A conversation about unity.

[ozso]

Just asking.

Nope, not me. The opposite really.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess I was spoiled by associating with a set of Restorationist churches who, unlike the Southern Baptist Church I belonged to earlier on, would accept new members even if they had already been baptized within the bounds of another previous denomination. In other words, they didn't require that a new member be re-baptized in order to have fellowship and be united in faith with other Christians.

This doesn't mean I'm recommending Restorationist churches, because like RCCs and Southern Baptists and all the rest, they have their weaknesses too, but I like the effort they make to coalesce with Christians coming from other Trinitarian denominations. In my mind, it should never be as difficult to find common ground with other Trinitarian Christians as it apparently has been over the last nearly 1,000 years.

To my mind, it's utterly ridiculous to demand, "Our way or No way!!!," especially since the Lord left open so many human questions that the Biblical writings don't even address or cover or make explicitly and comprehensively clear-----and it's not clear that the Holy Spirit later shows up to impart new "official" answers (or new innovations in Tradition) to so many new individuals or groups after the 1st Century. But there are many claims made in the posture of "authority" that He has.........................................

 

[The Liturgist]

The serious problem though in that regarding unity is the gatekeeping. That only Christians of that particulier sect are allowed to partake. Despite the form of unity you describe between the four ancient churches, the Roman Catholic Church forbids anyone who's not a Roman Catholic to partake in their Eucharist and the same goes for the Orthodox Church regarding Roman Catholics or any other non-Orthodox Christian from partaking in their Eucharist.

Why would you want to partake of our Eucharist when you reject our doctrines?

 

[The Liturgist]

Catholics, for example, must only fast one hour before communion whereas for Orthodox it is longer

Orthodox have to fast from the night before unless there is a medical reason. I know of a priest with hypoglycemia whose bishop requires him to have a full breakfast before sercing the Eucharist. But there are other things we are supposed to do or required to do even if we can’t fast - people in the Slavic churches will typically confess before each reception, or at least monthly, which is very healthy, and there are prayers of preparation to receive and prayers of thanksgiving at having received.

In the Roman Church I wish your baseline rule was still as strict as it used to be in prior decades, since with the principle of oikonomia it could be relaxed by the priest as needed.

By the way, I have heard Catholic priests cannot normally prevent people who present themselves at Mass from partaking (repulse them from the chalice) except in a few very limited circumstances. Are you aware of what the rules are on that?

 

[The Liturgist]

would accept new members even if they had already been baptized within the bounds of another previous denomination. In other words, they didn't require that a new member be re-baptized in order to have fellowship and be united in faith with other Christians.

No church (except the Old Calendarist Schismatics) will require anyone baptized in the Trinitarian formula, except by certain known heretics like the Mormons, to be rebaptized. In the fourth century even the baptism of the Arians was accepted. Why? Because we confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

Indeed the reason why Anabaptists were viewed with such horror in the 17th century was because they rebaptized people joining their denomination, which is something seen by most traditional Christians as being wrong.

The way one joins the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran churches will only involve baptism if one has not had a Christian baptism, because, again, in the Nicene Creed, we confess one baptism for the remission of sins. Chrismation or confirmation can be repeated if necessary, but not baptism.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually in spite of the derogatory term used it's a good question. Do you think your posts bring Protestants closer to considering becoming Catholic?

You can’t argue someone into changing their faith. My primary goal is to address misinformation people keep spreading about the ancient liturgical churches, not just the Orthodox, but my dearly beloved Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican brethren.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Actually in spite of the derogatory term used it's a good question. Do you think your posts bring Protestants closer to considering becoming Catholic?

Frankly ozso, I do not care as far as the few who seem determined to make this thread into their playground for insults and complaints.

 

[The Liturgist]

So after 25 pages is anyone thinking of changing their position and adopting popery?

I feel a greater sense of unity and solidarity with my Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and other Christian brethren, as the OP intended, and a greater revulsion towards religious bigotry in all its manifold shapes and sizes.

 

[PloverWing]

Those from other Synods who's doctrine aligns, not an issue; those from Synods who are not in fellowship and who reject the Biblical Eucharistic Theology as explained in the unaltered 1580 edition of "The Book of Concord" would not, but in rejecting the BOC, would make them not really Lutheran by our definition.

Just asking for information: I know there are disagreements among Lutheran bodies about a variety of things -- biblical inerrancy, and so forth -- but I thought all Lutheran bodies agreed about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Are there some Lutheran groups that disagree about this?

 

[ozso]

Frankly ozso, I do not care as far as the few who seem determined to make this thread into their playground for insults and complaints.

Attitude often guides ones priorities.

 

[ozso]

You can’t argue someone into changing their faith. My primary goal is to address misinformation people keep spreading about the ancient liturgical churches, not just the Orthodox, but my dearly beloved Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican brethren.

That is good. But perhaps viewing it as misunderstanding rather than the nefarious connotation of misinformation would be more beneficial.

 

[The Liturgist]

Just asking for information: I know there are disagreements among Lutheran bodies about a variety of things -- biblical inerrancy, and so forth -- but I thought all Lutheran bodies agreed about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Are there some Lutheran groups that disagree about this?

The ELCA/ELCIC and the Porvoo Communion churches, many of which, like the Evangelical Church in Germany, are the result of the forced union of Lutheran and Calvinist churches, will often tend to not regard it as dogma.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is good. But perhaps viewing it as misunderstanding rather than the nefarious connotation of misinformation would be more beneficial.

The misinformation is itself dangerous, an “infohazard”, so while the people spreading it are more often than not misinformed, the misinformation itself is of a sinister origin and in some cases, misinformation about liturgical churches has lead to the persecution and death of Christians.

To give a specific and immediately relevant example, false accusations against us of idolatry or of worshipping the Blessed Virgin Mary have led to actual instances of Islamist violence against Christians in the Middle East by Islamic fundamentalists, for if they believe we are idolaters, we cease to be dhimmis* and become khafirs, infidels, who the fundamentalist Muslim is required to kill as an act of religious jihad.

Recently 93 Antiochian Orthodox Christians - men, women and children, were killed in Damascus when someone opened fire at one of our parishes with an automatic rifle and threw a grenade at the iconostasis.

* Dhimmis are “people of the book” - Christians, Jews and Sabians (the identity of which is disputed but was claimed by the 60,000 Mandaeans who used to live in Iraq, most of whom have since fled) entitled to protection as long as we agree to certain discriminatory rules, such as paying the jizya tax.

 

[ozso]

Why would you want to partake of our Eucharist when you reject our doctrines?

Because I don't think it should be "our" (exclusive) Eucharist. That hardly befits unity. Will the Kingdom of Heaven be segregated into separate sections for Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox etc? Will any of that exist there?

 

[ozso]

The misinformation is itself dangerous, an “infohazard”, so while the people spreading it are more often than not misinformed, the misinformation itself is of a sinister origin and in some cases, misinformation about liturgical churches has lead to the persecution and death of Christians, for example, false accusations against us of idolatry or of worshipping the Blessed Virgin Mary have led to actual instances of Islamist violence against Christians in the Middle East. For if they believe we are idolaters, we see to be dhimmis, people of the book entitled to protection as long as we agree to certain discriminatory rules such as wearing black robes and paying the jizya tax, to being khafirs, infidels, who the fundamentalist Muslim is required to kill as an act of religious jihad.

Is that taking place here?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No church (except the Old Calendarist Schismatics) will require anyone baptized in the Trinitarian formula, except by certain known heretics like the Mormons, to be rebaptized. In the fourth century even the baptism of the Arians was accepted. Why? Because we confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

Indeed the reason why Anabaptists were viewed with such horror in the 17th century was because they rebaptized people joining their denomination, which is something seen by most traditional Christians as being wrong.

The way one joins the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran churches will only involve baptism if one has not had a Christian baptism, because, again, in the Nicene Creed, we confess one baptism for the remission of sins. Chrismation or confirmation can be repeated if necessary, but not baptism.

That's all fine and dandy. But how many churches also allow one to share in Communion/The Eucharist if he or she was baptized in another denomination?

The Christian Church-Churches of Christ/Instrumental (Restorationists) allow participation and membership by all baptized believers, even those who have come from other Trinitarian denominations, which is in line with their declining away from formalized, creedal requirements.

Why can't all denominations today do the same? (I know why they don't, but I'm pushing the question anyway as a philosopher).

 

[The Liturgist]

But how many churches also allow one to share in Communion/The Eucharist if he or she was baptized in another denomination?

I just told you, if one has been baptized according to the Triune formula, one can be received into any traditional liturgical church such as the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans and then partake in the Holy Eucharist without being re-baptized. We would never rebaptize someone validly re-baptized.

The Assyrians and traditional Anglicans will not require someone to even be a member of their church - the Assyrians insist on belief in the real presence, but for historical reasons relating to the Elizabethan Settlement Anglicans mostly do not (since most low church Anglicans have Zwinglian or Receptionist views of the Eucharist, and while they are a minority in the US, in other Anglican provinces low churchmen and evangelicals are the majority (Ireland and Sydney, for example). Indeed some Episcopalians will give communion to the unbaptized, but this is controversial.

 

[ozso]

I feel a greater sense of unity and solidarity with my Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and other Christian brethren, as the OP intended, and a greater revulsion towards religious bigotry in all its manifold shapes and sizes.

Well I hope I haven't been too revolting in asking challenging questions. Perhaps I should be more diplomatic and less frank.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Just asking for information: I know there are disagreements among Lutheran bodies about a variety of things -- biblical inerrancy, and so forth -- but I thought all Lutheran bodies agreed about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Are there some Lutheran groups that disagree about this?

Not so much disagree, but don't care since they think open communion is fine. Also, most of the Confessional Lutherans would question the validity of the Eucharist when administered by female clergy, and the validity of ordination when the pastor is ordained by or under the authority of so called female bishops.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And is what you described above considered the only valid communion?

No, the Catholic, Orthodox and continuing Anglicans do, however in Anglicanism, the 39 Articles lean in the direction of a "receptionist" view of the Eucharist, which is how they justify open communion to themselves.