A conversation about unity.

[Hentenza]

Yes you are still two quite separate churches.

You are not really getting it are you? All Christians are the body of Christ. There are no Christians that are more Christian than others. Jesus didn’t come just for the sake of your tradition.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You are not really getting it are you? All Christians are the body of Christ. There are no Christians that are more Christian than others. Jesus didn’t come just for the sake of your tradition.

Unity, from a Catholic perspective, signifies the divinely instituted harmony that binds individuals and communities in truth, charity, and sacramental communion, reflecting the oneness of God Himself. In the context of Church unity, it denotes the visible and spiritual cohesion of the faithful under one doctrine, one sacramental life, and one apostolic governance, centred on the successor of Saint Peter. This unity is not merely a sociological or emotional bond but a theological reality rooted in Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21), safeguarded by the Holy Spirit and expressed through the four marks of the Church: one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. It excludes doctrinal contradiction and schism, affirming that full ecclesial communion subsists only in the Catholic Church, which alone preserves the fullness of truth and the means of grace established by Christ.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

the Catholic Church, which alone preserves the fullness of truth and the means of grace established by Christ.

Were that really cohesive, and truthful you may have a point. But even the orthodox, you know, the other orthodox sects, disagree, legitimately so. As do virtually all the protest sects and every other Christian sect.

Maybe it's time to get off the high horse and put some clothes on because fewer and fewer are buying the story?

 

[Strong in Him]

Unity, from a Catholic perspective,

That's it, isn't it? "From a Catholic perspective".

It excludes doctrinal contradiction and schism, affirming that full ecclesial communion subsists only in the Catholic Church, which alone preserves the fullness of truth and the means of grace established by Christ.

Well there you go then.
From a Catholic perspective ..... the Catholic church alone preserves the fullness of truth.

How is there going to be any Christian unity when the bottom line - for Catholics - is "we're right and you're wrong"?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Were that really cohesive, and truthful you may have a point.

It is what the Catholic Church says about itself. It is not a debating point. It is a position.

But even the orthodox

EVEN? what is your intended meaning with that word?

, you know, the other orthodox sects

I call them ancient churches, now you call them sects - that kind of insulting.

, disagree, legitimately so.

Disagree they do, but it is a matter for debate if their stand is legitimate (meaning correct).

As do virtually all the protest sects

Protestants groups have a hard time coming to consensus on any matter.

and every other Christian sect.

Maybe it's time to get off the high horse

If you cannot cope with a frank disclosure of a Church's position then do not expect to find unity any time soon.

and put some clothes on because fewer and fewer are buying the story?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's it, isn't it? "From a Catholic perspective".

Well there you go then.
From a Catholic perspective ..... the Catholic church alone preserves the fullness of truth.

and?

How is there going to be any Christian unity when the bottom line - for Catholics - is "we're right and you're wrong"?

That sir, is a matter for you to figure out.

 

[Hentenza]

Unity, from a Catholic perspective,

This is the only part of your post that you care about. Nothing here about any kind of unity unless we join your church. Just like the borg except that resistance is not futile. You are still not getting it. You are going to have to explain to Christ why your church is better than anyone elses and why you discarded the rest of His Body for the sake of your traditions.

You and your clan are welcomed at my church any time.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

It is what the Catholic Church says about itself. It is not a debating point. It is a position.

Commonly known as a unilateral position believed only by the declarant (and nobody else)

EVEN? what is your intended meaning with that word?

I call them ancient churches, now you call them sects - that kind of insulting.

Let's not pretend they've concede to all the required Roman catholic positions, though I will give them credit for pretending in public so as not to alienate their respective flocks.

Disagree they do,

Indeed. Rightfully so.

but it is a matter for debate if their stand is legitimate (meaning correct).

Not in RCC doctrine it's not debatable. It really doesn't matter to the offical magisterium if anyone agrees or not. Those who do not agree, no matter what faith flag they fly, if they disagree knowingly, openly, such are officially deemed heretics. And you wonder why the others don't get along with your sect?

Protestants groups have a hard time coming to consensus on any matter.

Says the sect that split hundreds of years ago over 3 or 4 words and are still fighting over them

If you cannot cope with a frank disclosure of a Church's position then do not expect to find unity any time soon.

It's actually much easier and much more openly obvious that everyone has their faults, don't you think?

I mean why associate with any church if it can't at least be that honest?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Commonly known as a unilateral position believed only by the declarant (and nobody else)

Let's not pretend they've concede to all the required Roman catholic positions, though I will give them credit for pretending in public so as not to alienate their respective flocks.

Indeed. Rightfully so.

Not in RCC doctrine it's not debatable. It really doesn't matter to the offical magisterium if anyone agrees or not. Those who do not agree, no matter what faith flag they fly, if they disagree knowingly, openly, such are officially deemed heretics. And you wonder why the others don't get along with your sect?

Says the sect that split hundreds of years ago over 3 or 4 words and are still fighting over them

It's actually much easier and much more openly obvious that everyone has their faults, don't you think?

I mean why associate with any church if it can't at least be that honest?

Far be it from me to argue against one whose knowledge of Catholic dogma is so encyclopaedic!

 

[jas3]

You and your clan are welcomed at my church any time.

That sounds very magnanimous, but in reality it's just papering over disunity of faith with nominal unity.

 

[Hentenza]

That sounds very magnanimous, but in reality it's just papering over disunity of faith with nominal unity.

It’s not magnanimous at all but what scripture teach.

You are welcomed too.

 

[jas3]

It’s not magnanimous at all but what scripture teach.

Really? Where? Certainly not 1 Cor. 1:10 or 1 Cor. 12:25 or Eph. 4:5.

 

[The Liturgist]

The point of my post is that we treat each other as equal Christians part of the Body of Christ.

Well that is uncontroversial - the issue has never been about that but the reception of the Eucharist in Catholic, LCMS, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and other churches with closed communion or preconditions on reception (such as confessing the Nicene Creed and the Real Presence).

That will give us the possibility of defining our words and deciding what we really do stand for and what we can negotiate.

The challenge is really the risk of schism or of causing more people to leave and join the Old Calendarists in our case. I think first the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox need to complete reunification and also address the issues in the EO communion with EP overreach, which has created not a schism, but rather a situation where the EP and certain other churches on either side of the issue are in indirect communion.

Theoretically some Eastern Orthodox have said that in the event of reunification the Roman church could resume its ancient status of primus inter pares, the roles defined by canons 6 and 7 of Nicaea, and later canons pertaining to the church of Constantinople and of Cyprus, and also appelate powers under Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

But I don’t think the Oriental Orthodox are comfortable with a primus inter pares except within individual churches: the Armenian Apostolic Church consists of four autocephalous churches, two of which are global, those presided over by the Catholicos of Holy Etchmiadzin and All Armenia, who is primus inter pares, and the Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, who, since the two churches have reconciled following the Cold War, is secundus inter pares, although not all holders of the office are likely to admit that. There are then the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople, the former still being important but the latter being less important since the genocide, although I think there are still more Armenians remaining in Turkey than Greeks, due to the 1920 population exchange and the pogrom against the Phanariot Greeks (who comprise the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and live in the Phanar district of Constantinople).

Likewise it would be ideal if we could achieve unity with the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, but first they need to address their schism, and then the current show-stopper, veneration of Nestorius, needs to be addressed.

 

[Strong in Him]

and?

And as you believe that you alone have the truth, anyone else is wrong/suspect/belongs to a church that does not have the truth (therefore, by definition is untrue.)

That sir, is a matter for you to figure out.

I don't have to use my female brain to figure out anything.
If you came to our church, we would welcome you.
If it was a communion service, our Minister would say, "this is the Lord's table; anyone who loves our Lord is welcome". If you indicated that you wished to receive communion, you would be offered it and would share in the body and blood of Christ, just like the rest of us.
I suspect that you would not come to our church, even if it was right next door to yours.
I suspect you would not accept there being a female Minister, and either you would refuse to accept communion, or you would want a doctrinal statement about what we believed about the body and blood of Christ.

I have been to a Catholic church and on a Catholic retreat where, they claimed, all denominations were welcome.
In the Catholic church I was welcomed - but quizzed by a member of the congregation about why I did not believe Jesus when he said that the church would be built on Peter. I was not offered communion. Had I tried to copy the others when we went forward, I suspect I would have been humiliated when they refused to give it to me - because I had already been publicly identified as a Methodist Preacher. (I was giving the sermon that day but was only allowed to speak once the service was over.)
On the Catholic retreat one of the nuns spoke to the priest as he came round and said I was a protestant. He passed by without looking at me.

I don't call that unity.
But I already know what the issue is - you're right and we're not, therefore, no fellowship.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And as you believe that you alone have the truth, anyone else is wrong/suspect/belongs to a church that does not have the truth (therefore, by definition is untrue.)

I don't have to use my female brain to figure out anything.
If you came to our church, we would welcome you.

After reading your posts I would refrain from visiting your place of worship.

If it was a communion service, our Minister would say, "this is the Lord's table; anyone who loves our Lord is welcome". If you indicated that you wished to receive communion, you would be offered it and would share in the body and blood of Christ, just like the rest of us.
I suspect that you would not come to our church, even if it was right next door to yours.
I suspect you would not accept there being a female Minister, and either you would refuse to accept communion, or you would want a doctrinal statement about what we believed about the body and blood of Christ.

I have been to a Catholic church and on a Catholic retreat where, they claimed, all denominations were welcome.
In the Catholic church I was welcomed - but quizzed by a member of the congregation about why I did not believe Jesus when he said that the church would be built on Peter. I was not offered communion. Had I tried to copy the others when we went forward, I suspect I would have been humiliated when they refused to give it to me - because I had already been publicly identified as a Methodist Preacher. (I was giving the sermon that day but was only allowed to speak once the service was over.)
On the Catholic retreat one of the nuns spoke to the priest as he came round and said I was a protestant. He passed by without looking at me.

I don't call that unity.
But I already know what the issue is - you're right and we're not, therefore, no fellowship.

 

[Strong in Him]

After reading your posts I would refrain from visiting your place of worship.

I know you would.

The point is, you would be welcome and you would be able to receive communion - sharing in the body and blood of Christ.
Regarding the latter, your church can't say the same.

So what chance of unity?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I know you would.

The point is, you would be welcome and you would be able to receive communion - sharing in the body and blood of Christ.
Regarding the latter, your church can't say the same.

So what chance of unity?

communion comes after unity.

 

[Carl Emerson]

communion comes after unity.

How can that be, when we know there are Wheat and Tares in the Church and we see Church leaders fall in horrendous circumstances?

Paul certainly spoke of many sicknesses on folk's not being in unity in the taking of communion.

 

[Strong in Him]

communion comes after unity.

But communion, in your church, would mean becoming a Catholic; believing the things you believe.
That's already been clearly shown. My husband worked in a Catholic school for 21 years, and had been a Christian for far longer. But he was, and still is, a Protestant - therefore he was not welcome at Mass.

Maybe you missed the bit where I said that in my church, everyone who loves Jesus is welcome to the communion table. Jesus came so that we could be reconciled to - have unity and fellowship with - God. It is unity with God that is important; it's not for us to judge whether or not we believe Christians to be worthy of communion with him.

I wonder how many disciples at the Last Supper were a) in unity with each other and b) had the faintest idea what was going on - yet Jesus still wanted to share a meal with them. Before the night was over, Judas would betray Jesus, Peter would deny him 3 times and the others would run away. Jesus knew all this - yet he shared the Passover with all of them and they all took bread and wine.

How sad that churches are less charitable than Jesus.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But communion, in your church, would mean becoming a Catholic; believing the things you believe.
That's already been clearly shown. My husband worked in a Catholic school for 21 years, and had been a Christian for far longer. But he was, and still is, a Protestant - therefore he was not welcome at Mass.

He is welcome at Mass but not free to take the body and blood of Jesus because he does not believe that they are truly his body and blood. It makes no sense for your husband or yourself to wish for communion when you both completely reject what is offered believing it to be symbolic or perhaps "spiritual" but not real.

Maybe you missed the bit where I said that in my church, everyone who loves Jesus is welcome to the communion table. Jesus came so that we could be reconciled to - have unity and fellowship with - God. It is unity with God that is important; it's not for us to judge whether or not we believe Christians to be worthy of communion with him.

I did not miss it I do not share your view. I would not willingly take the bread and juice offered because for me that is just bread and juice.

I wonder how many disciples at the Last Supper were a) in unity with each other and b) had the faintest idea what was going on - yet Jesus still wanted to share a meal with them. Before the night was over, Judas would betray Jesus, Peter would deny him 3 times and the others would run away. Jesus knew all this - yet he shared the Passover with all of them and they all took bread and wine.

How sad that churches are less charitable than Jesus.