the Western
tradition of religio-political violence. For more details,
read Michael J. Oleksa further.
--
On firewalking:
Loring M. Danforth, _Firewalking and Religious Healing *The Anastenaria
of Greece and the American Firewalking Movement*_, Princeton, N.J.: The
Princeton University Press, 1989.