- Oct 2, 2020
- 28,899
- 15,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I doubt that happens. The Eucharist is of Christ, not the private property a church.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I doubt that happens. The Eucharist is of Christ, not the private property a church.What's more amazing is when people turn up at Church and make demands about partaking of the sacraments. People who will NOT subject themselves to the Church's discipline.
I do not think that you believe that. Do you give the Eucharist to people who are unknown to you but turn up at your church?I doubt that happens. The Eucharist is of Christ, not the private property a church.
Imagination isn't reality.It sure looks like it.
We're all one in Christ.What principle would that be; when you visit another family's place of worship what makes you feel like you have a right to receive the sacraments that they tell you require adherence to Catholic doctrine?
It's a policy of Christians discriminating against Christians.It's honest policy.
We're supposed to sharing in Christ.The division exists completely independent of the sacraments. People who deny the meaning of the sacraments and who deny essential Catholic doctrine cannot in good conscience receive the sacraments in a Catholic church because they are offered to those who share Catholic faith.
We shouldn't have come up the a bunch of man-made beliefs that cause division between us. In heaven no such divisions will exist.The gospels and the letters of the saints in the New Testament urge Christians to be of one mind and one purpose, but neither of those is present when at least one party disavows the beliefs of the other.
By believer in Christ I meant faith in Christ.That's not the truth, not only is baptism required but also a life of faith.
It's difficult for me to believe that I must doubt my salvation. Don't recall that being a requirement of faith.Follow the Bible on salvation. Your salvation does not depend upon assurance or reasonable assurance from any man. We have been saved through Baptism but can fall. Again:
Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; RSVCE
I do not think that you believe that. Do you give the Eucharist to people who are unknown to you but turn up at your church?
I do not give the Eucharist. Christians partake in the Eucharist. The word eucharist means thanksgiving and Christians partake in the thanksgiving of Chist.I do not think that you believe that. Do you give the Eucharist to people who are unknown to you but turn up at your church?
Perhaps close at first blush but you know "very nearly identical" is not the standard, particularly after the schism. In the RCC format (and probably the others to some extents,) any officially determined position wandering or even a particular obscure slant can be anathema. Only now it's often kind of a wink wink anathema. A "not really" anathema. We won't talk about it if you don't anathema.Actually the doctrine of the Orthodox Church (we are not sects) is very nearly identical to that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Honestly, I see it the opposite. Partaking at a denomination/church that believes it to only be a symbol or "spiritual communion" is simply showing that you can agree with the basics that they believe and partake of a symbolic event. Contrarily, partaking at a church that believes that their Eucharist has the Real Presence....but I don't believe that it does, that's a step towards legitimizing their beliefs, which I don't agree with, so there isn't unity in their ideas.That said I don’t think Christians who believe in the real presence should partake of the Eucharist in churches that deny it - the closest I would be prepared to get is in the case of churches like the Anglicans that lean towards a believe in the Real Presence without in most cases dogmatizing it.
Open communion seems to have begun with John Bunyan. The original Christian practice is found in patristic writings like the Didache (1st cent.) and St. Justin Martyr's First Apology (2nd cent.), as well as the ancient liturgies, which originally would not have allowed even the catechumens, those who were in the process of joining the Church, to remain and observe others taking communion (see St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Homilies, protocatechesis, for a short discourse on the theological significance of this practice).In what way?
And I am a UK Methodist, by the way, which may be different from the UMC.
Again, read the early Christian texts on this. Communion has always entailed unity of faith, shared beliefs. You can also read things like St. Cyprian of Carthage's treatise on the unity of the Church (3rd cent.) as an introduction to the historical Christian view of sacramental grace outside the Church.If I'd realised the taking communion in a Catholic church meant receiving "their" sacraments and, maybe implicitly, signing up to "their" beliefs, I would have had no complaints about not receiving it.
And even if that's all it means, it's deeply wrong on several levels.All it means is that a preacher from one tradition goes to another church and preaches there.
Ecumenism in this context is more than just trying to work more closely with other Christians. If you get to the point where a Methodist lady pastor thinks she should be able to deliver the homily and take Holy Communion, that's a sign that the line between respectful dialogue and religious indifferentism has been crossed over a long time ago.If you find ecumenism - trying to work closer together with other Christians to foster understanding and unity - to be nonsense, there's nothing I can say.
Thank you for the information.Open communion seems to have begun with John Bunyan. The original Christian practice is found in patristic writings like the Didache (1st cent.) and St. Justin Martyr's First Apology (2nd cent.), as well as the ancient liturgies, which originally would not have allowed even the catechumens, those who were in the process of joining the Church, to remain and observe others taking communion (see St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Homilies, protocatechesis, for a short discourse on the theological significance of this practice).
As far as the practice of open communion in Methodism goes, UK or US, it's an invention of the late 19th century (as a local deviation from the norm) and didn't find official acceptance in any form of Methodism to my knowledge until the 20th century. See John Bowmer's article "A Converting Ordinance and the Open Table" for an analysis of Wesley's position on the issue and its authenticity as a Methodist practice.
A Methodist Minister is a priest with holy orders - called, ordained, anointed.And even if that's all it means, it's deeply wrong on several levels.
- It gives the impression to you and to the laity that a Methodist pastor is interchangeable with a priest with holy orders.
Maybe.
- If you had been allowed to deliver the homily, as you expected to be, it would have been a violation of the liturgical norms on the part of the priest.
What can I say?
- Presumably as part of the swap, the Catholic priest went to a Methodist church and gave a sermon. Ordinarily, that would be cause for him to lose his office and be reduced to a layman. Maybe it's allowable now under the post-Vatican II code of canon law, I don't know.
- I'm not a Pastor.Ecumenism in this context is more than just trying to work more closely with other Christians. If you get to the point where a Methodist lady pastor thinks she should be able to deliver the homily and take Holy Communion, that's a sign that the line between respectful dialogue and religious indifferentism has been crossed over a long time ago.
Not according to anyone outside of Methodism, and in the case of women not even according to John Wesley himself. I suppose you can believe whatever you like about that, his beliefs on the subject have long since been thrown to the wayside in Methodism, but the relevant thing here is that it would be a compromise of Catholic beliefs to treat you as if you were.A Methodist Minister is a priest with holy orders - called, ordained, anointed.
We just don't call them priests.
The most charitable interpretation I can come up with for their behavior is that they thought they could have their ecumenical cake and eat it too by having a sermon but making it effectively a standalone talk. But predictably that just made everything worse, including misleading you about what you were going to be doing.But it would have been nice if someone had explained that beforehand, rather than making me feel like an afterthought - like, 'we've had the service and the notices, now we'll let the preacher speak'.
All I can think is that they assumed it was common knowledge that people who aren't baptized Catholics can't receive communion. Personally, if I knew a Protestant clergyman who was coming as a visitor to an Orthodox church, I would be worried about insulting him if I explained what I assumed he had learned in a freshman-level church history class in seminary.If that service had to be a Mass, and there was a serious, doctrinal reason why I, as a non Catholic, could not receive Mass, at the very least someone should have explained that to me beforehand.
On this we agree.Better still, if the priest had any integrity, he should have pulled out of the arrangement.
Not according to anyone outside of Methodism, and in the case of women not even according to John Wesley himself. I suppose you can believe whatever you like about that, his beliefs on the subject have long since been thrown to the wayside in Methodism, but the relevant thing here is that it would be a compromise of Catholic beliefs to treat you as if you were.
The idea is to allow speakers (Catholic or not) to address the congregation after the conclusion of the Mass. That way they can talk to everyone and not disrupt the liturgy. It usually isn't an Ecumenical thing, it is more like a a post Mass information talk.The most charitable interpretation I can come up with for their behavior is that they thought they could have their ecumenical cake and eat it too by having a sermon but making it effectively a standalone talk. But predictably that just made everything worse, including misleading you about what you were going to be doing.
That is common knowledge and it is fairly frequently stated in the Mass prior to Communion by the priest when there are visitors in the congregation.All I can think is that they assumed it was common knowledge that people who aren't baptized Catholics can't receive communion.
Seems some Protestants just want to receive communion in a Catholic Church, I do not know why.Personally, if I knew a Protestant clergyman who was coming as a visitor to an Orthodox church, I would be worried about insulting him if I explained what I assumed he had learned in a freshman-level church history class in seminary.
On this we agree.
And if someone had said that I would have tried to get out of going.The idea is to allow speakers (Catholic or not) to address the congregation after the conclusion of the Mass. That way they can talk to everyone and not disrupt the liturgy. It usually isn't an Ecumenical thing, it is more like a a post Mass information talk.
Why do you keep ignoring my statement that this was a service to mark the week of Prayer for Christian Unity and that I said "in the interests of unity" it would have been nice to have been offered communion?Seems some Protestants just want to receive communion in a Catholic Church, I do not know why.
Methodist Ministers - male and female - are called by God, equipped and blessed by God, anointed by God and trained and ordained by his church.Not according to anyone outside of Methodism, and in the case of women not even according to John Wesley himself.
Agreed.The most charitable interpretation I can come up with for their behavior is that they thought they could have their ecumenical cake and eat it too by having a sermon but making it effectively a standalone talk. But predictably that just made everything worse, including misleading you about what you were going to be doing.
Too many assumptions going on.All I can think is that they assumed it was common knowledge that people who aren't baptized Catholics can't receive communion.
I partook before I found out I wasn't allowed to. I was just another one in line to receive a wafer.All of this is kind of moot unless you live in a small town or go to a small church. The only denomination that did any "policing" of the Eucharist to me was a LCMS church that is fairly small, I was visiting the parish and they knew that and asked that I not partake. No Catholic Church has asked to see my Catholic Card....one could attend a Mass and simply partake forever if you wanted to. It wouldn't be "right" but people could, and Catholics that are in a state of Mortal Sin do so all the time.
Well, now you know, and your solution above is likely best for all concerned.And if someone had said that I would have tried to get out of going.
<SNIP>
My solution of never again setting foot in a Catholic church? Agreed.Well, now you know, and your solution above is likely best for all concerned.
How sad that churches are less charitable than Jesus.
This reminds me of a Machine-shop teacher I had from 1974-77. This gentleman was in his mid-50's, had to retire early from the Ford Motor Company due to severe degenerative arthritis. Despite the debilitating illness, he had the reputation of being about the best Machine Shop Teacher in Ontario; and he had so many connections that being in his class, you were a shoe-in for an apprenticeship anywhere you wanted, or an introduction to any Engineering school you wanted. He was one of the most memorable and best teachers of my high school years.My solution of never again setting foot in a Catholic church? Agreed.
So much for unity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?