Topic: Sharing sacraments?

[ialmisry]

The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

Go try to pass a counterfeit $100 bill at the bank and tell us how "the senseless bickering and one upmanship" goes.

<<John 4:33>>
"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know."

Btw, the "dead men's bones" we are full of-the relics of the saints upon which we celebrate our sacraments, are quite clean.

If I worship at a Catholic Church one day and the next I worship the same God and his son Jesus at the Orthodox Church , you who condemn that is the counterfeit bill or you will see that when you are judged by your divisiveness . Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers , and the Meek".

it is not divisieness to point out that chasm.

Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters."

Either the pope of Rome is the source of the church's unity, or he's not. Either the Orthodox Episcopate has preserved the Catholic Church or it hasn't.

Only one name can fit in the diptych. If you went into one wife day and the next day another wife, no matter how much you loved both, you would be an adulterer.

[podkarpatska]

The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

Well said.

[stanley123]

]

http://www.amazon.com/Church-East-Illustrated-Assyrian-Christianity/dp/184511115X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290028202&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.aina.org/books.html

and may our Lord's Relatives and his Apostles the Holy Patriarchs of the Church guide you in your reading.

Thanks for these links. The second link is especially good and all of the books are available online. 

[stanley123]

... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.

Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   

[ialmisry]

... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.

Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   

I know of infants who have been refused chrismation, either by Latinization or no priest of their rite available, and know of even more children (again either from Latinization or going to a Latin rite church because that is the only place for their Sunday obligation available) refused communion.  The refusal to commune infants by the Latins would be an immediate signal to the Orthodox that we are not of one mind in sacramental terms, upon which would come questions about the Latin theology of confirmation (it is not exactly the same, there being no affirmation of baptism aspect to it in Orthodoxy), the practice of communing children before confirmation, etc.  It is things like this which would raise doubts in the minds of the Orthodox, no matter what the bishops signed.

[Rafa999]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

[katherineofdixie]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

[elijahmaria]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

I do believe that we are slowly moving in that direction and I think you will see it come in a rush if we resume communion with Orthodoxy in the foreseeable future.

Everyone has horror stories about their Church.  That is no reason not to stay and work for what we know is the right thing.  It should not be an excuse to quit or be raised to anger.  Anger kills all holiness.

M.

[elijahmaria]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

Dear Katherine

The same way that the Orthodox do not want their traditions to be tampered with, so to do the Latins/Romans not want their traditions to be uprooted by someone from outside.

What happened with the Uniate Churches was a terrible thing.  Many have learned very hard lessons.  Some are not so agreeable, just as there are some in Orthodoxy who remain rigid. 

We don't break down those barriers successfully by throwing rocks, verbal or material.

In Christ,

Mary

PS:  I really do enjoy your contributions.  You seem honest and real and I love that!!

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chris mation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

Dear Katherine

The same way that the Orthodox do not want their traditions to be tampered with, so to do the Latins/Romans not want their traditions to be uprooted by someone from outside.

What happened with the Uniate Churches was a terrible thing.  Many have learned very hard lessons.  Some are not so agreeable, just as there are some in Orthodoxy who remain rigid. 

We don't break down those barriers successfully by throwing rocks, verbal or material.

In Christ,

Mary

PS:  I really do enjoy your contributions.  You seem honest and real and I love that!!

I agree. I think that moving in the direction of chrismating and communing infants is a good idea, but I think that this transformation needs to be an organic one, otherwise some of the faithful who do not understand that this is the ancient practice of the Catholic Church might be scandalized.
Also, because Priestly celibacy has become part of the spirituality of the Latin priesthood, even if we were to allow for married priests, I think that celibacy should still be encouraged in most cases.

[Papist]

... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.

Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   

I know of infants who have been refused chrismation, either by Latinization or no priest of their rite available, and know of even more children (again either from Latinization or going to a Latin rite church because that is the only place for their Sunday obligation available) refused communion.  The refusal to commune infants by the Latins would be an immediate signal to the Orthodox that we are not of one mind in sacramental terms, upon which would come questions about the Latin theology of confirmation (it is not exactly the same, there being no affirmation of baptism aspect to it in Orthodoxy), the practice of communing children before confirmation, etc.  It is things like this which would raise doubts in the minds of the Orthodox, no matter what the bishops signed.

I actually agree with you that this practice should be changed in the Latin Church and we need to be more senstive to the needs of Byzantines and Orientals who must attdent Latin Churches because of there might not be Eastern Churches nearby.

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

[Wyatt]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

[stanley123]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

I agree. It doesn't really make much sense to isolate Baptism and Chrismation.

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

I definitely don't think it should be a Church dividing issue. We  have much bigger fish to fry.

[ialmisry]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.

[elijahmaria]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

I definitely don't think it should be a Church dividing issue. We  have much bigger fish to fry.

Actually it is one of the greater fish, in my own estimation.

It is one where most clergy and bishops in the Roman rite see the sense of and the need for change, but we are so locked into the expression of "process" in these sacraments that we will just not bother with the fact that they have become sacraments in search of a theology in some very unavoidable ways.

How many people in Roman rite parishes notice that there is a seconding anointing with holy chrism in the Baptismal ritual that surrenders the baptizand to the Holy Spirit?  How many people realize THAT is the vestigial confirmation from when the three sacraments of Initiation were given in right order?

As a catechist I will tell you that it is a very difficult thing to do to try to explain that anointing without calling it a chrismation/confirmation...and once that slips out then what do we do with the sacrament of confirmation [called damnably the "sacrament of choice"] administered 10-17 years later.  It is madness and really needs to be stopped.  

However many dioceses have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars developing "Programs and Materials" for this sacrament of choice...

Very disturbing.

[Papist]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.

Yes, it is disciplinary. We Latins need to fix it. But it's still disciplinary.

[elijahmaria]

Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.

I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.

That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.

Yes, it is disciplinary. We Latins need to fix it. But it's still disciplinary.

Let's be a little more flexible than this.  Not everything falls out into neat categories of doctrinal and disciplinary.   That works at some level for convenience sake but now and then we need to take things as they come to us pastorally and theologically.

This particular issue of the sacraments of Initiation has been one that the Roman rite and ritual have been working on for quite a while and it needs to be worked on a little more aggressively so that our practice comes closer to our theology.   Our episcopate knows that.  It is not a secret to the clergy who've been trying to teach sacramental theology all their lives.  I guess we have some priest still trying to learn it...but that's another story.  It is an issue of theology.

Do I think it is Church dividing?  No.  Particularly since we do have the second anointing in the Baptismal ritual, and why it was retained there...But that leaves us effectively with eight sacraments while we call them seven. 

I don't think that is worthy of schism.

M.

[ialmisry]

Yes, yes, we know the drill by now. Orthodox = evil.  Roman Catholic = noble, good and true.

That's funny, because the opposite assertion is what we see around here all the time.

Although I think it's more "ironic" than "funny." Perhaps it's just because I'm a relative whippersnapper in the culture wars around these parts, but I haven't observed (YMMV, of course) what you describe.
To charge someone with bearing false witness and being evil (and by extension an entire Church) based on an internet discussion does seem to be a little over the top.

I am sorry you feel that way.  But it is an evil to distort another person's reality in order to insist that it is, in itself, a distortion.  You walk away believing that you've accomplished something and that your hands are clean.  But they are not and all that has been accomplished is an evil act.

If Orthodox faithful have to lie about the Catholic Church to make Orthodoxy true...well...where do you suppose that will lead?

Just a convenient place to put something that reminded me about this thread and the posts on the Vatican Bull "Ex Quo": at 14:20 where he goes on about every sacrifice of the mass having to have to be made in union with their supreme pontiff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzfvWmxyPz4

[Almost_Orthodox]

This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic? Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

Such arguments and imprecations of others is why I lean very much towards apokatastasis and God's love being bigger than the corrupt manner in which mankind has treated both the Church and God's truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.

If my salvation is dependent upon finding just the right Church, just the right doctrines, just the right everything, then not only am I screwed to  wall dead, but such finesse in my opinion utterly lacks grace.  Furthermore, if this really IS God's standard (rather than the acts of charity which are a result of our theosis and growth into Christ as shown in Matthew 25: 33-46) then I find it deeply - DEEPLY - troubling that God would allow any heresy at all if our souls welfare depends on having 100% truth.

It this is the case, that one MUST find the 100% truth, and if I am God (I know...bad words for any human being to utter) then the first time a heretic opens his mouth to utter untruth he gets hit with a 100KV bolt of lightening and ushered out of this world where his rancid musings cannot destroy souls.

I find this whole discussion, while informative and interesting, nonetheless highly depressing.

[Almost_Orthodox]

The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.

Where does it say that in Scripture?

Where does it say that in Matthew 25: 33-46?

Where does St. Paul say that in Romans 2: 13-16.

I trust God's love is bigger than that.  Much bigger and much more forgiving than both Latin and Orthodox Traddies, who sit on the sidelines tossing theo-grenades at each other while the majority of us dummies try to figure it out the best we can.

[Porter ODoran]

The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.

Where does it say that in Scripture?

Where does it say that in Matthew 25: 33-46?

Where does St. Paul say that in Romans 2: 13-16.

I trust God's love is bigger than that.  Much bigger and much more forgiving than both Latin and Orthodox Traddies, who sit on the sidelines tossing theo-grenades at each other while the majority of us dummies try to figure it out the best we can.

Yeah, that's definitely not found in the words of our Lord or the Apostles. However, it is implied a few places that He'll ask of church leaders how they've treated the flock.

[Almost_Orthodox]

In Galatians 5,  St. Paul states that those who foment schism will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

I don't know who is to blame for keeping this schism going for 1000+ years, but someone is going to be in deep kimchee at the Judgment.

[Iconodule]

Deep kimchee sounds heavenly.

[Porter ODoran]

In Galatians 5,  St. Paul states that those who foment schism will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

I don't know who is to blame for keeping this schism going for 1000+ years, but someone is going to be in deep kimchee at the Judgment.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these:

• adultery
• fornication
• uncleanness
• lasciviousness
• idolatry
• witchcraft
• hatred
• variance
• emulations
• wrath
• strife
• seditions
• heresies
• envyings
• murders
• drunkenness
• revellings

and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I think to fall into these categories of judgment, one would have actively to be making one's life one of pursuing schism. And I think 1,000 years later, it would be hard to assign that judgment to any individuals without seeing the heart.

However, I do appreciate your post for the sense of urgency it brings and the value it places on union. I'm rather sure that's how Christ feels about it as well.

[Mor Ephrem]

Deep kimchee sounds heavenly.

+1

[Diego]

If it counts for anything, the Roman Church allows Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church to commune, but ALSO says those persons should respect the discipline of their own Churches. They will permit Anglicans, Lutherans, and Old Catholics to commune in extreme circumstances, such as near death issues, on a case-by-case basis. Missouri Synod technically allows only itself and the 35 or so Churches with whom we are in communion to commune. But some Pastors will permit believers in the Real Presence to commune, namely, any Lutheran, Anglican, OO, EO, RCC, Assyrian Church, Old Catholic, or Polish National Catholic. This is tolerated, as long as it is not advertised too loudly, due to the odd tension in our Church between top-down rule from St. Louis v. the odd congregational polity that has been a hallmark of our Church. That odd tension has always been, well, kind of messed up. Most Churches are either top-down, OR congregational,  but I have never known one other than our own that is BOTH! Its a bit frustrating for me, coming from the Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic traditions, both of which are top-down traditions.

[WPM]

Its a white communion wafer you receive as the body of christ.

[Father H]

This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic? Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

Such arguments and imprecations of others is why I lean very much towards apokatastasis and God's love being bigger than the corrupt manner in which mankind has treated both the Church and God's truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.

If my salvation is dependent upon finding just the right Church, just the right doctrines, just the right everything, then not only am I screwed to  wall dead, but such finesse in my opinion utterly lacks grace.  Furthermore, if this really IS God's standard (rather than the acts of charity which are a result of our theosis and growth into Christ as shown in Matthew 25: 33-46) then I find it deeply - DEEPLY - troubling that God would allow any heresy at all if our souls welfare depends on having 100% truth.

It this is the case, that one MUST find the 100% truth, and if I am God (I know...bad words for any human being to utter) then the first time a heretic opens his mouth to utter untruth he gets hit with a 100KV bolt of lightening and ushered out of this world where his rancid musings cannot destroy souls.

I find this whole discussion, while informative and interesting, nonetheless highly depressing.

You don't have to be that depressed.  The discussion died in 2010, so it really was not that "hoppin'".    You don't have to lean toward apokatastasis.  Some people are evil.  Period.  Go volunteer at a serious prison and get access to really bad people.  You would change your mind.  You are driving yourself crazy with the scrupulosity of people who don't matter.  God's love is bigger than our imaginations but God's justice is equally bigger than our imagination.  There can be no love without justice.  You are worried about dogma.  Official Orthodox dogma (I am a professor of dogma at an Orthodox seminary), holds that the Church is concerned about its own order (and thus has responsibility for temporal judgment, as Scripture says), but God alone holds eternal judgment.  You are too worried (remember the Lord's words:  "Have no anxiety about tomorrow, for sufficient unto this day is the evil thereof").  Relax.  Go with God's nudging.  Ignore nonsense from others.  God loves you.  You love Him.  Rejoice in this, and let the Spirit blow you where He will.       

[beebert]

This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic? Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

Such arguments and imprecations of others is why I lean very much towards apokatastasis and God's love being bigger than the corrupt manner in which mankind has treated both the Church and God's truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.

If my salvation is dependent upon finding just the right Church, just the right doctrines, just the right everything, then not only am I screwed to  wall dead, but such finesse in my opinion utterly lacks grace.  Furthermore, if this really IS God's standard (rather than the acts of charity which are a result of our theosis and growth into Christ as shown in Matthew 25: 33-46) then I find it deeply - DEEPLY - troubling that God would allow any heresy at all if our souls welfare depends on having 100% truth.

It this is the case, that one MUST find the 100% truth, and if I am God (I know...bad words for any human being to utter) then the first time a heretic opens his mouth to utter untruth he gets hit with a 100KV bolt of lightening and ushered out of this world where his rancid musings cannot destroy souls.

I find this whole discussion, while informative and interesting, nonetheless highly depressing.

You don't have to be that depressed.  The discussion died in 2010, so it really was not that "hoppin'".    You don't have to lean toward apokatastasis.  Some people are evil.  Period.  Go volunteer at a serious prison and get access to really bad people.  You would change your mind.  You are driving yourself crazy with the scrupulosity of people who don't matter.  God's love is bigger than our imaginations but God's justice is equally bigger than our imagination.  There can be no love without justice.  You are worried about dogma.  Official Orthodox dogma (I am a professor of dogma at an Orthodox seminary), holds that the Church is concerned about its own order (and thus has responsibility for temporal judgment, as Scripture says), but God alone holds eternal judgment.  You are too worried (remember the Lord's words:  "Have no anxiety about tomorrow, for sufficient unto this day is the evil thereof").  Relax.  Go with God's nudging.  Ignore nonsense from others.  God loves you.  You love Him.  Rejoice in this, and let the Spirit blow you where He will.     

Nor is there any justice without love.